Open-Minded Creationism!

[HSetterfield]

In other words, many of you believe the Bible is not really God's Word, but rather God's suggestions and fairy stories to be interpreted by man as man thinks best!

That sounds a lot like man usurping God's place, or trying to...

 

[chaoschristian]

Let it be known that I am most likely the extreme outlier in this particular TE crowd, in that I refuse to ascribe to scripture any quality of 'infallible', 'inerrant' or 'inspired' because I feel that the sense of those words have been utterly corrupted by the debates about the nature of scripture and have lost so much utility as to be useless.

Do not take what I hold as being representative of TEs here or TEs in general.

Now, more pointedly, I also hold that all of scripture is necessarily myth. This seems to be a word that holds negative connotations for you. Perhaps we can discuss it.

And while that might be off topic for this thread, I believe that is an important discussion within the context of this forum, and certainly one that has taken place before.

I would welcome such a discussion. But only if all participants recognize and respect a priori the faithfulness of all other participants. No need to engage in futile accusations or worse, break forum rules.

In other words, many of you believe the Bible is not really God's Word, but rather God's suggestions and fairy stories to be interpreted by man as man thinks best!

That sounds a lot like man usurping God's place, or trying to...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the professional historians had done that they would have been fired at the least, executed at the most, and their writings destroyed.

By the way, are you saying that Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah are not historical documents?

Are you saying the Gospels have myth and reality mixed?

herodotus is online, here is the first paragraph:

These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds. According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began to quarrel. This people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erythraean Sea, having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages, freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria. They landed at many places on the coast, and among the rest at Argos, which was then preeminent above all the states included now under the common name of Hellas. Here they exposed their merchandise, and traded with the natives for five or six days; at the end of which time, when almost everything was sold, there came down to the beach a number of women, and among them the daughter of the king, who was, they say, agreeing in this with the Greeks, Io, the child of Inachus. The women were standing by the stern of the ship intent upon their purchases, when the Phoenicians, with a general shout, rushed upon them. The greater part made their escape, but some were seized and carried off. Io herself was among the captives. The Phoenicians put the women on board their vessel, and set sail for Egypt. Thus did Io pass into Egypt, according to the Persian story, which differs widely from the Phoenician: and thus commenced, according to their authors, the series of outrages.

from: http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html

this is the best ancient history has to offer, it is not modern history, it is mixed collecting cool stories and a chatty personal travelogue. we have a very different idea of what history is, factual reporting without a lot of analysis and significance to the author is strived for.

here is the first two verses of Ezra

Ezr 1:1 ¶ Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and [put it] also in writing, saying,

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.

this is not modern history, the reporting of facts and figures, who did what to whom and etc. It is primarily the meaning and significance of actions, the facts are secondary to the explanation of the meaning. It is the story of God's activity in the world, Cyrus* is merely the instrument in the hand of God, it is not about Cyrus. Now show me a modern history that talks about God's obvious activity in the physical world and i'll show you someone who is not a professional modern historian.

notes:
* show a modern historian that believes "the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia" is valid modern history writing. How does anyone know this kind of information about someone? whatever it is, it is not modern history, it is closer to the junk _Young Man Luther_, historical psycho-analysis.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Well, you know we can all continue to senselessly argue back and forth the concepts involved in different Creationist theories, or we can just adopt a standard that neither accepts nor rejects any of the following theories:

• Young Earth Creation
• Old Earth Creation
• Gap Theory
• Theistic Evolution

Such a standard is what I like to call Open-Minded Creationism and this is what I put on my profile under my Origins Theory. Open-Minded Creationism accepts the notion that the creation story found in the book of Genesis is much too vague for anyone to make any sense of it, but it also confirms that no matter how it actually happened, God was behind all of it 100%. Open-Minded Creationism both accepts and rejects certain aspects of all 4 of the above mentioned creation theories; but whatever is accepted or rejected is still based on one's own opinions. As a matter of fact, all 4 of these creation theories may actually be entirely incorrect; we just don't know it yet.

We can all make arguments about how the creation story took place and some of these may actually make credible arguments, while others are just plain silly. Still, there are others that are just too difficult to grasp one way or the other. However, the bottom line is that for now is all comes down to one's own opinions.

Open-Minded Creationism accepts the notion that for now the actual Creation story is much too difficult for the human brain to really understand and is beyond anyone's comprehension. Until we enter into eternity will we truly understand how it all came to be and we will learn all the things that we never knew before.

Do I hear an amen?

not once did Y'shua compromise the Truth of His words...
who are we to compromise for Him?

Stand firm and sin not!

 

[Gwenyfur]

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the core problem. The GOSPELS are the foundation and core of the Scriptures. Everything else is to point to them.

errmmm you may want to rethink that position...
The *entire* Tanakh points to the revelation and glory of Y'shua Messiah...not *just* the Gospels

How many of these historical chronicles have you actually read? The ones that I have read, they usually start with a series of obvious legends and mythos about the country they are writing about, and eventually merge into what WE would call history - in this or that date, so-and-so fought a battle. The transition is seamless.

There are not myths recorded in the Chronicles, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Samuel etc...That is the history of Israel...

 

[Gwenyfur]

In other words, many of you believe the Bible is not really God's Word, but rather God's suggestions and fairy stories to be interpreted by man as man thinks best!

That sounds a lot like man usurping God's place, or trying to...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HSetterfield again.

 

[Gwenyfur]

notes:
* show a modern historian that believes "the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia" is valid modern history writing. How does anyone know this kind of information about someone? whatever it is, it is not modern history, it is closer to the junk _Young Man Luther_, historical psycho-analysis.

You seriously refer to the Tanakh as "junk"???

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You seriously refer to the Tanakh as "junk"???

i can see how my comments can be interpreted as a slam on Ezra, it was not intented that way. _young man luther_ i book i really dislike, is full of this "getting it someone's mind and telling us what he is thinking". it proports to be history and certainly is not. Ezra doesn't make the claim to be modern history, the evidence is that it is full of the same attribution of people's motive and thoughts. It is not that this style of writing is junk, it is that it is not modern historical writing and Erickson doesn't have the right to call what he does either science or history or even to tell us anything useful about Luther. It is not the style that is at fault as much as it is the author of the internal observations, Erickson has no access to Luther's inner life. God can say whatever He wants about Cyrus's motivations, but that doesn't make it modern historical writings either.

sorry for the potential disrespect, it was not intended. Strong feelings about Erickson emerged....

 

[Melethiel]

You don't seem to think any real literal histories were written without mythical additions before just a few hundred years ago. Are you including the Bible histories?

I did not say that histories are "real literal with some mythical additions". I said that pre-Enlightenment histories are not written like modern histories, but a collection of stories and commentary. That is not to say that there is not some literal reporting of facts, which there is in the OT, but I am speaking about the majority.

errmmm you may want to rethink that position...
The *entire* Tanakh points to the revelation and glory of Y'shua Messiah...not *just* the Gospels

Read my statement again. The entirety of Scripture points to the revelation of Christ in the Gospels.

There are not myths recorded in the Chronicles, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Samuel etc...That is the history of Israel...

Once again, read my statement. The closer the writings get to actual eyewitness events, the most "historical" they get. So yes, Chronicles, Kings, etc., are written more like what we would think of as "history". Genesis is not.

 

[HSetterfield]

Now, more pointedly, I also hold that all of scripture is necessarily myth.

But you call yourself a Christian? I could never give my life to something I considered myth.

No, I don't want to discuss this with you. Maybe others will. I consider the Bible to be God's Word, inerrant in the original mss/tablets, a true history where history is presented, and the record of the true thoughts of the people involved, with true prophecies which were truly fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, who was truly followed by real men. He truly died and was truly raised to life again by His own authority as God. He is the second person of the Trinity, the Creator and Redeemer and coming Judge. The true history of the beginning spreading of the faith is in Acts and the letters of the New Testament were really written and sent to real churches.

I will not debate any of that! I can give a reason for the hope I have. I can give scientific evidence regarding the early chapters of Genesis being for real. And I can live so that I am the glove and Christ the true action within me by the power of His Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.

But I will not even try to deal with arguments which proclaim it all a myth when I know from His action and salvation in my life that it is all more real than the world we now live in.

Thank you anyway.

Just to let you know, however, the next few days are jammed full for me and I will not be here much. I tried to make mention of that when I joined last week that my attention here would be sporadic.

I pray with all my heart that yours will be open to the true Reality.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now, more pointedly, I also hold that all of scripture is necessarily myth.

But you call yourself a Christian? I could never give my life to something I considered myth.

One of the difficult problems in this discussion is the strong idea in our culture that only the "truely factual" can be true and/or real. We subconsciously make this alignment: true=real=factual, false=myth=not real and as a result immediately make statements that likewise align:
anyone who says that there is myth in the Bible=unbeliever and for this discussion: Genesis must be literal history and not contain any myth to be useful for a real and true faith.
We see it almost everyday here with the leap of logic that is summed up by:
if Gen 1 is not true history and real science then Jesus did not rise from the dead.

What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it impossible to be a Christian if you believe that there are mythic elements in the resurrection or death of Christ? If you make this alignment of myth=false and history=true then it logically follows that Jesus must only be historical and scientific in nature, for that is the only thing modern people believe to be true.

The problem is that the ancient Hebrews down to the 1st C Jewish-Christians to at least the 14thC European Christians have significant mythic elements in their faith, and no where does God correct them and tell them that this is wrong.

For example, Jesus is the Lamb of God is a mythic element, it is a complex culture metaphor that is not literally or scientifically or historically true. There is a whole constellation of ideas around this metaphor, from the Lamb holding a war banner in a stained glass to elements of Communion that involved this.

The issue is how to deal with the Scriptures justly and wisely on their own terms, not our modern conceptions pushed back on top of them. Myth can be true, we use myth all the time: the founding of countries is always fertile ground for these creations, the origin of important institutions and ideas, whether the supreme court or where penicillin came from. The extraordinary expansion of urban myths and internet stories like the boy and the postcards tells us that people have a need for stories that tell significant things in a compelling and direct way, this is myth. We see it in our media, even slasher movies and scifi is full of long running myths that are a shared resources among the watchers, even in our day we do not really believe that science and history alone are valid and good ways to look at and organize the experiences of people, we slip into mythbuilding so easily that it must be seen as a common inheritance of our minds and the very way we think.

 

[Willtor]

Now, more pointedly, I also hold that all of scripture is necessarily myth.

But you call yourself a Christian? I could never give my life to something I considered myth.

No, I don't want to discuss this with you. Maybe others will. I consider the Bible to be God's Word, inerrant in the original mss/tablets, a true history where history is presented, and the record of the true thoughts of the people involved, with true prophecies which were truly fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, who was truly followed by real men. He truly died and was truly raised to life again by His own authority as God. He is the second person of the Trinity, the Creator and Redeemer and coming Judge. The true history of the beginning spreading of the faith is in Acts and the letters of the New Testament were really written and sent to real churches.

I will not debate any of that! I can give a reason for the hope I have. I can give scientific evidence regarding the early chapters of Genesis being for real. And I can live so that I am the glove and Christ the true action within me by the power of His Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.

But I will not even try to deal with arguments which proclaim it all a myth when I know from His action and salvation in my life that it is all more real than the world we now live in.

Thank you anyway.

Just to let you know, however, the next few days are jammed full for me and I will not be here much. I tried to make mention of that when I joined last week that my attention here would be sporadic.

I pray with all my heart that yours will be open to the true Reality.

You are contrasting myth and reality. That's very modern of you, but it isn't necessarily conducive to sound understanding of ancient texts. Would you not give yourself over to myth even if it were written by God?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are contrasting myth and reality. That's very modern of you, but it isn't necessarily conducive to sound understanding of ancient texts. Would you not give yourself over to myth even if it were written by God?

one of the interesting things about myth and story telling is that there really is a continuum not this black-white, either-or dichotomy that is so often proposed.

we actually have it built into our genres of literature.

from a newspaper reporter's story or a police report as the most factual, where the facts and nothing but the facts are the objective. Almost no analysis or personal involvement at all, the structure almost dictates the content. We move to history, then to historical fiction, to fiction, with dozens of graduations to make it a smooth curve.

Where does Upton Sinclair's _Boston_ fit on the scheme? or Hawaii? or many well research pieces of fiction that teach you a lot of detail and knowledge about the areas discussed but do it through a completely made up cast of characters.

Where is the line between historical fiction and interpreted history? why is only the history part "true" and the novel/myth/story "false"? Why must something have happened in our time and space for it to be true? this is a modern prejudice that betrays our technology* and fundamental ideas about epistemology more than it tells us about the world, especially about God.

notes:
* the difference in literature produced by a verbal culture and a written culture and then between a written with the printing press and one without is extreme.

look at the OT, it is the produce of a verbal culture. memorization becomes a significant piece of the equation, refrain, parallelism, rythum, story telling with interest all are characteristics of such writing. even when reduced to writing it retains it's original tone.

this alignment of myth=false and history alone is true flies in the face of much of what we know about how the Bible was written and preserved for our reading.

 

[Mallon]

So is it your opinion that Scripture may not be limited to the 66 books of the Bible?

Admittedly, this is something I've been giving more thought to lately. For example, what did Paul mean when he wrote "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16)"? The Bible was not yet assembled when he wrote this particular verse, so what Scripture was he referring to? There were certainly other non-biblical scriptures floating around when he wrote this. Would they, too, not fall under the quantifier of "all"?

Couldn't this view even allow you or I, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, be writing what will someday be considered Scripture? Isn't this what this line of thinking can and will lead to? I mean really, aren't we all capable of conveying spiritual truths and thereby be authors of Scripture?

Personally, I think Jesus is the final revelation. You're free to believe otherwise, if you will.

 

[Willtor]

one of the interesting things about myth and story telling is that there really is a continuum not this black-white, either-or dichotomy that is so often proposed.

we actually have it built into our genres of literature.

from a newspaper reporter's story or a police report as the most factual, where the facts and nothing but the facts are the objective. Almost no analysis or personal involvement at all, the structure almost dictates the content. We move to history, then to historical fiction, to fiction, with dozens of graduations to make it a smooth curve.

Where does Upton Sinclair's _Boston_ fit on the scheme? or Hawaii? or many well research pieces of fiction that teach you a lot of detail and knowledge about the areas discussed but do it through a completely made up cast of characters.

Where is the line between historical fiction and interpreted history? why is only the history part "true" and the novel/myth/story "false"? Why must something have happened in our time and space for it to be true? this is a modern prejudice that betrays our technology* and fundamental ideas about epistemology more than it tells us about the world, especially about God.

notes:
* the difference in literature produced by a verbal culture and a written culture and then between a written with the printing press and one without is extreme.

look at the OT, it is the produce of a verbal culture. memorization becomes a significant piece of the equation, refrain, parallelism, rythum, story telling with interest all are characteristics of such writing. even when reduced to writing it retains it's original tone.

this alignment of myth=false and history alone is true flies in the face of much of what we know about how the Bible was written and preserved for our reading.

That's true, but even with today's technology, people have produced mythical works that can be acknowledged for what they are by modern Western society. C.S. Lewis wrote both "Surprised by Joy" and "The Pilgrim's Regress" and nobody confuses the two. Although they are both autobiographies (of a sort), even if they were compiled into a single binding, nobody would argue that taking the latter as allegory would undermine the validity of the former. I think the difference is that we are talking about the Bible, and most (American?) hermeneutics start from some sort of mysticism rather than reason.

Certainly, you are right (and undoubtedly, you know better than I do) that the prevalence of the printed word, coupled with rising literacy rates, causes different sorts of works to be produced, both in form and in content, but if it weren't the Bible, I think one would see dramatically different interpretation, especially increased acceptance of the literary form. In fact, I sincerely doubt there would be any debate as to whether the form made it false, but people would read it and decide whether to receive it.

 

[laptoppop]

Personally, I think Jesus is the final revelation. You're free to believe otherwise, if you will.

Just one point - the entire New Testament was written after Jesus' earthly ministry/death/resurrection.

 

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

MrrrrNiceGuy, if the word yom means anything along with evening and morning, the indication is that the earth was rotating on its axis and there was a light source. That is why I said if it were rotating any faster or slower than now, the rest of creation would not have been possible, for the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

You missed my point completely. I was referring to how long a day is in eternity, which is certainly outside of our own universe and has absolutely no relationship to the length of one day on Earth.

 

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

I would be interested in reading more on how Open-Minded Creationism accepts and rejects certain aspects of all 4 of the above mentioned creation theories in more detail.

but whatever is accepted or rejected is still based on one's own opinions.

Hence the words, Open-Minded!

 

[shernren]

Just one point - the entire New Testament was written after Jesus' earthly ministry/death/resurrection.

I think he means final in the way a parent will say "You are not dating that biker boy, and that's final!" Everything that comes after is mere exposition on this given.

 

[Mallon]

Just one point - the entire New Testament was written after Jesus' earthly ministry/death/resurrection.

Duly noted. Shernren got the point, though.