What the Bible does *not* say

[shernren]

many fundamentalists say the KJV is the only true Bible.

I may not know the whole picture, but from what I know, not many fundies are KJV-only people (even though practically all KJV-only people are fundies). Again, I really don't know what motivation at all the KJV-only people have, and how much of it is Scriptural. (Honest ignorance, not pokey cynicism.) But I doubt that it has much, if anything, to do with the motivations behind neo-creationism.

So I think it takes a really, really wide brush to paint KJV-onlies and neo-creationists with the same strokes.

Knowledge does not condemn. What we do with it is what may condemn us, if it isn't glorifying to God. Your lack of understanding (as evidenced by this erroneous statement) indicates anything you might have had to say about the Bible is irrelevant. If you don't understand it, you can't hope to use it to explain your basis for believing TE.

Snide patronising aside, I think we have to note that the "tree of knowledge" is a very specific type of knowledge: And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9 ESV) It wasn't just a tree of "knowledge". In fact, even a literal reading of Genesis presupposes that Adam had some knowledge as he was created: how can Adam name animals if he doesn't know what a name is, or a helper or loneliness if he doesn't know what those are? It is clear that God had no problem with Adam gaining and using knowledge in general: even today our world is a world about which we are still accumulating knowledge.

God's forbidding is directed at a very specific type of experiential knowledge: the knowledge of what the choice between good and evil really means. Either God considered this knowledge unfit for human experience, or God considered humans unfit for this knowledge. In either case, we are clearly told in the Genesis account that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring mortality and futility not only to man but to everything man came into influence over. And God, knowing full well that the tree of knowledge of good and evil had no other possible use (and making sure that Adam and Eve knew so too), planted it right in the center of the Garden and right next to the tree of life.

Is that what a perfect creation is like?

Will heaven, which is also perfect, also contain the potentiality of sin? Of course not. And yet if heaven is perfect, and better than the original creation, then the original creation must have been less than perfect ... and this must have been exactly what God intended to say when He called creation merely "very good".

 

[shernren]

It is nothing more than the use of a more modern term in place of the obsolete term. "Firmament" has come to mean, not by definition but by common usage, the ground. The use of the word in relationship to the heavens, and more specifically the solid vault that supported the water canopy before the Flood, is lost on modern readers.

A very minor quibble: I can't seem to find any definition of "firmament" that calls it "the ground".

Definitions of firmament on the Web:
[SIZE=-1]celestial sphere: the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which celestial bodies appear to be projected
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The world of space between the stars and planets.
www.angelfire.com/in2/oahspe3/glossary.html[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

In Scripture the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word. The original, therefore, does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch of expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.—Webster.
www.ccel.org/ccel/smith_w/bibledict.f.html[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

the sky. The heavens.
www.mansfieldct.org/schools/mms/staff/hand/CRa2s1vocag.htm

[/SIZE] from: http://www.google.com.my/search?q=define%3A+firmament&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

... more significantly, I have never seen jereth exhibit any such "KJV-only" bias. It would come as a great surprise to me if he did.

 

[chaoschristian]

Snide patronising aside, I think we have to note that the "tree of knowledge" is a very specific type of knowledge: And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9 ESV) It wasn't just a tree of "knowledge". In fact, even a literal reading of Genesis presupposes that Adam had some knowledge as he was created: how can Adam name animals if he doesn't know what a name is, or a helper or loneliness if he doesn't know what those are? It is clear that God had no problem with Adam gaining and using knowledge in general: even today our world is a world about which we are still accumulating knowledge.

God's forbidding is directed at a very specific type of experiential knowledge: the knowledge of what the choice between good and evil really means. Either God considered this knowledge unfit for human experience, or God considered humans unfit for this knowledge. In either case, we are clearly told in the Genesis account that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring mortality and futility not only to man but to everything man came into influence over. And God, knowing full well that the tree of knowledge of good and evil had no other possible use (and making sure that Adam and Eve knew so too), planted it right in the center of the Garden and right next to the tree of life.

Is that what a perfect creation is like?

Will heaven, which is also perfect, also contain the potentiality of sin? Of course not. And yet if heaven is perfect, and better than the original creation, then the original creation must have been less than perfect ... and this must have been exactly what God intended to say when He called creation merely "very good".

There comes a point where one tires of reading the 'You may not rep . . . ' message and so I am liming this instead.

 

[IisJustMe]

A very minor quibble

And I didn't think the KJV Only-ists would accept there was a "quibble" with the KJV at all.

The fact you don't deal with any of the other proof against the post -- the KJV translating har as "hill" in other verses, for example -- speaks volumes.

 

[IisJustMe]

the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9 ESV) It wasn't just a tree of "knowledge".

See, I assumed that you would understand what I meant when I said ...

Knowledge does not condemn. What we do with it is what may condemn us ...

Of course it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What else would it be? And what other kind of knowledge would lead to condemnation if what was done with it was the wrong thing? That kind of renders the rest of your post as a "duh!!"

 

[Mallon]

Why are you always so hostile, confrontational and belittling, IisJustMe? From your posts, you seem to be mistaking shernren and jereth for KJV-onliests, which they are not. If that's the case, then you should really watch where you're aiming when you shoot your mouth.

 

[shernren]

The clear witness of Scripture is that there is nothing Adam and Eve could _do_ with the tree of knowledge of good and evil other than condemn themselves, regardless of what you appear to claim that the tree of knowledge could have done anything else. (I await your quoting the many verses there must be which support your position, as you appear to be someone who prides himself greatly on employing Scriptural arguments.)

 

[Pats]

Shern, I have not had time to completely catch up on this page, but from what I've skimmed... I haven't taken any poles on the subject but I've met and been subjected to the teachings of the KJV-onlyists (wich I suspect may borderline on very bad theology) in many a fundy circle.

Guess I'm bitter 'cause I had to attend one of their schools as a child for a while, but my parents always told me not to go for the KJV only talk, wich was also confusing at the time.

(Love your CF character, btw, Shern. Aren't they great???)

 

[jereth]

Actually, both your examples are the result of your KJV Only bias.

I am not a KJVO, nor have I ever claimed to be one. I don't understand the KJV very well, and have been told that it is based on inferior manuscripts. So let's put that one to rest.

And FYI, "firmament" is also used by the ASV, the RSV, the Douay-Rheims and the Amplified Bible.

"Expanse" on the other hand is readily recognizable for its conjunctive use with "heavens" as in "the expanse of the heavens" and is more readily read by modern non-Christians as having to do with the sky and not the ground.

Please allow me to say 3 things in response.
1. "Expanse", while not absolutely wrong, is misleading. It allows us to read in a 3-dimensional space, where the Hebrew word raqia implies a 2-D surface.
2. "Modern non-Christians". That is precisely the problem. The Scriptures are pre-modern, not a modern, text. They come from an era where "sky" was not "infinite expanse of nothingness", but rather "solid vault". Rather than reading modern concepts back into Scripture, we should allow Scripture to speak according to its original socio-cultural context.
3. While "expanse" is the preference of some modern translations, there are plenty which give a more accurate rendition of the word.

NRSV - dome
Good News Bible - dome
Amplified Bible - firmament
CEV - dome

...thus proving further that this has nothing to do with KJV vs. non-KJV, or Olde English vs modern English.

The word translated "mountain" in the NASB (for example) is har and while it can mean hill or mountain, according to Strong's, is it most often translated "mountain."

Look, you are welcome to argue all you like, but the fact is that the Hebrew word is vague and simply means "an elevated area of the earth". The translators render it "hill" or "mountain" depending on whatever they think is most appropriate according to the context. The bias of most translators towards a global flood produces the rendition "mountain" in Genesis 7.

 

[chaoschristian]

. . . tea and scones, folks.​

 

[shernren]

Shern, I have not had time to completely catch up on this page, but from what I've skimmed... I haven't taken any poles on the subject but I've met and been subjected to the teachings of the KJV-onlyists (wich I suspect may borderline on very bad theology) in many a fundy circle.

Guess I'm bitter 'cause I had to attend one of their schools as a child for a while, but my parents always told me not to go for the KJV only talk, wich was also confusing at the time.

(Love your CF character, btw, Shern. Aren't they great???)

Like I said, I really can't claim to know much about the KJVO people, other than that they exist and they hold to some sort of inerrancy for the KJV-1611. So if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Sounds interesting though.

(Thanks! Though to be honest I don't think my character represents me well. We need a "My hair was like this when I got up and I was too lazy to comb it down" hair-do, and a "I'm just too lazy to shave, too" sparse mustache. I think the current set makes me look too adult! XD)

. . . tea and scones, folks.​

How about some ...

teh tarik ("pulled tea") and roti canai ("kneaded bread")?​

If any of you ever come to Malaysia you have to try this. It's great, especially at 11pm after youth group with curry and theological banter on the side in the nearest dingy hawker stall.​

​

 

[chaoschristian]

We need a "My hair was like this when I got up and I was too lazy to comb it down" hair-do

Well, I do have a request in for some Einstein style hair!

How about some ...

teh tarik ("pulled tea") and roti canai ("kneaded bread")?​

If any of you ever come to Malaysia you have to try this. It's great, especially at 11pm after youth group with curry and theological banter on the side in the nearest dingy hawker stall.

The whole concept is delicious!
​

 

[theFijian]

Actually, both your examples are the result of your KJV Only bias.

OK, putting aside the slightly surreal KJV-only debate and the requests for table-service, another question for folks: What are the characteristics of God's creation if it is perfect? No sin, no death, no pain? Therefore no bee stings, no rose thorns (no sharp objects at all?), no nettle stings (no nettles for nettle soup?), no friction burns from sledging down hills(I love sledging)?

Or simply put, how do we define 'perfect'? We know that Christ was the lamb 'without spot or blemish', yet Creation is not described in these terms in Gen 1.

In my line of work at a software consultancy I am involved in business analysis and software design. I write up specifications and need to ensure through review processes that software is meeting it's requirements (it works, and it does the right thing). Something can be deemed to be perfect if it fits the requirements - if it does what it was supposed to. Consider a simple requirement for a car: it needs to get you from A to B. Now a Ferrari could get you from A to B, but so could a beat up 2CV with a crack in the windscreen, a wing-mirror missing and a slow puncture. Both are perfect for the requirements.

What was God's requirement for Creation? Throughout scripture we are told the reason that God does things is for his good pleasure. And from the word translated as good in Gen 1 we see that God did take pleasure in his handiwork of Creation. So if God created and took pleasure in what he had created, I believe we can say that Creation was perfect regardless of the specifics of Creation (ie the method he used).

In all of this, God is our reference point, not us. Thhe words he used in the original hebrew gives us a much clearer picture than what they are rendered in english translations. We may not see a Creation which includes evolution as perfect, but regardless, if that is what God intended then Creation is perfect despite what we may think think it should be. Our idea of perfection is most likely far different God's idea.

His evalution of Creation was that it pleased him and his Creation reveals to us an old earth, and even older universe and biosystem that is constantly changing, it pleased God so it should please us too.