Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?

[marktheblake]

That's a big article. Which argument of McCabe's, specifically, are you citing?

I know its big, it took me an hour to skim it, but there is a section on the double waw you refer to in Gen 3:19

I would love to hear just what it is you believe about the serpent.

Already have - refer to my essay 'the serpent'

In what way, specifically, am I being dogmatic?

You claim the Serpent is a snake, and rule out any alternative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're coming across as though you subscribe to this hermeneutic.

I am pointing out that some absolutes you are claiming do not have enough support.

So yes, you are saying we can't tell either way if we can't rule out the possibility one way or the other.

No, If Jesus said he supports the Torah right down to every tittle and jot, then its most likely that he does. I am pointing out YOU cant claim that Jesus doesn't support the Torah and was just being accomadating.

Take the time to explain and support your position, since you've done very little of that so far,

I have already.

Again, you're being squirmy and avoiding the question

I dont know the fancy big words to describe the question you asked, but its rather like the way Journalists ask questions to set people up. I simply dont agree with the point of view you impose on me in asking the question.

You, on the other hand, appear to subscribe to the idea that God superceded the knowledge of the Hebrew people by giving them an historically/scientifically accurate account of origins that they could never have known for themselves. What is your reason for thinking so?

There you did it again. No, i will not answer that.

Apologies for the humanist crack, i am not used to debating 'theists'.
There was a time when I beleived that the Torah was an allegory and accomadating as you describe because it was not compatible with my worldly view - what many people call 'science'.

 

[Mallon]

It's been a slice, marktheblake, but clearly you're not interested in chewing the cud with me. I want to discuss the merits of our contrasting claims by weighing the evidence for them. You appear to be content with volleying hearsay back and forth and applying labels to me (I'm not merely a theist. I am a Christian.).
Par for the course, I guess. Noll was right.

 

[Assyrian]

Nothing. I never said there was. There is a good reason that it says the serpent.

Correct. The reason for that is that both Adam and Eve were a very specific man and woman, hence 'the' and not just any man or woman.
(obviously because they were the only man and woman around at the time)

Certainly they were the only ones in the story. But if the man and the woman means a specific man and woman, then the snake means a specific snake. It does not mean that it wasn't a snake.

yes the dictionary says Nachash = Serpent or Snake. However Hebrew is not that simplistic, each word can have much more imagery associated with it.

English does as well. But we are talking metaphor and figurative here, not the literal use of the word.

Also one poster made a very good point that the 'snake' was only made a snake after the curse was imposed on him, which means he wasnt a snake beforehand. So why do we call him a snake and assume he was a snake before he was a snake?

The bible called it a snake and a beast of the field before it was made crawl on its belly.

 

[savedandhappy1]

You think the talking Olive tree was literal?

Sorry, I missed commenting about Judges 9, didn't I? I shouldn't try to post and keep up with my 2 yr. old grandson at the same time. I apologize.

He managed to get out of the house, because his mother forgot to lock the kitchen door when she went to get her hair cut, and well lets just say I'm now 10 years older then I was before his escape.

I look at the Olive tree story as a parable, so no, I wouldn't take the talking Olive tree story literal.

Again, sorry I missed responding to this.

 

[Mallon]

I think all this talk of defining snakes as lizards with no legs has some interesting consequences for neocreationist baraminology...

 

[savedandhappy1]

There! That wasn't so hard, was it?

(For what it's worth, plagiarism is defined as "using another person's ideas or creative work without giving credit to that person" [http://www.cgcc.cc.or.us/]). So yes, technically, you plagiarized since you did not credit the source you quoted. Regardless, it's not worth arguing about anymore. I think I've made my point.)

Yep, you made a point, but maybe not the one you think you made. I will agree with you that derailing this thread anymore would be a waste of time, and so yes it isn't worth discussing anymore. (And was a waste of time to begin with. IMHO)

Now back to the thread and the topic it was started for.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I wonder if people would think differently about evolution if they look at Genesis, and Hebrews 11? You know taking the bible as a whole.

Hebrews 11:1-3
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

If things were not made by things that are visible then how could macroevolution work? Wouldn't that be something seen changing it's self?

 

[Mallon]

I wonder if people would think differently about evolution if they look at Genesis, and Hebrews 11? You know taking the bible as a whole.

Hebrews 11:1-3
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

If things were not made by things that are visible then how could macroevolution work? Wouldn't that be something seen changing it's self?

I think your question could apply to much more than just macroevolution. How could childbirth work? How could cell division work? Clearly, these things also come about via pre-existing matter. Perhaps reading this passage to mean that God makes each and every object/being/species in a unique poof of smoke is missing the point. As evolutionary creationists, we do believe that everything that is seen was made from nothing, ultimately going back to the beginning of all space, time, and matter.

I think another phrase in the passage you cited that goes unappreciated by many creationists is "By faith..." We cannot prove God's existence or creative acts with "creation science". We believe the Lord created everything through faith.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I think your question could apply to much more than just macroevolution. How could childbirth work? How could cell division work? Clearly, these things also come about via pre-existing matter. Perhaps reading this passage to mean that God makes each and every object/being/species in a unique poof of smoke is missing the point. As evolutionary creationists, we do believe that everything that is seen was made from nothing, ultimately going back to the beginning of all space, time, and matter.

I think another phrase in the passage you cited that goes unappreciated by many creationists is "By faith..." We cannot prove God's existence or creative acts with "creation science". We believe the Lord created everything through faith.

This creationist does appreciate the fact that we are to come to Him, "By faith".

Shocker......
I agree with the fact that the whole reason science can't prove things of God is because we are to come to Him "By faith". If things of God could be proven by man then where would the faith go?

 

[Mallon]

This creationist does appreciate the fact that we are to come to Him, "By faith".

Shocker......
I agree with the fact that the whole reason science can't prove things of God is because we are to come to Him "By faith". If things of God could be proven by man then where would the faith go?

Bingo! At least we can agree on something.

 

[vossler]

You've completely misconstrued my point.
Yes, anyone's interpretation of the Bible is just that -- an interpretation. The Scriptures, though they speak God's truth, are filtered through fallible human minds, and as such, are subject to distortion. This doesn't mean that everyone's thoughts concerning the Bible should be dismissed outright, but I do hope that everyone here who is "100% certain" of their biblical hermeneutic recognizes that they are just as sinful and prone to misinterpretation as anyone else, and that they do not confuse their interpetation with absolute truth. Paul had a reminder for those in need of a little more humility in 1 Cor 10:12.

Wow Mallon, then what you effectively are telling everyone here is that you may be wrong about Jesus. You are not certain of who He is and whether His claims are true because you are sinful and prone to misinterpretation. By your measurement it would appear there are no certainties or absolutes. With that as my foundation, how could I ever be an effective witness for my Lord?

Let me be clear to anyone who is reading this, I am certain about who Jesus is and that all the claims He made are absolute truth. Not only that I'm certain that all the claims of the Bible are absolute truth. Now I'm not 100% concerning my own interpretation of everything yet, but I'm working on it.

I'm sure you will now come back and tell me that you too are certain about Jesus (at least I'm hoping you will), but that's just it, how can you be certain if it is up to your own sinful interpretation? Obviously we can't be, except when we call upon the help of the Holy Spirit, then and only then, can we be absolutely be certain. If it were up to us we'd mess it up every time. Thankfully the Holy Spirit is there to help us filter out our preconceived ideas and get to the core of what God is saying, where ultimately we find His peace and answers.

BTW, how do you know who's thoughts on biblical interpretation to dismiss?

 

[Assyrian]

Faith?

 

[gluadys]

Wow Mallon, then what you effectively are telling everyone here is that you may be wrong about Jesus. You are not certain of who He is and whether His claims are true because you are sinful and prone to misinterpretation. By your measurement it would appear there are no certainties or absolutes. With that as my foundation, how could I ever be an effective witness for my Lord?

I think you are confusing two separate issues here.
1. There are certainties and absolutes.
2. I know for certain what they are.

Assuming the truth of 1 does not imply the truth of 2. I can believe that there are absolute truths without being absolutely sure that what I think is true is one of those absolute truths.

Let me be clear to anyone who is reading this, I am certain about who Jesus is and that all the claims He made are absolute truth. Not only that I'm certain that all the claims of the Bible are absolute truth. Now I'm not 100% concerning my own interpretation of everything yet, but I'm working on it.

But what is the basis of your certainty?

Is it a basis of conviction or a basis of evidence? Is it trust in the testimony of the apostles/the scriptures/the Holy Spirit or is it trust in logical proof?

I expect it is the former. And the certainty of conviction and trust is the certainty of faith. It is not the certainty of knowledge.

Would you agree that one can be certain by faith of that about which we do not have certain knowledge?

I think when Christians say they are not certain of some things, they are confessing that they do not have a solid base of evidence that gives them certainty about their knowledge. That doesn't imply that they are unsure of their faith. At least I know it doesn't for me.

Could I be wrong about the things I believe? Objectively, of course I could. It is only being truthful to accept the limitations and uncertainty of human knowledge.

Am I unsure about the things I believe? Not at all.

 

[vossler]

But what is the basis of your certainty?

Is it a basis of conviction or a basis of evidence? Is it trust in the testimony of the apostles/the scriptures/the Holy Spirit or is it trust in logical proof?

I expect it is the former. And the certainty of conviction and trust is the certainty of faith. It is not the certainty of knowledge.

As I said or implied, the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit and His Word.

Would you agree that one can be certain by faith of that about which we do not have certain knowledge?

I think this depends on what one considers certain knowledge. I can have certain knowledge that God exists and works in the affairs of men without ever having seen Him because I see the evidence of Him. To use a bad example, I could see the after effects of a tornado and determine one existed without ever having personally experienced or seen it.

I think when Christians say they are not certain of some things, they are confessing that they do not have a solid base of evidence that gives them certainty about their knowledge. That doesn't imply that they are unsure of their faith. At least I know it doesn't for me.

I happen to believe that God, through His Word and the Holy Spirit is as solid a base of evidence I could ever hope for. All other evidence is far too people centric.

 

[vossler]

I think it's worth pointing out the significance of vossler's admission to other evolutionary creationists. I think his response is representative of many, if not most, neocreationists. By admitting that no amount of evidence or reasoned discussion can change his mind about the veracity of biological evolution, there's really no point in trying to debate neocreationists about the facts of science until the scientific concordist hermeneutic can be deconstructed first. Take down that barrier via inductive Bible study, and the door should open to a discussion of the empirical evidence.

After first reading this I wasn't going to respond because you purposely chose not to be accurate in stating your point. But then not to respond could imply that I agree.

Let me be perfectly clear, I have never admitted that no amount of evidence or reasoned discussion can change my mind about the veracity of biological evolution. Never stated anything remotely like it, yet that is what you published. It really doesn't take much effort to see what it was I did say. I'm very disappointed. Is it any wonder I try to avoid these discussions.

 

[Mallon]

Wow Mallon, then what you effectively are telling everyone here is that you may be wrong about Jesus. You are not certain of who He is and whether His claims are true because you are sinful and prone to misinterpretation. By your measurement it would appear there are no certainties or absolutes. With that as my foundation, how could I ever be an effective witness for my Lord?

gluadys is right. You're conflating two separate issues: (1) That the Bible is 100% true; (2) That we can be 100% certain that we have ascertained its truth. I agree with the former; I disagree with the latter based on our sinful nature. You appear to agree with me, though, in your next paragraph...

Let me be clear to anyone who is reading this, I am certain about who Jesus is and that all the claims He made are absolute truth. Not only that I'm certain that all the claims of the Bible are absolute truth. Now I'm not 100% concerning my own interpretation of everything yet, but I'm working on it.

We're on the same page, here. Except you're contradicting what you said earlier. In the OP poll, you asked "How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?" You answered "100%" in the poll. Now you're saying that you're not 100% certain about your interpretation. Which is it?

BTW, how do you know who's thoughts on biblical interpretation to dismiss?

There's no easy answer to that one. Certain biblical passages are obviously less ambiguous than others, so if someone were to contradict what I think the Bible "obviously" says (e.g., that Jesus physically died on the cross and rose again), then I would dismiss them. If someone's argument were internally inconsistent, I would dismiss then. If someone were unable to defend their position with further prodding, I would dismiss them. If someone's interpretation of the Word were in direct contradiction with God's creation, I would be apt to dismiss them. There are many factors to consider.

Let me be perfectly clear, I have never admitted that no amount of evidence or reasoned discussion can change my mind about the veracity of biological evolution. Never stated anything remotely like it, yet that is what you published.

I asked you if you were "absolutely convinced, with no room for discussion, that the Bible emphatically denies the possibility of common descent". You answered in the affirmative. I take this to mean that, no matter what the emprical evidence for evolutionary common descent, you will deny its existence to the end because you believe it to be in direct contradiction to the Bible. If you now feel otherwise, please explain. What evidence could convince you of the reality of evolution?

 

[gluadys]

As I said or implied, the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit and His Word.

IOW, I was correct in identifying your certainty as one of faith, not of objective evidence.

I think this depends on what one considers certain knowledge. I can have certain knowledge that God exists and works in the affairs of men without ever having seen Him because I see the evidence of Him. To use a bad example, I could see the after effects of a tornado and determine one existed without ever having personally experienced or seen it.

By certain knowledge, I mean that which is objectively accessible to the physical senses, such as the consequences of a tornado. I agree it is a bad example. I do not believe you can describe such objective evidence which gives knowledge of God, though it may, by faith, be ascribed to God.

Take for example the biblical statement: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork." To a person of faith, that is a true statement. But many people explore the heavens without coming to believe that statement. However, if you showed them the post-tornado destruction, they would have no difficulty agreeing that it had been caused by a tornado they had not seen. So, in the final analysis the biblical statement is one of faith, not of objectively verifiable knowledge.

I happen to believe that God, through His Word and the Holy Spirit is as solid a base of evidence I could ever hope for. All other evidence is far too people centric.

I would certainly agree that it is a solid basis for faith as per Hebrews 1:1. But all evidence is people centric, for all evidence is perceived by human sense and experience, analysed by human thought and described in human language. How could it be otherwise?

 

[vossler]

gluadys is right. You're conflating two separate issues: (1) That the Bible is 100% true; (2) That we can be 100% certain that we have ascertained its truth. I agree with the former; I disagree with the latter based on our sinful nature. You appear to agree with me, though, in your next paragraph...

We're on the same page, here. Except you're contradicting what you said earlier. In the OP poll, you asked "How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?" You answered "100%" in the poll. Now you're saying that you're not 100% certain about your interpretation. Which is it?

I don't understand the difficulty in understanding this. I stated "I'm not 100% concerning my own interpretation of everything yet, but I'm working on it." So, it wouldn't be difficult to see that I may be 100% certain of something from that statement, right?

There's no easy answer to that one. Certain biblical passages are obviously less ambiguous than others, so if someone were to contradict what I think the Bible "obviously" says (e.g., that Jesus physically died on the cross and rose again), then I would dismiss them. If someone's argument were internally inconsistent, I would dismiss then. If someone were unable to defend their position with further prodding, I would dismiss them. If someone's interpretation of the Word were in direct contradiction with God's creation, I would be apt to dismiss them. There are many factors to consider.

Thank you!

I asked you if you were "absolutely convinced, with no room for discussion, that the Bible emphatically denies the possibility of common descent". You answered in the affirmative. I take this to mean that, no matter what the emprical evidence for evolutionary common descent, you will deny its existence to the end because you believe it to be in direct contradiction to the Bible. If you now feel otherwise, please explain. What evidence could convince you of the reality of evolution?

It appears that you like to rather flippantly mix terms, I made a statement regarding common descent and you, without a second thought, used the term 'evolutionary biology' to somehow mean the exact same thing. For someone as exact as you typically are this is simply unacceptable. Do you actually believe the two are the same? Evolutionary biology, to me, simply means that change happens over time. Common descent says something entirely different and is far more radical.

 

[vossler]

By certain knowledge, I mean that which is objectively accessible to the physical senses, such as the consequences of a tornado. I agree it is a bad example. I do not believe you can describe such objective evidence which gives knowledge of God, though it may, by faith, be ascribed to God.

Take for example the biblical statement: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork." To a person of faith, that is a true statement. But many people explore the heavens without coming to believe that statement. However, if you showed them the post-tornado destruction, they would have no difficulty agreeing that it had been caused by a tornado they had not seen. So, in the final analysis the biblical statement is one of faith, not of objectively verifiable knowledge.

Just because evidence may be physical doesn't necessarily make it more compelling than if it were spiritual. Spiritual evidence can be very difficult to deny. The difficulty usually arises from one's preconceived ideas of what is evidence and what isn't. Worldly people deny the spiritual realm, especially when it confronts their pride.

I would certainly agree that it is a solid basis for faith as per Hebrews 1:1. But all evidence is people centric, for all evidence is perceived by human sense and experience, analysed by human thought and described in human language. How could it be otherwise?

I don't believe evidence from God's Word to be people centric, it is God centered.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just because evidence may be physical doesn't necessarily make it more compelling than if it were spiritual. Spiritual evidence can be very difficult to deny. The difficulty usually arises from one's preconceived ideas of what is evidence and what isn't. Worldly people deny the spiritual realm, especially when it confronts their pride.

Our natural mind is an enemy of God, even after we are saved. Spiritual rebirth requires spiritual death which in effect means our knowledge is tainted. Paul said he knew nothing but the cross and there is a reason for that, even our sacred theology can fall prey to our intellectual arrogance. Do note, I am well aware of my own vanity and consider my knowledge as filthy rags compared to knowing Christ and Him crucified.

I don't believe evidence from God's Word to be people centric, it is God centered.

It also acts like a mirror, showing us ourselves not that I disagree with what you said. I have been giving some thought to changing my approach to these debates lately. I'm still convinced that evidential apologetics is viable as an explanation for our origins but wanting to include the testimony of Scripture and work on being more tolerant of doubters. I just thought I would bounce that off of you to see what you think.

Your a classy guy vossler, I admire your patience.

Grace and peace,
Mark