Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[rjs330]

I find it interesting that your definition of "proper hermeneutics" gives such lipservice to "context," yet you continue to insist that the broader context of ANE literature should have no bearing whatsoever upon the interpretation of the texts. Surely if you suspend your biases for even one second, you can see how disingenuous your double-standard appears.

After all, "context" exists on a number of levels. Certainly, there is intra-textual context, in which we look at the individual words, phrases, and ideas of the text itself, and try to put them together into a coherent form (because of our assumptions--perhaps unfounded!!--that the authors are *trying* to be coherent). However, part of this work must necessarily include a broadening of the domain of the context. This is why we look at the writings of Hebrew authors in comparison to the wider scope of Hebrew literature, starting with the most temporally proximate writings, and then broaden the range to the fuller reach of Hebrew literature. Then, we go yet another level and try to place this within the broader domain of ANE literature as a whole. This helps to "root" the ideas, language, worldview, etc. within their proper context. We needn't make broad assumptions about homogeneity in these matters; however, based on our own experiences of how socio-political forces shape thinking, we don't discard them as irrelevant either.

This attention to and reliance upon context, therefore, must be allowed to shape our interpretations over and against the particular biases that we would impute to the texts.

For example, take the creation epic in Genesis. While there is a certainly a great amount of theological differences, there is an equally great amount of similarity (both in content, structure, and style) to other ANE creation epics that predate the writing of Genesis. If we are serious about "context" as you suggest we must be, then it is difficult to suggest that the similarity in structure/content/style between the creation epic in Genesis and that of other, older creation myths is unimportant, or that the interpretation of the one should be fundamentally different than the other. While we might certainly interpret it differently on the basis of theological considerations (and surely the text insists that we do!), it's hard to see a scenario in which we would treat it differently on a textual level, if we are, in fact, interested in being true to the "context" as you suggest we should be.

So then, this leads to a conundrum for your position. If we are to take the "context" seriously, then we should be inclined to apply similar interpretive rules to texts that share sufficiently similar contexts. Therefore, if we--as you suggest--should interpret the Genesis creation epic as "history", then we must do the same for the other ANE creation epics. Is this something you would be willing to do?

Short answer is no, because other ANE are not inspired. They are merely words of men written in an attempt to explain something like the beginning of the world. Whereas the bible is the inspired word of God actually telling us the truth on how the world and all there is came into being. Not only who did it, but how he did it and when he did it and how long it took him to do it. The context of other ANE have nothing to do with scripture because scripture stands alone as the only truth. If other ANE say something different than scripture, other ANE are wrong because they are not inspired by God. There is only one truth as to the creation of the world and the history of the world and thats the word of God.

 

[Speedwell]

Short answer is no, because other ANE are not inspired. They are merely words of men written in an attempt to explain something like the beginning of the world. Whereas the bible is the inspired word of God actually telling us the truth on how the world and all there is came into being. Not only who did it, but how he did it and when he did it and how long it took him to do it. The context of other ANE have nothing to do with scripture because scripture stands alone as the only truth. If other ANE say something different than scripture, other ANE are wrong because they are not inspired by God. There is only one truth as to the creation of the world and the history of the world and thats the word of God.

You miss the point. Other ANE writings are of interest because of linguist usages, style and genre, that sort of thing.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Short answer is no, because other ANE are not inspired. They are merely words of men written in an attempt to explain something like the beginning of the world. Whereas the bible is the inspired word of God actually telling us the truth on how the world and all there is came into being. Not only who did it, but how he did it and when he did it and how long it took him to do it. The context of other ANE have nothing to do with scripture because scripture stands alone as the only truth. If other ANE say something different than scripture, other ANE are wrong because they are not inspired by God. There is only one truth as to the creation of the world and the history of the world and thats the word of God.

If this is your attitude, then you completely invalidate your claims about the necessity of using "proper" hermeneutics. By ignoring the cultural/political/literary contexts of the creation narrative, you are leave a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by something; since you have divorced the texts from its context, the only thing left to fill the void is your own biases.

If this hermeneutical rule of "inspiration means it is special and necessarily different from all other similar texts" according to very basic contextual considerations (e.g., genre, et.al.), why bother with analyzing the things that you mentioned earlier, such as language, tense, voice, figures of speech, etc? Certainly you should apply the same principle of willful ignorance to these as well, since they are "inspired"?

You miss the point. Other ANE writings are of interest because of linguist usages, style and genre, that sort of thing.

This is very true. But I'll go even farther. They are not only "of interest"...they are fundamentally important to properly understanding the Scriptures. If we don't understand, insofar as we are able by analyzing them, the role that creation epics had in the social/political/religious development and evolution of ancient peoples, we miss out on crucial information for the interpretation of Scripture.

For example, let's grant the more or less accepted idea that Genesis is either based directly off of the much older Babylonia Enuma Elish creation epic, or is at least reflective of the broader worldview of ancient peoples regarding the divine, the universe, and their place within it. Such a perspective opens a great opportunity for interpretation and discovery. No longer are we shackled to the biases of interpreting the creation store *as history*, but can instead begin to step into the world of the people who wrote it, and for whom it was written. By comparing and contrasting the stories, we can get a better idea of how they thought of themselves, how they understood themselves in relation to God(s), and what place they understood themselves to have within the universe.

But perhaps even more important, by critically comparing the creation epic within Genesis to those of the broader ANE literature, we can have the proper context for understanding precisely what-it-is that gives the biblical narrative its particular genius, and inspiredness. We need not rely any longer on circular, self-justifying propositions about what the Scriptures *must be*, but can rather enter into a new way of thinking that provides the best possible scenario in which the authors, as ancients, can speak.

This, I would argue, is the truest mark of inspiration...not that an ancient text can appeal to the philosophical sensibilities of a modern, western mind, but rather that even across the millennia, the text can yet speak with beauty, power, and truth.

 

[miamited]

You miss the point. Other ANE writings are of interest because of linguist usages, style and genre, that sort of thing.

Hi speedwell,

I'm not sure that he does miss the point.

While I agree that it's fine and well to understand how people communicated in that time, it doesn't address the fundamental difference that is being mentioned here. Two men sit down to write an account of how he got to be where he is. One relies on stories and accounts that came to him from other people. Myths and tales and recollections that he has heard over his lifetime that he then puts down on paper.

The other sits down to write, and he hasn't a clue what he's going to write or the things he's going to say. He just knows that God, through His Holy Spirit has encouraged him to do this. When that man begins writing he doesn't recount the stories, myths and fables that he may have heard in his lifetime, but rather he writes the things that God's Spirit inspires him to write. The knowledge and facts of what he is writing come from God.

Now, there is some discussion as to what exactly 'inspiration' means in this context. Did God somehow give to the minds of these writers the very words that He wanted them to write? Or, did God encourage them with the knowledge of the subject, but let the writer write as he felt was best to write. Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that Paul assures us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. As far as I'm aware, the Holy Spirit doesn't make many mistakes. He knows the nature of mankind and he knows how mankind communicates. What I know is that Jesus said that God's word is truth. He didn't qualify that with a goodly part or most of God's word is truth. He simply made a short statement of fact that God's word is truth. We know for a fact that when Jesus said those words, he was speaking of the very same words that we hold in our hands today.

Sure, we could say that 6,000 years ago Jesus might have said that and then the words were written down and maybe man got it right or maybe man didn't. But, Jesus said those words only 2,000 years ago when absolutely every word of the old covenant had been written, copied many, many times and was read and understood by the people. We know for a fact, as regards this matter of the account of the creation and the law, that the 'word' that Jesus was referring to is exactly the same as the 'word' that we hold in our hands today.

But, each one will believe what they have convinced themselves is the truth. For me, it's the plain and simple truth of the Scriptures. Despite what has been said here about what exactly 'plain and simple' means or the biases attached thereto, I'm hoping that everyone else will be able to figure it out.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rjs330]

You miss the point. Other ANE writings are of interest because of linguist usages, style and genre, that sort of thing.

Yes I get that but they still have no impact on the truth in the bible. You can't use Babylonian literature to determine if Genesis is allegory of even poetry. The bible tells you that Genesis is not allegory. And it does not fit Hebrew poetry. Therefore ANE irrelevant to Genesis.

 

[rjs330]

If this is your attitude, then you completely invalidate your claims about the necessity of using "proper" hermeneutics. By ignoring the cultural/political/literary contexts of the creation narrative, you are leave a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by something; since you have divorced the texts from its context, the only thing left to fill the void is your own biases.

If this hermeneutical rule of "inspiration means it is special and necessarily different from all other similar texts" according to very basic contextual considerations (e.g., genre, et.al.), why bother with analyzing the things that you mentioned earlier, such as language, tense, voice, figures of speech, etc? Certainly you should apply the same principle of willful ignorance to these as well, since they are "inspired"?



This is very true. But I'll go even farther. They are not only "of interest"...they are fundamentally important to properly understanding the Scriptures. If we don't understand, insofar as we are able by analyzing them, the role that creation epics had in the social/political/religious development and evolution of ancient peoples, we miss out on crucial information for the interpretation of Scripture.

For example, let's grant the more or less accepted idea that Genesis is either based directly off of the much older Babylonia Enuma Elish creation epic, or is at least reflective of the broader worldview of ancient peoples regarding the divine, the universe, and their place within it. Such a perspective opens a great opportunity for interpretation and discovery. No longer are we shackled to the biases of interpreting the creation store *as history*, but can instead begin to step into the world of the people who wrote it, and for whom it was written. By comparing and contrasting the stories, we can get a better idea of how they thought of themselves, how they understood themselves in relation to God(s), and what place they understood themselves to have within the universe.

But perhaps even more important, by critically comparing the creation epic within Genesis to those of the broader ANE literature, we can have the proper context for understanding precisely what-it-is that gives the biblical narrative its particular genius, and inspiredness. We need not rely any longer on circular, self-justifying propositions about what the Scriptures *must be*, but can rather enter into a new way of thinking that provides the best possible scenario in which the authors, as ancients, can speak.

This, I would argue, is the truest mark of inspiration...not that an ancient text can appeal to the philosophical sensibilities of a modern, western mind, but rather that even across the millennia, the text can yet speak with beauty, power, and truth.

At no point does God tell us to look at any other literature in order to help us understand his word. Look at what he told the Hebrews. He told them to adhere to his word. He told them to teach it constantly to their children. They were told to gather as one and hear the word. They were told not to,mind their beliefs with other cultures. In fact when they did they got into,trouble. We should not look at other cultures or ANE to help us understand the context of the bible. We look at the bible context alone. Jesus and the apostles only referred to the scriptures. I have no,problem with looking at other Hebraic writings because they were the chosen people of God to understand some cultural ideas or even helping to understand Hebrew poetry. But no ANE should be used to help,interpret the bible because they were written by ungodly wicked cultures. Whereas the Israelites were chosen and led by God and to only them was given his word.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I'm in agreement with rjs. I can't think of a single valid reason that the study of other literature would have any bearing on the truth and validity of God's word. And he's right. God never spoke to the Hebrews and said, "Listen, you guys go out and study all the other written material and then come back and we'll talk." I rather imagine that there are actually people who will gain eternal life that likely haven't read any of the ancient readings. I know I haven't and I understand the Scriptures clearly. This is a red herring argument.

You guys are welcome to teach it, but I'm not buying an ounce of it. You guys seem to want to make God's salvation and His word something that only the learned of universities can fathom. I don't think so. The Scriptures show that the first disciples, for the most part, seemed to have been plain ordinary and fairly unlearned men in the ways of the world. Paul was probably the first disciple that we read of who likely had some formal education in 'religious' studies. As a Pharisee and son of a Pharisee he was trained under Gamaliel and likely studied the Scriptures rigorously.

The Scriptures were not in some nice convenient book form for them. They couldn't carry a copy out on their jobs like we can. They were on scrolls which were basically held as sacred and maintained in the temple or other holy places. So, it's not like Peter, while he's out fishing all day, had an opportunity to pore over the Scriptures. And he certainly wouldn't have had much opportunity to make himself familiar with other ANE writings. In Judaism, it was God's word! It was God's word only! There was nothing that any righteous Jew would have considered valuable from other writings in order to understand the Scriptures. That's still the same today.

Do you know how the Scriptures say we come to know the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit!

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[alexandriaisburning]

At no point does God tell us to look at any other literature in order to help us understand his word.

Then why bother with "proper hermeneutical methods" that you have been proposing? If you don't care about the cultural and philosophical context in which something was written, why should you care about other "contexts" like language? It seems you are being awfully selective in the methodologies that you wish to apply, while conveniently ignoring those which don't "play" with your assumptions about the text and what it is saying. In doing so, you are simply reinforcing the charge that I have been leveling against you; you are not "letting the Scriptures speak for themselves"...to the contrary, you are dictating what they say.

We should not look at other cultures or ANE to help us understand the context of the bible. We look at the bible context alone.

The "context" of the bible "alone" is no context at all, other than what you make of it. The Scriptures were written by people who lived in particular times and places and cultural circumstances. If these "contexts" are unimportant for understanding and interpreting what they wrote, then there is little point in paying any heed to their words whatsoever. For when you divorce the author from her sitz em laben (an important hermeneutical consideration with which you should be familiar, given your alleged lip-service to "proper hermeneutics"), you gut the text of its intention altogether. The vacuum that is left can only be filled by your own interpretive biases, biases which we have seen on clear display. As you are pressed farther and farther into the corner of the obvious circularity of your own position, you have systematically abandoned any pretense of caring about the context of the Scriptures whatsoever, and have plunged headlong into insubstantial propositions which make nice sound bites, but lack any authority or relevance.

Jesus and the apostles only referred to the scriptures.

This is patently false. Jesus quoted popular parables ("Physician, heal yourself!") and phrases ("It will be fair weather, for the sky is red..."), while Paul quoted Greek poets (not to mention numerous allusions) on many occasions. We might also mention the quotation from the Book of Enoch in Jude...

Not only did they "quote" these sources...in many cases, they were used as a corroborating source for the point being made!!!!

I have no,problem with looking at other Hebraic writings because they were the chosen people of God to understand some cultural ideas or even helping to understand Hebrew poetry. But no ANE should be used to help,interpret the bible because they were written by ungodly wicked cultures. Whereas the Israelites were chosen and led by God and to only them was given his word.

So again, I'll repeat: you've shown your true colors. You don't actually care about "context" or "proper hermeneutical tools". These were things to which you gave lipservice when it was convenient. However, now that you are up against the wall of your own circular thinking (and starting to realize it, finally), you drop the pretense of the "importance" of these things and fall back on the final powerplay of the self-justifying interpretation: the appeal to the righteous of the interpreter.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I'm in agreement with rjs. I can't think of a single valid reason that the study of other literature would have any bearing on the truth and validity of God's word.

Funny, as you certainly aren't bothered by allowing your own biases to determine the outcome.

God never spoke to the Hebrews and said, "Listen, you guys go out and study all the other written material and then come back and we'll talk."

This is ridiculous. No one is suggesting that this is what happened.

Let's take the creation myth in Genesis as an example. In its earliest form, it would have been just an oral story, passed from person to person, family to family, generation to generation. It was not necessarily written down (at least not until much greater political and religious stability and infrastructure had been established), and would have transformed over time. As cultures in close proximity traded, inter-married, and generally diffused their particular cultural distinctiveness into the broader cultural mindset, creation epics would have been rehearsed, compared, revised, and evolved into their later forms.

When the Hebrew people finally had enough political and religious stability to be able to codify their beliefs, it seems to be a very natural transition that they would take the creation stories that would have been known in the general consciousness of the people, and mold them for specific theological purposes. So while the general shape, structure, and content of the myths retain their earlier, diffused form, the creation epic within the Hebrew Scriptures would eventually become particularized to support and reinforce the theological priorities of those entrusted with that responsibility. Therefore, it is not surprising that we see within the creation epic in Genesis some of the retroactively imputed marks of a religious system (e.g., Sabbath rest) which is now stable and in need of codification.

I know I haven't and I understand the Scriptures clearly. This is a red herring argument.

I don't doubt you understand them "clearly", since you uncritically allow your biases to determine the conclusions before you even begin to read.

You guys seem to want to make God's salvation and His word something that only the learned of universities can fathom.

No, this has nothing to do with what we are saying. There is no amount of education required to understand the meaning of a creation myth. What most people need, rather, is to be disabused of really bad interpretations which have been foisted upon them by those who are more interested in sating their own interpretive biases.

The Scriptures were not in some nice convenient book form for them. They couldn't carry a copy out on their jobs like we can. They were on scrolls which were basically held as sacred and maintained in the temple or other holy places.

Indeed. This is one of the reasons, as I mentioned above, that the simple and "epic" form of the creation story would have been a perfect choice for the people of the time. As they would have already had familiarity with the creation epics of other cultures, the people for whom the creation epic in Genesis was written would have had an affinity for its form and structure...a perfect story to share with friends and family, to commit to memory, and to rehearse to their children.

Do you know how the Scriptures say we come to know the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit!

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

And there it is. Just like your counterpart, you inevitably fall back onto arguments like this. While I don't dismiss the validity of such an argument, it is certainly not a "proof" of the historicity of the Genesis creation story, nor is it any substantial justification of the biases that you are imputing to the text. Unless the Holy Spirit is a modern, western thinker, of course!

 

[miamited]

Hi aib,

You responded to my post:

Funny, as you certainly aren't bothered by allowing your own biases to determine the outcome.

Well, you believe that our life circumstances and 'how' we understand things to be a determinant of what is ultimately understood as the truth of the Scriptures. But I believe the Scriptures. The Scriptures tell us that it is only through the work of the Holy Spirit that any of us can understand the things of God. It doesn't matter to me about life circumstances or what any of us have 'learned' in our lives that determines the truth of the Scriptures. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. That Spirit speaks the same truth to everyone who has his resource available to them. It doesn't matter if I'm a part of the middle eastern culture or the eurasian culture or that I learned from a rabbi or a priest or a witch. Or that I was abused as a child or lived a life of great wealth and privilege. The Scriptures tell us that it is the Holy Spirit which allows us to discern the things of God. That's all we need. We can have whatever biases one wants to accuse someone of having, but all that stops when the Holy Spirit gets involved. Perhaps you aren't able to discern this truth. It's written in the Scriptures.

You then responded:

What most people need, rather, is to be disabused of really bad interpretations which have been foisted upon them by those who are more interested in sating their own interpretive biases.

Look, that's purely an assumption on your part that I believe as I do because I have had interpretations foisted upon me by those who are more interested in sating their own interpretive biases. I'm confident that you won't trust my claim regarding this, but my understanding of the Scriptures comes through having spent two years studying them with a fair degree of diligence. All I can do is repeat what I said above. I am firmly convicted that my interpretation and understanding of the what the Scriptures intend to mean comes through the Holy Spirit. Before I became a believer I was pretty much like you. Before I had the resource of the Holy Spirit I believed pretty much what you believe about the creation. No. It wasn't really bad interpretations foisted upon me. It was the one true interpretation of the Holy Spirit foisted upon me. But you're not likely to believe that and that's ok with me.

You again repeated:

I don't doubt you understand them "clearly", since you uncritically allow your biases to determine the conclusions before you even begin to read.

Ok. I have biases. The problem is, as I see it, is what or who is the source of my biases. You think it's bad teachers with their own particular biases. I believe it to be the Holy Spirit. Yes, I imagine to your way of thinking that's just another bias. OK.

You closed your discourse:

And there it is. Just like your counterpart, you inevitably fall back onto arguments like this. While I don't dismiss the validity of such an argument, it is certainly not a "proof" of the historicity of the Genesis creation story, nor is it any substantial justification of the biases that you are imputing to the text. Unless the Holy Spirit is a modern, western thinker, of course!

Look, proof is something for science. Faith comes from God. If man could 'prove' the creation account then discussions such as this would have ended hundreds of years ago. My righteous ones shall live by faith. Faith is the assurance of things not seen. You are welcome to continue to accuse people of not really understanding the Scriptures correctly because of their biases. Go for it!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi aib,

As I was praying this morning and thanking and praising God for His goodness and mercy and love it came to me just out of the blue that this idea of yours is ludicrous. Here seems to be the gist of the matter:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now, I believe that the Scriptures are saying to me here, that the proper understanding of what is written, if you will, is that the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, in six days. That the heavens and the earth and all that is in them means everything that exists in this realm. That six days is six pretty regular lengths of days pretty much just like days are today. Determined by the time it takes for the earth to make one complete rotation upon its axis.

Your claim is that the reason I believe this passage of Scripture to be understood as saying what I believe it is saying is that I have eaten some really bad theology. I, on the other hand, believe that the reason I understand this passage as such is because in my early childhood education I was taught what six, and day, and everything and heaven and earth mean. What do you, in your great enlightened and unbiased understanding, think that this passage is conveying to its reader? How do you explain to others that this passage doesn't really mean that in six days the Lord created everything that exists?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Speedwell]

I'm going to heaven and you're not, because the Holy Spirit like me better than He likes you. Neener neener.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Your claim is that the reason I believe this passage of Scripture to be understood as saying what I believe it is saying is that I have eaten some really bad theology. I, on the other hand, believe that the reason I understand this passage as such is because in my early childhood education I was taught what six, and day, and everything and heaven and earth mean. What do you, in your great enlightened and unbiased understanding, think that this passage is conveying to its reader? How do you explain to others that this passage doesn't really mean that in six days the Lord created everything that exists?

I've never suggested that the "number" of days should be taken as anything but literal. In other words, I don't think that "day" is necessarily "figurative" or "code" for a different period of time.

My contention is that the narrative, as a whole, should not necessarily be interpreted historically, as if the intention of the authors was to communicate "historical" information about the origins of creation ("historical", of course, in the sense that modern, western minds understand "history". No, I would suggest rather that it is a true "myth", a story that is intended to communicate theology. Given its remarkably similar structure to other, earlier creation myths (e.g., the 6 days of creation vs. the 6 generations of the gods in Enuma Eilsh, the "speaking into creation" in Genesis, the "naming" of the gods of creation in Enuma Elish, etc.) and yet novel content, it is clear (I think) that the retelling of this story in the Hebrew Scriptures was deliberate and the changes were meant to not only reinforce religious beliefs, but also counter those of the surrounding cultural milieu.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I'm going to heaven and you're not, because the Holy Spirit like me better than He likes you. Neener neener.

Bullet-proof hermeneutics

 

[alexandriaisburning]

What do you, in your great enlightened and unbiased understanding, think that this passage is conveying to its reader? How do you explain to others that this passage doesn't really mean that in six days the Lord created everything that exists?

We must keep in mind, also, that the creation narrative in Genesis was not written for you or me. It was written for ancient people for whom the notions of "historicity" that you wish to impose upon the text would have not had the same meaning, given the differing philosophical assumptions and worldviews that they held.

 

[miamited]

We must keep in mind, also, that the creation narrative in Genesis was not written for you or me. It was written for ancient people for whom the notions of "historicity" that you wish to impose upon the text would have not had the same meaning, given the differing philosophical assumptions and worldviews that they held.

Hi aib,

Does this mean you don't want to answer the question? You can throw out all the rabbit holes you like. Go ahead. Fill the whole field with them. I simply asked what your notion of historicity, to use your word, would impose upon you the understanding of this specific passage? Set aside all your excuses and explanations of other's biases and lack of understanding historicity and just answer the question. Surely you've read the Scriptures and as you read the words that are printed your mind gains some sort of understanding of what those words mean. Now, you may not understand what the author intended them to mean, but you do have an understanding. What is it?

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I'm going to heaven and you're not, because the Holy Spirit like me better than He likes you. Neener neener.

Hi speedwell,

Well, you may want to check that answer. Since you decided to join in, I'll also ask you what your understanding of the particular passage of Scripture is?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again aib,

You responed:

My contention is that the narrative, as a whole, should not necessarily be interpreted historically, as if the intention of the authors was to communicate "historical" information about the origins of creation ("historical", of course, in the sense that modern, western minds understand "history". No, I would suggest rather that it is a true "myth", a story that is intended to communicate theology.

So, you don't believe that these words were actually written on two stone tablets by the very finger of God?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Well, you may want to check that answer. Since you decided to join in, I'll also ask you what your understanding of the particular passage of Scripture is?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No, I don't believe that these words were actually written on two stone tablets by the very finger of God.
Because of the change in voicing I conclude that it was a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber.

 

[miamited]

Hi aib and speedwell,

Look I'm not going any further with this. It is going to have to be left up to the Holy Spirit at this point to convict or not of truth. However, I would encourage you to read the words that Peter wrote:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

And again:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

I would just offer caution and encouragement to be sure that you know that you know that what you are working to teach for the Lord is the truth.

May God bless you both with wisdom and understanding.
In Christ, Ted