Shouldn't Creationism be taught at public schools?

[Doug Brents]

If it were not an inference there would be no debate.

So it does not matter who the author was. Could have been Moses, Isaiah, Jerimiah, David and many, many others.

As @David Lamb points out, Jesus credits Moses with the writing of the Law (Luke 24:44). Here, Moses is equated with the Law portion of the Scriptures (the first five books of the Bible).

 

[Doug Brents]

This has nothing to do with me. I'm talking about literature of early church fathers and rabbis of antiquity.

And they were just as wrong as you are.

It's not even debatable. Jewish rabbis of antiquity and early church fathers left plenty of literature on their understanding of Genesis, and it is nothing like what you're arguing for.

People have eyeballs, in case you didn't know. It's in plain view. The early church and early rabbis of antiquity, and all ancient near eastern cultures abroad, collectively, both Bible scholars and extra Biblical alike, describes ancient cosmologies. That's how the Bible has historically been understood.

That's tradition. And anyone with eyeballs can see that. It's not even a secret. It's right in plain view for anyone that spends 10 minutes reading about ancient church literature.

And Saint John Chrysostom and John Calvin, bereshit rabba and the Hebrew Torah are not "sects". This is church tradition.

Again, it doesn't matter who they were that had these false understandings of what Scripture says. It is easy to read for ourselves that the heavens, the earth, and all life in the universe (which all resides on Earth) was created in six evening and morning periods (six days). And from that point to the Flood was 1658 years (making the Earth 1658 years old at that point). And then Joseph was born in 2200 (from Creation), and Moses was born in 2374 (from Creation), and Jesus was born in 3901 (from Creation), and this year is 5923 from Creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

And they were just as wrong as you are.

Again, it doesn't matter who they were that had these false understandings of what Scripture says.

Then don't call your position traditional, if you want to ignore the early church and rabbinic literature of antiquity.

Your position is anything but that. Your position is completely new-aged. It's some form of progressive scientism masquerading as "traditional" but in fact, you're ignoring the actual traditional writings on this topic.

 

[Doug Brents]

Then don't call your position traditional, if you want to ignore the early church and rabbinic literature of antiquity.

Your position is anything but that. Your position is completely new-aged. It's some form of progressive scientism masquerading as "traditional" but in fact, you're ignoring the actual traditional writings on this topic.

I have never said anything about the truth I have stated being "traditional". It is Biblically accurate, but the fact that people today or 3000 years ago not believing it is irrelevant.

And you keep posting these links to some youtube videos. What is that about? Why do you continually post the same links over and over. They are completely irrelevant to the conversation. Do you think that I am addicted to, and get all of my education through videos? That certainly is a "new age" idea, but I can read the Scriptures for myself, and find the truth in the Scriptures, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for myself. I don't need youtube to tell me what the truth is.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have never said anything about the truth I have stated being "traditional". It is Biblically accurate, but the fact that people today or 3000 years ago not believing it is irrelevant.

It is relevant. Because:

Hence the more credible the tradition that dates back to the writing of the document.

You're not practicing what you preach. You're placing emphasis on tradition, with respect to the veracity of scripture, yet simultaneously, you're completely ignoring tradition.

It is when that tradition dates back, unchanged, from the time that the documents were written.

Here again, you're speaking of tradition, as if you align or follow it. And yet, every historical document that we have from the early church and early Jewish literature on Genesis, says something completely different than what you're arguing here, today.

You're trying to argue a position of respecting tradition. But then when we actually start talking about tradition, you quickly disregard it.

 

[Doug Brents]

It is relevant. Because:

You're not practicing what you preach. You're placing emphasis on tradition, with respect to the veracity of scripture, yet simultaneously, you're completely ignoring tradition.

Here again, you're speaking of tradition, as if you align or follow it. And yet, every historical document that we have from the early church and early Jewish literature on Genesis, says something completely different than what you're arguing here, today.

You're trying to argue a position of respecting tradition. But then when we actually start talking about tradition, you quickly disregard it.

You are correct. I was mistaken in my assertion that tradition has any value in the discussion of Scripture. I was wrong. Thank you for pointing that out. (not trying to sound sarcastic there, I am truly and honestly appreciative)

What matters is what Scripture says. And it is Jesus in Scripture that says that Moses was the writer of the books of the Law (Luke 24:44), and it was Moses in Scripture that said that the world was Created from nothing in 6 days (Gen 1). And John and the Hebrew writer corroborate the Genesis account by saying that God didn't start with anything when He began creation, and He made everything that exists from nothing more than His own power.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are correct. I was mistaken in my assertion that tradition has any value in the discussion of Scripture. I was wrong. Thank you for pointing that out. (not trying to sound sarcastic there, I am truly and honestly appreciative)

What matters is what Scripture says.

Well, that presents serious issue. Because of course, who would know what scripture says better than the traditional perspective of the people who originally wrote and listened to and taught it?

And I'll give an example to elaborate.

Imagine if you had a man in the woods. And he saw mmm, let's say he saw a tree. And let's say he touched this tree and it was saturated with water from a heavy rain. And that man then turned and said, hm, there is water in the trunk. And then that same man took a piece of paper, and wrote "there is water in the trunk" on that paper.

And he put that piece of paper in the caves of qumran. Then 2000 years in the future, some random guy on Christian forums came around, and let's say this guy has a job as a car mechanic, and he works on cars all the time. And he loves working with car trunks. The space and size and shape of car trunks. He is infatuated with car trunks. And let's say he discovers that paper and he looks at that paper and sees, "there is water in the trunk". Then he turns and says, oh, I know what that means, scripture says it so plainly and it's just so obvious to me. I know what a trunk is. This means that there must have been water in the car trunk.

Don't you see why that would be wrong?

By bypassing or ignoring tradition, you're essentially sacrificing the original context of scripture for your own personal gain. And scripture essentially loses all its credibility if any old random joe can say what it "really" means, without accounting for tradition.

If you can't account for the tradition of scripture, then no one will take your position seriously.

Tradition is important because it provides clarity and insight, into what the original understanding was of the text.

And by bypassing tradition and saying "humpf, well I know better than the early church fathers because I have the Bible and I can read what it says and it's obvious to me that they were all wrong".

That's not honest.

Traditional context is the only thing that grounds the Bible, and without it, anybody at any point in time can reinvent the meaning of scripture.

And you can believe whatever it is that you want to believe, but nobody's going to take you seriously if you disregard tradition. Just as the man with the car trunk who sees "there is water in the trunk" and thinks that "scripture is plain and clear", without understanding that context matters. History and tradition matters.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

As @David Lamb points out, Jesus credits Moses with the writing of the Law (Luke 24:44). Here, Moses is equated with the Law portion of the Scriptures (the first five books of the Bible).

The Exodus narrative certainly has Moses bringing the Law down from Mt Sinai.
That does not necessitate him as author of the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).

 

[trophy33]

Not called to believe Genesis? Is Genesis not part of the "all Scripture" mentioned by Paul to Timothy?

“All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

Its possible to see something as profitable, but not as the pillar of your faith and its surely not required that profitable things must be literal, scientific or without errors.

We are called to believe in Christ, to live a clean life and to do good deeds. We are not called to push the literal reading of Genesis to public schools. Or to uncritically accept non-necessary religious traditions, for that matter.

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, that presents serious issue. Because of course, who would know what scripture says better than the traditional perspective of the people who originally wrote and listened to and taught it?

And I'll give an example to elaborate.

Imagine if you had a man in the woods. And he saw mmm, let's say he saw a tree. And let's say he touched this tree and it was saturated with water from a heavy rain. And that man then turned and said, hm, there is water in the trunk. And then that same man took a piece of paper, and wrote "there is water in the trunk" on that paper.

And he put that piece of paper in the caves of qumran. Then 2000 years in the future, some random guy on Christian forums came around, and let's say this guy has a job as a car mechanic, and he works on cars all the time. And he loves working with car trunks. The space and size and shape of car trunks. He is infatuated with car trunks. And let's say he discovers that paper and he looks at that paper and sees, "there is water in the trunk". Then he turns and says, oh, I know what that means, scripture says it so plainly and it's just so obvious to me. I know what a trunk is. This means that there must have been water in the car trunk.

Don't you see why that would be wrong?

Yes, you are making a hypothetical with a line with no context. Obviously there were no vehicles like the mechanic would be working on 2000 years ago when the paper was written, but even so, there is no other context to place what the writer meant. There is extensive context in Scripture that demonstrates that God made all that is from nothing, and He started Creation on day one with nothing other than Himself. He created all of the heavens and the earth first, then He began to create in them light, the atmosphere, etc.

By bypassing or ignoring tradition, you're essentially sacrificing the original context of scripture for your own personal gain. And scripture essentially loses all its credibility if any old random joe can say what it "really" means, without accounting for tradition.

Not at all. Because the context of the Scripture is within the Scripture itself.

If you can't account for the tradition of scripture, then no one will take your position seriously.

Tradition is important because it provides clarity and insight, into what the original understanding was of the text.

And by bypassing tradition and saying "humpf, well I know better than the early church fathers because I have the Bible and I can read what it says and it's obvious to me that they were all wrong".

That's not honest.

Yes, it is important to understand the cultural climate in which the books were written, because that makes what was written more clear. But to accept the "traditional understanding" even when it contradicts what was written is to say that the tradition is more accurate and more Holy than the Word of God. And that just is not so.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, you are making a hypothetical with a line with no context. Obviously there were no vehicles like the mechanic would be working on 2000 years ago when the paper was written, but even so, there is no other context to place what the writer meant. There is extensive context in Scripture that demonstrates that God made all that is from nothing, and He started Creation on day one with nothing other than Himself. He created all of the heavens and the earth first, then He began to create in them light, the atmosphere, etc.

Not at all. Because the context of the Scripture is within the Scripture itself.

Yes, it is important to understand the cultural climate in which the books were written, because that makes what was written more clear. But to accept the "traditional understanding" even when it contradicts what was written is to say that the tradition is more accurate and more Holy than the Word of God. And that just is not so.

Okay. Well when you figure out why tradition is important, the rest of us will be here. But until then, anyone who disregards tradition and historical context won't be taken seriously in any professional setting.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. Well when you figure out why tradition is important, the rest of us will be here. But until then, anyone who disregards tradition and historical context won't be taken seriously in any professional setting.

He said "the context of scripture is within scripture itself".

Ok sure. Whatever you want to believe.

That's probably the most nonsensical statement that I've heard anyone say about the Bible in a while.

@Doug Brents

If it were really that simple, none of us would even be having this conversation.

If you have a statement in the Bible "there is water in the trunk", unless you know the traditional context, whether it's a mechanic working with car trunks or it's a man in the woods working with tree trunks, if you don't know that traditional context, then scripture becomes essentially meaningless because you can't differentiate one concept from another.

If scripture can means many things, then it essentially means nothing. And only the tradition of the text can illuminate the original meaning.

 

[Job 33:6]

He said "the context of scripture is within scripture itself".

Ok sure. Whatever you want to believe.

That's probably the most nonsensical statement that I've heard anyone say about the Bible in a while.

@Doug Brents

If it were really that simple, none of us would even be having this conversation.

If you have a statement in the Bible "there is water in the trunk", unless you know the traditional context, whether it's a mechanic working with car trunks or it's a man in the woods working with tree trunks, if you don't know that traditional context, then scripture becomes essentially meaningless because you can't differentiate one concept from another.

If scripture can means many things, then it essentially means nothing. And only the tradition of the text can illuminate the original meaning.

Here is what is going to happen if we sacrifice tradition and traditional readings of the Bible. you're going to get a person who sees a tree trunk And they write on a piece of paper that there is water in the trunk, and then 2,000 years. In the future, you're going to get someone who reads that and thinks that it's talking about a car trunk, and in 2000 years in the future later, you're going to get some other random person who's going to think that it's talking about an elephant trunk.


And so on and so forth, you'll end up with countless, countless different interpretations of scripture, believing that they have the most plain and obvious reading of the text. Because everyone knows what a trunk is after all, it's so obvious and plainly stated, right?

And this is exactly what modern young Earth creationism is. It's people who openly reject tradition, and they aren't ashamed of it. And in doing so, even though they think that they are protecting the Bible, they are actually destroying its legitimacy.

And Bible scholars are embarrassed by it, and the scientific community thinks that the church is stupid. And it's just turned into this big ugly eisegetical monster that The church has lost control of.

And that is basically the entire evolution versus creationism debate in a nutshell

 

[Doug Brents]

He said "the context of scripture is within scripture itself".

Ok sure. Whatever you want to believe.

That's probably the most nonsensical statement that I've heard anyone say about the Bible in a while.

@Doug Brents

If it were really that simple, none of us would even be having this conversation.

If you have a statement in the Bible "there is water in the trunk", unless you know the traditional context, whether it's a mechanic working with car trunks or it's a man in the woods working with tree trunks, if you don't know that traditional context, then scripture becomes essentially meaningless because you can't differentiate one concept from another.

If scripture can means many things, then it essentially means nothing. And only the tradition of the text can illuminate the original meaning.

What was the traditionally understood meaning of Hos 11:1? "When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son."
It was that the nation of Israel was in bondage and slavery in Egypt, and God rescued them, He called them, out of bondage into freedom through Moses. Yes? That was the "traditional" understanding of that passage. Yet when Matthew referred to that passage in Matt 2:15, who was he talking about? He says it was really a prophecy about Jesus, and that He would be called out of Egypt when He was a child. Traditional understanding is not always correct or complete. You are placing "tradition" above God's Word, but tradition is not truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is what is going to happen if we sacrifice tradition and traditional readings of the Bible. you're going to get a person who sees a tree trunk And they write on a piece of paper that there is water in the trunk, and then 2,000 years. In the future, you're going to get someone who reads that and thinks that it's talking about a car trunk, and in 2000 years in the future later, you're going to get some other random person who's going to think that it's talking about an elephant trunk.


And so on and so forth, you'll end up with countless, countless different interpretations of scripture, believing that they have the most plain and obvious reading of the text. Because everyone knows what a trunk is after all, it's so obvious and plainly stated, right?

And this is exactly what modern young Earth creationism is. It's people who openly reject tradition, and they aren't ashamed of it. And in doing so, even though they think that they are protecting the Bible, they are actually destroying its legitimacy.

And Bible scholars are embarrassed by it, and the scientific community thinks that the church is stupid. And it's just turned into this big ugly eisegetical monster that The church has lost control of.

And that is basically the entire evolution versus creationism debate in a nutshell

And if we shift our focus, and if we come to terms with the importance and significance of tradition, if we look at the most traditional resources that we have, we find that Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

The whole idea about counting people's ages and all that nonsense, that cropped up really in the 1600s. It's the furthest thing from tradition imaginable.

That's not to say that the early church fathers believed in an old earth either, however. Which is another issue that the church suffers from (things like gap theory for example).

But in fact, the most historical writings and interpretations of scripture, had nothing to do with any of these science-related topics that we concern ourselves with, today.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The four senses of Scripture is a four-level method of interpreting the Bible. In Christianity, the four senses are literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical. In Kabbalah the four meanings of the biblical texts are literal, allusive, allegorical, and mystical.


In Judaism, bible hermeneutics notably uses midrash, a Jewish method of interpreting the Hebrew Bible and the rules which structure the Jewish laws. The early allegorizing trait in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible figures prominently in the massive oeuvre of a prominent Hellenized Jew of Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, whose allegorical reading of the Septuagint synthesized the traditional Jewish narratives with Platonism. Philo's allegorizing, in which he continued an earlier tradition, had little effect on later Jewish thought, in part because the Jewish culture of Alexandria dispersed by the 4th century

Four senses of Scripture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

MIDRASH: The Stories We Tell

Breaking news, analysis, art, and culture from a progressive Jewish perspective. Sign up for our newsletter!

jewishcurrents.org

Let it be what it is. Don't try to make it a science book.

 

[Platte]

You ask in quite a weird way - expose myself to you? Just educate yourself about Genesis, you can start with wikipedia, Bible dictionaries or attend some Bible seminary. Even in a high school, you should learn the same info, in the literature subject.

What I said about Genesis and about its authorship or timing is not some secret, unknown teaching, its the mainstream, public, scholarly consensus you can find in many places if you are willing to learn about it.

What approach did Jesus give us as an example in his many references to the Old Testament? What did he say about believing what Moses said. Was his approach to take a mythological viewpoint of the Old Testament or did he take a literal acceptance of the Old Testament. Did Jesus consider the Old Testament to be the Word of God? Would you say that your approach to the Old Testament is the same approach that Jesus took?

 

[Platte]

You ask in quite a weird way - expose myself to you? Just educate yourself about Genesis, you can start with wikipedia, Bible dictionaries or attend some Bible seminary. Even in a high school, you should learn the same info, in the literature subject.

What I said about Genesis and about its authorship or timing is not some secret, unknown teaching, its the mainstream, public, scholarly consensus you can find in many places if you are willing to learn about it.

Your motive?

Very odd as a Christian for you to have such a strong opinion that the Bible is a mythological narrative....you provide no Biblical support to that opinion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What approach did Jesus give us as an example in his many references to the Old Testament?

He entered the narratives and even created many of his own for the moral points to be made..

What did he say about believing what Moses said. Was his approach to take a mythological viewpoint of the Old Testament or did he take a literal acceptance of the Old Testament.

We don't really know. Do we? I could talk to you about Captain Ahab and Moby Dick and you would not know if I think there are real historical persons or fictional characters.

Did Jesus consider the Old Testament to be the Word of God?

Yes, and yet he had a few new views on it. Didn't he?

Would you say that your approach to the Old Testament is the same approach that Jesus took?

That would be an excellent question of study and reflection for all of us. Don't take it for granted.