Open-Minded Creationism!

[Willtor]

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.

My parents never had to say that to me.

 

[Mallon]

Is that because they approved of the biker boy you were dating, Willtor?

 

[vossler]

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"?

I don't know, but could it be that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words in anticipation of the complete text? How else would you expect God to convey that truth?

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

Thanks!

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

I don't doubt the historicial import of the book of Genesis, in fact the historicity of Genesis is directly tied to the Gospel. I do think that there is a sense that we have our priorities skewed when that is all we can see there. Genesis as a primer for natural science is a fine intellectual pursuit but the message runs far deeper then the chronological narrative of historical events. Galileo expressed it in this way:

“Philosophy is written in this grand book the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a singe word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.” (The Assayer, Galileo)

Matthew Henry on the other hand expressed it like this:

“The stars are spoken of as they appear to our eyes, without telling their number, nature, place, size, or motions; for the Scriptures were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints.” (Matthew Henry Commentary)

The Bible is a poor source for understanding how the heavens or biology works. While it is redemptive history from beginning to end the Scriptures do not focus on the mechanics of physical or living systems. The central focus is on that God created the heavens and the earth not how they actually work.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Is that because they approved of the biker boy you were dating, Willtor?

If they didn't they never said anything to me about it.

 

[Willtor]

I don't know, but could it be that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words in anticipation of the complete text? How else would you expect God to convey that truth?
Thanks!

On one level I agree that passage in Timothy is self-referential, but I don't think it has anything to do with any sort of "complete text." In short, I don't think that the compiled codex of the Scriptures is more valuable than the same Scriptures loose, except, of course, for the sake of convenience. It's rather like the end of Revelation wherein curses are assigned to anyone who revises the text. This is not, of course, referring to the whole Bible, per se. But the condemnation of deliberate alteration is certainly apt when applied to any of the other Scriptural texts.

In short, the reasoning that led to "inspiration" and "source of doctrine" holds for all Scriptural texts, even 2 Tim., even if Paul was only immediately conscious of the Old Testament in that respect, just as the prohibition against modifying the Apocalypse is meaningful in a broader context.

 

[vossler]

On one level I agree that passage in Timothy is self-referential, but I don't think it has anything to do with any sort of "complete text." In short, I don't think that the compiled codex of the Scriptures is more valuable than the same Scriptures loose, except, of course, for the sake of convenience. It's rather like the end of Revelation wherein curses are assigned to anyone who revises the text. This is not, of course, referring to the whole Bible, per se. But the condemnation of deliberate alteration is certainly apt when applied to any of the other Scriptural texts.

In short, the reasoning that led to "inspiration" and "source of doctrine" holds for all Scriptural texts, even 2 Tim., even if Paul was only immediately conscious of the Old Testament in that respect, just as the prohibition against modifying the Apocalypse is meaningful in a broader context.

Help me out here, do you believe the entire Bible is as God intended for it to be? If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that anything outside of those books is not to be considered Scripture? How else would we know what should be considered Scriptural text and what isn't?

 

[chaoschristian]

The neat thing about this forum is that even if I'm away for part of most of a day, I'm not surprised when others come by with articulate and thoughtful responses to your question and quandary.

Thank you both rmwilliams and willtor for saying elegantly what I would have wanted to say. I'll leave your responses to stand as my own.

That said, I will ask, HSetterfield, that you please reconsider. Dialogue is the only means through which the mission of CF is fulfilled. It provides the place, but we have the do the work.

However, if you're not comfortable with such I dialogue, I understand and I won't push the matter any further.

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.

 

[chaoschristian]

Help me out here, do you believe the entire Bible is as God intended for it to be? If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that anything outside of those books is not to be considered Scripture? How else would we know what should be considered Scriptural text and what isn't?

Vossler, Good to see you again.

How do you determine God's intent?

 

[Mallon]

I don't know, but could it be that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words in anticipation of the complete text?

That would certainly be a convenient way of affirming one's preconviction. I don't know that it follows from the Scriptures, though. The Bible never references itself in the text.

How else would you expect God to convey that truth?

Less ambiguously. Maybe Paul could have prophesied that one day, all God-given scripture would be assembled into the "Holy Bible" (TM).

 

[vossler]

Hey good to see you too, where have you been?

Vossler, Good to see you again.

How do you determine God's intent?

Now there's a loaded question if there ever was one, but I like 'em like that and usually don't have a problem attempting to answer them. However, I don't claim any unique divine revelation or spiritual mysticism.

Since this is a general question I can only provide a general answer. Generally His intent, regardless of the subject, is always outlined in His Word. If we can't determine through prayer and Bible study then I believe we haven't prayed and/or looked hard enough.

How do you determine His intent?

 

[vossler]

That would certainly be a convenient way of affirming one's preconviction. I don't know that it follows from the Scriptures, though. The Bible never references itself in the text.

Convenient...interesting response. If it wasn't 'convenient' for you, how do you see it?

Less ambiguously. Maybe Paul could have prophesied that one day, all God-given scripture would be assembled into the "Holy Bible" (TM).

You mean the way God told us about evolution.

 

[Mallon]

Convenient...interesting response. If it wasn't 'convenient' for you, how do you see it?

To be honest, I don't yet know how to understand 2 Tim 3:16. Again, what did Paul mean by "all" Scripture if the Bible had not yet been assembled? My impression is that the answer is a little less simple than the eisegetical "God used Paul to vaguely prophesy the assembly of Sciptures into today's Holy Bible."

You mean the way God told us about evolution.

God didn't tell us about television, moose, nuclear physics, or plastic, either.
Regardless, I make no attempt at reading evolution or any of the above topics into the text. The biblical authors were ignorant of such things (including what we consider to be "The Bible"), so I would not expect them to write about something of which they had no knowledge.

 

[laptoppop]

God didn't tell us about television, moose, nuclear physics, or plastic, either.
Regardless, I make no attempt at reading evolution or any of the above topics into the text. The biblical authors were ignorant of such things (including what we consider to be "The Bible"), so I would not expect them to write about something of which they had no knowledge.

Which strikes again at the heart of the matter. If the Scriptures are from God, then He surely knew and knows about all things. If they are limited to human understanding, then your statement makes sense.

However, the Lord has used prophecy, for example, to help us understand that what was written was plainly not limited to the understanding and knowledge of the authors involved. God could reveal details about a Messiah not yet born because He is timeless. The human author would have limited knowledge and would not know such things, but God chose to speak through the human authors.

 

[Assyrian]

I consider the Bible to be God's Word, inerrant in the original mss/tablets.

This is a question I have been wondering about, a problem I have with the whole concept of inerrancy. If people hold to inerrancy, which was the inerrant version of David's 'The Lord is my shepherd'. Is it the version he composed in a cave somewhere? The version that was first written down? Or the version that was compiled after the Exile as no 23 in the book of Psalms? What if there were changes in the Psalm along the way, revisions by David, copying errors later on? Which version of David's revised and rewritten work is the inerrant one?

It is very interesting that you consider the original tablets inerrant. Is this a common view among YECs?

If it was the original tablets that were inerrant, does that mean there could be copying errors, mistakes in translation, in transliteration from one alphabet to a newer one, misinterpretation of numerals, before Moses compiled the manuscripts/tablets together into the book we call Genesis?

This is a side issue and I am not trying to debate with you one it, more wondering how people fit inerrancy and tablet redaction together.

 

[vossler]

To be honest, I don't yet know how to understand 2 Tim 3:16. Again, what did Paul mean by "all" Scripture if the Bible had not yet been assembled? My impression is that the answer is a little less simple than the eisegetical "God used Paul to vaguely prophesy the assembly of Sciptures into today's Holy Bible."

So then how do you read Joshua 1:8

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
​

Does this only apply to the Pentateuch or the Law? Is the rest of the Old Testament, or for that matter the New Testament, considered not worthy of meditation and compliance?

What other source is there for divine authority? Please don't tell me science!

 

[laptoppop]

This is a question I have been wondering about, a problem I have with the whole concept of inerrancy. If people hold to inerrancy, which was the inerrant version of David's 'The Lord is my shepherd'. Is it the version he composed in a cave somewhere? The version that was first written down? Or the version that was compiled after the Exile as no 23 in the book of Psalms? What if there were changes in the Psalm along the way, revisions by David, copying errors later on? Which version of David's revised and rewritten work is the inerrant one?

It is very interesting that you consider the original tablets inerrant. Is this a common view among YECs?

If it was the original tablets that were inerrant, does that mean there could be copying errors, mistakes in translation, in transliteration from one alphabet to a newer one, misinterpretation of numerals, before Moses compiled the manuscripts/tablets together into the book we call Genesis?

This is a side issue and I am not trying to debate with you one it, more wondering how people fit inerrancy and tablet redaction together.

The Psalms, as primarily a collection of songs, is a bit of a special case. I would guess that it would be when the song was first written down, but you do raise good points.

Yes, this is a common view - not just YECs, but among various conservative churches/denominations/schools. And yes, this does allow for the copyist errors etc. that we see in the various extant versions of the texts. Some of the so-called "errors" in the Bible are often seen as copyist errors.

The good thing is that the variations are quite minor (amazingly so given the length of time in transmission), and, unless you want to handle snakes, do not affect any significant doctrines.

One more point though -- in terms of Genesis, the "original" autographs would typically be seen as when Moses wrote it down. Typical conservative scholarship rejects JEDP theory, etc. and sees Moses as a primary author. He may have had sources, but the writing (and inspiration) was his.

 

[Willtor]

Help me out here, do you believe the entire Bible is as God intended for it to be? If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that anything outside of those books is not to be considered Scripture? How else would we know what should be considered Scriptural text and what isn't?

In a sense I would say that it is in the form God intended for it to be. Of course, God knew what forms it was going to take. But I don't assign any higher meaning to its compilation in codex form than I do that my particular travel Bible has a black leather cover.

As to the rest, I'm not sure I understand the context of the questions. Don't mistake my views for thinking that the canon should be other than it is. Merely that the significance of a codex is not on account of fitting literary devices together.

 

[Mallon]

Which strikes again at the heart of the matter. If the Scriptures are from God, then He surely knew and knows about all things. If they are limited to human understanding, then your statement makes sense.

I would argue that the Scripture ARE from God, filtered through the limitations of human understanding. We see this all over the Scriptures. We see this when reference is made to a flat earth, a geocentric solar system, a six-day creation, a sky with windows, etc., etc., etc. Paul himself even admits to "uninspired" wisdom (1 Cor 7:12). Thankfully, I have yet to find a Scriptural verse that states, "The medium is the message." God's spiritual/eternal truths resonate despite man's finite nature. That's the power of God!

However, the Lord has used prophecy, for example, to help us understand that what was written was plainly not limited to the understanding and knowledge of the authors involved.

I agree! I see no reason to assume that God blessed all authors with perfect knowledge of everything, however. Do you?
Regardless, even biblical prophesy is quite obviously metaphorical at times. Take Genesis' description of Jesus crushing the head of the snake, for example.

 

[vossler]

As to the rest, I'm not sure I understand the context of the questions. Don't mistake my views for thinking that the canon should be other than it is. Merely that the significance of a codex is not on account of fitting literary devices together.

I'm not sure what the statement or idea of fitting literary devices together is in reference to. If you believe the codex is complete, what makes it so? How do you know? Was it man's initiative and knowledge that made it so or was it God working His perfect will through man?