Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[Speedwell]

I don't know that there is going to be any continuing on. I am still struggling with your insinuation (the last line of your previous post) that what Jesus had in mind in Matt 7:21 was a literal interpretation of Genesis. It about turned my stomach.

 

[miamited]

I don't know that there is going to be any continuing on. I am still struggling with your insinuation (the last line of your previous post) that what Jesus had in mind in Matt 7:21 was a literal interpretation of Genesis. It about turned my stomach.

Hi speedwell,

Well, before you go, let me again clarify my words since you again seem to not be understanding them. I have no idea what Jesus had in mind when he said those words, but by those words I believe that the faith that God is looking for; the faith that Jesus is looking for in order to write one's name in his Book of Life is more than just our saying that Jesus is Lord.

So, if my understanding of these simple few words of Jesus to his disciples is correct, then what is it that is going to separate one group who have claimed that Jesus is Lord from another group who have likewise claimed that Jesus is Lord.

Just a question that I certainly think needs to be carefully considered. Yes, I think that it has to do with the depth of one's faith in knowing and understanding what is the truth.

Get the picture. Jesus is talking about people who have claimed he is Lord and he immediately follows those words with words that explain that on the day of his Father's judgment there are going to be many who will stand before him crying out and boasting of the great things that they did in his name. Great miracles and healings all done in his name, but Jesus tells this particular group who have proclaimed that Jesus is Lord and done great works in his name while living upon the earth, to depart from him and calls them workers of iniquity.

What's the difference? Could it possibly be that God is looking for the very same kind of faith that He first noted in Abram? God declared Abraham righteous because he believed God.

But yes, you're right. We have bantered this point back and forth quite far enough.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rjs330]

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?

First of all I never said it means what I say it means. I said it means what it says.

Secondly I never read you out of the faith. I'm no judge of that. But you do believe a differently than Christ and the apostles. Not a strong position.

 

[rjs330]

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.

I never said it should. I said it should be taken at its word because it is inspired and authoritative. You seem I believe otherwise. And your belief is based on unauthoritative and uninspired thoughts and writings of men.

 

[Speedwell]

First of all I never said it means what I say it means. I said it means what it says.

LOL! In other words, you said it means what you think it says.

Secondly I never read you out of the faith. I'm no judge of that. But you do believe a differently than Christ and the apostles. Not a strong position.

I certainly believe differently than what you think Christ and the Apostles believed.

 

[rjs330]

LOL! In other words, you said it means what you think it says.

I certainly believe differently than what you think Christ and the Apostles believed.

You might want to re-read what I said. I said it means what it says. You are projecting. You are the one who says the bible doesn't mean what it says. Not me.

I believe in what it says. You don't. Its that simple. You don't believe that what Paul says is true. I do.

 

[Speedwell]

You might want to re-read what I said. I said it means what it says. You are projecting. You are the one who says the bible doesn't mean what it says. Not me.

I think the Bible means what it says, I just don't have much confidence that you know what that is.

I believe in what it says. You don't. Its that simple. You don't believe that what Paul says is true. I do.

For example?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I never said it should. I said it should be taken at its word because it is inspired and authoritative. You seem I believe otherwise. And your belief is based on unauthoritative and uninspired thoughts and writings of men.

Your own words tell us that this is what you do. As "taken at its word" is not an activity engaged in a vacuum, but is rather entangled with the biases and presuppositions of the interpreter, there are few other conclusions that can be reached, especially given the unabashed circularity of interpretive "authority" which you continue to cite.

 

[rjs330]

I think the Bible means what it says, I just don't have much confidence that you know what that is.


For example?

Well it seems like you don't. When the bible says God created the world in six days and you say he didn't it appears that you,don't believe what it says.

Here's what Paul,says about Adam.

So it is also written, The first human, Adam, became a living person, and the last Adam became a spirit that gives life. But the physical body comes first, not the spiritual one—the spiritual body comes afterward. The first human was from the earth made from dust; the second human is from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:45‭-‬47 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.15.45-47.CEB

It's seems you,don't believe that. Walton certainly doesn't.

 

[rjs330]

Your own words tell us that this is what you do. As "taken at its word" is not an activity engaged in a vacuum, but is rather entangled with the biases and presuppositions of the interpreter, there are few other conclusions that can be reached, especially given the unabashed circularity of interpretive "authority" which you continue to cite.

As I,pointed out earlier it CAN be taken in a vacuum. It doesn't have to be entangled with bias. In,fact that's the goal of proper hermeneutics and exegesis. This is precisely why we must take the bible for what it says. If we do,it can't help but overcome our bias.

 

[Speedwell]

As I,pointed out earlier it CAN be taken in a vacuum. It doesn't have to be entangled with bias.

LOL! Except for the bias that it can be taken in a vacuum.

 

[rjs330]

LOL! Except for the bias that it can be taken in a vacuum.

Sorry that's not bias. Its proper scholarship. Let the bible says what it says. Anythingtime you try and make it say what it doesn't say is bias. If it's plain its plain.

If it is raining out side and I,write down in a journal that it's raining outside what would be the proper,thing to do with my words. Say it's raining or look at other journals at the time and call it a myth that I said it's raining or perhaps figure my cultural interpretation of rain may be different. Maybe when I say Its raining I actually meant it's bright and sunny.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry that's not bias. Its proper scholarship. Let the bible says what it says. Anythingtime you try and make it say what it doesn't say is bias. If it's plain its plain.

If it is raining out side and I,write down in a journal that it's raining outside what would be the proper,thing to do with my words. Say it's raining or look at other journals at the time and call it a myth that I said it's raining or perhaps figure my cultural interpretation of rain may be different. Maybe when I say Its raining I actually meant it's bright and sunny.

If I knew it was a journal and not just a story you were writing I would be inclined to agree with you that it was raining that day, but good scholarship would demand that I verify both the nature of what you were writing and the actual state of the weather that day from other sources if possible.

 

[rjs330]

If I knew it was a journal and not just a story you were writing I would be inclined to agree with you that it was raining that day, but good scholarship would demand that I verify both the nature of what you were writing and the actual state of the weather that day from other sources if possible.

But you can't verify it. And we are back to stories again. There is no reason to believe that Genesis is fiction. In fact Exodus says it's not. And since its inspired no other writings can be used to decide if it's true. No other sources are inspired. If the bible is the authority then it stands as authority. If other writings contradict the bible they are wrong Because they are not authoritative. And since no one but God was around at the time then his journal is the only one to be accepted.

 

[Speedwell]

But you can't verify it. And we are back to stories again. There is no reason to believe that Genesis is fiction. In fact Exodus says it's not. And since its inspired no other writings can be used to decide if it's true. No other sources are inspired. If the bible is the authority then it stands as authority. If other writings contradict the bible they are wrong Because they are not authoritative. And since no one but God was around at the time then his journal is the only one to be accepted.

But other writings can help us decide what kind of writing it is.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

As I,pointed out earlier it CAN be taken in a vacuum. It doesn't have to be entangled with bias. In,fact that's the goal of proper hermeneutics and exegesis. This is precisely why we must take the bible for what it says. If we do,it can't help but overcome our bias.

You keep mentioning "proper hermeneutics and exegesis." However, when challenged to define what these actually are, you go back to hopelessly circular arguments. This circularity, I would suggest, is the strongest opponent to your claims that you don't approach or interpret Scripture through any biases. What is most intriguing is that you don't seem to realize it...

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Sorry that's not bias. Its proper scholarship. Let the bible says what it says. Anythingtime you try and make it say what it doesn't say is bias. If it's plain its plain.

You keep throwing words around like "what it says" and "plain", as if these definitions are fixed, objective, and (perhaps most importantly) KNOWN. However, this is simply not the case; what is "plain" to you as a modern, western thinker might be something entirely different to someone who does not share the philosophical inheritance that you have and upon which the whole of your thinking is rooted. The only thing that will be "plain" to you is that which coheres with the presuppositions that you bring to the texts and subsequently finds validation in the circular self-justifications that you have erected to shield your interpretations from any criticism.

So when you say that "what the Scriptures say" are "plain if they're plain", you're only actually saying that one should uncritically allow modern western philosophical prejudices to be the first and final rule of interpretive methodology. While we all understand how this "obviously" makes sense to you within the tangle of circularity that you've established, it doesn't create a very convincing interpretation, nor does it make a very strong case for bearing any resemblance to that which might be found in the mind of the ancients for which it was intended.

If it is raining out side and I,write down in a journal that it's raining outside what would be the proper,thing to do with my words. Say it's raining or look at other journals at the time and call it a myth that I said it's raining or perhaps figure my cultural interpretation of rain may be different. Maybe when I say Its raining I actually meant it's bright and sunny.

This is an obtuse example, for several reasons.

First, it presumes that we have full access to your intentions in writing these words. Perhaps you have the intention of recording the "history" that you have experienced. Or perhaps you use your journal to compose poetic verses. Or perhaps your journal is a medium where you compose fantasy. Or perhaps your words are a metaphor for some other situation in your life (e.g., referring to the "storms of life", etc). Or perhaps you are writing in parables to another person.

To know this, we'd have to understand the life situation that you occupy, we'd have to compare your writing to those of others within your culture (both in narrow and broad domains), and we'd also have to have some insight into how those for whom you were writing (if indeed you were writing for anyone else) would have understood it.

However, there is no particular reason (other than--YET AGAIN--modern biases for historicity) to assume that your mention of it "raining" corresponds to an historical event (in the sense that the modern mind understands "happened-ness").

Another issue is that it presumes that we know what a "journal" is. Does the technical recording of historical events exclusively comprise the contents of journal entries? Or are other types of writing included as well? If so, what are the delimiting marks of what is "history" and what is otherwise?

Of course, this is further complicated by the fact that in regard to "your" journal, we are talking about contemporary literature. While we certainly can't know your intentions with certainty, the proximity of the interpreter to the writer is a great aid in pulling apart the layers of meaning...if for no other reason than that there are more layers (because of the proximity) to be pulled part.

However, if such significant issues are posed by the interpretation of contemporary literature, just imagine the exponential increase of challenges countenanced in the interpretation of literature that is millennia old.

 

[rjs330]

But other writings can help us decide what kind of writing it is.

Other writings may and I say may help if they are the same language. Such as Hebrew poetry can help us decide if a writing may be poetry. Not all people and all cultures are the same as you know. Ancient Babylonian mythology has no bearing on the word,of God because the word of God is God's word to,men inspired by him and was written in Hebrew language. And as I have said there is no Ancient writings that produce evidence that any part of the word is not actual historical fact. It may be a poem, such as Psalms but it doesn't mean it's not factual. Genesis,does not fit Hebrew poetry such as Psalms. And Babylonian myth has nothing to do,with Genesis. And you still haven't been able to,show how the declaration in Exodus that God created in six days is anything but fact.

 

[rjs330]

You keep mentioning "proper hermeneutics and exegesis." However, when challenged to define what these actually are, you go back to hopelessly circular arguments. This circularity, I would suggest, is the strongest opponent to your claims that you don't approach or interpret Scripture through any biases. What is most intriguing is that you don't seem to realize it...

I thought I did. Ok, let's start. Proper hermeutics and exegesis starts with the language. The meaning of the word, voice, tense etc all,play a part. You also take a look at context. Context of the surrounding words, the,surrounding verses, chapters, book and then the entire scriptures. You take a look at language in regards to figures of speech etc. Sorry gotta run.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I thought I did. Ok, let's start. Proper hermeutics and exegesis starts with the language. The meaning of the word, voice, tense etc all,play a part. You also take a look at context. Context of the surrounding words, the,surrounding verses, chapters, book and then the entire scriptures. You take a look at language in regards to figures of speech etc. Sorry gotta run.

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?