Who Drives Backwards??

[Isserty_Dawn]

People should spend a little less time worrying about where we came from and a little more time thinking about where we're going.

Just my opinion. After all, who drives backwards?

 

[SBfaithful]

I agree, but I think it is also important to understand the position of others and why they believe what they do. Where we came from is an important question.

 

[SBfaithful]

How about this...
Understanding the past helps us understand where we are going.

BTW, welcome to Christian Forums!!!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

People should spend a little less time worrying about where we came from and a little more time thinking about where we're going.

Just my opinion. After all, who drives backwards?

since Roman armies marched to the left.
British roads duplicate this earlier form.
America switched to accommodate large wagons.
http://www.i18nguy.com/driver-side.html


the point is that history does matter.

 

[Underdog77]

We need to understand where we came from to know where we are going.

If atheistic evolution is true then we die and that's it. We this belief people will want to live for the physical present. They will care nothing about their spirits because they don't believe they have any.

If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible is not infallible and many will not see it as a good foundation.

If creationism is true as the Bible says, then we can firmly use the Bible for our lives, both spiritually and physically. We know that sin brought death and although we cannot do anything about our physical death, we have the plan for salvation for our souls.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible is not infallible and many will not see it as a good foundation.

BB Warfield is one of the first theologians to propose inerrancy and he was TE.
There is no necessary link between TE and doctrine of Scripture.
There are TE with the full doctrine of inerrancy to TE holding to very liberal interpretations of Genesis as pure allegory, and everything in between.

If creationism is true as the Bible says, then we can firmly use the Bible for our lives, both spiritually and physically. We know that sin brought death and although we cannot do anything about our physical death, we have the plan for salvation for our souls.

the problem is that it makes the book of nature and it's author(God) liars.
the problem is that YEC is a particular interpretation of Genesis, not the only one from a conservative, orthodox Scripture position, only the loudest, and most insistent that it only is Biblical.

 

[Underdog77]

BB Warfield is one of the first theologians to propose inerrancy and he was TE.
There is no necessary link between TE and doctrine of Scripture.
There are TE with the full doctrine of inerrancy to TE holding to very liberal interpretations of Genesis as pure allegory, and everything in between.

And there are others that hold to the fact that Genesis clearly depicts a six day creation. The problem is that the creation account in its english translated language and in its original language (hebrew) both leave no room for a different interpretation. They both clearly say the day means a literal day.

the problem is that it makes the book of nature and it's author(God) liars.

Not true and this is something I'm working on right now. I am gathering up all the strong evidence I can to show that the earth is not old, which therefore means it is young. I've been working on it for a couple of weeks and have found quite a few surprises. It should be ready in about another month or so.

the problem is that YEC is a particular interpretation of Genesis, not the only one from a conservative, orthodox Scripture position, only the loudest, and most insistent that it only is Biblical.

Why is this a problem? There is one correct interpretation, is there not? The Bible says YEC is it and I'm working to show that science, true science, also says the same thing.

In all this I again point out that I believe special revelation first (the Bible) and then general revelation (the world around us).

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The problem is that the creation account in its english translated language and in its original language (hebrew) both leave no room for a different interpretation. They both clearly say the day means a literal day.

Indeed, and Jesus clearly advocates cannibalism in John 6:25-59. Verses 54-55 are indisputable, and there's no way to claim the Greek words used for "eat" (trogo) "my" (mou) and "flesh" (sarx) don't really mean what they say.

But wait... many Christians disagree over how these verses should be interpreted, even though most agree with what they literally say. Even those who claim to hold to a literal interpretation usually choose to interpret this passage as saying something different. Could it be that a text can literally say one thing and yet actually be symbolic or metaphorical?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is one correct interpretation, is there not?

no.
why would there be one correct interpretation?

1-there are levels in the discussion
2-there is a significant case of progressive understanding due to human history
3-general and special revelation interact, our understanding of general revelation is very dynamic
the point is that God accommodates Himself to human understanding, likewise as history progresses, as science learns more, the takehome message of pieces of Scripture is more fully understood in the light of new human understanding. The 'stuff' was always there in Scripture only we as humanbeings did not understand it yet because we did not have the background information worked out.


for example:
Kline's framework interpretation is modern, yet fully orthodox and conservative giving full authority to Scripture.



besides, after just a brief look at Christian theology and Church history, why would you assert that there is one correct interpretation?
on what topic does the entire body of Christ deeply agree?

 

[Underdog77]

Indeed, and Jesus clearly advocates cannibalism in John 6:25-59. Verses 54-55 are indisputable, and there's no way to claim the Greek words used for "eat" (trogo) "my" (mou) and "flesh" (sarx) don't really mean what they say.

First off I would like to say that according to Strongs concordence, eat is the word phagos, but it still means to eat or consume. I don't know if that makes any difference but I don't like to leave loose ends. But yes, I believe those words mean what they say.

But wait... many Christians disagree over how these verses should be interpreted, even though most agree with what they literally say. Even those who claim to hold to a literal interpretation usually choose to interpret this passage as saying something different. Could it be that a text can literally say one thing and yet actually be symbolic or metaphorical?

The answer is simple if you look at the surrounding context. Jesus says we are to eat His flesh but in John 6:51 He clarifies what His flesh is: the bread. So if we read versus 53 and 54 knowing that when He says flesh He is talking about the bread, the whole thing makes sense.

An easy answer and I'm not even a theologian. You don't have to think to hard to figure (if you DO have to figure) that one out.

So Christ does not support cannibalism, that is just the conclusion people may come to if they don't think through it completely. You read the text literally and because you do the theological metaphor comes to view as clear as crystel.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

First off I would like to say that according to Strongs concordence, eat is the word phagos, but it still means to eat or consume.

In the verse I referenced, the word is trogo, not phagos, but you're right that it doesn't make any difference.

The answer is simple if you look at the surrounding context. Jesus says we are to eat His flesh but in John 6:51 He clarifies what His flesh is: the bread.

But not just any bread, Jesus' flesh! As the verse you mentioned says, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." There's no way you can claim to literally interpret that if you think it's not talking about eating Jesus' flesh.

But, my point isn't to argue for or against transubstantiation. The point is that you, and other YECs, don't take the Bible as literally as you claim to.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible is not infallible and many will not see it as a good foundation.

Don't see you the weakness of this slippery slope argument?

It is only a small step away from 'I'll accept falsehoods so as to maintain the Bible as infallible'.

More peopled do not see the Bible as a good foundation when some folks tell them it is literal truth which they plainly see is nonsense. At least admit to them that metaphor and parable are present so as to avoid the embarrassment literalists find themselves in all the time.

 

[sunnyshine]

Who drives without directions on a long road trip?

 

[Underdog77]

Don't see you the weakness of this slippery slope argument?

It is only a small step away from 'I'll accept falsehoods so as to maintain the Bible as infallible'.

??

More peopled do not see the Bible as a good foundation when some folks tell them it is literal truth which they plainly see is nonsense. At least admit to them that metaphor and parable are present so as to avoid the embarrassment literalists find themselves in all the time.

I do know that some parts of the Bible are parables and metaphors. Lots of these are connected to prophecy. But there are parts of the Bible that are literal and also have a deeper meaning.

The YEC creation account believes that God said in the Bible that He created the universe and all that is in it in only 7 days (including the day of rest). But there are deeper meanings contained in this account as well. The first chapters of Genesis set up the world as we know it with sin, death, and the curse. It tells of the struggle between temptation and man. It foretells of Christ's coming to liberate the elect from the bondage of their sins.

But the account also tell us that the everything was made in 7 days. I 'accept' (I knew they were there before this deabte) the theological truths given to us in Genesis, will you accept the fact that the Bible clearly depicts a 7 day creation?

Some you all seem to think that because YEC's take the creation account literal, that we think the Bible is literal, plain and simple. That's not true. We take the creation accout literal because the Bible says its literal in both the original language and the English language. Either way, we are to take it literal.

 

[Underdog77]

But, my point isn't to argue for or against transubstantiation. The point is that you, and other YECs, don't take the Bible as literally as you claim to.

I again say (I said it in the post before this) that the label 'literal' pertains to hte interpretation of the creation account. I don't believe any YEC I know has ever said "The Bible must be taken literally wholly and completely".

How some you got that impression, I don't know. I do know that I take the creation account literal (although there are theological messages blah blah blah) jsut as I take the Jericho account literal, just as I take Christ's death and resurrection literal, etc...

 

[OneLastBreath]

Why is this a problem? There is one correct interpretation, is there not? The Bible says YEC is it and I'm working to show that science, true science, also says the same thing.

You're right, there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible. However, just as you argue that this one correct interpretation in YEC, others would argue that THEIR interpretation is the correct one. The Bible does not necessarily say that YEC is it. Your interpretation is that Genesis says YEC is it. Again, others who interpret Genesis from a less literal stand point would argue that it says the opposite. Be careful what you put forth as fact when it remains your subjective opinion. God speaks us to us in two ways: his Word and his Creation. Both give the same message, one always confirms the other. Genesis doesn't say how and when God created the Universe, it says why he created it (...and it was good.) While you might argue that it does, others will maintain that it's an example of Hebrew poetry, in which they repeat ideas as opposed to the English convention of repeating sounds. Hence, that leaves the second message: Creation and the science that interprets it. If you're working to show that science supports YEC, that's wonderful! I pray that God will lead you in the right direction in your quest to understand his Universe. However, others work to show that science supports OEC, theistic evolution, etc (not the mention the large number who support atheistic evolution, however we'll accept that God created the Universe as a given since this is the Christian section of the forums). As we can't agree on whether the Bible gives a clear answer, only until science, through the eyes of faith, confirms one way or other, or God in some way further enlightens us, can we fully understand how Creation happened. Of course this may be a question even beyond the scope of modern cosmology. At any rate, add that to your list of questions to ask God when you get to heaven.

edited to add: after posting this I noticed your signature (definition of OEC: overtly erroneous crud) and would like to point out that in a structured debate such as this, a statement showing such blatant disrespect for another's viewpoint (who is in the same boat as you, knowing only what God chose to include in his Word) is not going to earn you much respect from people who don't subscribe to your beliefs about origins. If you want people to consider what you're saying, I would suggest you acknowledge that the others are intelligent people with legitimate reasons for their beliefs. just as you have legitimate reasons for yours. Otherwise, there's no point in posting in this thread as your not doing much more than attacking other's views. When Nicodemus questioned Christ about being born again, did Jesus ridicule him for him not understanding what he was saying? No, he patiently explained it to him. We all believe in what it says in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, we all believe what really counts, what the Bible specifically says leaving no room for interpretation. Be careful how you treat others with views that differ from yours.

 

[alarmguy111]

Underdog, you need to look again at your hebrew interpretation of the word "Yom" It has multiple meanings; even in the Strong's: an additional possible meaning is an epoch as an undefined extended period of time. Remember that hebrew was always written and understood by the original writers and readers from the perspective of context. You need to research the fact the Pentateuch was not written in modern Hebrew, but in the Hebrew Pictograph language; which was not completely understood until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. It appears that your sources of research are too old to take the newest discoveries into account. Not puttin you down. just suggesting that you research your subject matter thoroughly, and do not rely on the conventional wisdom to prove your point.

 

[Underdog77]

Underdog, you need to look again at your hebrew interpretation of the word "Yom" It has multiple meanings; even in the Strong's: an additional possible meaning is an epoch as an undefined extended period of time. Remember that hebrew was always written and understood by the original writers and readers from the perspective of context. You need to research the fact the Pentateuch was not written in modern Hebrew, but in the Hebrew Pictograph language; which was not completely understood until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. It appears that your sources of research are too old to take the newest discoveries into account. Not puttin you down. just suggesting that you research your subject matter thoroughly, and do not rely on the conventional wisdom to prove your point.

I know Yom has multiple meanings but when we read it in context it is easily and best translated as meaning a literal 24 hour day.

I have exact numbers in my notes but I can't find them so I'll have to go with the conservative numbers: Outside of Genesis, whenever yom is used in connection one or more of these words 600+ times it means a literal 24 hour day. These words are night, morning, a number (any number at all), or evening.

Now that doesn't mean that to mean a literal day yom must have one or more of these words and that doesn't necessarily mean that if it has these words it abosolutely means a literal 24 hour day. All this means that there is a pattern (context) in the Bible and yom as used in the creation account fits the 'literal 24 hour day pattern.

Now you can still argue against it but you argue against the numbers. According to the language, yom in the creation account most likely means a literal day.