Were Adam and Eve the first?

[GenemZ]

And if God did want some prophecies to be in scripture twice, who are you to say he would not use this way of getting it into scripture twice? Are you so sure you know exactly how inspiration works?

Please, tell us how it works....

Thank you, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Please, tell us how it works....

Thank you, GeneZ

I am quite willing to admit that I have no idea, except that it probably looks very ordinary most of the time. After all, most biblical writers were not aware they were writing holy scripture. They were simply keeping records, writing poetry, collecting proverbs, counselling new churches, calling Israel back to God's covenant, writing personal letters and memoirs, things like that.

 

[depthdeception]

To understand inspiration, one must understand the categories under consideration. Most Christians refer to the bible as the "Word." However, this is not accurate. Christ is the Word, the eternal Logos of God. The Scriptures are a testament to the Word, to Christ and God's redemptive plan in the history of salvation--they are not the Logos of God.

THerefore, if this is one's understanding (and I think this is the understanding which the Scriptures themselves portray of themselves), Scripture need not be the word-for-word dictation of God to humans. Rather, the Scriptures, as a testament to the Logos, can actually arise out of normal human experience and be recognized as definitive testimonies to the Lordship of Christ and the activity of God in the salvific history of humankind.

 

[GenemZ]

I am quite willing to admit that I have no idea

Then, by your own admittance, you are not qualified to perceive who does.

Yet, you act as if all others have to be as yourself. You have no idea what the grace of God has shown certain people. For, only by the power of God's grace can one know these things. To those walking in the energy of their flesh, they only see others as being equally speculative as they are. As if its all an intellectual exercise in logic. If something seems illogical to the natural mind? Then the Bible has to be wrong. Not the person.

Wishing you the best.

GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

To understand inspiration, one must understand the categories under consideration. Most Christians refer to the bible as the "Word." However, this is not accurate.

It is accurate.

Christ is the Word, the eternal Logos of God. The Scriptures are a testament to the Word, to Christ and God's redemptive plan in the history of salvation--they are not the Logos of God.

Christ is the living Word. The Bible is the written Word. The living Word transposed via the Holy Spirit his thoughts, that he deemed needed by believers in time, into written form. The Bible does not contain all there is to know from the Word. The Bible now contains all the knowledge of the Word needed for us to overcome the evils of this world, and to acquire and enjoy the capacity for life while we remain here.

There is more to the Word than the Bible. In God's omniscience he only put enough of his thoughts which are to be needed from generation to generation, until his return.

Jesus is the Word in its fulness. We now have in written form all what is needed to experience the fulness of Christ within the limits of living in time and space, in a fallen world. Once we enter into Eternity we will have access to much more of the Word. Most likely, then it will be given via thought transference and no longer needed in written form.

THerefore, if this is one's understanding (and I think this is the understanding which the Scriptures themselves portray of themselves), Scripture need not be the word-for-word dictation of God to humans. Rather, the Scriptures, as a testament to the Logos, can actually arise out of normal human experience and be recognized as definitive testimonies to the Lordship of Christ and the activity of God in the salvific history of humankind.

An artist may paint in oils. Next day, in airbrush. Next week, he may create digital art. Likewise, God chose certain individuals, and without altering their personalities and the way they think, used them to "paint" his words onto the written page. One day the Lord paints in oils for an effect. Next day he finds a big broad brush and paints a billboard on the road of righteousness. One prophet who was epcifically chosen by God produced one effect. Another prophet with a different temperment, expressed God's given thought in another shade of expression that God desired to be expressed.

God is the writer. The prophets were only the writing utensil. Some were more colorful. Some had more flair. Some were for fine detail. But, always done by the same hand.

2 Peter 1:20-21 niv
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

And. when God needed something done to exact specifications? Such as writing down the Word of God?

An illustration could be found in God demanding that the tabernacle to be built in the wilderness was to be constructed to EXACT specifications.... How did God ensure it would be done EXACTLY as he wanted it to be done?

Exodus 35:30-33 niv
"Then Moses said to the Israelites, "See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship."

Exodus 36:1 niv
"So Bezalel, Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the LORD has given skill and ability to know how to carry out all the work of constructing the sanctuary are to do the work just as the LORD has commanded."




If God could make sure that the Tabernacle was to be made to his exact design..... How much more could he guarantee by the power of His Spirit for a mind inside a body to grab a hold of a writing devise and to put down on parchment his desired words? It should not pose a problem for God. For man, alone? Yes. For God? No!

The Word of God is much more important to Him than a mere tabernacle that he knew would only be temporary. Now, if you believe that there is a God? Then why do you see a problem with God getting into written form that which is held in the highest esteem by God Himself? Is God unable?

Psalm 138:2
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."



Nothing can be magnified above God Himself. If that spoke of Jesus Christ as the living Word, he would have no need to be magnified above anything. He is already their by default. It is the written Word that God magnifies above all. He magnifies it by stressing its importance in the life of the believer.

Life View:
Anti-fundamentalist

Confronting Fundamentalism one day (not a literal 24-hour period) at a time.

I see you have a strong dislike for fundies. Not everyone who believes the Word as it is written is true, is a fundy. You do realize that? Don't you?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Christ is the living Word. The Bible is the written Word.

So you are saying that the bible is the same as Christ, that the bible is that which has existed from eternity with God and is God??? From a theolgoical standpoint, this would make a quandranity, not a trinity, and you should worship the Scriptures. I somehow doubt you want to live up to this necessary conclusion.

The Bible does not contain all there is to know from the Word. The Bible now contains all the knowledge of the Word needed for us to overcome the evils of this world, and to acquire and enjoy the capacity for life while we remain here.

Wait a minute. Before you said the bible was the Word (eternal Logos) in written form. Now you are saying that it contains knowledge of the Word (eternal Logos). So which is it? Is the bible the WOrd (eternal Logos) of God, or is it a recepitcle that contains the Word (eternal Logos) of God???

There is more to the Word than the Bible.

How can this be so? You said ealier that the Scriptures are the Logos in written form...

Jesus is the Word in its fulness. We now have in written form all what is needed to experience the fulness of Christ within the limits of living in time and space, in a fallen world. Once we enter into Eternity we will have access to much more of the Word. Most likely, then it will be given via thought transference and no longer needed in written form.

Let me requote your quote using the understanding which you have laid out that Christ = the Word and the Scriptures = the Word:

"Jesus is the Logos in its fulness. We now have in Christ all that is needed to experience the fulness of Christ....

An artist may paint in oils. Next day, in airbrush. Next week, he may create digital art. Likewise, God chose certain individuals, and without altering their personalities and the way they think, used them to "paint" his words onto the written page. One day the Lord paints in oils for an effect. Next day he finds a big broad brush and paints a billboard on the road of righteousness. One prophet who was epcifically chosen by God produced one effect. Another prophet with a different temperment, expressed God's given thought in another shade of expression that God desired to be expressed.

Or perhaps it was decided that a certain prophet's writings best described the Jewish people's belief in God and understanding of God's involvement in the history of the salvation of Israel, and for this reason deemed to be "inspired" and accepted by the community as a witness to the nature and work of God amongst God's people.

2 Peter 1:20-21 niv
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I don't see how this proves your point about the "style" of inspiration.

The Word of God is much more important to Him than a mere tabernacle that he knew would only be temporary. Now, if you believe that there is a God? Then why do you see a problem with God getting into written form that which is held in the highest esteem by God Himself? Is God unable?

I don't see an "impossibility" with God doing anything. All I am saying is that such a view of the "utensil-ity" of God "writing" the Scriptures through various people does not seem to square with many of the writers' own views about their writings. Granted the OT prophets believed they spoke for God, and quoted God as saying "such and such." However, when one gets to the New Testament, such views radically change, especially when one gets to Paul who frequently admits that what he is saying is "not a command from God." The New Testament writers, in no uncertain terms, did not view their own writings as being on the same level of the Scriptures (the OT). Therefore, if our understanding of inspiration is to include what the NT writers, as a whole, express about the nature of inspiration, it is difficult to see that what you are proposing is what they are testifying to.

Nothing can be magnified above God Himself. If that spoke of Jesus Christ as the living Word, he would have no need to be magnified above anything. He is already their by default. It is the written Word that God magnifies above all. He magnifies it by stressing its importance in the life of the believer.

This doesn't make any sense. Please explain more fully.

I see you have a strong dislike for fundies. Not everyone who believes the Word as it is written is true, is a fundy. You do realize that? Don't you?

Yes, I do realize that, for I myself believe that the Word is true. I also believe the Scriptures are true (but not in a fundementalist sense), just not the same thing as the Word.

 

[Delta One]

Hi wisdomseeker,

I have some questions regarding Adam and Eve. I feel in my heart that they were not the first man and woman in the world. The bible even mentions that their son goes away and comes back with a wife. How can that be? If Adam and Eve were truly the first wouldn't that make thier son's wife his sister? Please help me with this question it has been bothering me for some time.

This question about "Where did Cain get his wife?" has baffled many for quite some time, yet surprisingly enough the Bible basically tells us the answer. We are told in Genesis 5:4 that Adam and Eve "had other children".

Now since Eve and Adam were the first humans - Adam called his wife "Eve" because she was the "mother of all human beings" (Genesis 3:20) - and they had other sons and daughters, then Cain must have married one of his sisters! After Cain killed his brother, Abel, he is obviously scared that the other humans will kill him (Genesis 4:14) which already implies that he had other brothers and sisters about his age at that time.

Now you may be wondering, "Isn't that wrong?" It's interesting to note that it wasn't until the time of Moses that God told the Israelites not to marry their relatives (but He didn't say not to before this time). Now there may be a number of reasons for this ban on marrying close relatives, but one major reason I believe is the fact of there being a higher chance of the child of close relatives being deformed and getting the same genetic diseases (mutations) as their parents. Remember that by the time of Moses, mankind had been suffering the effects of the Curse that God placed on His whole creation when Adam sinned against Him for a thousand years or so - with time there is more and more genetic mutations and people more closely related are more likely to carry that same genetic mutations that can be passed onto the child who thus is negatively affected.

Just after the Fall, we should expect there to be less mutations than several thousand years after the Fall -- given the short time that mankind has been suffering from the negative effects of the Curse. So the risk in close relatives marrying having negative effects on the children is relatively small. However, as time goes on and more and more mutations start happening, this risk is rapidly increased.

This is just a quick response, if you're interested in further exploring this question in more detail, then I recommend you read the article Cain's Wife - Who Was She? from the Answers in Genesis website: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp>.

I hope this helps! God Bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

with time there is more and more genetic mutations and people more closely related are more likely to carry that same genetic mutations that can be passed onto the child who thus is negatively affected.

It is curious that the same YECists, AiG in particular, that make such a big deal of scientific methods of dating being so full of mis-assumptions as to be useless, so naturally use science to booster their interpretations of Scriptures. Look at how easily they bring genetics into the argument to add support to the idea that Abel would have married his sister. YECist is a modern movement, not a restorationist return to the past, this is an important issue in actually understanding them. They do not deny the importance of scientific epistemology, they want to control it.

....

 

[Bushido216]

Wasn't it written that God is not the author of confusion?

And, where did geneZ say he knew the mind of God? That is quite an accusation to make without any support.

The way you judge others is the way God will judge you.

Dare you not to recognize sarcasm?!?!

 

[depthdeception]

YECist is a modern movement, not a restorationist return to the past, this is an important issue in actually understanding them. They do not deny the importance of scientific epistemology, they want to control it.

....

This is a great point. Many people believe that YEC or other similar ideas are somehow the "historic" Christian understanding of "origins." Church history, however, knows no such idea. As you rightly note, it is a modern development, one that is ironically married to the very "movements" which it is trying to undermine.

 

[Bushido216]

Just because we have something, does not mean we will use it. God has nothing to learn. So, we can not instruct him. But, God has given us his written Word so that we can know his mind as we should. We have been given his thinking in terms that we are needing in this life. Its called, "sound doctrine." Not all desire this kind of teaching. Some do. Some don't.

What? I would just love to see that report!

COMPLAINT: "GeneZ actually thinks the Word of God, is the Word of God! Do something with this heretic, please!"

I see... Perhaps? God wanted the confusion?

I will leave you with this...

Do me a favor? If you make that complaint? Please tell them to inform me of what they thought about it? I really find it amsuing that you think it heresey to think the Word of God is blasphemy to believe it. To believe it can be truly understood. That's what I get from your words.

In Christ, GeneZ

Condescension does not make friends!

My point, Genez, is that in post #35 your arguement can be boiled down to "since what you said doesn't agree with my interpretation of scripture, and since God only has what He wants in scripture, and I believe mine to be correct, anything you're saying can't be."

That boils down to "I know what God wanted in scripture." That's dangerous.

 

[Bushido216]

1 Corinthians 2:16 niv
"For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

Just because we have something, does not mean we will use it. God has nothing to learn. So, we can not instruct him. But, God has given us his written Word so that we can know his mind as we should. We have been given his thinking in terms that we are needing in this life. Its called, "sound doctrine." Not all desire this kind of teaching. Some do. Some don't.

For that matter, how do you know that gluadys doesn't have the Mind of Christ and you do?

 

[Bushido216]

Then, by your own admittance, you are not qualified to perceive who does.

Yet, you act as if all others have to be as yourself. You have no idea what the grace of God has shown certain people. For, only by the power of God's grace can one know these things. To those walking in the energy of their flesh, they only see others as being equally speculative as they are. As if its all an intellectual exercise in logic. If something seems illogical to the natural mind? Then the Bible has to be wrong. Not the person.

Wishing you the best.

GeneZ

And you do know how inspiration works? What makes you so high and holy that you can determine what is right and what is wrong like this? Do you not see where my point of heresy arises?

 

[GenemZ]

So you are saying that the bible is the same as Christ, that the bible is that which has existed from eternity with God and is God??? From a theolgoical standpoint, this would make a quandranity, not a trinity, and you should worship the Scriptures. I somehow doubt you want to live up to this necessary conclusion.

The written Word is the mind (thinking) of Christ that we have been given. I do not worship the Scriptures. The Scriptures direct me (and free me up) to worship the living God.

Wait a minute. Before you said the bible was the Word (eternal Logos) in written form. Now you are saying that it contains knowledge of the Word (eternal Logos). So which is it? Is the bible the WOrd (eternal Logos) of God, or is it a recepitcle that contains the Word (eternal Logos) of God???

What we now have in written form was always in the mind of God. The very nature of omniscience reveals this to be true. The Word is God's means for communication to the created soul. If it is spoken, or written, it does not matter. God does not speak within the Trinity. There is no need with omniscience. The Trinity is shown speaking in the Word as a means to communicate something to our limited perspective.

God does not have a thought within himself, for himself. He is omniscient. His thoughts we read about were designed to communicate to us. Nothing takes God by surprise. God never learns. If God did not provide for his creation the communication device we call "the Word" we would know nothing about God. It is for our sakes he is the Word. He has no need for words. How can you have a conversation with someone who already knew all you would say before you said it? What could he learn from you? The Word is God's means to let us in on what he already knows.

How can this be so? You said ealier that the Scriptures are the Logos in written form...

The OT saints only had a portion of the Word. All they needed for what was required of them by God. The Church entered into a new realm of spiritual reality, therfore, God supplied additional Word for our new life in Christ. When we enter into Eternity new dimensions will open up to us. For that, God has the Word in waiting. The Word that we do not yet know. The Word is God's communication to men and angels the very thoughts that make known to us what we can not know outside of God. The Word is God giving portions of Himself that He already knew (always knew) and makes it known to us. It can be directly from the mouth of the Lord. Or, it can be directly from the mouth of God and put into writing for someone else to know about later on.

Let me requote your quote using the understanding which you have laid out that Christ = the Word and the Scriptures = the Word:

"Jesus is the Logos in its fulness. We now have in Christ all that is needed to experience the fulness of Christ....

Each one of us has been assigned an amount of Christ we can know. That is why the body of Christ is made up of many parts to make a whole. If each one of us reaches our full potential in maturing in Christ, for us, that will be our fulness in Christ. Yet, Christ contains all there is that the entire body of Christ can corporately manifest. Christ is the fulness. We can have out fulness. Together, all the members of the body come closer to resembling the fulness of Christ.... here, I will illustrate.

The Lord gives certain believers the gift to understand the Hebrew and Greek texts. Yet, Christ not only knows the Hebrew and Greek texts, he invented them! Others, he gives the gift to publish the works of these men who exegete the Scriptures... then he gives the gift for some to teach what was revealed in a way that communicates to those under them. Jesus does not need any of this if he were to appear on earth. He can do all those things on his own. We have only been given a measure of faith. Christ is the fulness of the Word. We can have our portion to the full if we are faithful to God's will for our lives. But, our fulness is only a part of the whole.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 niv
"The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."

Or perhaps it was decided that a certain prophet's writings best described the Jewish people's belief in God and understanding of God's involvement in the history of the salvation of Israel, and for this reason deemed to be "inspired" and accepted by the community as a witness to the nature and work of God amongst God's people.

That is the reason God raises up men with the ability to explain how things were seen at the time of writing, so that understanding can be transposed over from the past into our cultural way of thinking. In describing Solomon's chariots, today we could use the term Lamborgini and Ferrari to communicate how it was perceived back then. Certain teachers have been assigned the task of researching these things out. For the Bible must be interpreted and understood as one viewing it at the time of writing. Then, we can begin to see it from within the spectrum of our own cultural thinking. To see what Job possessed (and Abraham,too) they would be seen today as multimillionaires.

I don't see how this proves your point about the "style" of inspiration.

God wants to comunicate his Word with a certain effect? A bold and cutting effect? Get Jeremiah! God wants to communicate complexities of theology at the level of genius? Get Paul! In the Greek text, Paul was very detailed and complex at times. English translations often times do not reveal this to us. That is why Peter said the following...

2 Peter 3:16 amplified
"Speaking of this as he does in all of his letters. There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures."

If you ever experienced the rare phenomena to hear someone with the true ability to teach from the Greek texts the depth to Paul's epistles, you would soon realize that God had the minds of genius in mind in humbling them when they study the writings of Paul. Paul invented new words and terms to fit the new lifestyle we have in Christ. You would never know this by simply reading it in English alone.

God chose a nice sweet man like John to teach on the aspect of God's love. God chose different writing utencils (men with different personalities) for his desired effect on the reader. If God chose Peter to write what Paul was given? Peter would have had no capacity to articulate certain deep thoughts Paul was able to accept from God, and then write down in his own words. God wanted each writer to write in his own words, but God also wanted the man's own words to accurately reflect the meaning of what they were shown in the Spirit! That is why we get different feels for the Word as we read different Epistles. God wanted it to be that way. For that is how the body of Christ functions. Many parts, acting as a whole.

I don't see an "impossibility" with God doing anything. All I am saying is that such a view of the "utensil-ity" of God "writing" the Scriptures through various people does not seem to square with many of the writers' own views about their writings. Granted the OT prophets believed they spoke for God, and quoted God as saying "such and such." However, when one gets to the New Testament, such views radically change, especially when one gets to Paul who frequently admits that what he is saying is "not a command from God."

Frequently? Where are you getting that from? I recall only once. And, it was in regards to advice concerning marriage. God entrusted him to express his opinion on a matter because God trusted Paul in his wisdom to supply a needed answer. God bestowed great honor on his grace trophy named Paul, when he allowed for that.

The New Testament writers, in no uncertain terms, did not view their own writings as being on the same level of the Scriptures (the OT).

That is not what the Apostle Peter said.

2 Peter 3:16 niv
"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."

Peter had already recognized Paul's writings as to be included in with the Scriptures!

Therefore, if our understanding of inspiration is to include what the NT writers, as a whole, express about the nature of inspiration, it is difficult to see that what you are proposing is what they are testifying to.

I understand its difficult for you. At this present time.

This doesn't make any sense. Please explain more fully.

I had said....

Nothing can be magnified above God Himself. If that spoke of Jesus Christ as the living Word, he would have no need to be magnified above anything. He is already their by default. It is the written Word that God magnifies above all. He magnifies it by stressing its importance in the life of the believer.

God esteems his Word above all things. The Word is a thing. God is not a thing. God can not be created. God is not to be esteemed above all things by God Himself! He is way beyond needing to do that. He is so far beyond needing esteem that we just do not understand what that means. God is beyond comparison. Esteem is based upon comparison.

He is the source of all things created. The Word is a communication invention created by God to transfer what we call "thoughts" from one being to another. God estreems his invention of the Word as a means for communication above all other things created. God does not esteem Himself above all things. He is beyond that! God does not need esteem for himself. He is Eternally secure in who he is.

Deaf people can not hear the Word. Yet, they do hear in their hearts what the Word conveys when someone signs for them what was spoken. In a sense, the written Word is God signing to us what we can not hear directly from God.

John 1:18 niv
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

The Word of God was made flesh.... Without the Word of God we could never see God. God, as God is. Can not be seen by us. The Word was the invented means by God to communicate thoughts from himself to us, so we can see God in a manner understandable to us.


Where it says... " has made him known." In the Greek, it says that Jesus Christ is the means of God to interpret God to us! All we can know about God is an interpretation of God!

The humanity of Christ is the perfect medium of interpreting God to man. For Jesus is both fully God in his Deity, and fully man in his humanity. What comes from God must be filtered through his humanity, so what we receive as the end product is edible to our humanity.

It would be like seeing the Father as the world wide web. Jesus Christ acts as our modem in interpreting what is received from the web, and making it understandable to our PC. What is coming from the web is not what we see on our monitor. Without the modem our PC would be all garbled and distorted at best. Most likely, nothing would show.

Yes, I do realize that, for I myself believe that the Word is true. I also believe the Scriptures are true (but not in a fundementalist sense), just not the same thing as the Word.

Every believer should first be a fundamentalist. He should grow in the fundamentals of the faith. Thatis a good thing. But, they should not stay there! If they do, its like a person going through life on a level of a second grade education.

What fundamentalists have become today is a parallel to Islamic religious thinking. Its what happens when human reason is in control over what should only be controlled by the Spirit. Fundies claim to be controlled by the Spirit, but like Islamic fundamentalists, they are simply driven by their emotions, and are influenced by evil. That is why we found fundies murdering abortionists, because they claim abortionists murder. Its stubborn unreasonableness, that is enforced by the belief that their stubborness is from God. Its the adult's version of a little child having a temper tantrum when not getting his way. There is no ability to reason with a fundy. For once you differ, like the Islamic fundamentalist also do, you are seen as being from Satan.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

The written Word is the mind (thinking) of Christ that we have been given. I do not worship the Scriptures. The Scriptures direct me (and free me up) to worship the living God.

What is the difference between the thoughts of Christ and Christ? If Christ is the self-revelation of God, and the Scriptures (in your opinion) are the same thing (as communicated thought is self-revelation), how are they different? If they are not different, you have created a fourth member of the Godhead.

What we now have in written form was always in the mind of God. The very nature of omniscience reveals this to be true.

On what basis do you say this? Omniscience is a human construction--we don't even know what we mean by the idea of omniscience (and should probably be scared to death if God actually conformed to our definition).

The Word is God's means for communication to the created soul. If it is spoken, or written, it does not matter. God does not speak within the Trinity. There is no need with omniscience. The Trinity is shown speaking in the Word as a means to communicate something to our limited perspective.

For you claims about the limits of human understanding of the divine, you sure make definitive statements about the relationship of the persons of the Trinity... I don't even understand how what you are asserting in the above quote is even consistent with your own opinion about what we are discussing.

God does not have a thought within himself, for himself. He is omniscient. His thoughts we read about were designed to communicate to us. Nothing takes God by surprise. God never learns. If God did not provide for his creation the communication device we call "the Word" we would know nothing about God. It is for our sakes he is the Word. He has no need for words. How can you have a conversation with someone who already knew all you would say before you said it? What could he learn from you? The Word is God's means to let us in on what he already knows.

Without the Scriptures we would have the full self-revelation of Christ, the Word, the eternal Logos of God. The Scriptures are empty words and pages withouth the Logos.

The Lord gives certain believers the gift to understand the Hebrew and Greek texts. Yet, Christ not only knows the Hebrew and Greek texts, he invented them!

You have no basis upon which to make this statement, as there are no Scriptures directly attributed to the pen of Jesus. You are making a claim that cannot even be critiqued or discussed!

Christ is the fulness of the Word. We can have our portion to the full if we are faithful to God's will for our lives. But, our fulness is only a part of the whole.

How are the Scriptures the fulness of Christ? Christ is the eternal logos, co-equal in the Godhead. For Christ to be the fulness of the Scriptures, the Scriptures must necessarily be above Christ in order that Christ might be the fulness of the Scriptures.

If you ever experienced the rare phenomena to hear someone with the true ability to teach from the Greek texts the depth to Paul's epistles, you would soon realize that God had the minds of genius in mind in humbling them when they study the writings of Paul. Paul invented new words and terms to fit the new lifestyle we have in Christ. You would never know this by simply reading it in English alone.

A person's masterful use of language to describe a spiritual reality is hardly proof that the text is inspired of God. Many throughout the centuries have accomplished similar results, yet we would not consider their writings to be Scripture...

God chose a nice sweet man like John to teach on the aspect of God's love. God chose different writing utencils (men with different personalities) for his desired effect on the reader. If God chose Peter to write what Paul was given? Peter would have had no capacity to articulate certain deep thoughts Paul was able to accept from God, and then write down in his own words. God wanted each writer to write in his own words, but God also wanted the man's own words to accurately reflect the meaning of what they were shown in the Spirit! That is why we get different feels for the Word as we read different Epistles. God wanted it to be that way. For that is how the body of Christ functions. Many parts, acting as a whole.

What does this have to do with what we are discussing? I agree that there is a healthy variety of genre and writing style in the Scriptures. However, this is a hardly a proof for inspiration--one could just as easily assert that the organizers of the canon simply had a good taste for religious literature. You still have yet to provide a reasonable explanation of inspiration.

That is not what the Apostle Peter said.

2 Peter 3:16 niv
"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."

Peter had already recognized Paul's writings as to be included in with the Scriptures!

This is far from being the only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from this passage. Besides, it is quite possible that the writer of this letter had a far different view of "Scripture" than you are assuming that he did. It is possible that the writer viewed the nature and role of Scripture more like I do. It would perhaps be difficult to establish this, based upon the brevity of the letter. However, the same burden of proof impinges upon you, and you cannot simply assume that the writer held the same opinions about inspiration and the nature and role of Scripture that you do.

God esteems his Word above all things. The Word is a thing. God is not a thing. God can not be created.

I thought you said the Word (Scriptures) have already existed... Now it's been created??? Be consistent!!!

The Word of God was made flesh.... Without the Word of God we could never see God. God, as God is. Can not be seen by us. The Word was the invented means by God to communicate thoughts from himself to us, so we can see God in a manner understandable to us.

So let me rephrase your statement again, using your definitions:

The Scriptures of God was made flesh (the same Scriptures which you have asserted are created by God--therefore, Christ is created....) Without the Scriptures of GOd, we could never see God (so God created something to reveal Godself). God, as God is. Can not be seen by us. The Scriptures (which was made flesh--Christ--who is supposed to be God) was the invented means by God to communicate thoughts from himself [sic[ from himself [sic] to us, so we can see God in a manner understandable to us.

Do you really want to go down this road?? I doubt it!

Every believer should first be a fundamentalist. He should grow in the fundamentals of the faith. Thatis a good thing. But, they should not stay there! If they do, its like a person going through life on a level of a second grade education.

I agree. But if one's "fundamentals" are flawed, growth will continue in the wrong direction...

What fundamentalists have become today is a parallel to Islamic religious thinking. Its what happens when human reason is in control over what should only be controlled by the Spirit. Fundies claim to be controlled by the Spirit, but like Islamic fundamentalists, they are simply driven by their emotions, and are influenced by evil. That is why we found fundies murdering abortionists, because they claim abortionists murder. Its stubborn unreasonableness, that is enforced by the belief that their stubborness is from God. Its the adult's version of a little child having a temper tantrum when not getting his way. There is no ability to reason with a fundy. For once you differ, like the Islamic fundamentalist also do, you are seen as being from Satan.

Agreed.

 

[GenemZ]

What is the difference between the thoughts of Christ and Christ? If Christ is the self-revelation of God, and the Scriptures (in your opinion) are the same thing (as communicated thought is self-revelation), how are they different? If they are not different, you have created a fourth member of the Godhead.

If I speak to you in person? Or, write the same thing to you via this medium of expression? Have I created a new 'me'? Don't think so.

On what basis do you say this? Omniscience is a human construction--we don't even know what we mean by the idea of omniscience (and should probably be scared to death if God actually conformed to our definition).

Omniscience always knew all things. The written Word is simply God tapping into his omniscience and making some of what he knows, known. This was made evident by the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Christ to be found in the OT.

For you claims about the limits of human understanding of the divine, you sure make definitive statements about the relationship of the persons of the Trinity... I don't even understand how what you are asserting in the above quote is even consistent with your own opinion about what we are discussing.

Which was in response to this, I said:

The Word is God's means for communication to the created soul. If it is spoken, or written, it does not matter. God does not speak within the Trinity. There is no need with omniscience. The Trinity is shown speaking in the Word as a means to communicate something to our limited perspective.

One has no need to speak to another who also knows all things. Why should he? For his thought is one with the other who knows all things. Why speak? That is why God is three beings, yet one God. He is always one within Deity.

Without the Scriptures we would have the full self-revelation of Christ, the Word, the eternal Logos of God. The Scriptures are empty words and pages withouth the Logos.

Logos is the Word. Without the Holy Spirit Scriptures would be empty words (as far as seeing the supernatural implications).

Illustration:

I am Gene. This is my house. I am going away. Here are my instructions on how to live in my house while I am gone. These words written in the instructions are my words. I may have had a servant write them down for me, but I double checked them and know they are correct. To read them is to know what I think on any issue concerning living in my house. If you can not locate in the index an answer to a problem you are having, call me on the phone. (We pray to God. Not, call on the phone)

Are those words, me? Or, someone else? In that sense the written Word is the Word. To read his Word, is to know what the Word says. He does not change. If he did, then the written Word would not be trustworthy.

You have no basis upon which to make this statement, as there are no Scriptures directly attributed to the pen of Jesus. You are making a claim that cannot even be critiqued or discussed!

Throughout Scripture it speaks of God giving gifts to men for special purposes. Here is only one small example:

Daniel 1:17 nasb
"As for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams."



Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

If I speak to you in person? Or, write the same thing to you via this medium of expression? Have I created a new 'me'? Don't think so.

Hey, you're the one who is saying that Christ is the Word and that the Scriptures are also the Word (the Scriptures = Christ), not me. You also said that the Scriptures were "created" by God. Therefore, if Christ is the Word and the Scriptures are the Word, and the Scriptures were created by God, then one must naturally conclude that Christ was also created. I am merely responding to your own words and showing the logical and necessary conclusion of your ideas. If you wish to retract some of what you have said, you may do so and I will adjust my responses.

Logos is the Word. Without the Holy Spirit Scriptures would be empty words (as far as seeing the supernatural implications).

So, if the Scriptures are the Word (the eternal logos of GOd), yet are empty without the Holy Spirit, then Christ (who in your estimation is the Word as the Scriptures are) is also empty without the Holy Spirit. So, logically, the Second member of the Trinity is supported in being by the Holy Spirit--what then of Christ's supposed consubstantiality???

Are those words, me? Or, someone else? In that sense the written Word is the Word. To read his Word, is to know what the Word says. He does not change. If he did, then the written Word would not be trustworthy.

Again, I do not understand how what Christ says is equal in nature and being to who Christ (as the eternal Logos) is. You yourself in the above have qualified your original comments about the Scriptures being the Word. You now employ the term, "in that sense," which basically means you are stepping away from your previous position.

Throughout Scripture it speaks of God giving gifts to men for special purposes. Here is only one small example:

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between God giving gifts to men (the Scriptures) and the Scriptures being from eternity consubstantial in nature with God (which is the logical conclusion one must reach if the Scriptures are the Word, the eternal Logos of God).

I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my comments in the previous post which are below:

So let me rephrase your statement again, using your definitions:

"The Scriptures of God was made flesh (the same Scriptures which you have asserted are created by God--therefore, Christ is created....) Without the Scriptures of GOd, we could never see God (so God created something to reveal Godself). God, as God is. Can not be seen by us. The Scriptures (which was made flesh--Christ--who is supposed to be God) was the invented means by God to communicate thoughts from himself [sic[ from himself [sic] to us, so we can see God in a manner understandable to us.

Do you really want to go down this road?? I doubt it!"

 

[Didaskomenos]

Genez,

Welcome back to these areas. I see you're up to your old tricks!

I would like for you to show me where in the Bible it refers to itself as the written Word of God, as opposed to the Living Word Jesus. We await your enlightenment.

Your belief that the Scriptures were written by servants of God, and that we're assured of the accuracy of the things they said the master said remains uncontested by me. However, within your analogy, if the servants also leave their own recipe for peanut butter balls, or a crude sketch of the Eiffel Tower on the margins, should we assume that the master of the house has personally authorized each as accurate, authoritative forms of peanut butter ball recipes and mathematically, architecturally accurate sketches of the Eiffel Tower? What if the servants use bad grammar or spelling? Would the master proofread and revise those errors? In other words, we are assured of the accuracy of the things God was interested in telling us, but nothing of what bled over from the minds and understanding of the servants.

 

[Delta One]

rmwilliamsll,

It is curious that the same YECists, AiG in particular, that make such a big deal of scientific methods of dating being so full of mis-assumptions as to be useless, so naturally use science to booster their interpretations of Scriptures.

Um, that is because we observe genetic mutations and the negative effects that they have when passed onto the offspring. We don't have to make any assumptions in the area of genetics (it is a process science, i.e. in the present). Remember the difference in historical and process sciences. Hmm, over the next few days I'll try and start a new thread on this topic to try one last time (probably won't work given how heavily biased many TEs and OECs are) to help you understand the fundamental differences, so stay tuned.

However, were we there when the rocks were being formed? Were we there from that date to now? Do we know how much daughter element there originally was? Do we know that the radioactive decay rate has been constant? Do you know whether or not any of the elements have been subtracted or added from the system (it's an "open system")? Do we know the circumstances of that time?

The answer to all of these is a big fat NO!! You have to guess at what the answers are to these questions poised - by definition, that's an assumption. And since we don't know everything and we weren't there to observe it, then it's nothing more than a fallible assumption typically based on an old Earth belief.

If a scientist makes the wrong assumptions, there can be 99.9% error in some cases as to the age of the rock. In fact, radiocarbon has been found in rocks dated by other radiometric dating methods to be millions of years old! Take for example the following recount by Hansruedi Stutz <http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp>:

In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it. This rock is classified as belonging to the Upper Tertiary geological system. Evolutionary belief therefore maintains that this rock is around 20 million years old.

In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.

Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.

That means the wood must also be at least that old. Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a radiocarbon (14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be datable by this method.

This is because radiocarbon decays very rapidly compared to other radioactive elements such as uranium. So after, say, a theoretical 100,000 years at the most the amount of radiocarbon left in the wood would not be detectable anymore.

So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’. Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils (which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).

However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.

Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.1

However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.

So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland.2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3

The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years. This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate totally, is in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power. The real age is probably less than four thousand years.

Wow! Essentially, this rock cannot be the claimed 20 millions years old because there is still radioactive carbon in it! There are many other such examples of radiocarbon still in rocks aged millions of years old!

Dr William Stansfield in The Science of Evolution puts the situation of radiometric dating methods like this:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists...".

Also, I've never said that radiometric dating methods are worthless. Given the assumptions needed, they are worthless to dating rocks even in the present (i.e. recent observed history), but they may tells us the source of magma from which the rocks came (I'm not being dogmatic on this point).

Look at how easily they bring genetics into the argument to add support to the idea that Abel would have married his sister. YECist is a modern movement, not a restorationist return to the past, this is an important issue in actually understanding them. They do not deny the importance of scientific epistemology, they want to control it.

What?!?! Dude, that's just wrong.

Firstly, Abel was the guy who got murdered by his brother - Cain - in a jealous rage and hence, he never married his sister (at least we are not told that he did).

Secondly, I never brought genetics into the argument to say that Cain married his sister. I used the Bible to do that; I did however bring in genetics (founded by a Christian creationist) to offer a logical explaination as to why God allowed close relatives to marry pre-Moses, yet after that He did not.

Thirdly, apart from what is starting to sound like some young Earth creationist conspiracy, by "modern movement" you mean....

The concept of Biblical creation (literal) is not a "modern movement" (if that's what you're thinking) and has been around since Genesis was written. Newton, for example, just several hundred years ago was a Biblical creationist, as was Galileo, Keepler, Joule, and the list goes on. All of these people believed in a literal creation (by definition a "creationist" or a young Earth creation as old Earth creation is a recent thing designed to shove millions and billions of years into the Bible). The Israelites must have believed it because they put it in the Ten Commandments for them to follow in God's example by working six days and resting one. The Israelites weren't going to work for several million years and rest for one!

Creation scientists are just ordinary scientists who have a literal Biblical basis for their science. Evolutionary scientists are just ordinary scientists who have a naturalistic belief for the basis of their science. They both use the same science, have the same evidence - yet they come to different conclusions about the past. Why is this? Obviously the only thing that differs between them is their basis or premise, which ultimately means that it is this premise that must affect how both scientists interpret the same evidence yet come to different conclusions about the evidence's origin.

Creation scientists are not "anti-science" or the sort, which is what many have claimed. They are ordinary scientists with a Biblical basis for their work. It should be noted that a scientist's basis really affects their work in historical science and related things like that, yet has very little to do with process science given how closely the conclusions are based on the experiments and how little "unknowns" there are.

And finally, next time, all I can suggest is that you actually read my post to gain a proper understanding of what it is I am talking about before trying to "debunk" it.

 

[Critias]

I would like for you to show me where in the Bible it refers to itself as the written Word of God, as opposed to the Living Word Jesus. We await your enlightenment.

Hello again Didaskomenos.

Are you suggesting that the Bible is not God's written word?