Genesis and Truth

[chris777]

I believe myself to be a person of truth. I believe that this is honoring to God. However, it seems as though not all Christians on this forum think along the same lines regarding the OT topic. People stick to indefensible positions, and sometimes even seem to admit it, but still choose to hold to what they may have been taught or what they prefer to believe regardless of how logical or illogical it is. It's almost the mindset of “If I close my eyes maybe they won't see me.”

Could you elaborate a bit more, as I agree that many take what they were taught above what scripture actually says,
(as in odd theologies, and whole doctrines based on a handfull of verses)
But I stand firmly on scripture as Truth, and Fact in places it is not alluded to being an allegory or parable.
Even if that may conflict with Science.

I don't subscribe to this as I believe it would damage my credibility as a Christian and would not be honoring to God.

I don't know your meaning by this statement, are you stating you

I believe Genesis to be truth, as I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. However, any Scripture conveys truth only in the manner with which it was intended to convey that truth. Nobody would argue that if I twist a verse of Scripture and use it as a proof text for an illogical position that I am communicating the truth simply because I can quote a chapter and verse to support it at face value.

I believe that science and Theology should work together, if there is a sharp disagreement between the two, then I should rethink my interpretation of either one or the other, despite what my personal preference is. For example, if I found a verse in Scripture that seemed to contradict the Law of Gravity when read in a strict literal sense, I would certainly question my interpretation of the passage. Also, when Jesus said “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7, NASB, KJV) I understand that he was not claiming to be a wooden board with a handle.

Should work together and actually doing so are 2 different things unfortunately. As to interpretation, the obvious allegories, aside, where do you stand on things such as the head of the axe floating on water 2 King 6:6, Jesus walking on water, and other verses that contradict science?

When I became a Christian, I trusted Christ with my eternal destiny, not a frontal lobotomy. I recognize that the Scriptures contain hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, and polemical passages. I also recognize that Genesis contains signifcant motifs as well as word plays between events, character names, place names, etc. It also seems that sometimes we forget that while all Scripture is for us, it is not all directly to us. The direct audience of Genesis was the ancient Hebrews who would have understood these literary devices in their own original language much more clearly than we do today as modern/post-modern people with a new translation and a scientific and critical mindset. They would have understood which passages were intended to convey a literal narrative and which passages weren't.

Where do you ascribe a non literal narrative for example?
and, And what basis do you determine if its literal of figurative?

I see the Creation account of Genesis as more of a doxology. I see that it declares the glory of God and establishes that indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord Almighty who ALONE created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I don't believe that even the ancient Hebrews would have taken the song of creation as a science text detailing God's actual method of creation. That is not the intention, it is not even written as a historical narrative so why would I impose those constraints on it? To use a wooden literal hermeneutic for this passage would be akin twisting the Scripture and using it as a proof text to say something it did not intend to. There is no difference between doing that and taking a literal passage and allegorizing it to the point where it doesn't say anything anymore.

basically my question above, how have you determined for youself the origin account is not historical.

What if Ussher never arrived at a Creation date of October 23rd, 4004 BC by adding up ages given in geneaologies that were never intended to be used that way? Would there still be a handful of fundamentalists with divinity and education degrees formulating "proofs" for a young earth and flying in the face of most accepted science?

I disagree with the use of genealogies to date time as well, as there is no mention of them (or allusion0 of them being used for that purpose, But that doesn't mean I entirely ascribe to the evolutionary multibillion year old interpretation either. Particularly as it has existed for quite some time, and would not nessesarily be "over their heads" if it were in fact true.

I apologize if I offended anyone, the tone of this post was not intended to be antagonistic, just friendly debate. Please forgive me if it came across that way.

same here, I am trying to gather a better understanding of the perspective of the TE, that I have encountered on here, I myself was a TE, but at the time I had an elementary school knowledge of the scripture itself, Upon learning more about the scriptures, as well as examining the claims of Evolution, I do not see a compatability, without diminishing from one or the other, just as you stated earlier, I Believe the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

to support it at face value


whose face?
modern 19thC theology?
or
2nd millennium Hebraic?


your consciousness is framed by modern science, you ask modern historist and scientism tainted questions of an ancient document that was not written to answer those questions. and then justify doing so with the idea that this is just the simple, man in the pew, common sense, literal, face value, what-it-really-says hermeneutics.

forgetting that those first hearers' faces are the ones being addressed, not ours. we are shoulder surfing Scriptures, reading someone else's mail, and their cultural matrix is what must be used to exegete the verses, not our common sense which is not common at all but rather very pecularily modern.

 

[kenrapoza]

to support it at face value


whose face?
modern 19thC theology?
or
2nd millennium Hebraic?


your consciousness is framed by modern science, you ask modern historist and scientism tainted questions of an ancient document that was not written to answer those questions. and then justify doing so with the idea that this is just the simple, man in the pew, common sense, literal, face value, what-it-really-says hermeneutics.

forgetting that those first hearers' faces are the ones being addressed, not ours. we are shoulder surfing Scriptures, reading someone else's mail, and their cultural matrix is what must be used to exegete the verses, not our common sense which is not common at all but rather very pecularily modern.

Yes I agree. That's actually part of the point I was trying to make.

 

[kenrapoza]

Could you elaborate a bit more, as I agree that many take what they were taught above what scripture actually says,
(as in odd theologies, and whole doctrines based on a handfull of verses)
But I stand firmly on scripture as Truth, and Fact in places it is not alluded to being an allegory or parable.
Even if that may conflict with Science.

I believe that the Bible is authoritative in what it teaches because it is inspired by God. We should be faithful to the meaning of the text. The search for "truth" may lead different people in different directions as we do not all have the same light. But I do believe there is objective "Truth." The concern that I brought up was that it seems there are some Christians who are more concerned about adhering to their particular belief set than in actually truly representing what the Lord has done. This is akin to an idolatry of ideas. I have somewhat recently come out of the YEC view as I found that my suppositions did not stand up under scrutiny. It wasn't the easiest transition, but I think that honestly evaluating my position and being willing to change it is honoring to God.


Recently I read a post on CF that almost broke my heart. I'm not going to blurt out who posted it, but many of you may have seen it. It was a teenager who was 100% committed to a particular brand of YEC but had run across some evidence that seemed to negate that view. He posted a link to it and essentially asked "is this evidence really true?" When he got the response "yes" he said that it was about to kill his faith because he wouldn't worship a God who used another means of Creation. So he was worshipping his own view of God and not necessarily who He knows Himself to be.

I don't know your meaning by this statement, are you stating you

All I meant was that if others see me as a Christian and I am just sticking to an untenable position with my blinders on, I think it would damage my credibility and my testimony. The world does not need to see intellectual dishonesty, but a God who is real.

Should work together and actually doing so are 2 different things unfortunately. As to interpretation, the obvious allegories, aside, where do you stand on things such as the head of the axe floating on water 2 King 6:6, Jesus walking on water, and other verses that contradict science?

Science does not preclude the use of miracles, it should only address those things which we can verify. God can do whatever He chooses. Jesus' disciples understood that people don't normally walk on water and they were witnessing a miracle. This is altogether a different type of writing and different situation.

Where do you ascribe a non literal narrative for example?
and, And what basis do you determine if its literal of figurative?

Similarly to how I make the distinction with all other literature. Not all literary genres are intended to be taken the exact same way. Let's take Mark 9:43-48 for example. Is Jesus advocating self-mutilation or is he using hyperbole to illustrate an important truth? It is in recognizing the type of passage you are reading, along with the direct audience, and the historical and cultural context (very important and many of us 21st century evangelicals forget that), that give insight into how it should be taken. I will freely admit that I am not an expert and those with more knowledge than I may correct me.

basically my question above, how have you determined for youself the origin account is not historical.

I may have already answered this...I know you're asking a specific question here, if my above responses do not answer your question please ask me to clarify and I would be happy to do so.

I disagree with the use of genealogies to date time as well, as there is no mention of them (or allusion0 of them being used for that purpose, But that doesn't mean I entirely ascribe to the evolutionary multibillion year old interpretation either. Particularly as it has existed for quite some time, and would not nessesarily be "over their heads" if it were in fact true.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence in that paragraph. Would you be able to elaborate?

same here, I am trying to gather a better understanding of the perspective of the TE, that I have encountered on here, I myself was a TE, but at the time I had an elementary school knowledge of the scripture itself, Upon learning more about the scriptures, as well as examining the claims of Evolution, I do not see a compatability, without diminishing from one or the other, just as you stated earlier, I Believe the Bible.

This may surprise you, but I actually do not currently hold to TE. I could probably be better described as an OEC or PC. Of course this may change too!