Hi john,
I also find some ambiguity in your friend's comments. However, I'm sure, having had this conversation several times before, that I understand his point. While I don't agree with his point.
If I'm understanding correctly, your friend believes that we can't hold the Scriptures to be literally true, because they are not delivered to us as some college level, or even high school level chemistry or biology or higher math form of writing. The assumption being that because they aren't written with such a 'form' of writing, and haven't been studied and dissected as our modern college course works have been, they can't be believed as 'truth'.
My question: How do we determine what someone says or writes is true. I mean just basic reality of what is out there in the world...truth.
If someone says, "I visited my grandmother today." Is it assumed that because that statement isn't couched in modern scientific and higher mathematical terms, that it isn't a true statement?
If someone says, "My house is painted blue." Because we aren't shown the chemical makeup of the paint and what tint was used to make the paint blue and how it was applied with an airless sprayer or roller or brush, then the person isn't telling the truth about their house being painted blue?
God, in His word, if we agree with Paul that the Scriptures are actually the God-breathed revelation of Himself to man through the power and work of His Holy Spirit, has made a number of just plain declarative statements just like the two I've posted above. I just don't see the, what seems so obvious to people such as your friend, that the form of writing or whether it's written in a Harcourt Brace college chemistry book makes a whole lot of difference in whether the declarative statements that God has made in His word are...truth.
Perhaps you could explain it to me. Why does the form of how something is written provide any determination as to it's validity or truth?
Jesus said that God's word is truth. A simple declarative statement. Are we not to believe that God's word is truth because Jesus didn't phrase his statement in the form of some algebraic formula? I just can't seem to wrap my head around this idea that something must be written in some perceived scientific or mathematical formulary for it to be considered truth.
Personally, I believe that the argument stems from the understanding of the source of the information found in the Scriptures. People think that the Scriptures come from the same source as such ancient writings as the Gilgamesh epic, or the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Gilgamesh epic tells of a king who is claimed to be god-like, but it begins with his human existence and ends with his human existence. It covers a time span of maybe 100 years accounting for us the things done during the time of this king's existence. The Scriptures are not at all like that. Just the old covenant writings alone cover a span from the beginning of this created realm, according to the Scriptures, until just a couple of hundred years before a man by the name of Jesus walked among us claiming to be the Son of God. That's some 4,000 years of human history. Throughout the entire account there is this one single deity that presents Himself as the Creator of all things working throughout 4,000 years of history to bring about that man that was born who claimed himself to be the Son of God.
Yes, there are some asides, but for the most part, the book begins with God working to create, then God working to build up a nation, then that same God delivering and carrying that nation into a future of a promised land. So, I contend that we shouldn't try to compare the Scriptures to any other ancient written account of things, based solely on the expanse of time and continuity found in the Scriptures that are not found in any other writing. NONE!!
Anyway, I'd appreciate some explanation beyond just 'well they aren't presented as scientific' writings', to explain why their not being presented as scientific writings would really have any bearing on whether or not the declarative statements made by the God who is portrayed in them, shouldn't be trusted as true. God has had recorded at least twice in the Scriptures, that He Himself wrote down for the people of Israel, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." He also gave as His testimony in the very beginning account of the creation event that it lasted for the span of six days.
If you feel led, please explain to me why those declarative statements shouldn't be accepted as true because they aren't written in some form of scientific treatise as we might find in a modern book of scientific study.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
