For creationists: How would you know?

[theFijian]

I want to believe the truth, and the Spirit leads you into all truth. I have no reason to believe Gen in any other way, than what i think he is telling me it means.

If a child read Gen up to chap 8, and then if you were to ask ,How did you understand it child ?
What do you think the response would be?
would be a little YEC i reckon.

Except Jesus called us to have a child-like faith, not a child-like mentality.

 

[shernren]

Actually, there are at least two different endings of the Gospel of Mark. These days, most scholars reject the longer version as authentic; though you'll still find it, usually with a note explaining this attached.

Fair enough, but IIRC one ending is just a truncated version of the other, instead of offering any new and divergent information. Doesn't this still fall within the scope of my argument?

 

[cerafim]

Most the Old Testament was written many hundreds of years after the events they supposedly relate to. Including the story of the Exodus, which had nothing to do with Moses' authorship but is most probably multi-authored over a long period of time from before to just after the Exilic period (600-300BC). So in that sense, it's just like Homer.

No problem, you argue about apples, I'll argue about oranges. The Torah, old testament or however you want to refer to it is as accurate as any document can be. And you're comparing your argument against your own evidence, which shows you the victor. Run your arguement down with my evidence in my previous post. You'll find that your reference to homer has no validity.

The Genesis stories are either poems (Chap 1) or fables (2et al) and were never intended to be literal. In fact, you can't simply read the OT as historical because it contains poetry, prophecy, story and many other genres of writing. You have to pay attention to the genre of the writing (the kind of book it is intended to be) because that will affect whether it is intended to be historical or not.

The Bible is a collection of documents. One could say in a sense that they are records of events, thus making them historical in nature. The pieces of the bible that don't include specific events aren't historical...that doesn't negate the ability for the Bible as a whole to be representative of history. An analogy would be like a movie that was based on a true story, some of which is admitted that there was poetic license used. That doesn't make the movie any less based on a true story. The trial becomes how much is true, but that is not what this debate is about.

The Gospels, of course, were intended to be historica. But certainly not in the modern sense; they were not written in order to satisfy modern academic standards of historiography.

Nope, quite right. It wasn't written to satisfy our modern sense of history any more than early languages were created to conform to our sense of grammer and punctuation. They met and specifically exceeded the needs and the practices of the day.

With all respect to Lee Strobel, he's not a theologian, and from what I've seen of his writing, he's not much of a writer either.

I didn't think you'd read it. That's not a shot, just and assessment.

 

[Deamiter]

No problem, you argue about apples, I'll argue about oranges. The Torah, old testament or however you want to refer to it is as accurate as any document can be. And you're comparing your argument against your own evidence, which shows you the victor. Run your arguement down with my evidence in my previous post. You'll find that your reference to homer has no validity.

See, this is where you provide something, ANYTHING to support your argument. You say that the Torah is "as accurate as any document can be." I submit that you are STARTING with this assumption, not coming to this conclusion. If I am wrong, show me some (ANY) support for this blanket statement about a particular document.

The Bible is a collection of documents. One could say in a sense that they are records of events, thus making them historical in nature.

... Like the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Koran? They too are a collection of documents, and one could very well say that since they are records of events, they are historical in nature.

The pieces of the bible that don't include specific events aren't historical...that doesn't negate the ability for the Bible as a whole to be representative of history. An analogy would be like a movie that was based on a true story, some of which is admitted that there was poetic license used. That doesn't make the movie any less based on a true story. The trial becomes how much is true, but that is not what this debate is about.

When we look at a movie that was based on a true story, we don't automatically assume that it is all historically accurate. In fact, we assume that parts of it are NOT. DO you have ANY reason for your assumption that the Bible is "as accurate as any document can be" or does your entire point revolve on this assumption?

Nope, quite right. It wasn't written to satisfy our modern sense of history any more than early languages were created to conform to our sense of grammer and punctuation. They met and specifically exceeded the needs and the practices of the day.

Again, you are throwing out unsupported assertions. What, specifically, were the needs and practices of the day that you claim the Bible "specifically exceeded?" In a culture where it was common to inflate the ages of one's ancestors to make them appear better than other cultures, and where it was common to link one's geneology to one god or another, how, specifically do the Biblical geneologies exceed this standard?

I didn't think you'd read it. That's not a shot, just and assessment.

Just so you don't dismiss everything I said and fail to give any support for your many claims, I'll point out that I HAVE read the book, more than once. I too have found it lacking in logical conclusions and up-to-date information (though the latter might just be because it was written quite a while ago). C.S. Lewis makes many of the same arguments, but he doesn't descend into the God of the Gaps to support his position.

 

[FijianBeliever]

Hi All,

For creationists: How would you know?

There have been a few posts from a certain few creationists that have caught my attention lately. Posts like this one:
Quote:
No Creationists do allow for outside elements such as science to supplement the Bible. The key here is to supplement, not to change. As long as something from outside the Bible doesn't change the Bible it, in my opinion, can be incorporated into my studies and faith.
With such attitudes in mind, my question for creationists is this: By rejecting all evidence that contradicts your worldview and accepting only that which you can incorporate into your "studies and faith", how could you ever know if you were wrong? By not opening yourself up to the possibility of fallibility, how can you be so sure that your understanding of the Bible or of the world is without fault? What could possibly convince you that you're mistaken if you're only willing to listen to what agrees with you?

It's a genuine question.

I would like to ask, what evidence do you have that contradicts the Bible?

God Bless You All,
Isaia

 

[Mallon]

I would like to ask, what evidence do you have that contradicts the Bible?

For starters, this:

This:

and this:

 

[vossler]

I always knew there was something you guys saw as overwhelming in order to dismiss the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

I always knew there was something you guys saw as overwhelming in order to dismiss the Bible.

Who said anything about dismissing the Bible?

 

[theFijian]

I always knew there was something you guys saw as overwhelming in order to dismiss the Bible.

We can usually rely on vossler for a non sequitur, thanks for not disappointing us.

 

[vossler]

Who said anything about dismissing the Bible?

Usually when one contradicts something it is dismissed.

 

[theFijian]

Usually when one contradicts something it is dismissed.

So why haven't you dismissed your literal interpretation then as it contradicts reality and sound exegesis.

 

[vossler]

So why haven't you dismissed your literal interpretation then as it contradicts reality and sound exegesis.

My reality is just fine, thank you!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Usually when one contradicts something it is dismissed.

This kind of all or nothing reasoning about the Scriptures confuses me.

Why should i dismiss the whole Bible if Mark misquotes Isaiah? What effect should a error in one verse have even on the meaning of the next verse, let alone the truthfulness of another book or of the whole thing?

It is Dabney's reasoning about slavery. If the Bible is not correct on the rightfulness of keeping slaves then the Bible is not to be trusted at all. There is nothing in the Scriptures condemning slavery, so what? it is a complex issue that even today is not clearly solved, the evidence is that the YECists are exactly the same problem. Hermeneutics, POV, context, whole meaning and big picture vs literal, proof texting, detailed exegesis.

But that still doesn't explain this great slippery slope that fundamentalist see, why if there is an error in the Bible is it unreliable? why throw out the whole thing if you see a factual detail that is not absolutely truthful? it is this attitude that literally permeates the discussion. And i don't understand where it comes from nor why it seems so binding and obvious to people.


i understand that a substantial amount of things i think are true are actually not. it is the idea that 70% of what i think is wrong, but i don't know which 30% to work on. So what? just because i have errors in my thinking doesn't mean that i can't think. just because i reason badly at times doesn't mean that reason itself is faulty. why must the authority and inspiration of Scripture rest on it's errancy rather than it's infallibility resting on it's doctrine of authority and inspiration?

i guess i really don't understand this issue of a single issue is wrong then dismiss it. appears to be that this is the same thing that atheists do, either the Bible is truthful in everything it says or it is irrelevant. this either-or thinking is at fault, not the Scriptures.

 

[vossler]

This kind of all or nothing reasoning about the Scriptures confuses me.

Maybe it's because I see the Bible as the inspired inerrant Word of God and you don't. That really isn't too confusing. I understand your position, I don't understand why you can't understand mine.

 

[Assyrian]

 

[theFijian]

Maybe it's because I see the Bible as the inspired inerrant Word of God and you don't. That really isn't too confusing. I understand your position, I don't understand why you can't understand mine.

Since rmwilliams is a member of the PCA your accusation is most likely a false one.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Maybe it's because I see the Bible as the inspired inerrant Word of God and you don't. That really isn't too confusing. I understand your position, I don't understand why you can't understand mine.

i wholehearted affirm my church's confession in

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

i've been through most of BB Warfield's work on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. i understand the meaning of the words our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,. What i do not understand is the all or nothing idea. That if there is any scientific or historical error in the Bible that it is not inspired. It is not apparent in either Machen or Warfield or even Calvin. All said that there was difficult to understand parts, that there were problems that they did not have an immediate answer to, but none have a hint of this: either it is true to the smallest detail or it is entirely false idea.

 

[vossler]

i've been through most of BB Warfield's work on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. i understand the meaning of the words our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,. What i do not understand is the all or nothing idea. That if there is any scientific or historical error in the Bible that it is not inspired. It is not apparent in either Machen or Warfield or even Calvin. All said that there was difficult to understand parts, that there were problems that they did not have an immediate answer to, but none have a hint of this: either it is true to the smallest detail or it is entirely false idea.

Let me ask you something. Is God perfect? I think you'd answer yes. That means He's without error. If He is without error then if He were to provide us a book to live our lives from, that book would be without error also. If the book were found to be in error, even in a small part, then that calls into question the entire book. It would allow man, as he is today, to determine what parts of the book are correct and what parts are not. This really isn't that complicated and I don't know why you and others have such difficulty with that concept.

 

[Deamiter]

If He is without error then if He were to provide us a book to live our lives from, that book would be without error also.

What? Why? That makes about as much sense as saying, "if God is perfect and without sin, then if he were to create a universe, that universe would also be perfect and without sin."

And anyway, he DIDN'T provide us a book to live our lives from. He individually inspired many followers over many centuries and they wrote about their spiritual understanding. Some of his other followers collected many of these writings into a single collection. To say that the Bible was given straight from God to man is a VERY unbiblical concept.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let me ask you something. Is God perfect? I think you'd answer yes. That means He's without error. If He is without error then if He were to provide us a book to live our lives from, that book would be without error also. If the book were found to be in error, even in a small part, then that calls into question the entire book. It would allow man, as he is today, to determine what parts of the book are correct and what parts are not. This really isn't that complicated and I don't know why you and others have such difficulty with that concept.

This argument has the signs of the tail wagging the dog.
First is the problem of the attributes of God being used to argue for the perfection of Scripture. Perfection is a uncommunicable attribute, not a communicable one. The next problem is that it assumes from the start that the Bible claims for itself either perfection or that it shares in the attributes of God in some way. This appears to make the Scriptures the fourth member of the Trinity, rather than something spoken out by God.

The argument bases the authority and inspiration on the perfection of Scripture specifically on the issue of errancy rather than the infallibility on the authority and inspiration. That is what i mean but the tail wagging the dog. Nowhere does the Scripture claim for itself perfection, but rather it makes the claim of goodness and usefulness and trustworthiness based on these communicable attributes of God. We can understand good, and suitable, and trustworthy without claiming perfection.

Look at:
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm
and how Warfield makes the case for the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

but through the instrumentality of a body of apostles, chosen and trained by himself, endowed with gifts and graces from the Holy Ghost, and sent forth into the world as his authoritative agents for proclaiming a gospel which he placed within their lips and which is none the less his authoritative word, that it is through them that he speaks it. It is because the apostles were Christ's representatives, that what they did and said and wrote as such, comes to us with divine authority. The authority of the Scriptures thus rests on the simple fact that God's authoritative agents in founding the Church gave them as authoritative to the Church which they founded. All the authority of the apostles stands behind the Scriptures, and all the authority of Christ behind the apostles.

he is arguing from the Apostolic ministry to the authority of the NT. Not that the apostles wrote perfectly so that perfection requires obedience.

This is what is called inspiration. It does not set aside the human authorship of the books. But it puts behind the human also a divine authorship. It ascribes to the authors such an attending influence of the Spirit in the process of writing, that the words they set down become also the words of God; and the resultant writing is made not merely the expression of Paul's or John's or Peter's will for the churches, but the expression of God's will. In receiving these books from the apostles as law, therefore, the Church has always received them not only as books given by God's agents, but as books so given by God through those agents that every word of them is God's word.

The inspiration is foundational to the authority, not that the apostles shared in the perfection of God but that God superintended their writing so that it was what God desired. Analogous to irresistible grace, the apostles wrote human words, using their human instrumentality yet these are words suitable to God's purposes, they are what God intended to be enscriptured.

It is a complex issue, the current inerrancy debate turns the traditional arguments for the inspiration and authority of Scripture literally upside down, basing the authority of Scripture on the nature of Scripture as perfection, as if God could share this attribute with anything created. And that we are supposed to consent to the authority because of this perfection. Rather than we echo the inspiration of the apostles by being moved by the same Holy Spirit as preserved their writing.

anyhow, i am still confused. i don't see the claim in Scripture that it shares the perfections of God, nor do i see that the perfections are what makes it authoritative. but i do see the logic that if you base the authority of Scripture on it being perfection itself that any challenge to that attribute would bring the authority down as well as demonstrate that it is not perfect. Which appears to me to make the argument very brittle and unyielding to the problems of sin effecting not just the transmission but the translation and interpretation of Scripture. You are not handling the perfect Scripture when you pick up an English Bible so however can it be perfect and authoritative?

this appears to be more like the Islamic defense of the Quran as a heavenly eternal book in Arabic just brought to earth by Mohammed rather than the traditional doctrine of inspiration.