Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[rjs330]

While it is true that God exists in eternity and to him time is meaningless, it's obvious from Genesis on that God understood that time is not meaningless to,us. In fact it appears that God knew we would exist in time and we would use time. Even though we are eternal beings we don't understand or can't really grasp the true concept of eternity while we exist on this plane.
Gods understanding of all this is revealed from the very beginning as he established his creation in time concepts. This time concept was given by God himself. The evening and morning were the first day. God created in time and in days. Six days to be exact. This is established in Genesis and reaserted in Exodus. Six days. No more no less. How do we know this? Because he said so in his word.

 

[Hieronymus]

It attempts to provide a literal interpretation of Genesis that is compatible with science.

And so the popular scientific consensus (naturalism) is placed above the Word of God again..

 

[miamited]

And so the popular scientific consensus (naturalism) is placed above the Word of God again..

Right!

1. And that, of course, is the real and fullness of the issue. Man thinks that man's wisdom is the end all be all of knowledge and understanding. It can't have happened the way that God seems to have fairly clearly said because we know better! Our great knowledge of the things that God created has given us ample proof through the many, many scientific methods that man has found that what God has fairly clearly explained cannot be the truth. It just can't be!!!​
2. So, we, each as an individual do one of two things when faced with this conundrum. Either God's word just isn't the truth. For the unbeliever this is likely one of the greatest supports to such unbelief. God's word just cannot be true and therefore trusted, because man's great knowledge has given us absolute and unequivocal proof that the very beginning of the Scriptures is just some sort of mythical account. That this realm in which we live could possibly have been just 'poof' created in 6 days some 6,000 years ago is frankly just absolutely laughable. Therefore, since the beginning of this book that people claim is the truth is just absolutely laughable, then there's really no reason to believe that the rest of it isn't just more of the same.​
3. Or, we, as an individual, believe that there must be some way that we can reconcile what the great wisdom of man has found to be the absolute and unequivocal truth with the seemingly contradictory reading of the text of the Scriptures in its most plain and simple explanation.​

Of course, there is always the third option which I personally believe those who are the one's God calls His faithful servants believe. God's word is true and every man a liar.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[alexandriaisburning]

And that, of course, is the real and fullness of the issue. Man thinks that man's wisdom is the end all be all of knowledge and understanding. It can't have happened the way that God seems to have fairly clearly said because we know better! Our great knowledge of the things that God created has given us ample proof through the many, many scientific methods that man has found that what God has fairly clearly explained cannot be the truth. It just can't be!!!

This conclusion is unfair to those who find reasonable evidence within the natural world regarding the origins and evolution of the cosmos. Your conclusion presumes that the creation narrative in Genesis is the "default" answer to the question of the origin and evolution of the universe; however, there is no basis upon which to make this assertion, other than your presuppositions regarding the nature of the Scripture.

So then, it's presumptuous for you to characterize everyone who finds the scientific theories regarding the origin and evolution of the universe to be somehow purposefully antagonistic regarding the accounts in the biblical narrative; to the contrary, most probably assent to the conclusions of our current understanding because of the evidence that is now available. True enough, this evidence is relative to the context in which it is used as support, so there is an inherent circularity to it. However, the same is true of your position as well.

So, we, each as an individual do one of two things when faced with this conundrum.

I don't think that most see it as a "conundrum". The only way it's a conundrum is if you start with some specific presuppositions about the biblical texts, specifically about how they should be interpreted. As most probably don't hold these assumptions, I doubt that they see themselves as within the throes of a "conundrum".

Either God's word just isn't the truth.

Is that not true of everything? The meaningful question, of course, is how one demonstrates that the Scriptures are "the truth". This is not something that can be accomplished by human epistemology; it is an understanding that can only be apprehended by faith.

For the unbeliever this is likely one of the greatest supports to such unbelief. God's word just cannot be true and therefore trusted, because man's great knowledge has given us absolute and unequivocal proof that the very beginning of the Scriptures is just some sort of mythical account.

What is wrong with a "mythical account"? You are showing the biases of your modern, western notions of historicity by devaluing everything that cannot be "established" as historical. It's funny, then, that you would criticize people for applying the very standard you are promoting...

That this realm in which we live could possibly have been just 'poof' created in 6 days some 6,000 years ago is frankly just absolutely laughable. Therefore, since the beginning of this book that people claim is the truth is just absolutely laughable, then there's really no reason to believe that the rest of it isn't just more of the same.

If one naively believes that every word of Scripture must be "historical" or "accurate" or "true", then yes, one will be forced to throw out the whole of it. This is necessary conclusion, as the "accuracy" and "truthfulness" of the Scriptures will inevitably be filtered through our biases and preconceptions about what is and isn't "accurate" and "truthful". In doing so, of course, we conveniently ignore the complete lack of ability that we posses to substantiate these biases as being in any way legitimate.

Or, we, as an individual, believe that there must be some way that we can reconcile what the great wisdom of man has found to be the absolute and unequivocal truth with the seemingly contradictory reading of the text of the Scriptures in its most plain and simple explanation.

Contradictions only occur if we force the biblical texts to read as we, as modern, western thinkers, would assume "history" and "narrative" to read. We cannot countenance that the "mythological" could possibly have any value, and so we force ourselves to go to extraordinarily absurd lengths to "defend" our modernistic interpretation of Scripture against the same presuppositions that would invalidate the same interpretations! This, frankly, seems to be a pretty clear expression of a neurosis.

Of course, there is always the third option which I personally believe those who are the one's God calls His faithful servants believe. God's word is true and every man a liar.

A pity platitude, but you haven't actually said anything. By saying that "God's word is true", you are dragging along a mountain of philosophical baggage. After all, in order to define "true", you have to have a reference of some kind that is external to the Scriptures whereby you can compare and contrast it in order to assert that it is "true". However, this standard of "trueness" is not an objective one; rather, it is an arbitrary set of criteria that you have subconciously learned to apply via the philosophical milieu in which you were raised and in which you currently live.

The million dollar question, of course, is simple: Why should we think that the writers of Scripture shared this same worldview?

 

[thecolorsblend]

So what are your thoughts on this view? There is a link below.

It's well and good to have an opinion on the matter, I suppose, but (A) there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" and (B) people often beat each other up way too much over this. Creation cannot be replicated laboratory conditions. The levels of evolution required by the evolutionists also can't be replicated in laboratory conditions.

For me, I view the creation account of Genesis as true but not necessarily literal fact. There may not have been six literal days of a literal creation after which a literal Adam and a literal Eve ate literal fruit from a literal tree after being literally tempted by a literal serpent, after which the world fell into sin. It may well be literal. But I don't see that as an absolute. The main issue for me is that mankind embraced sin and rebellion against God. The exact ways and means of that are unknown for certain and may be unknowable. Again, there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" about this issue.

 

[rjs330]

This conclusion is unfair to those who find reasonable evidence within the natural world regarding the origins and evolution of the cosmos. Your conclusion presumes that the creation narrative in Genesis is the "default" answer to the question of the origin and evolution of the universe; however, there is no basis upon which to make this assertion, other than your presuppositions regarding the nature of the Scripture.

So then, it's presumptuous for you to characterize everyone who finds the scientific theories regarding the origin and evolution of the universe to be somehow purposefully antagonistic regarding the accounts in the biblical narrative; to the contrary, most probably assent to the conclusions of our current understanding because of the evidence that is now available. True enough, this evidence is relative to the context in which it is used as support, so there is an inherent circularity to it. However, the same is true of your position as well.



I don't think that most see it as a "conundrum". The only way it's a conundrum is if you start with some specific presuppositions about the biblical texts, specifically about how they should be interpreted. As most probably don't hold these assumptions, I doubt that they see themselves as within the throes of a "conundrum".



Is that not true of everything? The meaningful question, of course, is how one demonstrates that the Scriptures are "the truth". This is not something that can be accomplished by human epistemology; it is an understanding that can only be apprehended by faith.



What is wrong with a "mythical account"? You are showing the biases of your modern, western notions of historicity by devaluing everything that cannot be "established" as historical. It's funny, then, that you would criticize people for applying the very standard you are promoting...



If one naively believes that every word of Scripture must be "historical" or "accurate" or "true", then yes, one will be forced to throw out the whole of it. This is necessary conclusion, as the "accuracy" and "truthfulness" of the Scriptures will inevitably be filtered through our biases and preconceptions about what is and isn't "accurate" and "truthful". In doing so, of course, we conveniently ignore the complete lack of ability that we posses to substantiate these biases as being in any way legitimate.

I wonder why you do not believe the bible to be true. If indeed the Bible is the Word of God, wouldn't that in and of itself make the Bible true? You see it is ONLY by outside influence that anyone would perceive it not to be true. The Bible itself self-interprets Genesis as accurate and true as stated. Yet there are those that disbelieve the Genesis account and the basis of disbelief is always because some outside source has said so. And the problem with that is all outside sources are not inspired words of God. They are thoughts, ideas, assumptions and even heresies. But they are not inspired. Whereas the Bible is inspired making it true.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I wonder why you do not believe the bible to be true.

I never said that I believe the Bible is "not true". My point in responding earlier was to show how the assumptions about the "truthfulness" of the Scriptures has an incredibly complicated entanglement with the philosophical presuppositions of the person making the evaluation.

If indeed the Bible is the Word of God, wouldn't that in and of itself make the Bible true?

I'm not sure the correlation is as meaningful as you think it is. After all, even if we posit that the Scriptures are "objectively true", we nonetheless cannot escape the necessity of reading them, which invariably engages the act of interpretation. Even if the Scriptures are "the objective truth", that means very little to the subjectivity of human thinking, for there is no obvious nor demonstrable way to translate the content of "objective truth" to the subjectivity of mind. No matter how strongly we feel that the Scriptures are truth, we would have to (and should!) persistently maintain a level of healthy skepticism about the ability of our variable thinking to appropriate what we have posited as "objective truth".

You see it is ONLY by outside influence that anyone would perceive it not to be true.

Let's grant that this statement is meaningful to the discussion. If this is so, why on earth would we apply ANY interpretive methodologies to the Scriptures? By virtue of opening the pages and reading, we would be invalidating the very proposition of its truthfulness, for in the simple act of reading (and therefore, interpretation), we would be imputing innumerable "outside influences" onto the Scriptures, thereby indelibly altering the "perception" of its truthfulness. This is why I find it mind-boggling that many "defenders" of the Scriptures decry modern science and its related interpretive methodologies, but nevertheless legitimate the same methodologies by INSISTING that the Scriptures are "truthful" according to their very principles (e.g., "literal" renderings of the Genesis creation myth).

The Bible itself self-interprets Genesis as accurate and true as stated.

What does "accurate" and "true as stated" mean? Accurate to whom? True as stated to whom? You are importing an assumption (which you've inherited from your upbringing in the cultural milieu of modern, western philosophy) that "accuracy" equates to "historicity", and that "historicity" pertains to "literality". The modern mind cannot countenance the idea that a narrative could be (in terms of western standards) "fictional" or "mythological" and still have value. No, the modern western mind has evacuated "historical" literature of any value in any case that does not align with our assumptions about the verifiability of events.

The question, of course, is whether the ancient writers thought the same way about "narrative" and "history" and "mythology" as their modern day interpreters do. A very brief survey of ANE literature is quite revelatory in regard to these questions...and it might just give you a reason to more conscientiously suspend your philosophical biases when reading and interpreting the Scriptures.

Yet there are those that disbelieve the Genesis account and the basis of disbelief is always because some outside source has said so. And the problem with that is all outside sources are not inspired words of God. They are thoughts, ideas, assumptions and even heresies. But they are not inspired. Whereas the Bible is inspired making it true.

Even if we apply the ambiguous term of "true" to the Scriptures, this certainly doesn't mean that your interpretation of the Scriptures is "truth". If you interpret the Scriptures in a way that is inconsistent, if not alien, to the intentions of the original authors, is the "truth" of the Scriptures really something that is inherent to them, or something that you have imputed to them through your circular philosophical reasoning? I would argue the latter.

 

[miamited]

This conclusion is unfair to those who find reasonable evidence within the natural world regarding the origins and evolution of the cosmos. Your conclusion presumes that the creation narrative in Genesis is the "default" answer to the question of the origin and evolution of the universe; however, there is no basis upon which to make this assertion, other than your presuppositions regarding the nature of the Scripture.

Hi AIB,

Don't know about my conclusion being 'unfair'. It just is what it is. Read all the posts on this entire site regarding the creation account. There are surely thousands. Each and every one fits into that conclusion somewhere. It's either all a myth, it's true, but we aren't reading it correctly and so lets see how we can fit what is written into what we know through man's knowledge, or God's word is true, clear and simple in it's explanation. If you have another option just post it and I'll add it on. I am not here to be unfair.

Now, that I personally believe that God sees as faithful those who believe the last option is my personal understanding. It isn't unfair to anyone. It's just my understanding. I'm not the judge.

So then, it's presumptuous for you to characterize everyone who finds the scientific theories regarding the origin and evolution of the universe to be somehow purposefully antagonistic regarding the accounts in the biblical narrative; to the contrary, most probably assent to the conclusions of our current understanding because of the evidence that is now available. True enough, this evidence is relative to the context in which it is used as support, so there is an inherent circularity to it. However, the same is true of your position as well.

It may be presumptuous to you, but for me, it's what I understand of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are just chock a block full of warnings to those who are seeking after God that there will always be false teachers among us. God is on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. Paul speaks directly to the issue and warns us of accepting truths that are based on the natural properties of this world rather than on the person and work of Jesus. For whom and through whom all things that have been made were made

I don't think that most see it as a "conundrum". The only way it's a conundrum is if you start with some specific presuppositions about the biblical texts, specifically about how they should be interpreted. As most probably don't hold these assumptions, I doubt that they see themselves as within the throes of a "conundrum".

Right! That is exactly why it's a conundrum. Yes, I always start with the presupposition of the Scriptural text that it is the truth. It is the work of my Creator and my God to make Himself known to me.

Is that not true of everything? The meaningful question, of course, is how one demonstrates that the Scriptures are "the truth". This is not something that can be accomplished by human epistemology; it is an understanding that can only be apprehended by faith.

Absolutly true!!!!

What is wrong with a "mythical account"? You are showing the biases of your modern, western notions of historicity by devaluing everything that cannot be "established" as historical. It's funny, then, that you would criticize people for applying the very standard you are promoting...

I certainly imagine that some people believe that. It's how they justify what they believe. Those who claim to believe the plain and simple truth of the Scriptures are 'showing the biases of modern, western notions of historicity by devaluing everything that cannot be "established" as historical. LOL! You did say it was funny didn't you?

If one naively believes that every word of Scripture must be "historical" or "accurate" or "true", then yes, one will be forced to throw out the whole of it. This is necessary conclusion, as the "accuracy" and "truthfulness" of the Scriptures will inevitably be filtered through our biases and preconceptions about what is and isn't "accurate" and "truthful". In doing so, of course, we conveniently ignore the complete lack of ability that we posses to substantiate these biases as being in any way legitimate.

I'm not able to grasp your point here. I have naively believed that every word of Scripture must be "historical" or "accurate" or "true" and I haven't thrown out a single word of it. Your logical argument is false. I am living proof of that.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rjs330]

I never said that I believe the Bible is "not true". My point in responding earlier was to show how the assumptions about the "truthfulness" of the Scriptures has an incredibly complicated entanglement with the philosophical presuppositions of the person making the evaluation.



I'm not sure the correlation is as meaningful as you think it is. After all, even if we posit that the Scriptures are "objectively true", we nonetheless cannot escape the necessity of reading them, which invariably engages the act of interpretation. Even if the Scriptures are "the objective truth", that means very little to the subjectivity of human thinking, for there is no obvious nor demonstrable way to translate the content of "objective truth" to the subjectivity of mind. No matter how strongly we feel that the Scriptures are truth, we would have to (and should!) persistently maintain a level of healthy skepticism about the ability of our variable thinking to appropriate what we have posited as "objective truth".



Let's grant that this statement is meaningful to the discussion. If this is so, why on earth would we apply ANY interpretive methodologies to the Scriptures? By virtue of opening the pages and reading, we would be invalidating the very proposition of its truthfulness, for in the simple act of reading (and therefore, interpretation), we would be imputing innumerable "outside influences" onto the Scriptures, thereby indelibly altering the "perception" of its truthfulness. This is why I find it mind-boggling that many "defenders" of the Scriptures decry modern science and its related interpretive methodologies, but nevertheless legitimate the same methodologies by INSISTING that the Scriptures are "truthful" according to their very principles (e.g., "literal" renderings of the Genesis creation myth).



What does "accurate" and "true as stated" mean? Accurate to whom? True as stated to whom? You are importing an assumption (which you've inherited from your upbringing in the cultural milieu of modern, western philosophy) that "accuracy" equates to "historicity", and that "historicity" pertains to "literality". The modern mind cannot countenance the idea that a narrative could be (in terms of western standards) "fictional" or "mythological" and still have value. No, the modern western mind has evacuated "historical" literature of any value in any case that does not align with our assumptions about the verifiability of events.

The question, of course, is whether the ancient writers thought the same way about "narrative" and "history" and "mythology" as their modern day interpreters do. A very brief survey of ANE literature is quite revelatory in regard to these questions...and it might just give you a reason to more conscientiously suspend your philosophical biases when reading and interpreting the Scriptures.



Even if we apply the ambiguous term of "true" to the Scriptures, this certainly doesn't mean that your interpretation of the Scriptures is "truth". If you interpret the Scriptures in a way that is inconsistent, if not alien, to the intentions of the original authors, is the "truth" of the Scriptures really something that is inherent to them, or something that you have imputed to them through your circular philosophical reasoning? I would argue the latter.

You are a living example of your point. Your philosophies are used to look at scripture. And that's the problem. If you do not let scripture speak for itself you err. My philosophies do not enter into scriptural understanding ofGenesis. I choose to let the scriptures speak for itself and let my understanding conform to what it declairs. If you do,anything else you are failing in true scholarship.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It's either all a myth, it's true, but we aren't reading it correctly and so lets see how we can fit what is written into what we know through man's knowledge, or God's word is true, clear and simple in it's explanation.

I'm not sure why you see a necessary juxtaposition between "myth" and "truth". Such a statement implies that you are beholden to modern assumptions about historicity that devalue everything that cannot be established on the basis of the criteria (which in themselves are arbitrarily defined) for what constitutes "really-happened-ness". However, if we suspend this bias and valuation, there need not be a division between "myth" and "truth".

Regarding the suggestion that the Scriptures are "clear and simple", I don't understand the basis upon which this assumption is made. Why should we suppose that a modern reading of the Scriptures corresponds to the intention of the ancient authors? People always suggest that we should allow the Scriptures to "speak for themselves", but fail to realize that the Scriptures are speaking an entirely different language, both in terms of actual linguistics, but even more importantly on the basis of the philosophical contexts in which they were written. Blindly assuming that the philosophical biases and worldviews which we hold as modern, western thinkers corresponds to that of people who lived thousands and thousands of years ago appears to be the height of interpretive naivety to me.

It may be presumptuous to you, but for me, it's what I understand of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are just chock a block full of warnings to those who are seeking after God that there will always be false teachers among us. God is on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. Paul speaks directly to the issue and warns us of accepting truths that are based on the natural properties of this world rather than on the person and work of Jesus. For whom and through whom all things that have been made were made

Are you not doing the same thing, however, in your false bifurcation of "myth" and "truth"? By imposing this paradigm upon your interpretation of Scripture, you are introducing a philosophical rule that may or may not have been shared by the ancient authors. Is this not precisely the same behavior against which Paul warns about?!?

Right! That is exactly why it's a conundrum. Yes, I always start with the presupposition of the Scriptural text that it is the truth. It is the work of my Creator and my God to make Himself known to me.

It's a conundrum from your point of view, because of your presuppositions. For those that do not share the same, there is no such crisis in belief, given that they have no reason (apart from your baseless assertions) to presume that the Scriptures say anything important about the subject.

I certainly imagine that some people believe that. It's how they justify what they believe. Those who claim to believe the plain and simple truth of the Scriptures are 'showing the biases of modern, western notions of historicity by devaluing everything that cannot be "established" as historical. LOL! You did say it was funny didn't you?

You can laugh all you want, but the criticism is valid. If "plain simple truth" corresponds to "what I interpret from an uncritical reading of Scripture", then absolutely you are probably guilty of imposing alien interpretive prisms upon the Scriptures. There's no reason to assume that the interpretation of Scripture should be "plain and simple"; moreover, given the distance (both in time, history, and philosophy) between us and the ancient authors, I would suggest that the more appropriate assumption about the Scriptures is that they should be difficult for modern interpreters to read, given the number of hurdles that must be overcome in order to try to approximate the intentions of authors who do not share our philosophical biases.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You are a living example of your point. Your philosophies are used to look at scripture. And that's the problem.

I don't disagree. I will be the first to admit that one's philosophical biases indellibly color one's interpretation of Scripture. We cannot escape our own biases, ultimately. The best we can do is be aware of how they shape our understanding, and do our best to suspend them in order to read through the "eyes" of the ancient writers.

This suspension of personal, cultural, and shared philosophical biases, however, is hard work, and one that is not done lightly. This is why the notion of a "simple" and "plain" reading of Scripture is fraught with danger, for what is "simple" and "plain" to us typically suggests that it is so because we have successfully filtered it through the prism of our deep-held biases and presuppositions.

If you do not let scripture speak for itself you err.

This is simply not possible. The act of interpretation is never passive; we always engage that which we read through the spectrum of our biases and presuppositions. We can never turn these completely off, so Scriptures will never "speak for themselves". The best we can do is acknowledge the challenges we face and do our best to suspend the biases which we are able to recognize.

My philosophies do not enter into scriptural understanding ofGenesis.

This is not true. This very claim denies itself, for by suggesting that your philosophies don't enter into your interpretations, you are only admitting that you don't approach interpretation in a critical enough way, and the unconscious biases and presuppositions that you hold (we all do!!) are free to run rampant.

I choose to let the scriptures speak for itself and let my understanding conform to what it declairs. If you do,anything else you are failing in true scholarship.

This is a noble notion, but it shows a complete lack of understanding about the nature of human epistemology. We are not blank slates waiting to be filled with knowledge, and our "understanding" is not an empty box waiting to be filled. The act of interpretation is never a one-sided affair, as if we mechanically process words by reading and then magically have understanding about the meaning of the words that we have read. No, interpretation is a conversation; we bring our biases, experiences, and yes, our understanding to the "dance", and it indelibly influences the result of our interpretation. If this were not so, there would never be controversies about the interpretation of Scriptures, for every act of interpretation would be an objective, reproducible experiment. But of course, human thinking doesn't work this way. When we approach the Scriptures, we do so with a variety of motivations, assumptions about what we'll read, and innumerable paradigms of thought through which what we read will be filtered.

While it is true that the interpreter that brings blatant biases to the text does harm to it, the one who uncritically approaches the Scripture, naive to the way in which the interpretation will be influenced by their latent biases and presuppositions, perhaps does more violence to the text. After all, the one who deliberately imposes a specific paradigm does so in awareness of what they are doing; the one who is uncritical altogether may only come away with self-deception.

 

[Hieronymus]

This conclusion is unfair to those who find reasonable evidence within the natural world regarding the origins and evolution of the cosmos.

Sorry, but there's not much evidence to support it.
There is however a huge propaganda lobby behind it, they even raped science for it.
And so they have Christians believe in naturalistic evolution because of peer pressure only.
Satan must be laughing his behind off.

 

[Hieronymus]

I never said that I believe the Bible is "not true".

It's implicit, isn't it?

My point in responding earlier was to show how the assumptions about the "truthfulness" of the Scriptures has an incredibly complicated entanglement with the philosophical presuppositions of the person making the evaluation.

That sounds really eloquent, but there is no case for an allegorical creation to be made based on Scripture, including what Jesus said.

There's not even a case for (special) evolution that stands the test.

 

[rjs330]

I don't disagree. I will be the first to admit that one's philosophical biases indellibly color one's interpretation of Scripture. We cannot escape our own biases, ultimately. The best we can do is be aware of how they shape our understanding, and do our best to suspend them in order to read through the "eyes" of the ancient writers.

This suspension of personal, cultural, and shared philosophical biases, however, is hard work, and one that is not done lightly. This is why the notion of a "simple" and "plain" reading of Scripture is fraught with danger, for what is "simple" and "plain" to us typically suggests that it is so because we have successfully filtered it through the prism of our deep-held biases and presuppositions.



This is simply not possible. The act of interpretation is never passive; we always engage that which we read through the spectrum of our biases and presuppositions. We can never turn these completely off, so Scriptures will never "speak for themselves". The best we can do is acknowledge the challenges we face and do our best to suspend the biases which we are able to recognize.



This is not true. This very claim denies itself, for by suggesting that your philosophies don't enter into your interpretations, you are only admitting that you don't approach interpretation in a critical enough way, and the unconscious biases and presuppositions that you hold (we all do!!) are free to run rampant.



This is a noble notion, but it shows a complete lack of understanding about the nature of human epistemology. We are not blank slates waiting to be filled with knowledge, and our "understanding" is not an empty box waiting to be filled. The act of interpretation is never a one-sided affair, as if we mechanically process words by reading and then magically have understanding about the meaning of the words that we have read. No, interpretation is a conversation; we bring our biases, experiences, and yes, our understanding to the "dance", and it indelibly influences the result of our interpretation. If this were not so, there would never be controversies about the interpretation of Scriptures, for every act of interpretation would be an objective, reproducible experiment. But of course, human thinking doesn't work this way. When we approach the Scriptures, we do so with a variety of motivations, assumptions about what we'll read, and innumerable paradigms of thought through which what we read will be filtered.

While it is true that the interpreter that brings blatant biases to the text does harm to it, the one who uncritically approaches the Scripture, naive to the way in which the interpretation will be influenced by their latent biases and presuppositions, perhaps does more violence to the text. After all, the one who deliberately imposes a specific paradigm does so in awareness of what they are doing; the one who is uncritical altogether may only come away with self-deception.

I completely disagree with you here in your final,analysis. While I agree that bias can play a role in scriptural understanding it doesn't have to. True scriptural scholarship strives to let scripture speak for itself. What does the text say? To do otherwise places our philosophies ahead of scripture. What you seem to be saying here is we can never really get the true meaning of scripture or really understand it because our bias always gets in the way. If that is true then it's just pure luck if we happen to get it right.

What I find, when it comes,to scriptural understanding, is that our bias usually comes from an outside source. Perhaps a book we read or a science we follow.

But real biblical scholarship takes proper hermeneutics and exegesis and applies that to,scripture and lets,the text do the talking. As Paul said
Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good.
2 Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2ti.3.16-17.CEB

It is all inspired and useful. How can we possibly teach, reprove and exhort if we cannot say what we are saying is correct? If,all interpretation is biased then we have no ability to truly understand or use scripture correctly.

Our goal when studying scripture should be to strip away our bias and let the word,of God transform our thoughts. Let scripture strip away our bias and let our thoughts conform to what the bible says.

Don’t be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you can figure out what God’s will is—what is good and pleasing and mature.
Romans 12:2 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.12.2.CEB

Therefore, if you were raised with Christ, look for the things that are above where Christ is sitting at God’s right side. Think about the things above and not things on earth.
Colossians 3:1‭-‬2 CEB
http://bible.com/37/col.3.1-2.CEB

We are to set our own thoughts aside and think on the things above. How do we know what the things above are? They are written i in Gods word. All scripture is inspired. When God says he created in six days it means he created in six days. To believe otherwise is putting biased thoughts ahead of what it says. Instead of thinking on the things above and having our thoughts transformed we are being bound by our worldly fleshly ideas and thoughts.

You are right it can be a battle. But it's a battle that can be won. Not all the time every time, but increasingly so as we seek,the truth of the GODS word.

 

[Speedwell]

It's implicit, isn't it?

No, it' not. It's just a fib you tell about AiB because you can't address the points he is raising.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, it' not.

Yes it is.

 

[Speedwell]

I completely disagree with you here in your final,analysis. While I agree that bias can play a role in scriptural understanding it doesn't have to. True scriptural scholarship strives to let scripture speak for itself. What does the text say? To do otherwise places our philosophies ahead of scripture. What you seem to be saying here is we can never really get the true meaning of scripture or really understand it because our bias always gets in the way. If that is true then it's just pure luck if we happen to get it right.

What I find, when it comes,to scriptural understanding, is that our bias usually comes from an outside source. Perhaps a book we read or a science we follow.

But real biblical scholarship takes proper hermeneutics and exegesis and applies that to,scripture and lets,the text do the talking. As Paul said
Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good.
2 Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 CEB
http://bible.com/37/2ti.3.16-17.CEB

It is all inspired and useful. How can we possibly teach, reprove and exhort if we cannot say what we are saying is correct? If,all interpretation is biased then we have no ability to truly understand or use scripture correctly.

Our goal when studying scripture should be to strip away our bias and let the word,of God transform our thoughts. Let scripture strip away our bias and let our thoughts conform to what the bible says.

Don’t be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you can figure out what God’s will is—what is good and pleasing and mature.
Romans 12:2 CEB
http://bible.com/37/rom.12.2.CEB

Therefore, if you were raised with Christ, look for the things that are above where Christ is sitting at God’s right side. Think about the things above and not things on earth.
Colossians 3:1‭-‬2 CEB
http://bible.com/37/col.3.1-2.CEB

We are to set our own thoughts aside and think on the things above. How do we know what the things above are? They are written i in Gods word. All scripture is inspired. When God says he created in six days it means he created in six days. To believe otherwise is putting biased thoughts ahead of what it says. Instead of thinking on the things above and having our thoughts transformed we are being bound by our worldly fleshly ideas and thoughts.

You are right it can be a battle. But it's a battle that can be won. Not all the time every time, but increasingly so as we seek,the truth of the GODS word.

So get to the point:

It's a fact that when people in ancient times wrote historial narratives , getting the facts right (even if they knew them) was not as important to them as the story they were telling. This is well established and documented by scholars of ancient literature.

Why is the Bible an exception? Why should we read the Bible as if it was a modern historical narrative, written in a time when getting the facts right is the most important thing about an historical narrative?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Sorry, but there's not much evidence to support it.
There is however a huge propaganda lobby behind it, they even raped science for it.
And so they have Christians believe in naturalistic evolution because of peer pressure only.
Satan must be laughing his behind off.

I don't get into debates about "evidence" for evolutionary theory. However, even if there is a single shred of evidence for evolutionary theory (I happen to think there's much, much more, but that's beside the point), that is infinitely more "evidence" than there is for the alternative that you would propose. So if "evidence" is so important to you, why do you ignore it's lack of existence when it pertains to the interpretations that you would offer?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes it is.

Well, perhaps it is for you, because you think that the only possible truth of the Bible consists of accurate historical data. But as you well know, AiB does not share that bias--so it's still a fib.

 

[rjs330]

So get to the point:

It's a fact that when people in ancient times wrote historial narratives , getting the facts right (even if they knew them) was not as important to them as the story they were telling. This is well established and documented by scholars of ancient literature.

Why is the Bible an exception? Why should we read the Bible as if it was a modern historical narrative, written in a time when getting the facts right is the most important thing about an historical narrative?

The bible is the exception because it is the inspired word of God. God does not deceive. He tells the truth in all things. The word was not written by just any old ancient historian just trying to tell a,story. It was written by men inspired,by the GOD to tell the TRUTH. God is not a man that he should lie. God proclaims the truth to counter the lies and deceptions of men.