What evidence would convince you?

[chris777]

could you give a few of these many verses that tell us to use a literal modern scientific historical hermeneutic?

Dont think I am backing out, but all I said was literal, why is it you feel you have to filter the word of god through modern scientific interpretation?
One problem I see with this method is that it predominately has assumptions about the scriptures as being false in the first place, and is an attempt to "filter" truth out of the rest. rather than approaching them with an open mind and heart, and just reading them for what they actually say. as for verses let me get back shortly with some.

btw, this idea originates with Luther, the preference for the literal, as a reaction to the overallegoricallization of the medieval church. Before Luther the clear teaching of hermeneutics was the four-fold way, of which the literal was the least important.

I am by no means a fan of Luther, or anyone extant of the scriptural accounts, at least not without some serious comparisons to scripture. However, I do not see our modern church as being any different than the Sanhedrin, nor the early catholics, in that they all relied heavily on pre concieved notions of scripture, Luther saw some of that, but failed to see the same in himself (marian worship, anti semitism) Now granted I may come off as harsh, but I am open to changing my mind, If I am shown how I am deviating from the truth scripturally. Its like pretribulation rapture, I want someone to prove it to me scripturally, but I also accept, that it could be Gods will that I witness it, if it occurs during my lifetime.
but back to interpretation, Modern academics are decidedly secular, in thought and belief, casting doubt on the scriptures and their accuracy, much of which is done before reading it.
I had a girl once tell me how to read it before I had the chance to myself, its indoctrinated. Dont assume I am indoctrinated as well, as I came from that line of skeptical thinking.

 

[chris777]

Knowledge is now a source of pride, and what does the bible say about pride?


my experience with the truely brilliant and wise is not that they are prideful at all, but rather impressed at the complexity of the world are quiet, unassuming and modest. It is those who aren't quite smart enough to catch this vision that are prideful inspite of their obvious fraility, mortality and ignorance.

How many do you know like that in general, and more specifically the scientific community.

Dont assume that I am speaking ill will of anyone I am not, I just see how many intelectuals, look down upon those that arent blessed in that way, in much the same way as many "holier than thou" "believers"
I also see no restraint whatsoever coming from the scientific community itself, and then they complain about the ignorant hillbilly religious right ( I am learning a new appreciation for what paul went through)

 

[chris777]

Jesus Christ is the supreme example of how the Word can be human and divine at the same time. Jesus looked like a man, spoke like a man, ate like a man, slept like a man, coughed like a man, sneezed like a man, probably even belched like a man. To all appearances he was (and still is) human. Yet he is also God the Son.

Similarly, the Scriptures are a fully human work as well as a fully divine work. The overwhelming majority of Scripture was written by men who did not realise God was speaking through their writings -- Genesis included.

Interesting analogy but is their any scriptural basis on the bold portion

Jesus never said "the pentateuch" was "written by Moses". He simply referred to The Law as "Moses", as was customary in those times.

Is their that much difference? its currently customary to call it the pentateuch, at least from most I have spoken with.

Jesus affirmed the flood, but never said it was a global flood.

Jesus affirmed the spiritual and moral truth of the Genesis account, but he never claimed it is a historical record. Not once does Jesus (or any other New TEstament writer) mention a literal 6 day creation week.

he affirms the flood, he affirms the genesis account. If he was who he said he was, would he not know that they were "figurative" yet he makes NO effort to say that they are anything but LITERAL FACT.

I will dig up some scriptures to be more specific but I dont recall him divorcing spiritual and moral truth, with the literal history.
He states them as "matter of fact" responces, reiterating "have ye not read" and "it is written" numerous times, and Makes no effort, that I have seen in scripture to "correct" the long held views of the interpretation of the particular events we were speaking of. Yet he makes countless repetition of other scripture that has become the interpretation of men.

As for 6 days and a local limited flood Other than a day to God being as a thousand years, any other interpretation is of men. The Flood is world wide at least as accounted in the scripture, unless of course you doubt the scripture.
Please be careful that you don't put things into Jesus' mouth which he never said.

 

[ebia]

I will dig up some scriptures to be more specific but I dont recall him divorcing spiritual and moral truth, with the literal history.

Perhaps because the concept of literal history that you are attempting to apply didn't yet exist. The purpose of "history" recorded by ancient peoples is to teach spiritual, moral and cultural truths, not to record facts.

He states them as "matter of fact" responces, reiterating "have ye not read" and "it is written" numerous times, and Makes no effort, that I have seen in scripture to "correct" the long held views of the interpretation of the particular events we were speaking of.

There is no need to correct anything - his original audience would not have understood it in the way you suppose. They would have seen it's significance in being in the moral, cultural and spirtual truths it teaches, not in it's factual accuracy or lack thereof. They would not have read it as the modern genre of history, so we must not either.

As for 6 days and a local limited flood Other than a day to God being as a thousand years, any other interpretation is of men.

ALL interpretations are man made. It's impossible to make sense of any text without interpreting it, and to do that you bring all sorts of outside influences to bear. The best one can do is be aware of what they are.

 

[artybloke]

Dont think I am backing out, but all I said was literal, why is it you feel you have to filter the word of god through modern scientific interpretation?

Because a literal interpretation is a modern scientific historical hermeneutic, that's why. It's reading the Bible as if it were written sometime in the 19th century by people who thought the only form of truth was scientific/historical truth.

Not as if it were written by ancient peoples steeped in poetry, story, myth and saga, as the writers of the Bible all were.

 

[jereth]

Interesting analogy but is their any scriptural basis on the bold portion

The scriptures themselves are the basis. Every book of Scripture presents itself as a human literary work. In some places this is very obvious -- eg. Paul's letter to Philemon, 2 & 3 John, Psalms, Luke.

Inspiration of Scripture occurred by providence, not by dictation. This is the fundamental difference between the Christian view of Scripture and the Islamic view of the Koran.

Is their that much difference? its currently customary to call it the pentateuch, at least from most I have spoken with.

The point I was making was that in Jesus' time the word "Moses" was synonymous with "Torah" (law). It is a statement of the fact that the Torah was delivered to Israel through Moses, not a claim that Moses personally wrote down Genesis - Deuteronomy.

I will dig up some scriptures to be more specific but I dont recall him divorcing spiritual and moral truth, with the literal history.

See ebia's response.

He states them as "matter of fact" responces,

As I said, Jesus never speaks of 6 day creation week as "matter of fact". He doesn't mention it at all. don't you think that's significant?

As for 6 days and a local limited flood Other than a day to God being as a thousand years, any other interpretation is of men.

All interpretation of Scripture is "of men". The literalist interpretation is no less "of men" than the mythical, poetic and allegorical. There's no such thing as a scripture which needs no interpretation by the reader -- unless you happen to be God himself, or the original human author of the text, you must give your own interpretation to the text. My interpretation of Genesis is as legitimate as yours.

The Flood is world wide at least as accounted in the scripture, unless of course you doubt the scripture.

I don't doubt the scripture, what I doubt is YECist's highly fanciful, imaginary and scientistic interpretation of the flood account.

 

[Mallon]

is the scripture not clear? It has been relied upon for several thousand years, yet modern science is maby 200is years old and we are expected to rely upon it? Look into the roots, and formation of science itself, who exactly formed it, who exactly put fourth its doctrines, and methodologies. since when did any house not built by God ever last?

I'm not suggesting for a minute that we put our lives solely in the hands of science and rely upon it for redemption. The fact is, however, that you already trust science whether you know it or not. The fact that you use the internet or that you pop an aspirin to help a headache shows this. Science has shown itself to be a realiable and helpful tool to man, and I believe this to be a gift from God.
And for what it's worth, I think that if you, too, look into the "roots" of science, you will see that the methodologies in practice today were mostly developed by Christian men.

Evolutionary thought is not too far deviant from reincarnation, the results of both processes if you extend them out to their logical conclusions is that man will become god. a very dangerous sinful idea.

There's a strawman if I've ever heard one. Evolution is NOTHING like reincarnation, and no, the theory cannot be "logically extended" to include becoming like God. I don't know where you get this from. That's like saying, "Everyone dies at one point in life, so logically, there shouldn't be a problem if I murder people." It does not follow.

Knowledge is now a source of pride, and what does the bible say about pride?

It sounds to me like you're trying to come up with excuses not to think. The issue is knowledge and wisdom; not pride. I think the Proverbs passage I quoted earlier shows that God takes great interest in our growing knowledge. Why would He give us brains, otherwise?