Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[alexandriaisburning]

BTW, back in post #30 you made a claim.

I asked you for Scriptural reference of such a teaching and have not yet heard back from you. Do you have a response to that request?

I don't recall the specifics. I do remember that I was referencing something from Paul that you quoted, and was showing how you are doing precisely that against which he warns.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Are you suggesting we should repeat the past in a lab?

No, I'm not suggesting we repeat history in a lab. My point is that we have no reasonable basis upon which to make "predictions" about the likelihood of past events, and this for a number of reasons.

First, we have the problem of reproducibility. As there is only one universe that we know of and to which we have empirical access, we obviously cannot reproduce the beginning and evolution of the universe. Given this insurmountable hurdle, the only probability we can assign to the likelihood of the universe existing as-it-exists is precisely 1.

Second, we have the issue of an extremely limited data set. Since we only have empirical access to one universe, we have no way of comparing and contrasting its "state" against that of other universes. It could be that the evolution of the universe and life within it is extremely common; it could also be unique to our universe. Without a sufficient set of data, however, there is no reasonable basis upon which to suggest that any other state than that which we observe is more or less likely. So again, the probability resolves to 1.

Third, we have only an extremely limited visibility into the nature of our own universe. What seems "unlikely" might appear so because of simple ignorance that would be resolved by a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and processes of the evolution of the universe. Granted, a more comprehensive understanding might also lead us to the conclusion that the "state" of the universe is even more "unlikely" than some people already think it is. The point, however, is that without a more comprehensive understanding, the "probabilities" that we are assigning to the likelihood of the universe evolving into what it is, is simply not calculable.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that we are able to account for the deficiencies of one or more of the "problem areas" that I outlined above. What does this accomplish? Even if the conclusions based on this influx of new data were to force the likelihood to race infinitely fast toward 0, there remains nothing within this data that would suggest a supernatural origin. Assigning "God" the gaps in human understanding regarding the universe is never "necessitated" by contemplations of the universe itself, regardless of how infinitely big the gaps become.

 

[Hieronymus]

----------------

 

[Hieronymus]

So again, the probability resolves to 1.

Ah, you're the probablity guy, now i remember.
I also remember refuting that but i'm not planning on doing it again right now.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Ah, you're the probablity guy, now i remember.
I also remember refuting that but i'm not planning on doing it again right now.

I remember you responding with a collection of words to my earlier presentation of this. It certainly did not amount to a refutation.

 

[Hieronymus]

I remember you responding with a collection of words to my earlier presentation of this. It certainly did not amount to a refutation.

It most definitely did.

 

[miamited]

Hi speedwell,

I am truly not seeking to be offensive. I think that there are a couple of things that the Scriptures speak of that we, as believers, need to carefully and diligently consider as to their implications to the life of a believer.

The very first is that Jesus made a statement to his disciples that not everyone who calls him Lord will ultimately gain eternal life. To me, that bears serious retrospect. We live in an age where we encourage one another all the time by just telling our friends and neighbors, "All you have to do is say Jesus is Lord, and you're in." That isn't, based on these words of the Lord, the whole truth. Then there are the words he spoke to his disciples that I have already expounded on at length, of Jesus' account of the day of his Father's judgment and what, certainly to me, seems to be many christians who are going to be turned away. Then we come to the disciples warning of false teachers who are among us, the body of christians. And again, Peter's warning of those who distort the Scriptures to their own destruction.

This leads me to the conclusion that there are some, and Jesus seems to allow that there are actually many, who are enjoined with us that will not be saved from the wrath of God. That there are also those among us who will work to teach us distorted understandings of exactly what the Scriptures say.

I have read many responses on these threads that say to others, when there is disagreement over some teaching of the Scriptures, that it really doesn't matter what we believe on a particular issue such as this so long as we believe in Jesus. For me, the above mentioned passages call that into question. The Scriptures seem to make a fairly big deal throughout of the importance of believing God. Not just believing that Jesus is His Son who came to save mankind from their sin, but all that He has revealed to us. Abraham was accounted as righteous by his belief long before Jesus was even known to mankind.

Now, here's the bottom line, as I understand it. We do exist! So, we know that this existence was created. It was either created through the natural processes of molecular structure and conformity that came about through ages and ages of time. That somehow some minuscule point of energy exploded and that violent and amazingly forceful explosion slung all the stars and planets into existence across the vast expanse of the universe. Then from there over billions and billions of years of natural processes and just the interaction between things on the molecular and atomic level, life came to exist and creatures came to have life and those creatures evolved into various and sundry forms to be what we see today.

Then we have God's account of how everything came to exist. Over a span of six days, each one consisting of an evening and a morning just like every day we experience still today, God spoke and each and every part of this realm, if you will, came to exist. All perfectly considered and made to perform and accomplish the task for which God made each and every cog on the wheel. He merely spoke and commanded that a ball of dirt and magma and rock strata covered with water became. It hung all by itself in the vast, vast expanse of the black and empty universe as God over the next couple of days worked with it to form it and make it what it needed to be to sustain the life of man. The living breathing creature that God already had intended was the purpose of creating this realm. He then, also by mere command, declared that the universe, for as far as man would ever be able to see, be filled with stars and other planets and bodies such as asteroids and comets. All in merely the turn of one rotation of the earth, the universe was filled with a countless number of other solid forms. Stars glowing with the fire of their burning. Planets, asteroids and comets whizzing about on some set trajectory by God. Then, when all was 'very good', God created the first man and woman to then begin to populate the earth with people.

This seems to be the plain and simple reading of the text. God then repeated and made a part of the 'law' that in six days He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Now, many say that it doesn't matter to God what we believe about this. I'm not so sure. Jesus told us that when we are born again - not when we become christians - but when we are born again we will be given the Holy Spirit whose job it is to lead us into, or reveal to us, all truth. John later doesn't say that all christians have the right to be called children of God, but rather all those who are born again. Those who are born with this Spirit that reveals all truth to the one he indwells.

So, my mind stops and ponders the importance of what we believe in all things that we are told in the Scriptures. At one point in the writings of Paul he discusses disagreement about the things of God among those gathered in fellowship and teaching among the 'church'. He tells us that it shouldn't be, but allows that it is because it shows who are of God and those who aren't. So, when there is a truth and two people don't agree on that truth as being the truth. What are we to make of that?

Is it at all possible that the dividing line that separates those people that Jesus speaks of on the day of his Father's judgment is whether or not, despite their claim of allegiance to Jesus, they didn't believe God? Does it matter to God that we believe Him in everything that He has revealed to us. That He created this realm in which we live in six days? That He did flood the whole of the earth with water? Does that matter to God? I understand that many often make the claim that it doesn't, but that's generally expressing their hope of the situation and not necessarily the actuality of God's feelings on the matter.

I want to know the truth of how God sees this matter. I believe that it is the power and truth of the Holy Spirit that drives this desire to teach others that God's word is true. True in what it tells us about the creation; true in what it tells us about the various miraculous events that have been recounted for us in the Scriptures. True in its account of the birth and purpose of Jesus; all that it tells us about the Holy Spirit; all that it reveals to us about our God and Creator. We, like Jesus, are to have the attitude that 'thy word is truth'.

I know that for me, my entire worldview changed when I got down on my knees and begged and beseeched my Father to give me an unquenchable thirst to know Him through His Scriptures. For about two years I could hardly put them down. I was near constantly reading and studying all that they told me. And for whatever reason or for whatever purpose, I was impressed with this understanding that every miracle and every other event told to me in the Scriptures really did happen in real time in real life.

So, my ultimate intent here is not to offend anyone. It is to cause one who in some way denies the truth of something revealed to us in the Scriptures to stop and consider what position this may put them in before their God and Creator. I believe that God's true children believe God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rjs330]

I certainly am not (and I don't suspect Speedwell would either) suggesting that the "days" of the Genesis creation narrative should be interpreted as anything other than "literal" days (sun up to sun down, or whatever is the normal constitution of a "day"). The question is not whether these words should be interpreted literally, but whether the narrative itself should be interpreted as an "historical" narrative (in the sense of modern notions of historicity). It is not the features of the narrative that should be necessarily be interpreted literally or figuratively (e.g., I don't think we need to say that "day" is "1000 years", or "1000000 years" or "an age"), but rather the framework in which it is written. That is, did the authors have modern notions of historicity in mind when composing this, and thus perceived it to be an accurate and evidence-based accounting of "what happened, in actuality" ('happened-ness' and 'actuality', of course, being based on the assumptions of modern criteria)? Or, as I would suggest, is this a narrative composed that has theological instruction as its main intention?

If the former is assumption, it would stand in remarkable contrast to the other creation narratives that were extant at the time of the writing of Genesis, narratives from which many features were clearly borrowed. Does this, then, mean that all other ANE creation narratives were also attempts at "historical" narrative? And if so, should we not also consider them to be (at least in part) "inspired" as well, given that they contributed to the structure and content of the Genesis narratives?



I don't think it's an issue of one or the other, as if they understood themselves as "not" getting the facts of the story right. This criteria betrays a very modern notion of historicity, a notion which places value in narrative when it corresponds to modern notions about the verifiability and demonstrability of recorded history. If the ancient writers did not share such stark bifurcations in their understanding of "history" and "story-telling", then such a question really becomes inappropriate to ask, as the assumptions necessary for the relevance of the question requires the adoption of philosophical paradigms for which there is no evidence that they existed at the time of the authorship of Scripture.



That is not accurate. A more accurate way of saying it is that Scripture is *attributed* to about this many writers. If you review the scholarship on the subject of biblical authorship, the actual number of probable authors and contributors is significantly greater than that (not even including the editorial contributions that would certainly have been included).



No one is suggesting that this isn't possible. The issue is that there is no reason, based on the context in which the authorship of the Scriptures occurred (particularly of the most ancient parts), to assume that this would be a relevant feature. Of course it's possible; but an analysis of the text in the greater context of ANE literature suggests a different conclusion.



Again, the question of whether or not God "could have done" something is irrelevant. God could have inspired the authors to write nothing but soup recipes as well.

We are talking about taking the full measure of the narratives in light of the greater context of ANE literature/culture/worldview. While the Scriptures certainly *could* be a completely novel and anomalous occurrence within the broader milieu of ancient life, one would have to question why that assumption should be made. After all, the writing of the Scriptures was not made in a vacuum, and was not made just for the sake of unnamed future generations. No, it was written in the life and times of people who had specific worldviews, assumptions about the nature of reality, ideas about God, etc. If the Scriptures do not, in the very first case, present themselves as relevant within the situation of *those* people, then I would suggest we should be quite skeptical about the result of our interpretations. Unless the people of Israel held to drastically divergent worldviews from the cultures by which they were surrounded, I would suggest that we should suspect that the literature of the people of Israel would look a lot like the religious/theological/cultural literature of the surrounding cultures. And as I've already pointed out now several times, an analysis and comparison of the ancient texts of the Scriptures with similar narratives and theological/religious writings in the broader spectrum of ANE literature suggests that this is, in fact, precisely the case.

You and Speedwell make an awful lot of claims based on other ancient writings. And use a lot of assumptions in your claims.

Speed Even said I didn't make my point very clear. Let me try again. The Bible is the inspired,word of God. It is NOT just an ancient writing. All the other books and literature and beliefs of other ancient cultures are NOT inspired by God. What that means the bible stands as the unique and only arbiter of truth. If the bible says something happened,in a certain way and that way,diverges from other writings then the bible is,correct and all,others are wrong. Because God inspired the,writing to be truth. I repeat myself. God is not a man that he should lie.
If other writings agree with scripture then they are right, because all things must be tested against scripture. Again the reason for that is scripture is inspired by God and other literature is not. The bible is the measuring stick against which all other beliefs, thoughts and writing must be measured. Because it is inspired by God and God is truth and does not lie.

The Israelites WERE unique among all other cultures of the time. All you have to do is read the bible to,see that. When they deviated from Gods plan and Gods direction he punished them. He did not want them following other beliefs,or other cultures. He wanted them following Him. "Those people" you mention were specifically instructed to be different than other cultures. Just take a,look at the golden calf incident. God specifically chose Abraham and his decendents to be unique. He gave THEM the law. He did not give it to other cultures. So yes they had a different and unique world,view because they believed in one God and they followed that God and his teachings which where different than anyone else's.

If you doubt that just read Deuteronomys last chapters starting at 29. Pay attention to Moses poem. Israel as not just another culture of the day but was,instructed and ruled by,God.

I hope I was clear enough for you guys this time. (that sounds snarky, not meant to be). I just want you guys to,be clear on why the bible and Israel cannot be looked at like any other ancient writing or culture you may have heard about.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It most definitely did.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, my ultimate intent here is not to offend anyone. It is to cause one who in some way denies the truth of something revealed to us in the Scriptures to stop and consider what position this may put them in before their God and Creator. I believe that God's true children believe God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Excellent post, and you're doing a way better job than me.

 

[Hieronymus]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

 

[rjs330]

Western historicity is irrelevant to,this discussion. If indeed the,world,was created in,six days as the bible says, western historical thought is irrelevant. Six days is six days. Unless,of course your philosophy is nothing is real and a day is all relative. Maybe a day to you is six hours,and to,someone else it is 36 hours etc. I obviously do not subscribe to that type of thinking.

Six days is laid out to the foundation of the history of the bible. But that is only the beginning. When,it comes to scripture it's not just the thought that counts,its the words that count. Follow the bibles words. They lead you through the history. Read 1 Chronicles. Kind of boring, but it is the guide of the history,and who lived when. You don't have to have any western thought to simply read,the bible and follow along. Even years are mentioned on how long,people lived or how long events took place. It reads in order. God says this,happened and then that happened then this happened. Its not rocket science. It takes no special thought or understanding. You don't have to,read a,bunch of textbooks or dive into ancient historical thoughts or read ancient Hebrew to follow along the narrative. It's not that difficult.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You and Speedwell make an awful lot of claims based on other ancient writings. And use a lot of assumptions in your claims.

Yes, obviously. The same as the assumptions you are making about what the "inspiredness" of the Scriptures must necessitate. Pot, meet kettle.

The Bible is the inspired,word of God.

Let's grant that this is true. What does that actually mean? What are the marks of inspiredness? What are the consequences of "inspiration" for the text itself? Simply saying that the Scriptures are "inspired" doesn't really tell us anything about what we should expect to see in the writing itself. This is primarily a result of the lack of other inspired literature against which to compare it. We don't have a "standard" of "what inspired literature looks like and the consequences that it produces in interpretation", so we have no way in which to say that we should expect anything particularly different between the ancient writers of "inspired" Scripture, and writers of "non-inspired" religious literature.

Of course, your response is that Scriptures are themselves the "standard"; but certainly you recognize the hopeless circularity of such a claim, a circularity which allows the interpreter to basically impute any and all assumptions whatsoever they like in order to define the marks of "inspiration".

It is NOT just an ancient writing.

Let's grant that it is not "just" ancient writing. Certainly you acknowledge that it is "still" ancient writing? If you grant this, then it's hard to understand how the interpretive rules for for ancient literature should be expected to be radically different from that of other ancient literature, especially when many of the early narratives and epics within Scripture bear such remarkable resemblance to similar epics and narratives within ANE literature that predates it...

All the other books and literature and beliefs of other ancient cultures are NOT inspired by God.

Again, even if we grant this claim, it doesn't give us any information about we should handle the interpretation in such a way that would distinguish it from how we would interpret other ancient literature.

For example, let's take the Sumerian kings lists. They are full of numerology and assign to the listed rules outrageous (to the modern mind) "years" of rule.

In the early Genesis genealogies, we find extraordinarily similar "lists", with similarly numerological assignments.

Given the similarity between the two, it seems reasonable that we would apply similar standards to the interpretation of the "years". Do we interpret them as *actual* (from a modern historical perspective) years of rule/life, or do we look for meaning within the numerology of the "years"?

And to get at your argument, should we interpret one numerologically (the Sumerian kings list, for example) and the other historically? Does the nature of inspiration somehow require this bifurcation in methodology? Or is it more likely that one has a certain bias about what "inspiration" should mean (e.g., that "historical" things should accord with modern assumptions regarding historicity) and is imputing this to the interpretation? I would argue that the latter is the more likely in this example.

What that means the bible stands as the unique and only arbiter of truth.

Again, you're not saying anything that has actual content. "Arbiter of truth" is a nice platitude, but the determination and evaluation of "truth" assumes a lot; how does one determine truth? It is absolutely based on the "historicity" of events? If so, I would argue that you are being unduly influenced by modern, western biases...biases which I would suggest the ancient writers did not share.

If the bible says something happened,in a certain way and that way,diverges from other writings then the bible is,correct and all,others are wrong.

Again, you are importing a mountain of assumptions regarding "happened-ness". History is not a static, unchanging value. Our understanding of "history" is based on our philosophical biases, our worldview, our understanding of the universe, the principles that we apply when "demonstrating" the historical, etc. The question we must ask, then, is whether these assumptions were shared by the ancient authors? If they were, then I agree that the interpretive methodology is probably sound. However, if they do not share the same biases, and were not strictly concerned with reporting "happened-ness", then we would do a disservice to the text by imposing such requirements upon it.

Because God inspired the,writing to be truth. I repeat myself. God is not a man that he should lie.

No one is suggesting that the Scriptures aren't truth. The content is whether "truth" is solely located (as modern, historical-criticism assumes) in the "happened-ness" of narrative. I would argue that it is certainly not limited to this, and furthermore, would suggest that such a notion would be alien to the ancient writers.

If other writings agree with scripture then they are right, because all things must be tested against scripture. Again the reason for that is scripture is inspired by God and other literature is not. The bible is the measuring stick against which all other beliefs, thoughts and writing must be measured. Because it is inspired by God and God is truth and does not lie.

A wonderfully convenient circularity of logic. But it doesn't actually say anything, other than that you are now empowered to impute whatever standards you desire into the interpretation of the text.

The Israelites WERE unique among all other cultures of the time.

Every culture is unique to a certain extent. However, if you study the Hebrew literature against earlier religious literature of the more dominant, surrounding cultures, it is difficult to not see the borrowing of common narrative motifs woven throughout Genesis.

So yes they had a different and unique world,view because they believed in one God and they followed that God and his teachings which where different than anyone else's.

Yes, their religious institutions were different; however, there clearly wasn't a major philosophical leap required for them to move from worship of Jehovah to worship of foreign gods (as this is a persistent problem throughout the history of Israel). So it is quite an overstatement to suggest that their fundamental worldview was markedly different from that of the surrounding peoples. Once again, the usage of the common narrative motifs from ANE literature that are found within Scripture are sufficient evidence of this. After all, if their worldview was so fundamentally different, surely they would not have had any resonance with the supposedly alien "fables" of the surrounding cultures. And yet, we find exactly the opposite

I hope I was clear enough for you guys this time. (that sounds snarky, not meant to be). I just want you guys to,be clear on why the bible and Israel cannot be looked at like any other ancient writing or culture you may have heard about.

It's clear that your reasoning is based on a hopelessly circular set of assumptions, assumptions which have absolutely no safeguard against the simple imposition of a western, modernist mindset on the ancient world of the Scriptures.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Western historicity is irrelevant to,this discussion. If indeed the,world,was created in,six days as the bible says, western historical thought is irrelevant. Six days is six days. Unless,of course your philosophy is nothing is real and a day is all relative. Maybe a day to you is six hours,and to,someone else it is 36 hours etc. I obviously do not subscribe to that type of thinking.

As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not the interpretation of the "duration" of a day. The more important question is how the narrative itself is to be interpreted. You assume (primarily because of your modern philosophical biases) that is *has* to be interpreted according to the principles of modern historicity, principles which find only value and "truth" in the demonstrable "happened-ness" of narrative.

So despite your objection, western historicity is *most* relevant to this discussion. If you are not aware of the influence of these philosophical prejudices when interpreting the Scriptures, the results you come away with will be shockingly "familiar" to you...precisely because the results match with your starting presuppositions.

It takes no special thought or understanding. You don't have to,read a,bunch of textbooks or dive into ancient historical thoughts or read ancient Hebrew to follow along the narrative. It's not that difficult.

With that mindset, you'll certainly find a result that seems very fitting for a modern, western thinker. I don't doubt that this takes "no special thought"...uncritical thinking never does.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, obviously. The same as the assumptions you are making about what the "inspiredness" of the Scriptures must necessitate. Pot, meet kettle.



Let's grant that this is true. What does that actually mean? What are the marks of inspiredness? What are the consequences of "inspiration" for the text itself? Simply saying that the Scriptures are "inspired" doesn't really tell us anything about what we should expect to see in the writing itself. This is primarily a result of the lack of other inspired literature against which to compare it. We don't have a "standard" of "what inspired literature looks like and the consequences that it produces in interpretation", so we have no way in which to say that we should expect anything particularly different between the ancient writers of "inspired" Scripture, and writers of "non-inspired" religious literature.

Of course, your response is that Scriptures are themselves the "standard"; but certainly you recognize the hopeless circularity of such a claim, a circularity which allows the interpreter to basically impute any and all assumptions whatsoever they like in order to define the marks of "inspiration".



Let's grant that it is not "just" ancient writing. Certainly you acknowledge that it is "still" ancient writing? If you grant this, then it's hard to understand how the interpretive rules for for ancient literature should be expected to be radically different from that of other ancient literature, especially when many of the early narratives and epics within Scripture bear such remarkable resemblance to similar epics and narratives within ANE literature that predates it...



Again, even if we grant this claim, it doesn't give us any information about we should handle the interpretation in such a way that would distinguish it from how we would interpret other ancient literature.

For example, let's take the Sumerian kings lists. They are full of numerology and assign to the listed rules outrageous (to the modern mind) "years" of rule.

In the early Genesis genealogies, we find extraordinarily similar "lists", with similarly numerological assignments.

Given the similarity between the two, it seems reasonable that we would apply similar standards to the interpretation of the "years". Do we interpret them as *actual* (from a modern historical perspective) years of rule/life, or do we look for meaning within the numerology of the "years"?

And to get at your argument, should we interpret one numerologically (the Sumerian kings list, for example) and the other historically? Does the nature of inspiration somehow require this bifurcation in methodology? Or is it more likely that one has a certain bias about what "inspiration" should mean (e.g., that "historical" things should accord with modern assumptions regarding historicity) and is imputing this to the interpretation? I would argue that the latter is the more likely in this example.



Again, you're not saying anything that has actual content. "Arbiter of truth" is a nice platitude, but the determination and evaluation of "truth" assumes a lot; how does one determine truth? It is absolutely based on the "historicity" of events? If so, I would argue that you are being unduly influenced by modern, western biases...biases which I would suggest the ancient writers did not share.



Again, you are importing a mountain of assumptions regarding "happened-ness". History is not a static, unchanging value. Our understanding of "history" is based on our philosophical biases, our worldview, our understanding of the universe, the principles that we apply when "demonstrating" the historical, etc. The question we must ask, then, is whether these assumptions were shared by the ancient authors? If they were, then I agree that the interpretive methodology is probably sound. However, if they do not share the same biases, and were not strictly concerned with reporting "happened-ness", then we would do a disservice to the text by imposing such requirements upon it.



No one is suggesting that the Scriptures aren't truth. The content is whether "truth" is solely located (as modern, historical-criticism assumes) in the "happened-ness" of narrative. I would argue that it is certainly not limited to this, and furthermore, would suggest that such a notion would be alien to the ancient writers.



A wonderfully convenient circularity of logic. But it doesn't actually say anything, other than that you are now empowered to impute whatever standards you desire into the interpretation of the text.



Every culture is unique to a certain extent. However, if you study the Hebrew literature against earlier religious literature of the more dominant, surrounding cultures, it is difficult to not see the borrowing of common narrative motifs woven throughout Genesis.



Yes, their religious institutions were different; however, there clearly wasn't a major philosophical leap required for them to move from worship of Jehovah to worship of foreign gods (as this is a persistent problem throughout the history of Israel). So it is quite an overstatement to suggest that their fundamental worldview was markedly different from that of the surrounding peoples. Once again, the usage of the common narrative motifs from ANE literature that are found within Scripture are sufficient evidence of this. After all, if their worldview was so fundamentally different, surely they would not have had any resonance with the supposedly alien "fables" of the surrounding cultures. And yet, we find exactly the opposite



It's clear that your reasoning is based on a hopelessly circular set of assumptions, assumptions which have absolutely no safeguard against the simple imposition of a western, modernist mindset on the ancient world of the Scriptures.

You know I think we're going to have to end our conversation. We are so far apart I don't see us doing anything but going in circles. You obviously do not believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture. I do. It's a gap that we cannot bridge.

The Israelites world view was completely different than others precisely because of God. Just because they abandoned it doesn't mean anything other than at times they abandoned what they were taught and how they were to view the world. God said they were to,give and be one way, but they chose another, to Follow a different world view than they were supposed to. They are an example to us in how NOT to do things. They walked in disobedience to the view God had given them. It had nothing to do with similarities and everything to do with disobedience.

Even we today run afoul of that. The bible tells us to come out from the world and be separate. We are not to act and think like the world around us and yet how often do we do the opposite. We are to be transformed. Different. Believe different and act different and talk different. Our faith is to set us apart. Just like the Israelites were to. But just like the Israelites we too fail at times to be what we're supposed to be.

 

[miamited]

Excellent post, and you're doing a way better job than me.

Hi hieronymus,

Thanks for the kind words. Believing God does create separation among people. It's sad as we see things, but inevitable.

I often imagine how incensed and offended the great and well established and well studied and all knowing (as far as the Jewish people were concerned) in the things of God, that the Scribes and Pharisees must have felt as Jesus railed against them and their practices and beliefs. Calling them 'white-washed sepulchers' and all sorts of other evil names to their faces in front of the people who had long held them in such high and knowing position of the things of God.

As rjs has pointed out, the nation of Israel was created by and appointed to be, God's emissaries upon the earth. They had been made holy (set apart) from all the other nations of the earth and with that holiness they were given a great and daunting responsibility to know and love and honor and do the bidding of the one true and living God and Creator of all that is. Now, here Jesus is, some 1500 years after their creation and establishment, telling the people that the ones they were looking up to for guidance and wisdom in the things of God; men who had literally given of their life's work to study and know the word and truth of God, that these men had it all wrong. That they, in their wickedness were not only not going to enter into the kingdom of God themselves, but were the very reason that those who believed what they taught weren't going to either!

I hope that everyone gets the connection I'm attempting to show here. These men and these people had, up until Jesus' visitation to us, considered that they were doing it all right. That they understood God's truth and His desires for them; that they were working in accord with His bidding for them, and here Jesus is telling them to just hold on a darn minute!!! What you are believing and the practices you are following are pretty much all wrong. Neither you nor the ones who are teaching you these things are ever going to enter into the kingdom of heaven if you keep going in the way that you are going!! I'm certain that they were offended. The Scriptures are pretty clear that they were. To the point that they then set out to conspire to kill the Son of the living God!

Now, I'm a firm believer that man's nature has always been the same. It is, without the indwelling Spirit of God, always going to run astray. This is exampled several times in the Scriptures. God creates Adam and Eve and shortly after the whole world is so wicked that God destroys everyone except Noah and his family. Again, get the picture! There were by this time millions of people living on the earth. I mean, we're talking 1500 years of marriage and sexual relations and pregnant women having babies. God destroys all but eight!!!! How 'few' is that?

Then God raises up Abram and his descendants and some five or six hundred years later they're all wandering around in a desert land making false idols and not believing their God to the point that He declares that all of the men over 20 will die before they ever cross into the land of promise. Again, get the picture! All these men did to raise the ire and wrath of their God was to not believe God's promise to give them the land of promise. It seems to me that this example is pretty close to what we're talking about here. God said He was going to do something for His people. His people went out to spy on the land of promise and came back all afraid that in their own power they weren't going to be able to get what God had promised them. God was so incensed by this incident that he declared among the people that every man over 20 would die in the desert before He fulfilled His promise to them. So, they wandered around for 40 years until God's declaration became true in reality.

Then Jesus came to us. He established, once again, the truth. Now, some 2,000 years away from God once again setting us on the right path, we have strayed so far that it isn't even the least bit funny. There are odd and differing beliefs running amok about the things of God among the people of God. Just as it has always been.

Man's nature doesn't change unless the Spirit of God takes up residence in a person and opens one's eyes to the truth. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit each and every one of us is absolutely no different from all those people killed in the flood; all those first born killed in Egypt; all those men who wasted away in the desert. We just don't know. We just don't understand. We all like sheep have gone astray.

But, when a person is born again, all of that changes and I believe the most obvious change that can be seen by others is the worldview. When one is born again, then the Holy Spirit begins to do his job of opening one's eyes to the truth and one begins on a journey that works inexorably to full and faithful belief in the things and person and work of God.

So, the question must be asked. Yes, it can sound offensive. But, if God has made clear a certain truth, but we refuse to believe it even though we call ourselves 'christians', has that person been born again? Can we see by their new worldview that they now are having their eyes opened to the truth that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring to anyone who was so born? Or, are they more like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day. Well versed on all that the Scriptures say, but not particularly believing or understanding a lot of it?

The Scriptures also tell us that without the indwelling Holy Spirit one can't understand the things of God. What if this difference in understanding is because of that?

I'm just asking the questions that arise in my mind when 'christians' seem to be in fairly deep disagreement on things that are made pretty clear in the Scriptures. God said He did in six days and defined each day as consisting of a morning and an evening. He later established the law and mentions within it again that He created all that exists in this realm in six days. Both the heavens and the earth. Honestly, how much more clear could God possibly be that this realm in which we live popped up by the command of God in the span of six fairly normal length of days?

Finally, for me, not understanding this piece of God's magnificent and perfect work in creating life and our existence does rob God of His full glory. We ascribe created things to some natural processes rather than to the good and perfect God who actually made all things. Sure, those who teach another method of creation start with God, but don't allow Him the full glory and wisdom and purpose of what He has really done. That He purposefully with perfect wisdom created all that exists down to the molecular structure of that which exists. That birds didn't become crocodiles, but rather God made the birds and God made the crocodile. He made the kangaroo and He made the koala. He made the deer and the antelope. He made the dung beetle and He made the cockroach and fleas and the ticks and mosquito. Although, I'm personally at a loss as to why, but I fully believe that He made them and that somehow they all interact to make this what was to be a perfect creation. However, man sinned and threw a monkey wrench into the whole system. Paul writes that the creation now groans in agony because of sin. We don't really have any real grasp of all that sin has caused to change in God's perfect creation. We just know that the Scriptures tell us that it did and it has.

Maybe I'm all wrong about these things, but I'm not wrong about the words spoken by my Lord. It would seem really quite clear that just declaring Jesus is Lord isn't really the end of the matter in gaining eternal life.

That's what I believe and I'm sorry if what I believe offends.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Speedwell]

You and Speedwell make an awful lot of claims based on other ancient writings. And use a lot of assumptions in your claims.
.

We're not making "claims" we're raising questions--fairly obvious questions which someone defending your Bible doctrine ought to have ready answers to.

Instead, what we get boils down to "The Bible means what I say it means because it is inspired" garnished with hostile recriminations.

In fact, Ted just read me out of the Christian faith for it--in a relatively civil way for a creationist, but decisively.

Is that what preaching the Gospel means to you? First require that they accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and if they won't do that tell them to go to hell?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You obviously do not believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture.

This is not an accurate statement. I do believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture. The difference between the two of us is that I don't believe the Scriptures should be subjugated to the categories of modern historicity.

 

[miamited]

We're not making "claims" we're raising questions--fairly obvious questions which someone defending your Bible doctrine ought to have ready answers to.

Instead, what we get boils down to "The Bible means what I say it means because it is inspired" garnished with hostile recriminations.

In fact, Ted just read me out of the Christian faith for it--in a relatively civil way for a creationist, but decisively.

Is that what preaching the Gospel means to you? First require that they accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and if they won't do that tell them to go to hell?

Hi speedwell,

Let's slow the roll just a bit here! This is supposed to be a discussion between two or more people who have already heard and accepted the gospel of salvation through Christ. So, this discussion is not meant to represent in any way how any of us teach the gospel. That's for a different place and circumstance. Teaching the gospel is what I do with people who have not heard or yet believed in the saving grace provided by our God and Creator through His one and only Son, Jesus.

Let's just look at the new covenant Scriptures for a minute. Paul wrote a number of letters which were circulated among the fellowships of believers in his day and since. So too, did many of the other first disciples. In some, time was taken to teach the gospel. However, in most all of them, when the writer was speaking to believers about what faith in God should mean and how it should be represented in the life and belief of fellow believers, teaching the gospel doesn't seem to have been what was written.

Paul wrote, condemning a fellowship for allowing a man who had his father's wife in fellowship with them. He didn't write to them that the answer was to teach him the gospel. No! He wrote to them that the man should have already been put out of their fellowship. To be treated as anathema to them. Paul also wrote about believers having nothing to do with those who twist and distort the Scriptures or teach not the truth. He didn't tell the believers to simply sit down with them and teach them the gospel.

So, let's not work to subvert the intention of this thread by condemning those not in agreement with you as not showing a particularly 'christian' attitude because we're not just all trying to teach the gospel in discussion with others who are supposed to have already heard and believed the gospel.

Continue on.

Oh, and yes, for me and in my understanding, the Scriptures do mean what they say and are accepted by me as the truth merely because Paul has told me that they are the inspiration of God and not in any way the thoughts and ideas of man. That holy men (men who God had set apart) wrote as the Holy Spirit of God gave them utterance to write. That men like Daniel wrote the prophecy of Jesus' coming not because he was so wise and so understanding of the all that the Scriptures say, but because God sent an angel to him to tell him the prophecy that he wrote down for us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again speedwell,

You also wrote:

which someone defending your Bible doctrine ought to have ready answers to.

I think that everyone here on both sides of the fence have had ready answers. The problem is that you don't want to accept mine and I can't accept yours. Speaking only for myself, I think I have provided ready answers to all of your questions and points. Personally, I think that hieronyous and rjs have likewise provided ready answers to each question and point. You, however, are merely unwilling to accept our ready answers. That's fine! But again, let's argue fairly. It isn't that we don't have ready answers, its that our answers aren't accepted.

You know, Jesus is the Son of the one true and living God. The Son of the Creator of all that is and he knows absolutely everything that there is to know about his Father. He knows absolutely everything there is to know about the sinful condition of man and how this realm is ultimately going to be closed out by his Father. Yet.....

When he came to us to be the witness of his Father and to provide us with the truth testimony of what really is the truth in all these things concerning sin and eternal life, there were a lot of people such as yourself. People to whom Jesus spoke the answers to their questions. People to whom he instructed and taught the things of God and how one might gain His kingdom. They just didn't want to accept his explanations. I am not just speaking here of the Scribes and Pharisees. The Scriptures paint a pretty bleak picture of very, very few people in all of Israel that accepted Jesus for who he claimed to be. They were so incensed by his 'holier than thou' attitude that they conspired to kill him rather than to stop and listen and understand what he was telling them and seek after his Father's salvation.

In this discussion I believe that I'm telling you the truth. I can support everything through the Scriptures. But you don't want to accept my explanation. That's ok! But, let's be fair in our retorts.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted