fact and truth

[humbledbyhim]

The reason that YEC's hold that truth is related in fact is because all truth is based in factual information. (whether it be facts that we know or facts that God reveals)
Example:



A man shoots a woman, and the woman dies. The woman's family is very sad now.


The truths are that people who get shot can die and people are sad when family members die.



Why are those truths?



because we know that people have actually died from being shot, and we know that people actually do get sad when family members die.


If these things never occured in fact, then the story wouldn't be true in any sense. For example, if people never died factually, or people never factually got sad, then the story would just be silly and not factual.


Thus, if Christ never factually resurrected through God's power or if Christ never factually brought Lazarus back to life , or never performed a supernatural event in fact, then it would seem sillyto accept that it is true that either God or Christ had the power to raise anyone from any death. How could we? He would have never shown us anything that would imply that he could.


We can only accept the bible as containing truth, if we know that the stories are based in facts because we only accept truth (in whatever form it may come) on the likelyhood that it did or could happen factually. (or because God said it). If you don't take divine revelation as truth then, oh well.



Also, some may argue that because the bible is divine revelation, we should take the stories in the bible as truth whether it's factual or not. Not so. Divine revelation, whether it be the bible or God talking to you has been shown to be truth by God's factual actions recorded in the bible or by God's factual actions in our lives that show us that we can rely on his word as truth.



I do not mean to say that every single truth has happened in fact in some way or form, but that there are facts that verify that a statement is true.


For example:God created the universe. How can I accept this truth? I accept it because God has factually done things in my life to let me know that he has is capable of creating this great earth, so I accept that he has created the earth due to the likelyhood in my mind that God can in fact do it.






These are my thoughts and Ideas. I won't address insults. I will listen to any flaws to my logic, but only from those who read and comprehend the whole post.

 

[humbledbyhim]

my computer is being retarded ...


so, excuse the html tags.

 

[[serious]]

The reason that
We can only accept the bible as containing truth, if we know that the stories are based in facts because we only accept truth (in whatever form it may come) on the likelyhood that it did or could happen factually. (or because God said it). If you don't take divine revelation as truth then, oh well.



Also, some may argue that because the bible is divine revelation, we should take the stories in the bible as truth whether it's factual or not. Not so. Divine revelation, whether it be the bible or God talking to you has been shown to be truth by God's factual actions recorded in the bible or by God's factual actions in our lives that show us that we can rely on his word as truth.

I'm seeing a flaw in your logic here. I assume we can agree that the parables in the Bible are truth, yet they are by definition not factual.

 

[Mallon]

Framing this in the context of the Genesis account, since this is an origins theology forum...

1. Do Adam and Eve have to be real, historical people in order for you to know that you're sinful?

2. Did God literally have to create the world in six days in order for you to recognize his omnipotence?

3. Did God really have to rest on the Seventh Day in order for us to keep the Third Commandment?

 

[humbledbyhim]

I'm seeing a flaw in your logic here. I assume we can agree that the parables in the Bible are truth, yet they are by definition not factual.

They didn't actually happen, but a reasonable person could see them happening given what has happened in real life.That's why movies can contain truth, because some aspect of them are based on real events. Amurder mystery movie contains truth because murder mysteries exist in real life. (not neccessarily THE mystery that the movie is talking about.

 

[humbledbyhim]

1. Do Adam and Eve have to be real, historical people in order for you to know that you're sinful?
No, but they would have to be real people for me to understand why I am BORN in sin and not in perfection as Adam and Eve were.2. Did God literally have to create the world in six days in order for you to recognize his omnipotence?No, but in order for that portion of Genesis to make any sense he did. Otherwise, it's just another story. If all God wanted us to know is that he created the world, the animals and everything else, then the bible would only have said those things. Genesis includes the how for a reason. (and that reason doesn't have to be some mysterious secret truth hidden in myth that only smart people know)3. Did God really have to rest on the Seventh Day in order for us to keep the Third Commandment?IF God didn't rest on the seventh day, then why does the bible say he did? what truth do get from that? What does it symbolize?

 

[humbledbyhim]

my posts are coming out blocky, and I don;t know why. I'm tired of struggling with it. So, until I get it straight, I'm not posting. Sorry.

 

[[serious]]

They didn't actually happen, but a reasonable person could see them happening given what has happened in real life.That's why movies can contain truth, because some aspect of them are based on real events. Amurder mystery movie contains truth because murder mysteries exist in real life. (not neccessarily THE mystery that the movie is talking about.

And what about things like Revelation which are clearly symbolic? Seven headed dragons don't exist so it is not reasonable to say one could be waiting to devour the child of a pregnant woman.

 

[Assyrian]

They didn't actually happen, but a reasonable person could see them happening...

Jdg 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'

 

[artybloke]

They didn't actually happen, but a reasonable person could see them happening given what has happened in real life.

Aside from the fact that there is, as has been shown above, plenty of stuff in the Bible that couldn't happen in real life (such as conversations between olive trees, fig trees and vines, talking donkeys, seven-headed dragons and the like), that something might be based on real human observation doesn't stop something from being "fictional."

One of the objects of fiction is to "suspend your disbelief." For at least as long as the story is being told, you have to believe that it is happened. Thus, in Genesis, where God is walking around his garden looking for Adam & Eve, we have to believe for the length of the story that God - the creator of the universe and time - doesn't know where his own creation is and what it's just got up to.

Now, I'm sure that the more sophisticated and deeply spiritual of the original audience were aware that God is spirit but did they object to this very human representation of the divine? Probably not. They knew it was a story, and they knew that the point of the story wasn't to say that God walked about like a human being. They were more interested in its spiritual meaning, just as the Greek philosphers used Greek myths to convey their truths.

because we know that people have actually died from being shot, and we know that people actually do get sad when family members die.

And we know that we feel sad when Romeo and Juliet dies at the end of the play. That doesn't make it historical; it does mean, however, that Shakespeare has tapped into real human emotions through fiction. That's the purpose of fiction: it's an imaginary garden with real toads in it (to quote Marrianne Moore.) The toads being the emotional and philosophical/theological truths that are being expressed.

I do not mean to say that every single truth has happened in fact in some way or form, but that there are facts that verify that a statement is true.

This is a very modernistic statement. Truth about God cannot be verified by "facts." Or they can, but only to the eyes of faith. A sunset is simulataneously a work of God and an affect of light on the atmosphere. But the only the latter can be scientifically verified. To a Hindu, it's a work of Vishnu, to the Muslim, the work of Allah, to a Viking, the work of Odin or Thor or whoever is in charge of the weather. And there is no scientific methodology that can distinguish between them.