Why a literalist presumption?

[vossler]

Vossler, but almost everything in your last post to Gluadys was based on the presumption that what YOU believe the Bible is telling us IS what the Bible is telling us. I also believe the following:

1. Scripture is absolute truth.
2. No facts which contradict the Bible can be true.
3. Scripture has stood the test of time and I put my FAITH totally in it.

But you are taking a step further, actually, although I am not sure you realize it. You are saying that your understanding of Scripture IS Scripture. That your understanding and interpretation of Scripture is "absolute truth". That anything which contradicts your interpretation of Scripture can not be true. Can you not see the hubris and pride in this?

I couldn't agree more with your three points.

You would be accurate when you say that I'm taking my understanding of Scripture as absolute truth. If I wasn't then I don't think I'd be much of a Christian. Is this prideful, I pray it is not! I've always been open to other interpretations, especially if they can be backed up with other Scripture. But if the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me that I'm wrong then I'll continue believing what I do.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

" As one bible study I participated in noted, one of the chief differences between Islam and Christianity is that: in Islam, a man points to a book and says "There is the Word of God. Obey it." in Christianity, a book points to a man and says "There is the Word of God. Follow him."

And that is an important reason I am a Christian rather than a Muslim."

Amen.

Islam is an interesting foil to Christianity on several levels regarding the various theories about the Scriptures and the Qur’an.

1- Islam teaches that the Qur’an is eternal, having always existed with Allah.
2- the inspiration of the Qur’an is mechanical dictation, a method long rejected for the Bible.
3- the Qur’an is not translatable and Islam has long insisted on exact memorization and Arabic as the only vehicle for it, this versus the extraordinary influence of venacular translations at the time of the reformation when this idea was overruled in Christianity.
4- there is no Christian equivalent to either the Moslem Hadith or the Jewish Talmud. why not?

...

 

[SBG]

Basically, you have it backwards about. It is the scriptures that are called the word of God because they speak about The Word of God made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth. It is Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity, the Logos, the Word that was with God in the beginning, who is God, who is the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainor of the universe.

Jesus is God, and I said the Scriptures speak of God, how is that backwards?

The Logos did not become flesh because it was written in scripture. The scripture was written to testify of the love of God revealed in and by the Logos incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Did you not understand what I said or are you just wanting to argue against me?

Can you find where I did say Jesus became flesh because of the written Scripture?

The bible is not the Logos, not God.
The bible is an inspired revelation of and testimony about the Logos.

Is it your willingness to not agree with me that keeps you misrepresenting what I say?

Where did I say the Bible is God?

I have no problem referring to the bible as the word of God on this account. I only have a problem with it being confused with the eternal creative Word of God who is Jesus.

I worship God the Father of all, and his Son, the crucified and risen one, and the Holy Spirit through whom prophecy and the written scripture came.

YECs also worship God. TEs claim we worship the Bible.

And it does bother me a lot when Christians don't understand that the bible, wonderful gift though it is, is spoken of as if it was Christ himself.

It makes God dependent on the bible, when it ought to be the other way around. And it confines God's power of self-revelation to the bible as if we could know the Word of God in no other way than through scripture. In short, this sort of thinking about the bible is a way of restricting God to the bible--a way of exerting human control over God. All of this kind of thinking is completely contrary to the testimony of scripture itself.

This approach to scripture follows (albeit unconsciously for most people) the Islamic tradition rather than the Christian tradition. For Muslims do believe their Qur'an is eternal, that it was written in heaven before the dawn of time, so that it is quite literally the eternal Word of God dictated to Muhammad.

As one bible study I participated in noted, one of the chief differences between Islam and Christianity is that:
in Islam, a man points to a book and says "There is the Word of God. Obey it."
in Christianity, a book points to a man and says "There is the Word of God. Follow him."

And that is an important reason I am a Christian rather than a Muslim.

You willfully do not want to understand what I have said. It is apparent by your response of misrepresentations of what I did say.

Was it hard for you to understand that I said *John* has something specific to say when He calls Jesus the Word?

Is it difficult to understand what I said about John teaching that Jesus is called the Word become flesh because the Word - Scripture - speaks of God?

I did not say Jesus came into flesh because of the what is written. I did say that John recognizes that all that is written about God, in the Scriptures is attributed, in the flesh, to Jesus Christ. Is this what you want to argue against? That who God is, is not Jesus Christ?

The Word that became flesh is what is written about God, who God is, who God says He is, is in fact, Jesus Christ and He did become flesh and He is God. Do you want to argue against this? That Jesus is not who God is? That everything God is, is not Jesus? Is this what you want to be insistent on denying?

You made it clear, you disagree with me on this. So tell me, do you disagree still?

Let it be crystal clear, I did *not* say Jesus became flesh because of written word, I am saying Jesus is in fact what the Written Word says about who God is. That Written Word, is the Bible and it teaches who God is, and that is Jesus.

Do you still deny this?

 

[gluadys]

O.K. let's see if we can take it a step further in order to clear this up. The Bible, for me, is absolute truth. Any "facts or truths" that someone else comes up with will always have to be held up to the ultimate truth, God's Word.

That is because you are restricting the sense of “God’s Word” to the bible. “God’s Word” and “bible” though overlapping in meaning are not identical in meaning. A lot of bibliolatry and incipient bibliolatry comes from mapping the two concepts as if they were the same thing when they are not.

So for me - and what I used to think the vast majority of Christians, that is until I came to Christian Forums - the Bible is the foundation to all truth.

See above. For me, God is the foundation of all truth. Nothing but truth comes from God, and all truth comes from God. One of the things that comes from God is the bible, so the bible is true because it is founded on and derived from God’s truth. But God’s truth is not found only in the bible. It is found wherever truth is found.

No other source of "truth" whether science or whatever is to be on even par with it.

Whereas, since all truth is God’s truth, I see all truth as equal. Not every truth has the same importance, but all truth is equally true. E.g. evolution is not as important a truth as the fact God loved us and sent his Son to redeem us. But both are equally true.

All other knowledge is secondary to the Bible. So if a "truth" disagrees with the Bible then in my opinion it isn't true and worthy of such distinction.

Truth cannot disagree with truth. All “conflicts” of truth with truth are apparent and due to our improper interpretation of the facts. There is no such thing as a truth which disagrees with the truth of the bible. But if we are misinterpreting the bible, a truth may appear to disagree with it.

This is why evolution, no matter how you present it, can never be considered anything other than a poor attempt, by man, to explain his own origins and exhalt himself in the process.

You asked earlier about YEC inconsistencies. Here is another one. You would have it that evolution is a human attempt to “exalt” humankind. Yet, I can find reams of YEC material which condemns evolution as “degrading” humankind to the status of being “just an animal”.

In fact, evolution says nothing at all about exalting or degrading humankind. You are reading into a scientific theory—which you admit you do not know well—something which is not there.

I think we might have some common ground here. I believe that for anyone to say they know the age of the earth and universe it has to by a hypothesis because it can never be an established fact.

This science has gone well beyond the level of hypothesis and is certain enough to be considered an established fact. You may believe otherwise because you are not familiar with the evidence. But your opinion that the age of the universe and of the earth cannot be known is in error. Both are known to a level of confidence that it is perverse to deny their factuality.

. We weren't there when it happened.

We weren’t there when Christ was crucified either.

If you think it is a fact then why is it that even evolutionists have billions of years difference in how long they think the earth and universe have been around?

They don’t. While (as with most measurements) there is a margin of error due to the limitations of the measuring systems, it is relatively small. The dates of 13.7 bya for the universe and 4.5 bya for the earth are standardized. If we can refine our measurements to a higher level of accuracy, we may see those dates changed by a fraction of a percent, but it is highly improbable that they will change much.

Yes, science is and will continue to be full of incorrect hypotheses. However, the Bible has stood the test of time and I think I'll put my faith in it rather than science or anything else.

No one is asking that you put your faith in science. In fact, faith is entirely the wrong way to approach science. When it comes to science, what is needed is hard-headed skepticism of anything without evidence to support it---but also a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But no faith.

Just the opposite of committing one’s life to Christ and following him. There the only thing that counts is faith. And, once more, why do you speak of faith in the bible rather than in the one the bible tells you to have faith in?

No, I just won't allow the "facts" to change what the Word of God says.

Again, no one is asking that because facts, truth, cannot contradict each other. But you may find the facts challenging what you think the bible says and reviewing how you should understand the bible. Changing your mind is a much different thing than changing God’s Word.

However, I'll just say this, the truth is all that matters to me.

Good. Honest truth-seekers will eventually agree though they may seem to be poles apart at any given moment.

That's a mighty big IF to be basing my doctrine on.

Well, one doesn’t/shouldn't base doctrine on science. And, for me, it is not an “if” at all.

 

[Vance]

I couldn't agree more with your three points.

You would be accurate when you say that I'm taking my understanding of Scripture as absolute truth. If I wasn't then I don't think I'd be much of a Christian. Is this prideful, I pray it is not! I've always been open to other interpretations, especially if they can be backed up with other Scripture. But if the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me that I'm wrong then I'll continue believing what I do.

One of the most important points is that you realize that most TE's ALSO believe those three points. Very often, YEC's talk as if TE's don't hold to those three things, and base their arguments on reasserting those very points (which makes no sense if you understand that those are points of agreement!).

As long as you are humble about your interpretation, and realize you could be mistaken, I see no problem. It is only when we lose that humbleness and slide into dogmatism that the problem arises. I am just as convinced as you that I am led by the Spirit and guided in my reading of Scripture. Now, how could the Spirit lead us to different interpretations? Maybe the Spirit is not leading us to these differing interpretations, but simplying allowing us each to hold them because we still both "get" the true message. To cite again something very important from Augustine:

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received."

 

[SBG]

it is a much more complex metaphor than this.

First realize, I speaking about what John says Jesus is and why.

God speaks into existence the world.
Jesus is the Logos that existed before the foundation of the world and is the means whereby the Creator creates.

God did speak the universe into existense. What does the Psalmist say happens when God speaks?

Jesus has always existed. He is in fact the Creator. He is in fact God.

The Father proposes the Son disposes, as the aphorism states.
Jesus is first as the Creative Word and the Scriptures are second as the human-divine word (analogous to Jesus as human-divine) not as you imply above the opposite order.

No one is saying the pages and the bindings are above Jesus or God. You honestly have to understand this, if you care to understand where I and many are coming from.

Tell me, when Jesus said 'I am the way and truth,' should we treat this as something seperate of who Jesus is? That it is not equal to who He is?

The extended metaphor ties both into the meaning of Logos and the image of proceeding from the Father. Then the complex idea of spirit and breath as lifegiving, the Word of God being the spirit of God infused into Adam to make him a living soul.

it is certainly a complex and interesting topic, but Jesus existed long before the Scriptures were written.

No one, not even I, have suggested the Bible has existed before Jesus. How could Jesus' Words exist before Him? Jesus has always existed.

What I am telling you(not as an authority), is that when Jesus says He is the way and the truth, that is what Jesus is and it is equal to who He is.

What TEs say is that that is not equal to who Jesus is. And if you think that is equal to who Jesus is, then you are a Bible Idolator. Mind you, I am using this as an example of what is written about God.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus is God, and I said the Scriptures speak of God, how is that backwards?

You didn't say "and" (I would not have objected to that); you said "because". You said:

"Jesus Christ is called the Word, because the Scriptures, the Word of God, speaks of who God is. What is written about God came to be flesh, in Jesus Christ."

To me, this says that the scriptures were the cause of the incarnation and that what was written preceded the eternal Word--which would be an absurdity.

If that is not what you intended to say, I apologize, but that is how it came across to me.

I would certainly like some clarification as to what you did mean.

Can you find where I did say Jesus became flesh because of the written Scripture?

See above.

Is it difficult to understand what I said about John teaching that Jesus is called the Word become flesh because the Word - Scripture - speaks of God?

Yes. As stated this comes across to me in the same way as your statement above. Jesus is not called the Word become flesh because scripture says this. Scripture says this because Jesus is the Word become flesh. And clearly, the Word referred to here by John is not a written word, but the Logos, the eternal and divine Word.

As I see it, you are still putting the cart before the horse.

I did not say Jesus came into flesh because of the what is written. I did say that John recognizes that all that is written about God, in the Scriptures is attributed, in the flesh, to Jesus Christ. Is this what you want to argue against? That who God is, is not Jesus Christ?

John can't be recognising scripture when he is in the process of writing it, and his writings would not be recognized as scripture for a couple of centuries. You are supposing that the Logos is a written word. But John is using the term here as it was used in contemporary Greek philosophy, and in that way of thinking the Logos is most certainly not a written document. It is the first emanation of the Godhead--the externalizing of the mind of God in divine speech which is the power that creates and sustains the universe. John uses this notion to explain to Gentile Christians who Jesus is, giving the term "Logos" a Christian meaning.

No, I am not at all denying, but rather affirming, that who God is is who Jesus is. Jesus is the Logos/Word of God.

But this is not so because scripture says so. Rather, scripture says so because it is so. The fact precedes the written testimony about the fact.

Let it be crystal clear, I did *not* say Jesus became flesh because of written word, I am saying Jesus is in fact what the Written Word says about who God is. That Written Word, is the Bible and it teaches who God is, and that is Jesus.

Do you still deny this?

And I am saying that Jesus is in fact the eternal and divine Word, not the written word nor what the written word says. Jesus is God, not the contents of a book, even if the book is inspired. I certainly agree that the bible teaches who God is and that Jesus is God. But the truth of that does not depend on it being written in the bible. Rather the truth of the bible depends on the relationship of Jesus and God being true independantly of the bible.

 

[Vance]

I have always found it more useful to read Logos as "Wisdom", which is one of the definitions of the Greek, since it avoids this very confusion.

 

[SBG]

You didn't say "and" (I would not have objected to that); you said "because". You said:

"Jesus Christ is called the Word, because the Scriptures, the Word of God, speaks of who God is. What is written about God came to be flesh, in Jesus Christ."

To me, this says that the scriptures were the cause of the incarnation and that what was written preceded the eternal Word--which would be an absurdity.

If that is not what you intended to say, I apologize, but that is how it came across to me.

I would certainly like some clarification as to what you did mean.

Alright. John speaks of Jesus as the Word. We atleast agree here, I presume. Do we want to understand why John as used this word, logos? Scripture is almost always dualistic in meaning. It speaks of this reality and the spiritual one. Vance does have it correct, as you do as well, that logos also speaks that Jesus is infinite wisdom. No one denies this.

I believe John refers to Jesus as the Word, to speak to His audience about the claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed, He was the 'I AM.' This is the sacred name of God that is used in the Bible to tell us who God is. The Bible thorouthly tells us who God is. What is said in the Bible about God, the Word, is who Jesus is. The Old Testament, when speaking of God, is speaking also of Jesus.

Jesus read Isaiah in the synogogue, in the company the keepers of the Law and when He finished reading the passages, He said today this is fulfilled.(Luke 4:16-18)

John later tells us that book of Isaiah speaks of Jesus. (John 12:41)

When Jesus was on the mountain and Satan tempted Him to turn the stones into bread, Jesus said, 'man does not live on bread alone, but on the Word of God.' There are two meanings to this, one the Word of God that we can learn and know by our physical means, is the Bible. The Word of God that we can learn and know from our spiritual means is Jesus Christ. When Jesus said we cannot live on bread alone, but on the Word of God, He was also referring to Himself as the Word of God, not just the Scriptures.(Matthew 4:4, Deut. 8:3)

Through the Scriptures we learn and know who Jesus/God is. That is how we are taught in righteousness, for righteousness comes from God alone.

The Bible speaks of who God is, in everything it says. And Jesus is this and therefore John also called Him the Word. Remember Jesus claimed that what is written is about Him. John continues this teaching by refering to Jesus as the Word.

See above.





Yes. As stated this comes across to me in the same way as your statement above. Jesus is not called the Word become flesh because scripture says this. Scripture says this because Jesus is the Word become flesh. And clearly, the Word referred to here by John is not a written word, but the Logos, the eternal and divine Word.

As I see it, you are still putting the cart before the horse.

No one can put the Bible before God or Jesus. Jesus/God have always existed, nothing came before them. We all know this, don't we?

John can't be recognising scripture when he is in the process of writing it, and his writings would not be recognized as scripture for a couple of centuries. You are supposing that the Logos is a written word. But John is using the term here as it was used in contemporary Greek philosophy, and in that way of thinking the Logos is most certainly not a written document. It is the first emanation of the Godhead--the externalizing of the mind of God in divine speech which is the power that creates and sustains the universe. John uses this notion to explain to Gentile Christians who Jesus is, giving the term "Logos" a Christian meaning.

Really, John cannot recognize Scripture while writing it? Are you suggesting that the Old Testament was not around at the time of John? That is an odd claim to make, since Jesus read the scroll of Isaiah and referred to the Old Testament quite often.

I agree about Logos. But John in this simple little passage - that is not so simple - is telling everyone that Jesus is the same God that is spoken of in the Old Testament. Can't you see how beautiful of a statement this is, that John makes about Jesus?

No, I am not at all denying, but rather affirming, that who God is is who Jesus is. Jesus is the Logos/Word of God.

But this is not so because scripture says so. Rather, scripture says so because it is so. The fact precedes the written testimony about the fact.

Excellent. I never meant for it to be implied that Jesus is because of Scripture. Scripture is not a cause of Jesus, it tells of who Jesus is, God. That is why John calls Him the Word, to show that Jesus is the same God that is testified about in the Old Testament.

If you don't believe me, read this again and see where John is going:

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Notice how John concludes it with the Word was God?

And I am saying that Jesus is in fact the eternal and divine Word, not the written word nor what the written word says. Jesus is God, not the contents of a book, even if the book is inspired. I certainly agree that the bible teaches who God is and that Jesus is God. But the truth of that does not depend on it being written in the bible. Rather the truth of the bible depends on the relationship of Jesus and God being true independantly of the bible.

Jesus is beyond the word or words. The Word describes what we need to know about Jesus. It teaches us who He is.

Let's try to get off this physical perception of a book and realise that what is written about God, which is all of the Bible, is the Living Word. We are not talking about bindings and pages made from trees. We are talking about the messages and the teachings. Is it your intention to seperate what is taught by God from God?

When God speaks, it is truth. It is not dependent on anything. The Bible is God's Voice speaking. Are you suggesting that God speaking needs to be seperated from God and who He is? That somehow what God says, is less than who God is?

When Jesus said He is the truth and the way, is this less than who Jesus is? Is He somehow not really what He said He is?

 

[shernren]

Why would you buy YEC or TE or whatever books to help better understand your spiritual walk with God and His Word? Doesn't make sense to me. To me that is looking to the world to tell you how you should believe what God says.

No, I wasn't buying YEC books to better understand my spiritual walk. I was buying YEC books to better understand science and how God created the world.

See, that's the heart of the problem. If I need spiritual guidance, I will turn to the Bible straight-away, no second doubts. But if I need scientific guidance? Am I going to trust a book for science which calls a bat a bird? (I'm getting sick and tired of this one myself but nobody seems to answer it.) The thing is, YECism assumes the Bible has an absolute and over-arching authority in every field of knowledge in every aspect of life. That it is truth, no-one here will deny, but what sort of truth? The Bible doesn't teach anything about democracy, or about international trade fairness (other than it's bad for kings to keep Egyptian horses, hehe), or about quantum physics. Wouldn't it be a rather defective book if it was written to cover all of life?

The fact is, the Bible is not meant to be "the answer to every question you could ever possibly ask". When God gave us brains I'm sure He did a super-fantastic job of it (whether through creation or evolution!) and I personally believe that God was looking forward to us exploring and discovering how His creation works, much as parents enjoy watching a child discover a new toy. And that's what He gave us brains for. He didn't give us the Bible to teach us how the world works; that would have been superfluous. But He did give us the Bible to show us how we work, how we can be re-connected to Him. He did that because while our brains have the power to dissect anything scientific and logical (given enough time), due to the innate warpedness of them (remember, I believe in the literal fall) we would never discover Him and learn salvation on our own. So the Bible has a very specific and powerful purpose in our lives: having said that, taking the Bible out of its purpose will distort its meaning as with any other book. Asking your Bible what science is like is precisely like asking a biology textbook what God is like: you're taking the wrong questions to the wrong books!

You and others keep thinking, I am into all this science stuff. I am not. I am into studying the Word of God. Science doesn't convince me of anything, whether TE or YEC. I don't look to science to determine what my spiritual beliefs will be. That is just being careless with God's Word.

And I ask of you the freedom to let me not look to the Bible to determine what my scientific beliefs should be without calling me any less Christian. Isn't that fair? I never say "because science, therefore God is..." but only, "because God is true, science should be..."

And then you will say, "See! You are undermining the authority of Scripture!"

Most emphatically, I am not. The Bible simply wasn't written for the job of answering every question in the whole wide world. As John puts it beautifully, Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25) Isn't this true of the Bible? The Bible tells me that I am a sinner, that God is holy, that God has always wanted me to have a relationship with Him, that I must be holy also for that to happen, and that He has made a way for that with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and what I must do to follow.

It is precisely those who would make the Bible a scientific book, who undermine its authority. By forcing the Bible to be relevant to areas that didn't even exist to be addressed in its day, they make the Bible to be full of errors, and then sweat and groan to set things right again.

As we know from the separation of powers, a judge isn't allowed to be a policy-maker. Does that make him any less credible as a judge? No! In fact, a judge who was also a policy-maker would be far more suspect than a judge who chooses to be a good judge and leaves policy-making to the correct people. In the same way the Bible is cutting as a two-edged sword when we apply it to the correct areas of life. It is no insult to say that the Bible makes no sense otherwise, i.e. scientifically.

 

[Remus]

Am I going to trust a book for science which calls a bat a bird? (I'm getting sick and tired of this one myself but nobody seems to answer it.)

Here's a good article on this topic.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

BTW, we treat it as a history book, not a science book.

 

[SBG]

No, I wasn't buying YEC books to better understand my spiritual walk. I was buying YEC books to better understand science and how God created the world.

The Bible tells us how, by God's Word, not evolution.

See, that's the heart of the problem. If I need spiritual guidance, I will turn to the Bible straight-away, no second doubts. But if I need scientific guidance? Am I going to trust a book for science which calls a bat a bird? (I'm getting sick and tired of this one myself but nobody seems to answer it.) The thing is, YECism assumes the Bible has an absolute and over-arching authority in every field of knowledge in every aspect of life. That it is truth, no-one here will deny, but what sort of truth? The Bible doesn't teach anything about democracy, or about international trade fairness (other than it's bad for kings to keep Egyptian horses, hehe), or about quantum physics. Wouldn't it be a rather defective book if it was written to cover all of life?

The fact is, the Bible is not meant to be "the answer to every question you could ever possibly ask". When God gave us brains I'm sure He did a super-fantastic job of it (whether through creation or evolution!) and I personally believe that God was looking forward to us exploring and discovering how His creation works, much as parents enjoy watching a child discover a new toy. And that's what He gave us brains for. He didn't give us the Bible to teach us how the world works; that would have been superfluous. But He did give us the Bible to show us how we work, how we can be re-connected to Him. He did that because while our brains have the power to dissect anything scientific and logical (given enough time), due to the innate warpedness of them (remember, I believe in the literal fall) we would never discover Him and learn salvation on our own. So the Bible has a very specific and powerful purpose in our lives: having said that, taking the Bible out of its purpose will distort its meaning as with any other book. Asking your Bible what science is like is precisely like asking a biology textbook what God is like: you're taking the wrong questions to the wrong books!

I believe TEs misunderstand the difference between history and science, as Remus says above. TEs seem to think that because YECs say Genesis gives us a *historical* account of what God creates, how God created, and when God created what he did(order), that YECs are claiming this is science. It's not science, it is history.

TEs call it mythology, YECs call it history. That is the difference in how each camp treats God's Word.

And I ask of you the freedom to let me not look to the Bible to determine what my scientific beliefs should be without calling me any less Christian. Isn't that fair? I never say "because science, therefore God is..." but only, "because God is true, science should be..."

And then you will say, "See! You are undermining the authority of Scripture!"

Most emphatically, I am not. The Bible simply wasn't written for the job of answering every question in the whole wide world. As John puts it beautifully, Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25) Isn't this true of the Bible? The Bible tells me that I am a sinner, that God is holy, that God has always wanted me to have a relationship with Him, that I must be holy also for that to happen, and that He has made a way for that with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and what I must do to follow.

It is precisely those who would make the Bible a scientific book, who undermine its authority. By forcing the Bible to be relevant to areas that didn't even exist to be addressed in its day, they make the Bible to be full of errors, and then sweat and groan to set things right again.

As we know from the separation of powers, a judge isn't allowed to be a policy-maker. Does that make him any less credible as a judge? No! In fact, a judge who was also a policy-maker would be far more suspect than a judge who chooses to be a good judge and leaves policy-making to the correct people. In the same way the Bible is cutting as a two-edged sword when we apply it to the correct areas of life. It is no insult to say that the Bible makes no sense otherwise, i.e. scientifically.

No one told you to go to the Bible to learn physics, astronomy, geology, or chemistry. It is the TEs who have been determined to term the outlook of YECs as 'looking to the Bible for understanding science.' This is simply wrong and nothing more than a debating tactic to deter anyone from truly understanding where YECs come from.

And to say the Bible does not record literal history is an insult to the Almighty God. Ever read Job and see what God says to someone who questions the integrity of God and His Word?

Did Jesus literally walk on water? Did God literally cause the plagues on Pharaoh? Did God literally die on a Cross? Did God literally give Moses the 10 Commandments? Did God literally write on the stone tablets with His finger? Did Jesus literally write on the ground to symbolize that He wrote those 10 commandments? Is Jesus literally God? Did Jesus literally redeem us?

I am assuming you will say yes to all these questions. So tell me the dangers of believing the Bible literally....

 

[vossler]

That is because you are restricting the sense of “God’s Word” to the bible. “God’s Word” and “bible” though overlapping in meaning are not identical in meaning. A lot of bibliolatry and incipient bibliolatry comes from mapping the two concepts as if they were the same thing when they are not.

I’m not quite sure of what you’re trying to say. Just because one says that the Bible is the Word of God doesn’t in anyway state that the Bible comes before God. The very nature of the expression should make that abundantly clear; Word of God. This clearly shows that it came from God and didn’t exist before Him. I’m beginning to be convinced that people that repeatedly bring this up have something against being held accountable to what the Book says. Why else is this concern always being raised? Never in my time here have I seen a relatively benign statement like this become such a lightening rod for criticism. I can’t recall seeing a single post that in some way placed the Bible above God, yet claims of idolatry and blasphemy run rampant. Go figure?

See above. For me, God is the foundation of all truth. Nothing but truth comes from God, and all truth comes from God. One of the things that comes from God is the bible, so the bible is true because it is founded on and derived from God’s truth. But God’s truth is not found only in the bible. It is found wherever truth is found.

Yes, but it is the only source of truth that was given to us as life manual or guide for every decision we make. All other information can’t even begin to hold a candle against the truths found in the Bible.

Whereas, since all truth is God’s truth, I see all truth as equal. Not every truth has the same importance, but all truth is equally true. E.g. evolution is not as important a truth as the fact God loved us and sent his Son to redeem us. But both are equally true.

Evolution’s version of “truth” is ever changing based on man's observations of the latest scientific evidences or hypotheses, all of which are themselves constantly evolving. Isn’t it interesting that all atheists, agnostics and other non-believers side with evolution and not creationism. I'm sure the percentage of “believers” who subscribe to evolution must be extremely low. Have you ever wondered why?



Which “truth” of evolution is correct today? Why wasn’t it yesterday? What will it be tomorrow? No one really knows, yet we place an incredible amount of trust in a “truth” that shifts and transforms itself quite regularly.

Truth cannot disagree with truth. All “conflicts” of truth with truth are apparent and due to our improper interpretation of the facts. There is no such thing as a truth which disagrees with the truth of the bible. But if we are misinterpreting the bible, a truth may appear to disagree with it.

O.K. I agree, at least I think so.

You asked earlier about YEC inconsistencies. Here is another one. You would have it that evolution is a human attempt to “exalt” humankind. Yet, I can find reams of YEC material which condemns evolution as “degrading” humankind to the status of being “just an animal”.

No, you misunderstood what I meant by exalting man. I meant the man who “discovered” or proclaimed the knowledge not man or the human race. It does quite the opposite of that.

In fact, evolution says nothing at all about exalting or degrading humankind. You are reading into a scientific theory—which you admit you do not know well—something which is not there.

If man evolved from the soup of evolution you may not see that as degrading, but I most certainly do!

This science has gone well beyond the level of hypothesis and is certain enough to be considered an established fact. You may believe otherwise because you are not familiar with the evidence. But your opinion that the age of the universe and of the earth cannot be known is in error. Both are known to a level of confidence that it is perverse to deny their factuality.

Which “facts” are established? The earth, back in 1862, according to the “truths” that scientists at that time could surmise was 20 million years old. It has since then gone up exponentially. Today it is 4.5 – 5.0 billion years old. That original 20 million is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to 5 billion. The Bible’s truth tells us the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. This hasn't changed in over 3,000 years. Yet evolution has, just in the last 150 years, adjusted or changed its numbers so far that one can’t hardly know what to believe.

We weren’t there when Christ was crucified either.

No but there were a few reliable witnesses.

They don’t. While (as with most measurements) there is a margin of error due to the limitations of the measuring systems, it is relatively small. The dates of 13.7 bya for the universe and 4.5 bya for the earth are standardized. If we can refine our measurements to a higher level of accuracy, we may see those dates changed by a fraction of a percent, but it is highly improbable that they will change much.

None of Man's scientific age estimation methods can be considered foolproof, whether young or old. I prefer to stick with the testimony of the only eyewitness, God.

No one is asking that you put your faith in science. In fact, faith is entirely the wrong way to approach science. When it comes to science, what is needed is hard-headed skepticism of anything without evidence to support it---but also a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But no faith.

That’s an interesting position. I would certainly agree with the hard-headed skepticism part, yet I never get the impression from TEs that they hold science accountable to anything except itself.

Just the opposite of committing one’s life to Christ and following him. There the only thing that counts is faith. And, once more, why do you speak of faith in the bible rather than in the one the bible tells you to have faith in?

My faith is in the God of the Bible, Jehovah-jireh, our great provider and the author of absolute truth. He gave us His the gift of His Son and the truth of His Word to give us wisdom and power through His awesome Word. So, yes, I have a tremendous faith in His Word.

Again, no one is asking that because facts, truth, cannot contradict each other. But you may find the facts challenging what you think the bible says and reviewing how you should understand the bible. Changing your mind is a much different thing than changing God’s Word.

I pray for wisdom a guidance each day that I may be salt and light in a world that is in desperate need of it. At the same time I also pray for a humble spirit and discerning mind that when presented with the truth I not only recognize it, but act on it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I believe TEs misunderstand the difference between history and science, as Remus says above. TEs seem to think that because YECs say Genesis gives us a *historical* account of what God creates, how God created, and when God created what he did(order), that YECs are claiming this is science. It's not science, it is history.

TEs call it mythology, YECs call it history. That is the difference in how each camp treats God's Word.

excuse me, the how of creation is science.

btw, you ought to be aware(if only from reading this board) that there is an extraordinary range of TE's, you are attacking a strawman, or at best the extreme left wing of TE's with your analysis.

 

[SBG]

excuse me, the how of creation is science.

btw, you ought to be aware(if only from reading this board) that there is an extraordinary range of TE's, you are attacking a strawman, or at best the extreme left wing of TE's with your analysis.

No. The How of Creation, is God speaking it into being. What does the Psalmists say about when God speaks?

It is not a strawman if people here have referred to Genesis 1-11 as a myth, and there have been.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No. The How of Creation, is God speaking it into being. What does the Psalmists say about when God speaks?

It is not a strawman if people here have referred to Genesis 1-11 as a myth, and there have been.

God speaking is a complex metaphor.
it is not technic, but a visual image.

 

[SBG]

God speaking is a complex metaphor.
it is not technic, but a visual image.

Really? How about when John the Baptists heard God speak when Baptising Jesus? Or how about Jesus' transfiguration when the Apostles heard God speak? Did they really hear it?

And when Genesis says, 'God said,' God didn't really say? How about all those other times this is used on the OT?

Do you know what the Psalmists says about when God speaks?

 

[shernren]

I believe TEs misunderstand the difference between history and science, as Remus says above. TEs seem to think that because YECs say Genesis gives us a *historical* account of what God creates, how God created, and when God created what he did(order), that YECs are claiming this is science. It's not science, it is history.

Well, AiG certainly tries it's darndest best to treat it as science. Won't you disillusion them?

History and science are closely interrelated. To give a blatant example: if I say that John F. Kennedy was killed by a bullet, it implies that bullets can kill people. This would translate into a whole set of medical - biological statements, all scientific in nature and perhaps some true and some not.

Any historical statement must imply that any science which that historical statement requires must be true. Agreed? Now, YECism taking the Bible as history, with the additional assumption that the scientific laws of nature have not appreciably changed over time (as opposed to our understanding of them) yields several scientific statements:

1. It is possible for radioisotope decay rates to vary tremendously over the course of a few thousand years.
2. It is possible for varves to form under rapid deposition.
3. It is possible for a short, catastrophic global flood to form structures traditionally attributed to long-term geological weathering.

These statements break down into sub-statements and hypotheses, each falsifiable or verifiable (by continuous non-falsification) and therefore treatable under the scientific method. So to say that the Bible as history does not imply science is wrong.

Treating the Bible as history will require the implication of many scientific statements. Most of these statements will be perfectly mundane and foundational statements about the world. But when these scientific implications disagree with the scientific findings of today, I reinterpret Scripture so that my interpretation of Scripture will not have to conflict with my understanding of the physical world (which, I remind you again and again and again, God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus made as well).

And to say the Bible does not record literal history is an insult to the Almighty God. Ever read Job and see what God says to someone who questions the integrity of God and His Word?

Of course I know what God says. He points to the wonders of nature and says in effect, "Can you match Me? Can you ever synthesize the working principles of the universe? Can you tell the world how to run?" Now, what would it mean if God was pointing to working principles which change half the time to verify His glory? What sort of a glory is witnessed to by a lying universe?

Why am I insulting God? I don't think I am. Would Shakespeare be insulted if I said Macbeth never existed? Do you think Jesus feels insulted when we call His stories parables? Or was He pleased when Augustine said that to "compel" the unbelievers to enter meant to slay everyone who wouldn't comply?

So tell me the dangers of believing the Bible literally....

I think the Judaizers, the Crusaders and the anti-abolitionists could speak much more eloquently with their failed missions. What's the lesson there?

TEs call it mythology, YECs call it history. That is the difference in how each camp treats God's Word.

Calling Genesis 1 mythology is no worse than calling Jesus' parables parables. How is it worse? Enlighten me.

 

[shernren]

[size=-1]a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

[/size][size=-1]A myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

[/size][size=-1]Legendary narrative, usually of gods and heroes, or a theme that expresses the ideology of a culture.
odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/LIT/chap10.htm[/size]

To the Eastern the myth was the form of truth which applied best to their minds, so very far from this definition:

Myth - something not true, fiction, or falsehood. A truth disguised and distorted.

The Eastern mind would never perceive any disguise or distortion in using myths. Was Jesus disguising and distorting truth through His parables?

Final definition:

[size=+1]Myth A story, a theme, an object, or a character regarded as embodying an aspect of a culture; the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 may be called myths, not in the sense that they are factually false, but because they embody core beliefs of Israelite culture.

[/size]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Really? How about when John the Baptists heard God speak when Baptising Jesus? Or how about Jesus' transfiguration when the Apostles heard God speak? Did they really hear it?

And when Genesis says, 'God said,' God didn't really say? How about all those other times this is used on the OT?

Do you know what the Psalmists says about when God speaks?

we are discussing Gen 1 and God speaking creation into existence.