How hard would it be to just say this . . .

mhess13 · Apr 11, 2005

The Lady Kate said:
It helps to have a high opinion of Christ.

The Bible is a tool, an instruction manual for a relationship with God through His son Jesus Christ.

But is the Bible necessary for salvation?

Can you have a high opninion of Christ when having a low opinion of the Bible??? somehow I think not

shernren · Apr 11, 2005

In what way does treating the Bible non-historically mean a low opinion of the Bible?

Firstly, note that Genesis almost doesn't state that Genesis is historical. Luke says he puts together an ordered record in his Gospel and in Acts and we have no bones to pick with that. Samuel, Kings and Chronicles apparently make references to outside historical sources the way one textbook might cite another, and we don't refer to them as non-historical or diss the miracles there as impossible. But does Moses say Genesis is exact history? Maybe not.

Secondly, you are interpreting this through a Western mindset of objective historical truth. To the Enlightenment - Rationalist view, nothing is true unless it is a fact i.e. it actually occured in such a way at a verifiable date and time. However, some things that are not facts can be and are true. For example, the Good Samaritan story might never have happened. Does that mean I think Jesus was a liar? There are many non-historical / non-literal forms of truth, like:

-parables
-poetry
-allegory and fable
-figure of speech

Saying that the Creation story is merely an "allegory" may disturb you, but it surely wouldn't disturb me (even though I'm not going that far yet). It is not the insult you imagine it is. From the Chinese culture there is a wealth of tales and fables. For example, Romance of Three Kingdoms which purports to be a historical record, what with dates and battle records, but also having funny things happening like summoning the wind and a pious official surviving without his heart for some time. Other stories go even farther out ... the point I'm making is, nobody takes these tales seriously as history, but these tales are still at the heart of Chinese culture.

In the same way, even if Genesis is not truly history it is a vessel of divine truth. And that insults it how? ...

herev · Apr 12, 2005

mhess13 said:
Can you have a high opninion of Christ when having a low opinion of the Bible??? somehow I think not

and yet many have a high Christology without having a highly literal view of the first few chapters of the Bible. So, when you say it one cannot, you--once again, discount the testimony of so many of your Christian brothers and sisters

herev · Apr 12, 2005

shernren said:
In what way does treating the Bible non-historically mean a low opinion of the Bible?

Firstly, note that Genesis almost doesn't state that Genesis is historical. Luke says he puts together an ordered record in his Gospel and in Acts and we have no bones to pick with that. Samuel, Kings and Chronicles apparently make references to outside historical sources the way one textbook might cite another, and we don't refer to them as non-historical or diss the miracles there as impossible. But does Moses say Genesis is exact history? Maybe not.

Secondly, you are interpreting this through a Western mindset of objective historical truth. To the Enlightenment - Rationalist view, nothing is true unless it is a fact i.e. it actually occured in such a way at a verifiable date and time. However, some things that are not facts can be and are true. For example, the Good Samaritan story might never have happened. Does that mean I think Jesus was a liar? There are many non-historical / non-literal forms of truth, like:

-parables
-poetry
-allegory and fable
-figure of speech

Saying that the Creation story is merely an "allegory" may disturb you, but it surely wouldn't disturb me (even though I'm not going that far yet). It is not the insult you imagine it is. From the Chinese culture there is a wealth of tales and fables. For example, Romance of Three Kingdoms which purports to be a historical record, what with dates and battle records, but also having funny things happening like summoning the wind and a pious official surviving without his heart for some time. Other stories go even farther out ... the point I'm making is, nobody takes these tales seriously as history, but these tales are still at the heart of Chinese culture.

In the same way, even if Genesis is not truly history it is a vessel of divine truth. And that insults it how? ...

reps to you!!!

The Lady Kate · Apr 12, 2005

mhess13 said:
Can you have a high opninion of Christ when having a low opinion of the Bible??? somehow I think not

The Bible is not Christ. Where's the problem?

gluadys · Apr 12, 2005

mhess13 said:
Can you have a high opninion of Christ when having a low opinion of the Bible??? somehow I think not

Personally I have a high opinion of both. Holding a non-literal view is not the same thing as having a low opinion of scripture.

SBG · Apr 12, 2005

Bible necessary for Salvation?

The Bible itself, necessary for Salvation, no. The Bible necessary itself for hearing the message of the One who brings Salvation, absolutely.

If Nero succeeded in destroying the early Church, getting rid of every document written about Jesus, you would not know of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is just a wee bit important than some seem to want to let on.

Vance · Apr 12, 2005

Yes, I revere Scripture as much as anyone here. It is why I became a Gideon. But what happened in those early decades before there was any written NT documents? Look at the history of the development of the canon and you see that the Gospel spread like wildfire with little or no Scripture.

SBG · Apr 12, 2005

And see before the Canon how vigoursly the Church Fathers argued against those who had views almost identical to yours. The Church Fathers views were based solely off the Scriptures.

Vance · Apr 12, 2005

SBG said:
And see before the Canon how vigoursly the Church Fathers argued against those who had views almost identical to yours. The Church Fathers views were based solely off the Scriptures.

But there views are not authoritative. They were fallible men who can definitely get things wrong.

SBG · Apr 12, 2005

And so were the Apostles, would like to call them into error?

Let me ask again, do you know where the Trinity doctrine came from?

Vance · Apr 13, 2005

The Apostles wrote the inspired words of God. That is a matter accepted by faith. I have no idea what they said outside of Scripture, and I have no idea that what God did not choose to canonize of their teachings was equally inspired and infallible. Again, that is why I accept Scripture as infallible, but not any doctrinal teachings outside of Scripture. All doctrines which come from outside Scripture must conform to a proper reading of Scripture. So, while the church leaders continued to develop doctrines, these doctrines are only valid to the extent they can be supported with the proper reading of Scripture. Since the doctrine of the trinity does this, then it is proper doctrine. I have faith that God kept what He would choose as canon Scripture correct in the essence of what He wanted to tell us, and directly inspired men, even fallible men, to choose that Scripture. This is a matter of faith. But I have no such faith for every teaching these men, or any men, proclaimed.

SBG · Apr 13, 2005

Vance said:
The Apostles wrote the inspired words of God. That is a matter accepted by faith. I have no idea what they said outside of Scripture, and I have no idea that what God did not choose to canonize of their teachings was equally inspired and infallible. Again, that is why I accept Scripture as infallible, but not any doctrinal teachings outside of Scripture. All doctrines which come from outside Scripture must conform to a proper reading of Scripture. So, while the church leaders continued to develop doctrines, these doctrines are only valid to the extent they can be supported with the proper reading of Scripture. Since the doctrine of the trinity does this, then it is proper doctrine. I have faith that God kept what He would choose as canon Scripture correct in the essence of what He wanted to tell us, and directly inspired men, even fallible men, to choose that Scripture. This is a matter of faith. But I have no such faith for every teaching these men, or any men, proclaimed.

Well, creation in six days and global flood are supported by the Bible. So thank you for making this clear that the Church Fathers are right if the Bible supports their claims.

You have much faith for the men of science, unless of course you have done all these tests yourself. If not, then you have faith they are correct.

Simple fact is that if you took the time to read the Church Fathers, you would see that this view of the origins, they claim was taught to them from the disciples. We can see this in Clement of Rome's writings and Ignatius'. Then we can look to the works of Josephus, the Jewish historian, and see he too believed it was a global flood according to Scripture. And he was a hebrew speaking Jew, who lived during the time of the Apostles. (Antiquities, 1.3.4(1.89))

Your view on the flood is no different than Plato's who Theophilus of Antioch refuted on this subject.

Philo of Alexandria, who lived during the time of Jesus Christ taught that it was a global flood.(Abraham, 41-44)

But of course everyone was wrong, and today te's are right.

mhess13 · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
Yes, I revere Scripture as much as anyone here. It is why I became a Gideon. But what happened in those early decades before there was any written NT documents? Look at the history of the development of the canon and you see that the Gospel spread like wildfire with little or no Scripture.

WOW!!!!!!!!!! You are also a Gideon? You are quite the man! Gideon, Ancient Literature expert, fountain of scientific knowledge....You are like the James Bond of Christendom

herev · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
But of course everyone was wrong, and today te's are right.

amazingly, the TEs are not insisting they are right, they are positing what they believe and open to being corrected. The Creationists, on the other hand, have no interest in being open to learning anything new--

Remus · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
amazingly, the TEs are not insisting they are right, they are positing what they believe and open to being corrected. The Creationists, on the other hand, have no interest in being open to learning anything new--

This is hard for me to believe due to what has gone on recently. Personally, I'm open-minded, so please correct any misunderstanding that I might have. Do you believe what I've been saying to Vance dealing with his undermining the Scripture being a danger to some people's faith is accurate?

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
amazingly, the TEs are not insisting they are right, they are positing what they believe and open to being corrected. The Creationists, on the other hand, have no interest in being open to learning anything new--

Really? Hm, I have often enjoyed learning something new. I just don't follow the belief system in place for the interpretation of scientists. I tend to lean on the side where the Bible is the Authority in all manners, and if I am not quite sure what the Bible is saying, I don't look to scientists, but how the early Church - Fathers and Apostles - taught it.

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

Remus said:
This is hard for me to believe due to what has gone on recently. Personally, I'm open-minded, so please correct any misunderstanding that I might have. Do you believe what I've been saying to Vance dealing with his undermining the Scripture being a danger to some people's faith is accurate?

From what I have read, you are open minded to think about the argument objectively. I haven't seen you fly off the handle and argue something that is not there.

Unfortunately, no one from a te side will answer your last question honestly in regards to calling Genesis in error, if read as literal history.

The problem exists that we are not fighting against evolution here. We are fighting for the integrity of the Bible that is being disputed by some te's here. The Bible is in error if.... God is a liar if.... And we are the closed minded ones......

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

Who is the real enemy here? Atheism, the failure to believe that God created everything. That is what we should be fighting against. I think TE does a MUCH better job of battling atheistic naturalism that YEC has done.

Again, SBG, you are insisting on misrepresenting TE's and ignoring identical issues with your fellow YEC's. TE's say God can't be a liar, and base what they believe to be the most likely reading of Genesis on that belief. Plain and simple. God CAN'T LIE. Your statements twisting their words around are not worthy of you.

And you seem to ignore the statements by your fellow YEC's that if God created a different way than they believe, via evolution, then Scripture is false (ie, God is a liar), and they would toss it out. What is your response to that argument? You seem silent in your condemnation of this argument.

Remus · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
Who is the real enemy here? Atheism, the failure to believe that God created everything. That is what we should be fighting against.

Vance, I agree with you 100%. I really do. All I ask, one last time, is that you please stop trying to undermine the authority of the Scripture.

How hard would it be to just say this . . .

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CL--you are missed!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency