Support for ancients not viewing their stories as literal history

[seebs]

Using your example: For the sake of argument only, if it had been demonstrated conclusively that the Bible taught geocentrism - no "if's", "and's" or "but's" - then would that scripture be true or false?

Then it would be false.

Which is one of the reasons that, on consideration of this and other issues, the Christian faith has always taught that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Vance]

Using your example: For the sake of argument only, if it had been demonstrated conclusively that the Bible taught geocentrism - no "if's", "and's" or "but's" - then would that scripture be true or false?

Well, Scripture is never false, so that would simply mean that it was NOT meaning to convey any scientific truth after all. This is why I don't believe your hypothetical could happen, really. But if it did, would you think that the scientific proposition that the earth revolves around the sun was incorrect?

Or, better stated, if that was your reading of Scripture, and then you discovered what we know about our solar system, would you cling to your reading of Scripture, or would you even consider that you might have read that part incorrectly. Being human and all.

As for your statement that we, as mere humans, can be assured 100% that our particular interpretation of every Scripture is 100%, I would have to agree that are poles apart on that issue. This is contrary to Augustine, to the Westminster Confession (which I think you even quoted at one point), and simple humility. Can we know the truths presented in Scripture for salvation 100%? Absolutely! Can we be sure whether our reading of Romans 9-11 is 100% correct? I would never be so bold!

Heading out of town for the Scottish Games on the Queen Mary! back on Monday!

 

[California Tim]

Which is one of the reasons that, on consideration of this and other issues, the Christian faith has always taught that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

Based on what authority would you be capable of conclusively deciding that a book in error on any matter on which it discusses, is error free on any other matter including those on morality or faith?

 

[California Tim]

Well, Scripture is never false, so that would simply mean that it was NOT meaning to convey any scientific truth after all. This is why I don't believe your hypothetical could happen, really. But if it did, would you think that the scientific proposition that the earth revolves around the sun was incorrect?

Or, better stated, if that was your reading of Scripture, and then you discovered what we know about our solar system, would you cling to your reading of Scripture, or would you even consider that you might have read that part incorrectly. Being human and all.

As for your statement that we, as mere humans, can be assured 100% that our particular interpretation of every Scripture is 100%, I would have to agree that are poles apart on that issue. This is contrary to Augustine, to the Westminster Confession (which I think you even quoted at one point), and simple humility. Can we know the truths presented in Scripture for salvation 100%? Absolutely! Can we be sure whether our reading of Romans 9-11 is 100% correct? I would never be so bold!

Heading out of town for the Scottish Games on the Queen Mary! back on Monday!

That was a nice side-step on the geocentrism issue. I know you must have winced when you read my challenge, because it forced you to finally acknowledge, albiet in a roundabout way that the Bible does not, nor did it ever teach geocentrism. Therefore to continually use it as an example to refute that which Gensis DOES plainly convey is a substandard argument IMO.

As far as what we can be sure of scripturally, I fail to see on what basis a person can single out the matter of salvation as the "only" knowable truth. It implies that no one can ever know the truth of anything but salvation issues, which frankly renders the need for the "rest" of the Bible questionable at best. So while I agree that we can be in error on other issues while maintaining sufficient knowledge to be saved, I do not feel the peripheral issues are beyond the scope of proper interpretation to those willing to discern them. They are knowable.

 

[gluadys]

Tell me you are joking right? Someone - any TE'ist, please answer this question so adeptly avoided or evaded to date: Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

No, I am not joking at all. I really do not read the bible, not even the creation accounts, with Origin of Species in the other hand. When I go to the creation accounts I do not have scientific questions in mind. When I do have scientific questions in mind, I go to a source of scientific information.

Yes, a strictly literal historical interpretation is incompatible with evolution. But that is not and never was the primary reason I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Like Vance, I had already come to the conclusion that these were not historical accounts before I examined the matter of evolution. Unlike Vance, I did not have to go against a Christian upbringing which took a literal interpretation as correct.

In my youth I was a member of the United Church of Canada. The equivalent denomination in the US would be the United Methodist Church. One of the things this means is that we were never told the bible must be interpreted literally. Nor were we told that it must not. (In spite of extremely liberal statements that come from UCC headquarters, then and now, the rank and file of UCC membership can be quite conservative especially in the rural areas where I was raised. I certainly was never told that Adam and Eve were not real people or that Noah's flood did not really happen.)

I was also exposed to more conservative points of view through relatives who were non-denominational or Jehovah's Witness. And in high-school I was an enthusiastic participant in our bible club and in Youth For Christ, both very conservative influences.

I suppose the contrast between the liberal approach of the UCC and the more conservative approach of the other groups, and especially Jehovah's Witnesses introduced me very early to the fact that different people study the bible differently and come to different conclusions. The interesting thing is that evolution was not a big part of this. Blood transfusions were a much hotter topic.

I remember that when I was about 13 or 14, I made a very conscious decision not to become JW. I recognized that they seemed to know the bible very well. They asked questions (e.g. about the Trinity) which I could not answer. They seemed to have a more coherent and consistent belief system than any other I knew. Yet I rejected it because even at that age I found their literature devoid of love. I found the god they described arrogant and selfish. And that was not the God I had come to know and love through my UCC Sunday School.

I remember at 15 making a commitment to Jesus as Lord in a Bible Club session. The speaker that day was a Youth for Christ leader. I remember I focused on Jesus as Lord, because---though I don't remember when---I knew that I was already committed to Jesus as Saviour. I honestly don't remember any time in my life when that was not a given. But that day, I realized there was more to Christian living than acknowledging Jesus as Saviour. There was this whole business of following Jesus wherever he called me to go. That is the commitment I made then and from which I never retreated.

At 16 I began teaching Sunday School and at 17 I was baptized and confirmed. The next year (1960) was a time of great controversy in the UCC and even across the whole country given that the UCC is the largest and most influential Protestant church in Canada. That was the year of The New Curriculum, and the more conservative element of the church attacked it with venom.

The unusual thing about The New Curriculum was that in the first year, the only publication was an adult study curriculum. People had known that a new Sunday School curriculum was in the offing, but they expected it would be for kids. But sensibly, the Christian education staff pressed the point that adult teachers of kids needed to know what they were teaching, and that meant being given access to the best theological teaching. What made this startling is that there was at least a 50 year gap between the theology taught in theological colleges and that taught to people in the pew. So it was catch-up time.

As a Sunday School teacher, I was caught in the middle of this. I still have my copy of "The Word and the Way" around somewhere. If it were handy I would cite some of what it says about the inspiration of scripture and what is meant when we call the bible the word of God.

Throughout this time, evolution was never a big question. I knew that JWs were against evolution, and also some other conservative groups from which I received tracts. Evolution was not featured in our high-school science texts at all at that time, so the question was never raised in class. Nor was it discussed at church. I had no reason to disbelieve what I was hearing about evolution from my sole source of information. So, when I entered university, I was becoming thoroughly liberal in theology and my approach to scripture, yet was still a "creationist" on the matter of evolution.

At university my primary focus was on language and literature, which included being introduced to literary criticism. The essential textbook for this course in practically every English-speaking university around the world at the time was Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. Frye was a professor of English literature at the University of Toronto. One of the courses he taught (and created) was on the Bible and Literature. (notice "and" not "as") His experience had taught him that one cannot understand English literature without a good grounding in the bible, and fewer and fewer of his students had a grounding in the bible. So this course was both to introduce students to the bible and follow its impact on English literature. Frye eventually put the basics of this course into a book called The Great Code in which he explains a lot about the metaphorical thought framework in which the bible was written and how it differs from the discursive fact-oriented framework of modern Western thought. (As a sample, for the modern Western mind, Jesus saying "This bread is my body" cannot be a factual statement, only a metaphor. But to the disciples it would be a factual statement because it is a metaphor. In metaphorical thinking metaphors are factual statements of relationships.) So both my church background and my literary background provided most of the reason not to treat the creation accounts literally. And this was before, though not long before I looked at the evolution question.

My university textbook did include a chapter on evolution (though we never studied it in class). I read the chapter on genetics and the chapter on evolution and it was as if a light went on. "So that's how God did it! Brilliant!" I expect it was that easy for me to accept evolution because I had already accepted a theology that made it possible. Not that I learned a darn thing about science--especially evolution--as I learned theology. It was just not on the agenda. What was on the agenda was learning how to understand scripture. So my objection to literalism is and always has been primarily on theological and literary grounds, not scientific grounds.

I didn't even begin to get engaged in creo-evo debates until over 20 years later--when I had my own children's education to consider. I didn't want them growing up with the idea that Christians must be anti-science or that a literal interpretation of scripture was the only valid interpretation.

 

[SBG]

Waiting seebs, for you to back up your claim. Would you rather dismiss it as nonsense or do you actually have evidence that Christians who believe the creation accounts as literal history are not in agreement together with what is written in Genesis?

 

[California Tim]

In my youth I was a member of the United Church of Canada.

Thank you for your testimony. Having grown up through grade 9 in Alberta, I am familiar with the UCC, although at the time we settled on attending an assemblies church. I was also introduced to what I feel was a superior education system insofar as the basics were concerned, while the science classes seemed quite advanced as well considering our age. Consequently, I was introduced to evolution as fact long before I even seriously read my Bible as a youth and since we attended church sporadically at best in those days, I had no guidance otherwise. I also had not formed a solid opinion either way until I became an adult but instinctively felt an unease, as evolution seemed far fetched for some unknown reason. From this point on, your path and mine diverged on this issue, but as you now see, we have two things in common: not only are we brothers in Christ, but at one time were fellow cannucks.... eh.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you for your testimony. Having grown up through grade 9 in Alberta, I am familiar with the UCC, although at the time we settled on attending an assemblies church. I was also introduced to what I feel was a superior education system insofar as the basics were concerned, while the science classes seemed quite advanced as well considering our age. Consequently, I was introduced to evolution as fact long before I even seriously read my Bible as a youth and since we attended church sporadically at best in those days, I had no guidance otherwise. I also had not formed a solid opinion either way until I became an adult but instinctively felt an unease, as evolution seemed far fetched for some unknown reason. From this point on, your path and mine diverged on this issue, but as you now see, we have two things in common: not only are we brothers in Christ, but at one time were fellow cannucks.... eh.

And thanks for the insight on where you are coming from. But let's make that brother and sister in Christ, eh? (I note you have been long enough away from Alberta to forget the obligatory question mark that accompanies "eh". )

I am not surprised that evolution seemed far-fetched. It seemed that way to me to, until I took the time to look at it more closely.

What I would be curious about is whether your solid position against evolution happened to coincide with a firmer tie to your church and its teaching on the subject?

 

[California Tim]

And thanks for the insight on where you are coming from. But let's make that brother and sister in Christ, eh? (I note you have been long enough away from Alberta to forget the obligatory question mark that accompanies "eh". )

I am not surprised that evolution seemed far-fetched. It seemed that way to me to, until I took the time to look at it more closely.

What I would be curious about is whether your solid position against evolution happened to coincide with a firmer tie to your church and its teaching on the subject?

How soon I forget. Well you know the "use it or lose it" axiom applies to language and you are right, I forgot the question mark after "eh". As for my other slip, sister, I had hoped to wiggle out of that one by relying on the fact that were neither male nor female in heaven - but the truth was, I forgot to check your icon clearly telling me what a fool I'd be otherwise. What I wouldn't give if those could be my only mistakes in life - but alas I've hoarded not only my fair share but someone elses too. In the end I must confess a heavy reliance on your patience and grace in order to keep me out of the doghouse.

 

[Smidlee]

So there are people who believe the first nine chapters in the book of First chronicles were not real people but is written to teach us a lesson? I trying to read ...zzz.. oh ... these nine chapters a....gain .... zzzzzzzzz.... can't seem to stay awake ...... zzzzz.... What the purpose ......zzzzzz.... read ...zzzzz. this.........zzzzzzzzzzz......... uh? .........zzzz ..... so boring........zzzzzzzzzzzz....... Oh, I getting it. It helps me to go to sleep..... continue to read ........

 

[seebs]

Based on what authority would you be capable of conclusively deciding that a book in error on any matter on which it discusses, is error free on any other matter including those on morality or faith?

Faith.

But I can only know about the Bible through my senses, and if my senses are wrong, I can't trust my experience of the Bible to be informative. My senses say grasshoppers have six legs. The Bible says four. Either I admit that the Bible is wrong about this, or I have no basis for even considering the Bible's claims at alll.

 

[SBG]

Faith.

But I can only know about the Bible through my senses, and if my senses are wrong, I can't trust my experience of the Bible to be informative. My senses say grasshoppers have six legs. The Bible says four. Either I admit that the Bible is wrong about this, or I have no basis for even considering the Bible's claims at alll.

You think that your sense are enough to judge God's Word to see if it is truthful? You don't think it is possible that you just don't understand all that is written?

Are you really going to try and take God's throne and judge His Word on whether it is correct or not, based on your senses? Rather foolish I think.

 

[notto]

You think that your sense are enough to judge God's Word to see if it is truthful? You don't think it is possible that you just don't understand all that is written?

Are you really going to try and take God's throne and judge His Word on whether it is correct or not, based on your senses? Rather foolish I think.

I think it is safe to assume that if our interpretation of scripture directly conflicts with the physical creation that it is our interpretation that is incorrect. Christian scientists came to this conclusion long ago and had no problem revising their interpretations of scripture when they actually looked at the creation and realized that it didn't match their interpretations.

 

[seebs]

You think that your sense are enough to judge God's Word to see if it is truthful?

No. But I think I can, and must, judge the Bible. (The Bible is not the Word; that would be bibliolatry.)

If I do not form an opinion of the Bible, it has no meaning to me. I must form an opinion of it. Anyone can hand me a holy book and say "this is the truth about God". What makes the Bible better than the Quran, or the Book of Mormon, or anything else? Stop and think; you're about to tell me why I should accept it, right?

Well, in so doing, you admit that I have to judge it. To accept it, you must judge it acceptable. To believe it, you must judge it believable. We must do this; there is no way to preach from the Bible without first thinking about what it is!

You don't think it is possible that you just don't understand all that is written?

Indeed, it's quite possible. In which case, perhaps I misunderstand a passage here or there. But hey, I'm fine with that. Once you grant that it is possible to misunderstand the text, I'm fine with not being a YEC, because I can just assert that maybe you misunderstand it.

Are you really going to try and take God's throne and judge His Word on whether it is correct or not, based on your senses? Rather foolish I think.

Once again, the Word is Jesus, not the Bible.

As to whether I'm judging... Are you willing to take God's throne and judge the Quran? If so, then you are as arrogant as anyone who judges the Bible. We have texts, people make claims, we evaluate the claims, and in so doing, we evaluate the texts.

I can't have a belief without forming opinions, and that involves judgment... Or, more properly, discernment. So I study and pray, and conclude that God meant one thing and not another... And sometimes I'm wrong, because people are like that. So? I'm not going to appoint you the supreme moral authority of my life just because I, being human, am sometimes wrong... Because you are also human.

 

[Vance]

That was a nice side-step on the geocentrism issue. I know you must have winced when you read my challenge, because it forced you to finally acknowledge, albiet in a roundabout way that the Bible does not, nor did it ever teach geocentrism. Therefore to continually use it as an example to refute that which Gensis DOES plainly convey is a substandard argument IMO..

No, of course, I didn't "wince" when I read your challenge. I have said all along that the Bible does not "teach" geocentrism. I have said that very thing so often that it has become a mantra. The point is not whether it teaches geocentrism at all, but whether humans, in interpreting Scripture, BELIEVED that a heliocentric view was contrary to Scripture since Scripture was written from a geocentric perspective. I am not sure how many times I have to explain that same point, but I will continue to do so as long as peope continue to misrepresent the point being made.

And this is why the geocentrism issue is directly relevant. The fact is that even though the Scripture does not TEACH geocentrism, Christians believed it did, in fact insisted upon it. Just as the Bible does not teach a young earth, but many Christians believe it does.

To the geocentrist, the Bible supports geocentrism as strongly as it does a young earth. You have read their stuff, I presume, so you know this to be true.

As far as what we can be sure of scripturally, I fail to see on what basis a person can single out the matter of salvation as the "only" knowable truth. It implies that no one can ever know the truth of anything but salvation issues, which frankly renders the need for the "rest" of the Bible questionable at best. So while I agree that we can be in error on other issues while maintaining sufficient knowledge to be saved, I do not feel the peripheral issues are beyond the scope of proper interpretation to those willing to discern them. They are knowable.

Oh, I agree, they are able to be comprehended, it would be crazy to think they could not be. But they are not not always immediately obvious on a "plain reading". And, because they are often difficult and many-layered, I think that while we can understand much, it would be folly to believe we have it all correct. As a great theologian recently said, "I am sure that there is about a third of this I am getting wrong. The problem is that I can't know which third it is!" I am humble enough to say the same thing.

 

[Antonio83]

Vance,

Concerning the Book of Job....


Ezekiel 14:14
Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness," says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20
even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live," says the Lord GOD, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness."

 

[Vance]

Vance,

Concerning the Book of Job....


Ezekiel 14:14
Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness," says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20
even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live," says the Lord GOD, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness."

Can you not hold up a non-historical character as an exemplar of a righteous ideal?

I believe that Job may have been based on an historical figure who was, indeed, very righteous. But I agree with Calvin on this one that it is not necessary to consider the story told as being entirely historical.

 

[Antonio83]

Can you not hold up a non-historical character as an exemplar of a righteous ideal?

I can, but it is not as powerful and inspirational (to me) as an historical character would be.

I believe that Job may have been based on an historical figure who was, indeed, very righteous. But I agree with Calvin on this one that it is not necessary to consider the story told as being entirely historical.

Necessary for.......say salvation? That would be a "no". Necessary for what exactly?

Historical?
I believe it is.

If the book of Job is a non-historical account, would you consider any parts of the story to contain true historical details?

 

[Vance]

I can, but it is not as powerful and inspirational (to me) as an historical character would be.



Necessary for.......say salvation? That would be a "no". Necessary for what exactly?

Historical?
I believe it is.

If the book of Job is a non-historical account, would you consider any parts of the story to contain true historical details?

I am not sure if some, all, or none of Job is historical, and I am not sure we CAN know that, and I am convinced that it does not matter. But I can respect your answer that it would be more powerful for you if he was historical. For me, it would not be more powerful in the least. Do I find the story of the good Samaritan less powerful than the story of an historical character? Do I take it less seriously? Can it possibly be said that this parable, or the prodigal son, has had less impact than it would have if it had been about an historical figure?

And, to answer your question with a question, do I find those parables less "necessary"?

When God talks, I listen. Regardless of the literary vehicle he uses.

 

[Antonio83]

I am not sure if some, all, or none of Job is historical, and I am not sure we CAN know that, and I am convinced that it does not matter. But I can respect your answer that it would be more powerful for you if he was historical. For me, it would not be more powerful in the least. Do I find the story of the good Samaritan less powerful than the story of an historical character? Do I take it less seriously? Can it possibly be said that this parable, or the prodigal son, has had less impact than it would have if it had been about an historical figure?

And, to answer your question with a question, do I find those parables less "necessary"?

When God talks, I listen. Regardless of the literary vehicle he uses.

We are talking about the book of Job, not about parables of Jesus. Its obvious that Jesus is just telling a story that doesn't have to be regarded as historical. On the other hand, the book of Job is not so obvious in that respect, as this thread clearly shows..

I don't want to get into circles right now and I'm sure you don't either. With that said, what do you view in the Bible, Vance, as historically accurate? Break it down for me. What really happened?