Tradition over the Bible when they conflict? Preference over the Bible when in conflict?

[BobRyan]

Great discussion thread (featured and popular) on the need to trust the Bible ... here
Friday at 10:31 PM #1

There we looked at these examples to see where the Bible is to be accepted as it reads or is symbolism --

1. Virgin birth - true or fiction? (mythology?)
2. Bodily resurrection of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
3. Miracles of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
4. seven day creation week - true or fiction? (mythology?)
5. world wide flood - true or fiction? (mythology?)

If you accept all of it as true instead of mythology or fiction - do you believe that acceptance is "important"?

If you deny some but not others in that list above - what determines your preferences?
How do you avoid a "pick-and-choose" conclusion as "the rule" you use?

(I of course take them all as real.. literal historic events)
=============================================
added to OP:
Lots of threads being started lately that boil down to "The bible vs whatever doctrine you may hold to" and "what does the Bible really say about this or that topic".

Here is a great example in this thread where what was just an academic exercise for "others" starts to become "personal", inconvenient, held at arms length.

============================================

Question for this thread is whether you view these issues as significant.

(if so please discuss them in a way that is consistent with GT forum rules. As always)

 

[DW1980]

I think you can generally tell when the Bible intends for something to be taken as literal or symbolic, and usually you can see how other later writers in the Bible understood it - and often Jesus himself. So for example, Revelation is highly symbolic (Jesus crowned with stars, sword coming from his mouth). The virgin birth and Christ's miracles for example, is clearly literal as it's reported as a factual account of something that happened.

Do I believe acceptance is important? I'm not sure if you mean by the Church, or by an individual. For me, if the Bible is inspired by God (and I believe it is) then what God has to say is vitally important - even if I don't necessarily understand it. I have enough evidence that God can be trusted, and that the Bible is what it claims to be, and above all, Jesus is who he claims to be (God, who died and rose again) that I know I can trust the rest.

 

[Dave-W]

I think you can generally tell when the Bible intends for something to be taken as literal or symbolic,

I disagree with the either/or premise.
Much of scripture is BOTH.

 

[Albion]

Great discussion thread (featured and popular) on the need to trust the Bible ... here
Friday at 10:31 PM #1

There we looked at these examples to see where the Bible is to be accepted as it reads or is symbolism --

1. Virgin birth - true or fiction? (mythology?)
2. Bodily resurrection of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
3. Miracles of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
4. seven day creation week - true or fiction? (mythology?)
5. world wide flood - true or fiction? (mythology?)

It isn't just a matter or truth vs fiction or even literalness vs symbolism. Often we are dealing with poetic or flowery language that is not really figurative, even though some people think that it is. We also use expressions that are not precisely literal, but we do not intend to be telling a parable by use of them either. "Everybody knows...." is an example. It is understood that this means that its widely known or that most people agree, but not that every last person anywhere on Earth knows. What, however, would someone from a different culture and time make of such a turn of phrase?

 

[DW1980]

I disagree with the either/or premise.
Much of scripture is BOTH.

Absolutely - that's what I meant by "generally" tell. There are some things like prophecies with dual fulfillment, Psalms that to me are not obviously messianic prophecy but applied to Jesus in the NT...

Apologies, I may not have been as clear as I could have been.

 

[DamianWarS]

Great discussion thread (featured and popular) on the need to trust the Bible ... here
Friday at 10:31 PM #1

There we looked at these examples to see where the Bible is to be accepted as it reads or is symbolism --

1. Virgin birth - true or fiction? (mythology?)
2. Bodily resurrection of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
3. Miracles of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
4. seven day creation week - true or fiction? (mythology?)
5. world wide flood - true or fiction? (mythology?)

If you accept all of it as true instead of mythology or fiction - do you believe that acceptance is "important"?

If you deny some but not others in that list above - what determines your preferences?
How do you avoid a "pick-and-choose" conclusion as "the rule" you use?

=============================================

Question for this thread is whether you view these issues as significant.

(if so please discuss them in a way that is consistent with GT forum rules. As always)

the genesis accounts have a 2500/1000 year gap from the time they happened until the time they are written down (creation/flood). If you want to know how someone can "pick-and-choose" this large gap is unique in all of scripture and is the justification behind varied interpretations. This gap should be considered when interpreting the accounts which allows more liberties in the interpretations while still be responsible.

You may disagree with this but you can't just dismiss it as it is a significant detail that needs to be address. While God is able to preserve literal details he is also able to use pre-existing oral accounts to point to him as the true God and to allow the Hebrews to engage in authentic worship toward him using these accounts. We all are use to the former but why is the latter so difficult to embrace? It comes down to what is God valuing in these accounts not what we value if we were to write them.

 

[BobRyan]

I think you can generally tell when the Bible intends for something to be taken as literal or symbolic, and usually you can see how other later writers in the Bible understood it - and often Jesus himself.

I agree.

So for example, Revelation is highly symbolic (Jesus crowned with stars, sword coming from his mouth)

yes true -- many symbols used there.

. The virgin birth and Christ's miracles for example, is clearly literal as it's reported as a factual account of something that happened.

Do I believe acceptance is important? I'm not sure if you mean by the Church, or by an individual. For me, if the Bible is inspired by God (and I believe it is) then what God has to say is vitally important - even if I don't necessarily understand it. I have enough evidence that God can be trusted, and that the Bible is what it claims to be, and above all, Jesus is who he claims to be (God, who died and rose again) that I know I can trust the rest.

Agreed.

In the gospels a virgin and a baby and birth are all known entities ...not symbolism. EVEN though we do not see "virgin birth" and "incarnation" every day.

In Rev 12 dragon in the sky ... is clearly a symbol.

 

[BobRyan]

the genesis accounts have a 2500/1000 year gap from the time they happened until the time they are written down (creation/flood).

True.

God is "there" at the virgin birth not the Gospel writers -- and then decades later God "inspires" the Gospel writer to record the historic event accurately.

God was there for Genesis 1 not Moses - and then later "inspired" Moses to write the historic event accurately.

I am puzzled why you think the amount of time that elapses is a problem for God.

You may disagree with this but you can't just dismiss it as it is a significant detail that needs to be address.

I am simply asking that you clarify what the logic is when it comes to God remembering something that happened 40 years ago vs 40 million years ago or even as in the case of one of the examples above ... 2500 years ago.

While God is able to preserve literal details he is also able to use pre-existing oral accounts

2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is given by inspiration from God"
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God"

It is "unlikely" that a bunch of tradition-promoters were on planet earth on day 1 trying to write down or transmit via tradition what they were seeing.

It comes down to what is God valuing in these accounts not what we value if we were to write them.

Well we know for example in Exodus 20:11 that it is God speaking the words verbally and not asking for a tradition to be handed to Him.

 

[1213]

...1. Virgin birth - true or fiction? (mythology?)
2. Bodily resurrection of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
3. Miracles of Christ - true or fiction? (mythology?)
4. seven day creation week - true or fiction? (mythology?)
5. world wide flood - true or fiction? (mythology?)

If you accept all of it as true instead of mythology or fiction - do you believe that acceptance is "important"?

I believe all of those happened as the Bible describes it. But important thing is to be righteous, because:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

 

[DamianWarS]

True.

God is "there" at the virgin birth not the Gospel writers -- and then decades later God "inspires" the Gospel writer to record the historic event accurately.

God was there for Genesis 1 not Moses - and then later "inspired" Moses to write the historic event accurately.

I am puzzled why you think the amount of time that elapses is a problem for God.

I am simply asking that you clarify what the logic is when it comes to God remembering something that happened 40 years ago vs 40 million years ago or even as in the case of one of the examples above ... 2500 years ago.

2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is given by inspiration from God"
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God"

It is "unlikely" that a bunch of tradition-promoters were on planet earth on day 1 trying to write down or transmit via tradition what they were seeing.

Well we know for example in Exodus 20:11 that it is God speaking the words verbally and not asking for a tradition to be handed to Him.

I do not deny the inspiration of God upon all scripture and of course God was there but none of this requires God to tell us the literal details of these early accounts of Genesis and that's what you fail to address. The 2500 years, or any amount of time, is not a problem for God, the "problem" is with people who would have a difficult time accepting what they have always known through oral tradition.

What is clear is that the Israelites had some massive theological problems (such as worshiping a golden calf at the drop of a hat). They probably also had a lot of heretical teachings and accounts going through their communities existing through oral accounts or "myths". For Moses to come down from the mountain and say "God told me you're all wrong and this is how it actually happened" would probably cause a strong emotional response that could have led to Moses being killed or being run out.

I have traveled the world and lived among many different people groups and one thing I know is that people respond well when you respect the way they think and the things they value even if they seems foolish and the gospel is best communicated when you can do it using their values not yours. It's called contextualizing or redemptive analogies and God sending his son to live among us in a humble manner is the greatest example of this and it tells me God values the way we think. If he valued this with sending his own Son then why is it difficult to see how he could value contextualizing oral traditions among the ancient hebrews.

You miss the point when you can only think of this position as a myth. It's about God using the values of the culture to communicate his message, he did it with Jesus and he can do it just as well with existing oral traditions by redeeming them so they no longer communicate myths but instead ordain inspirations from God to Moses; they just don't have to be literal.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not deny the inspiration of God upon all scripture and of course God was there but none of this requires God to tell us the literal details of these early accounts of Genesis

This is not a discussion about writing a letter to God demanding that He tell us something.

This is a discussion at looking at what He already told us.

You claimed we get to dismiss details if the event being described is over 1000 years old (sort of like the Virgin birth is now over 1000 years old). I am simply asking for the logic that you are using to make such an odd claim.

The 2500 years, or any amount of time, is not a problem for God,

True. How nice then that we have -

2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is given by inspiration from God"
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God"

What is clear is that the Israelites had some massive theological problems (such as worshiping a golden calf at the drop of a hat).

They had problems violating the Word of God - but not writing it. God never condemns the Bible authors as being the source of false doctrine.

See Mark 7:6-13

 

[DamianWarS]

This is not a discussion about writing a letter to God demanding that He tell us something.

This is a discussion at looking at what He already told us.

You claimed we get to dismiss details if the event being described is over 1000 years old (sort alike the Virgin birth is now over 1000 years old). I am simply asking for the logic that you are using to make such an odd claim.



True. How nice then that we have -

2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is given by inspiration from God"
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God"



They had problems violating the Word of God - but not writing it. God never condemns the Bible authors as being the source of false doctrine.

See Mark 7:6-13

I addressed all this in my first post. Do you have anything new to add to the conversation?

 

[DW1980]

I do not deny the inspiration of God upon all scripture and of course God was there but none of this requires God to tell us the literal details of these early accounts of Genesis and that's what you fail to address. The 2500 years, or any amount of time, is not a problem for God, the "problem" is with people who would have a difficult time accepting what they have always known through oral tradition.

What is clear is that the Israelites had some massive theological problems (such as worshiping a golden calf at the drop of a hat). They probably also had a lot of heretical teachings and accounts going through their communities existing through oral accounts or "myths". For Moses to come down from the mountain and say "God told me you're all wrong and this is how it actually happened" would probably cause a strong emotional response that could have led to Moses being killed or being run out.

I have traveled the world and lived among many different people groups and one thing I know is that people respond well when you respect the way they think and the things they value even if they seems foolish and the gospel is best communicated when you can do it using their values not yours. It's called contextualizing or redemptive analogies and God sending his son to live among us in a humble manner is the greatest example of this and it tells me God values the way we think. If he valued this with sending his own Son then why is it difficult to see how he could value contextualizing oral traditions among the ancient hebrews.

You miss the point when you can only think of this position as a myth. It's about God using the values of the culture to communicate his message, he did it with Jesus and he can do it just as well with existing oral traditions by redeeming them so they no longer communicate myths but instead ordain inspirations from God to Moses; they just don't have to be literal.

I absolutely agree with you about communicating the Gospel in a way that is culturally relevant. As Christians we can be very guilty of assuming that everyone should think like us. My problem with this as it applies to taking the Bible literally is that it wasn't simply a case of Moses giving them something "new". He wasn't only saying "God told me you're all wrong and this is how it actually happened" (and this is assuming they believed something very different in the first place).

These were people who had witnessed first hand God delivering them from Egypt. They had seen the plagues, and the parting of the red sea. What Moses was teaching was backed up by their own experience of God. As Christians we also have to take into account that Jesus himself quotes Genesis and offers no correction, so he seems to have taken it literally too. And we know Jesus was not above offending prevailing religious sensibilities!

 

[DamianWarS]

I absolutely agree with you about communicating the Gospel in a way that is culturally relevant. As Christians we can be very guilty of assuming that everyone should think like us. My problem with this as it applies to taking the Bible literally is that it wasn't simply a case of Moses giving them something "new". He wasn't only saying "God told me you're all wrong and this is how it actually happened" (and this is assuming they believed something very different in the first place).

These were people who had witnessed first hand God delivering them from Egypt. They had seen the plagues, and the parting of the red sea. What Moses was teaching was backed up by their own experience of God. As Christians we also have to take into account that Jesus himself quotes Genesis and offers no correction, so he seems to have taken it literally too. And we know Jesus was not above offending prevailing religious sensibilities!

although the Israelites experienced God delivering them from Egypt they still made a golden calf and started to worship it despite all that they saw. It seems odd for them to give up so quickly but we tend to approach these details in retrospect. If after all these amazing signs and wonders from God they still looked to a golden calf it tells me they had some deep seated heresies that they did not want to release. What was more important was for them to de-paganize their systems and have them point to the one true God than it was for them to know the literal events of how the earth was created.

But this doesn't mean I'm promoting evolution or I am saying the details don't matter. Just because they may not be literal doesn't mean they are not important as we see foundations of faith developed through these early accounts. It also doesn't mean I am pointing to evolution; I'm not trying to replace creation I'm just saying we miss the point when we hyper analyse it as a literal account; it's not science book so we shouldn't approach it that way.

the fact Jesus and NT authors reference these early accounts still doesn't demand these accounts to be literal they only demand the detail presented are important and we need to take them seriously... but I don't conflate these values with literalness.

 

[BobRyan]

I addressed all this in my first post.

I addressed all that before...

 

[BobRyan]

although the Israelites experienced God delivering them from Egypt they still made a golden calf and started to worship it despite all that they saw.

Already addressed before... they were sometimes prone to sin - transgression of God's Law - but God never charged any Bible writer with writing in favor of golden-calf-worship.

As we all know.

Already addressed before.

a
But this doesn't mean I'm promoting evolution or I am saying the details don't matter.

Until you read thee actual Bible - for example in Mark 7:6-13

As already addressed before.

the fact Jesus and NT authors reference these early accounts still doesn't demand these accounts to be literal they only demand the detail presented are important

Self-conflicted statements welcomed.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting ... we have a thread with about 100% agreement in the polling section.

Nice.

 

[BobRyan]

Lots of threads being started lately that boil down to "The bible vs whatever doctrine you may hold to" and "what does the Bible really say about this or that topic".

Here is a great example in this thread where what was just an academic exercise for "others" starts to become "personal", inconvenient, held at arms length.