Why a literalist presumption?

[gluadys]

First, I think you should be aware that the Greek community was not in the dark about the teachings of the Old Testament. Look to John's book and you will see that Greeks came to see Jesus. They knew of Him and who He claimed to be.

So it is a mistatement to say the Greeks were not really aware of the Old Testament teachings. Granted they were not as indoctrinated as the Jews, but even the Greeks borrowed from Jewish philosophy.

With the Greeks being aware of the Old Testament and some of its teachings, they were also aware of the Jewish belief in God. The Old Testament is abundent with passages of God speaking and telling us who He is. The whole written word - Old Testament - is a testament of who God is.

This is certainly true of both the Jewish and Greek educated elite. But we have to remember how small a fraction of society that was. And how few of them were connected to the early Church.

Some of the illiterate Gentiles who came into the early church were “god-fearers” who frequented the synagogues without becoming converts. They would have some knowledge of Judaism. And Jews in the Diaspora would be familiar with popular Hellenistic thought.

So there were certainly connections. I did not mean to suggest that John was breaking new ground in bridging the two cultures. In fact, he was following a path well-trodden for at least a century.

The Word refers to the written word - Old Testament

Responded to in previous post.

I do agree with this thinking, but I do think Jesus was referring to what is written in Scripture as well as to Himself.

I agree Jesus is including scripture in his reference to the Word of God here. I just don’t think he is limiting his reference to scripture.

I agree. But this leads to our disagreement, which I think you are aware of. As you have said, creation is in a sense God’s Word, but this is not the same as the Bible.

I do think creation is God’s Word in much the same sense the bible is. But they differ is not being God’s Word in the sense that Christ is. You might say Christ is God’s Word in an ontological sense. That is simply who he is. What creation and the bible do is present this Word to us. The function of both is to direct our attention and worship to Christ who is the Word. And it is in this functional sense that both can also be called the Word of God.

I would also agree that each has a different function. It is not the function of creation to teach us about sin and salvation. No one will come to a saving faith solely through the contemplation of nature. So, in the life of the Christian and in the life of the Church, the bible plays by far the more important and urgent role.

However, that does not make the message of creation any less true. Scripture can no more judge the message of creation than creation can judge the message of scripture. Both come from God, both are equally true. So when it seems to be impossible for both to be true, because they look like they contradict each other, it is our role as interpreters of both not to accept half the truth (one side of the contradiction) but to figure out how, in spite of appearances, both are indeed true.

Creation simply declares the Glory of God, that’s it. Evolution takes this Glory from God in my point of view.

Indeed, that is your point of view. But when I opened a science text and for the first time read a simple presentation of evolution, my first instinct was to praise God. I didn’t need the textbook to tell me to do that. I didn’t need a teacher (other than the Holy Spirit) to tell me. I just saw evolution, right off the bat, as glorifying God. And in over 30 years, I have never seen a reason to think otherwise.

Instead, it focuses on man, instead of God. You may say this is rightly so, I disagree. Creation is to declare God’s Glory, which is what the Bible teaches. It is not to declare man’s glory or anything about man.

The task of science is to study nature, not to focus on God. It is nature itself that points to God. And one of the things I find refreshing about evolution is that it does not focus on humanity. If anything it is a lesson in humility, for evolution depicts humanity as one small leaf among millions on the “bush” of life. To me, it is the insistence on a special creation of humanity, on keeping humanity at an arm’s-length distance from other animals, that feeds human hubris and vainglory. The disgust I often hear in YEC postings relative to our biological origins speaks to me of a profound disrespect for our fellow creatures, of much the same sort as the disgust and disrespect aristocrats express toward peasants in a class society.

Faith is a gift from God, not our gift to God.

Hallelujah!

God never hid Himself from man. He has actively been pursuing man since the fall. He has used people to bring His message to others. He spoke with people like Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, Micah, etc.

If we give an ear, He will do the rest and lead us. But we must keep listening to His voice, not someone else’s voice. We do this today by believing and following what is written, what Moses and the Prophets were given by God to tell all. What Jesus told His disciples to tell all nations.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or not, we can all be led astray. Even the elect can fall from what it was taught.

I don’t disagree with any of this. I only disagree with identifying scientific truth as an enemy of God’s truth.

And we are commanded to think better of each other. We are also to admonish one another, not to prove that we know more, but out of love for one another. For God disciplines those He loves.

And I hope that we are coming to think better of each other by understanding each other better. It is not necessary that we come to complete agreement, but that we respect each other in spite of disagreement. Also that we see how much we have in common as believers in spite of disagreements about science and scripture.

This is not about the Bible being before Jesus or God. This is about the Bible telling us about Jesus and God. These are true messages of our Lord and Savior. Are we not to treat these messages carefully and also follow what we are told from what is written?

Absolutely!

And if one learns from the Bible that Jesus is the only way, and this one accepts this from the Bible, does this make them a Bible idolater? Does it make one a Bible idolater if they follow the messages written within the Bible rather than what the world teaches? Am I Bible idolater because I follow what is written when it says God created the world and everything in it in six days? You may think I am wrong, but do you also think I am worshipping the Bible because I follow what it says?

No, not at all. Idolatry of scripture comes in when it is perceived that faith in God and the gospel is dependant on scripture such that if scripture did not exist, saving faith could not exist.

God has chosen to give us scripture as a means of spreading the gospel. God did not have to make that choice. The gospel could have been proclaimed without a bible. So, to make faith dependent on the bible instead of on the grace of God (as you did above) is just wrong. On the other hand, to say that faith will be immeasurably strengthened through immersion in scripture is profoundly true. Again, it is a matter of logical/theological order. The correct order is not that belief in the bible leads to faith in God, but that faith in God leads to believing the bible. (Chronologically, that order may be reversed, but it is still by the grace of God that we come to believe, not just by believing the scripture.) That the logical/theological order is correct can be seen by asking the question: what if every bible was destroyed tomorrow? Would your faith disappear? Would the church disappear? Would the Word of God and the gospel disappear? The Christian will answer, “No, of course not.” The bibliolater will answer “Yes. Because the bible is the foundation of all of these.”

If God came to you, right now, and you could see Him, and you didn’t know it was Him until He told you, I am God, and you were convicted in your heart that this was true. Would you fall to the ground and worship Him because He told you He was God? Would you be worshipping the words He spoke or the fact that He told He is God, so you worship Him?

None of the above. I would worship him because I was convicted in my heart that this was God. I would not worship him because of his words, but because I believed the words to be true.

There are many that are just complete forgeries. They do not line up with what was circulating with the Churches.

At the time, they were circulating in the churches. That is why it was necessary to discern which were scripture and which were not.

 

[gluadys]

First, I think you should be aware that the Greek community was not in the dark about the teachings of the Old Testament. Look to John's book and you will see that Greeks came to see Jesus. They knew of Him and who He claimed to be.

So it is a mistatement to say the Greeks were not really aware of the Old Testament teachings. Granted they were not as indoctrinated as the Jews, but even the Greeks borrowed from Jewish philosophy.

With the Greeks being aware of the Old Testament and some of its teachings, they were also aware of the Jewish belief in God. The Old Testament is abundent with passages of God speaking and telling us who He is. The whole written word - Old Testament - is a testament of who God is.

This is certainly true of both the Jewish and Greek educated elite. But we have to remember how small a fraction of society that was. And how few of them were connected to the early Church.

Some of the illiterate Gentiles who came into the early church were “god-fearers” who frequented the synagogues without becoming converts. They would have some knowledge of Judaism. And Jews in the Diaspora would be familiar with popular Hellenistic thought.

So there were certainly connections. I did not mean to suggest that John was breaking new ground in bridging the two cultures. In fact, he was following a path well-trodden for at least a century.

The Word refers to the written word - Old Testament

Responded to in previous post.

I do agree with this thinking, but I do think Jesus was referring to what is written in Scripture as well as to Himself.

I agree Jesus is including scripture in his reference to the Word of God here. I just don’t think he is limiting his reference to scripture.

I agree. But this leads to our disagreement, which I think you are aware of. As you have said, creation is in a sense God’s Word, but this is not the same as the Bible.

I do think creation is God’s Word in much the same sense the bible is. But they differ is not being God’s Word in the sense that Christ is. You might say Christ is God’s Word in an ontological sense. That is simply who he is. What creation and the bible do is present this Word to us. The function of both is to direct our attention and worship to Christ who is the Word. And it is in this functional sense that both can also be called the Word of God.

I would also agree that each has a different function. It is not the function of creation to teach us about sin and salvation. No one will come to a saving faith solely through the contemplation of nature. So, in the life of the Christian and in the life of the Church, the bible plays by far the more important and urgent role.

However, that does not make the message of creation any less true. Scripture can no more judge the message of creation than creation can judge the message of scripture. Both come from God, both are equally true. So when it seems to be impossible for both to be true, because they look like they contradict each other, it is our role as interpreters of both not to accept half the truth (one side of the contradiction) but to figure out how, in spite of appearances, both are indeed true.

Creation simply declares the Glory of God, that’s it. Evolution takes this Glory from God in my point of view.

Indeed, that is your point of view. But when I opened a science text and for the first time read a simple presentation of evolution, my first instinct was to praise God. I didn’t need the textbook to tell me to do that. I didn’t need a teacher (other than the Holy Spirit) to tell me. I just saw evolution, right off the bat, as glorifying God. And in over 30 years, I have never seen a reason to think otherwise.

Instead, it focuses on man, instead of God. You may say this is rightly so, I disagree. Creation is to declare God’s Glory, which is what the Bible teaches. It is not to declare man’s glory or anything about man.

The task of science is to study nature, not to focus on God. It is nature itself that points to God. And one of the things I find refreshing about evolution is that it does not focus on humanity. If anything it is a lesson in humility, for evolution depicts humanity as one small leaf among millions on the “bush” of life. To me, it is the insistence on a special creation of humanity, on keeping humanity at an arm’s-length distance from other animals, that feeds human hubris and vainglory. The disgust I often hear in YEC postings relative to our biological origins speaks to me of a profound disrespect for our fellow creatures, of much the same sort as the disgust and disrespect aristocrats express toward peasants in a class society.

Faith is a gift from God, not our gift to God.

Hallelujah!

God never hid Himself from man. He has actively been pursuing man since the fall. He has used people to bring His message to others. He spoke with people like Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, Micah, etc.

If we give an ear, He will do the rest and lead us. But we must keep listening to His voice, not someone else’s voice. We do this today by believing and following what is written, what Moses and the Prophets were given by God to tell all. What Jesus told His disciples to tell all nations.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or not, we can all be led astray. Even the elect can fall from what it was taught.

I don’t disagree with any of this. I only disagree with identifying scientific truth as an enemy of God’s truth.

And we are commanded to think better of each other. We are also to admonish one another, not to prove that we know more, but out of love for one another. For God disciplines those He loves.

And I hope that we are coming to think better of each other by understanding each other better. It is not necessary that we come to complete agreement, but that we respect each other in spite of disagreement. Also that we see how much we have in common as believers in spite of disagreements about science and scripture.

This is not about the Bible being before Jesus or God. This is about the Bible telling us about Jesus and God. These are true messages of our Lord and Savior. Are we not to treat these messages carefully and also follow what we are told from what is written?

Absolutely!

And if one learns from the Bible that Jesus is the only way, and this one accepts this from the Bible, does this make them a Bible idolater? Does it make one a Bible idolater if they follow the messages written within the Bible rather than what the world teaches? Am I Bible idolater because I follow what is written when it says God created the world and everything in it in six days? You may think I am wrong, but do you also think I am worshipping the Bible because I follow what it says?

No, not at all. Idolatry of scripture comes in when it is perceived that faith in God and the gospel is dependant on scripture such that if scripture did not exist, saving faith could not exist.

God has chosen to give us scripture as a means of spreading the gospel. God did not have to make that choice. The gospel could have been proclaimed without a bible. So, to make faith dependent on the bible instead of on the grace of God (as you did above) is just wrong. On the other hand, to say that faith will be immeasurably strengthened through immersion in scripture is profoundly true. Again, it is a matter of logical/theological order. The correct order is not that belief in the bible leads to faith in God, but that faith in God leads to believing the bible. (Chronologically, that order may be reversed, but it is still by the grace of God that we come to believe, not just by believing the scripture.) That the logical/theological order is correct can be seen by asking the question: what if every bible was destroyed tomorrow? Would your faith disappear? Would the church disappear? Would the Word of God and the gospel disappear? The Christian will answer, “No, of course not.” The bibliolater will answer “Yes. Because the bible is the foundation of all of these.”

If God came to you, right now, and you could see Him, and you didn’t know it was Him until He told you, I am God, and you were convicted in your heart that this was true. Would you fall to the ground and worship Him because He told you He was God? Would you be worshipping the words He spoke or the fact that He told He is God, so you worship Him?

None of the above. I would worship him because I was convicted in my heart that this was God. I would not worship him because of his words, but because I believed the words to be true.

There are many that are just complete forgeries. They do not line up with what was circulating with the Churches.

At the time, they were circulating in the churches. That is why it was necessary to discern which were scripture and which were not.

 

[gluadys]

Let’s see if I can rephrase this better then. Jesus is much more than what is written about Him. I think we can agree with that. The Word of God in the Old Testament speaks of Jesus Christ. It tells us what we need to know about Him and the New Testament further explains what He has now done for us, dying on the Cross and what this means to us.


What I am trying to explain – maybe not that well – is that in the Old Testament there are many different words used for the Name God. All are one and the same God. The Old Testament describes God and tells us about God. All of it speaks of God. John, in the very first verse, refers to what is already written about God in the Old Testament and states that this God is Jesus Christ who came in the flesh. He is connecting what people have heard about in the Old Testament – about God – and is stating very boldly that Jesus Christ is this God that is spoken of in the Old Testament. That Jesus and God are the One and the same.

Agree. Completely.

When you read the Bible and learn something new, does it convict your heart? Do you attribute that to the person who penned it, or God who gave it?

I attribute it to the illumination of the Holy Spirit guiding me in the interpretation of the scripture and connecting me to the Living Word via the written word.

Does God’s Word ever move you? If so, it is not the words or the paper that moved you, but the realization that God has spoken to your heart, which makes it the Living Word.

Exactly. So it is not the bible itself (the words on the paper) but the Living Word of God speaking in my heart that is the actual mover. I would not agree that this turns the bible into the Living Word, but that the Holy Spirit uses the bible as a way of bringing the Living Word into my heart.

Is the Bible real to you? When you read about what Jesus went through and did, just for you, are you not moved greatly? Everything that is written is a testimony of Jesus Christ who is in the very nature God. Jesus lives and His Word lives in the hearts of all those who believe in Him.

Do you understand what I mean?

Very much so. Experientially, I think we have a very consistent view of the bible and the Word of God. We are just expressing the same experience a little differently.

I absolutely agree that God’s Voice is larger than the Bible. But, what is contained within the Bible is still God’s Voice. I am not suggesting that this is all God can say. He still gives revelations to whom He chooses. He still comes and speaks to our hearts and in few people’s dreams.



No YEC has ever tried to say and mean that all that God is is contained within the Bible. Rather we say, what God wants us to know about Him is contained within the Bible. There is much more about God that we don’t even know yet and may never will or we may when we go to heaven. The point is that the Bible does contain the written message and teachings that are from God. Man did not create these messages or teachings. God inspired men to write these about Him so that all mankind can have a chance to know Him. God has never stopped pursuing us. So we say the Bible contains God’s Word because it originated from God Himself. We don’t say the Bible is everything about God, but rather everything God wants us to know of Him.

Agreed. All the way through.

I am trying to create some understanding that YEC do not worship the Bible because they take the Bible literally, or because they follow the teachings within the Bible. You have no idea how deep this accusation is for a YEC who values God’s Word over anything else within this world other than God Himself. We value the Bible so much because we know it is from God, and if God gave it to us, we ought to value it this much. We do not bow down to the book or worship the book. But we do treat it with the utmost care and defend it vigorously because it came from the One who died for us, so we may have life in Him.

I understand. And let me be clear that I have never said that YECism in and of itself is bibliolatry. Nor is a commitment to a literal interpretation of scripture. It is more a matter of the relationship seen between God and scripture. Paul tells us that no foundation can be laid other than the one already laid: Jesus Christ. It is when scripture is treated as that foundation, replacing Christ, that one slides into bibliolatry.

I have nothing against a high view of scripture. No informed Presbyterian could take any other view. But, especially when we take a high view of scripture, we need to be careful we don’t overreach into assigning to scripture what properly belongs to God.

Did I do a better job at making this clearer?

Much clearer.

 

[Hortysir]

Vance can speak for himself, but in my case, I most certainly did not have that presumption. When I started to become aware of the literary framework in Genesis 1, I was a gap theorist who opposed evolution. I ended up shifting to what I later learned is called the framework view due to studying the first chapters of Genesis.

If you set aside commentaries and other writings and really study the first two chapters of Genesis, there's a few things that jump out, or at least they did for me. The first is that there's a lot of literary beauty and craftsmanship in how Genesis 1 is arranged. The second is that Genesis 2 is contradictory if both accounts are literal history. Those were the two main factors that led me to believe that these creation accounts were not written to answer questions about historical or scientific details.

After my interpretation changed, I also had more openness to scientific ideas that I had earlier dismissed. Since I could now approach the evidence for these theories on their own merits rather than needing to disprove them for my faith to hold up, it's unsurprising that it didn't take long for me to accept evolution.

Edit: Ah, I see Vance has spoken for himself just a few minutes before I got this posted.

I'm just getting started in this thread, but I had to stop and ask you what contradiction you reffer to in my highlighted portion.
Not disagreeing with the main train of thought in your post, just wanting clarification on that matter. TY

 

[gluadys]

How fast is evolution?

Psalms 33:9
"For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

What does speed have to do with it? To God all “speeds” are one. There is nothing here which says that “it was done” in the same temporal instant as “he spake”.

It is true, that from God’s perspective, it is done as God speaks. It doesn’t follow that the human perspective will be the same. For example, in Revelation, John speaks of the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world”. Certainly that was true from God’s perspective. But from a human perspective, Christ was not crucified until about 30 CE.

Because it does record literal history. Surely you believe that Jesus Christ actually died on a Cross for your sins. Do you believe there was a real King David? How about Moses, was he real? Are the ten commandments real?

It would be insult to say that Jesus dying on the Cross didn't really happen, it is not literal history. It would be insult to say Jesus didn't literally raise from the dead.

Right. Because these things are literal history.

If God did create the world in six days, if the global flood was global, and it is crystal clear in the Bible about teaching these, would it not be an insult to God to tell Him - when He tells you He did this - that He did not do this?

But in this case we have indications that the passages are not literal history.

That is not what I am insisting. I am not saying God can only communicate through literal history. I am saying God does communicate through literal history and the creation account is in fact literal history.

Then we are in agreement except on one point. We agree God can communicate through various literary genres, including literal history. But you see the creation account as an instance of literal history and I do not.

I believe those who say God didn't tell us how He created are questioning the integrity of God's Word. God directly tells us that He is the creator and He spoke everything into being. You and others deny this, even when the Bible is very clear about it. But, you will deny the clarity.

I am not questioning that God is creator or that God spoke everything into being. I am only saying that IMO the biblical account of creation is not literal history.

You cannot be convicted by faith to believe something is very true?

Of course I can be. But the strength of my conviction doesn’t make it true. I could still be wrong.

Maybe this is where I have difficulting in understand a TE side. I am aware TEs are mostly skeptics. Not that you are question whether God exists or not, but that your first inclination is to be skeptical of everything. You would like proof.

Actually, it is the other way around. I am saying that I don’t need proof of e.g. Christ’s resurrection. Nor do I expect proof. I am deeply convicted by faith, not by proof. And I invite others to share my faith. I don’t attempt to offer them proof, because I have none to offer.

I am different than this. I am very deeply convicted that God is real. I have not second thoughts that what is written within the Bible is from God.

But is not “deep conviction” faith? How are we different here? You don’t know any of this any more than I do. You and I are both gripped by faith. When all is said and done, no matter how strong our faith, we could be objectively wrong. I am not saying we are wrong, but it is the whole essence of faith that we commit ourselves without objective evidence that we are right. Faith has to be a risk. Commitment has to be a risk. That is why faith is so different from science. Science demands evidence. It will not, cannot, take the risk of believing in someone/something whose very existence is shrouded in mystery.

Science can offer much more certainty in an objective way. That is why it cannot be ignored as a source of truth. But, by the same token, it is limited to what can be known objectively.

Faith offers no objective evidence to guide one’s spiritual commitments. It is entirely a matter of what witness you choose to believe. Yet the deep conviction of the heart in the reality of God and the truth of the gospel, is just as certain in its own way as the objective evidence of science. However, it should never be mistaken for a scientific knowledge. People can be very deeply convicted of something that is objectively untrue and/or morally wrong.

 

[Vance]

"But when I opened a science text and for the first time read a simple presentation of evolution, my first instinct was to praise God. I didn’t need the textbook to tell me to do that. I didn’t need a teacher (other than the Holy Spirit) to tell me. I just saw evolution, right off the bat, as glorifying God. And in over 30 years, I have never seen a reason to think otherwise."

Amen and amen!

Listening to the conversation above, what strikes me is the degree to which YEC's just insist that those who accept evolution and a figurative reading of Scripture must somehow revere Scripture less than they do. That they must consider science somehow greater than Scripture. That they must somehow view God as less awesome and omnipotent. That they must simply have less faith.

Once we can break away all of the concrete mold of that type of thinking, YEC's can then get much closer to an understanding of where TE's are coming from. It is simply all of these misconceptions about what TE's believe, how they view Scripture, etc, that is causing all the problem.

On the issue that Gluadys was raising, we must remember that we had many Christians that have lived and died without having ever read Scripture or even had it read to them. The first Christians had no written Gospels. It was hundreds of years before the entire NT as we know it was put together as a compiled work, and until then Christians had some of the texts, along with other texts that did not make it into the canon, but rarely all that we have now, and sometimes nothing but the teachings of the missionaries.

Now I believe VERY strongly in the power of the Scripture to transform lives (which is why I joined the Gideons, and btw, pray for me since I will be giving a church presentation on Sunday), but God can and has worked without the written text.

 

[gluadys]

You see the "literalist" does exactly this, allow scriptural text alone to inform and describe the creation. It's, IMO, the TEs who add to it things like evolution.

But I am not saying that the biblical text says anything about evolution. Some texts lend themselves to an interpretation consistent with evolution. But for me personally, it is not necessary to find evolution in scripture.

I'm not an end times expert, but I don't recall prophesy mentioning a single cataclysmic event. If so, please enlighten.

2nd Peter 3:10 is one that I have seen used.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 states: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped in for every good work."

And how do you know that Paul is correct in saying scripture is breathed out by God? (You can't use "because the Bible says so" because you already did. This is your answer to the question of why something in the bible can be taken as God's Word. Also, it would be circular reasoning.)

If this is true then none of can be certain of anything when it comes to the Bible only science.

And that is why, outside of science, we walk by the light of faith, not by the illumination of knowledge.

 

[Vance]

hmm, let me see here:

St. Augustine: the Creation accounts are obscure and beyond our vision.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Much of Scripture, other than what is necessary for salvation is unclear.

SBG: it is "crystal clear" that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation and a global flood.

 

[vossler]

2nd Peter 3:10 is one that I have seen used.

Here it is: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." I don't want to put words in your mouth or misinterpret what you believe. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be fair to say that you believe this to be a single cataclysmic event that could occur during your lifetime?

And how do you know that Paul is correct in saying scripture is breathed out by God? (You can't use "because the Bible says so" because you already did. This is your answer to the question of why something in the bible can be taken as God's Word. Also, it would be circular reasoning.)

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this so why don't you tell me so that I can either agree or disagree and we can suspense with all this other stuff. Next you'll be asking me how do I know anything in the Bible is correct.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

What really makes no sense to me, is when I presented Psalms 33:6-9, a Psalm that talks about God creating, I am told I twisted it. I didn't add words to the verse or take any out. But it is claimed I twisted it.

You quoted Psalm 33:9 in the context of answering how long evolution took. That is why I said you twisted it. The passage does not speak about duration, but rather certainty.

Here is what you originally wrote:

How fast is evolution?

Psalms 33:9
"For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The second is that Genesis 2 is contradictory if both accounts are literal history.

I'm just getting started in this thread, but I had to stop and ask you what contradiction you reffer to in my highlighted portion.
Not disagreeing with the main train of thought in your post, just wanting clarification on that matter. TY

Instead of reposting it here, I'll just point you to post #2 in the How do TEs interpret Chapter 1? thread. The section on "Genesis 1 vs. 2" explains what I meant.

 

[gluadys]

Here it is: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." I don't want to put words in your mouth or misinterpret what you believe. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be fair to say that you believe this to be a single cataclysmic event that could occur during your lifetime? I have no idea where you are trying to go with this so why don't you tell me so that I can either agree or disagree and we can suspense with all this other stuff. Next you'll be asking me how do I know anything in the Bible is correct.

That's right. How do you know that anything in the bible is correct?

 

[Vance]

That's right. How do you know that anything in the bible is correct?

oooh, oooh, I know the answer!!!! Call on me!!!!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Whenever the term "Word of God" has ever been used in my presence (other than certain times at CF) it has always meant the Bible, nothing more nothing less.

If you can show me where John 1 says "Word of God" then we've got something to discuss.

Sorry, I overlooked that you were just talking about the whole phrase. So, I take it you believe the rider on the white horse in Revelation is a personification of the Bible, nothing more nothing less?

Revelation 19:13: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God."

Virtually all commentators believe this refers to Christ, especially based on the description a few verses later:

Revelation 19:16: "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

 

[vossler]

oooh, oooh, I know the answer!!!! Call on me!!!!

Please, be my guest, I'm not looking to play any games.

 

[Bulldog]

Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as literal historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and that God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is this literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise believe regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.

So, that presumption is at the core of this issue, and we must look to see whether that presumption is justified. First, it must be said that for most YEC's this seems not to be some sort of default position, a starting point, from which they would move if the evidence was sufficient. It is not a "rebuttable presumption", but their insistance on literalism is a conclusive presumption.

Now, why? Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive presumption? Let's consider some of the factors involved in this issue:

1. We know that the Bible is not a single book written all at one time by a single human author. God inspired dozens of humans over a couple thousand years. It is a collection of inspired texts, with a wide variety of literary styles and genres. God inspired the message, but seemed to let each author use his own "voice" and style in the telling. We have poetry, parable, allegory, prophecy, symbology, typology, letters, epic stories and, yes, some actual history. We do not read Acts the same way we read Revelations, Song of Solomon or even Job, although we recognize that God is telling us TRUTH through all of these styles. So, with all of these varieties of literary styles, with all of these methods for conveying TRUTH, we should be willing to objectively look at these early Genesis accounts and earnestly seek to determine which literary style they are meant to be. Why have a conclusive presumption that it must be a particular one of these? In fact, why even start with a default that it should be a particular genre unless proven otherwise?

2. I have shown elsewhere that the ancient Israelites, at the time these stories were first told, and then first written down, would not have viewed them as strict literal historical narrative. That is simply NOT how they told about their past. Yes, they would have considered them true and valid and believable, but not at all have insisted that they must be factually accurate. I know this is difficult for us to get our modern minds around, but in such matters they did not have our modern biases. Again, I have provided evidence for this in the past, and can do so again if requested.

3. Our modern minds tend to only truly value stories about the past to the extent they are considered historically accurate and literal. If the stories about the past are told in some other literary style, which does NOT attempt to convey strict historical details, we consider it unreliable, untrue and basically invalid. It is JUST a story, it can not be a valid or valuable method of telling us about things that happened in the past. It is something LESS than "true history". Oddly, we can accept a presentation of actual, literal FUTURE events in VERY non-literal terms, as in Revelation. But we have much more difficulty accepting a presentation of actual, literal PAST events in such figurative, symbolic, typological language.

4. The fact that God using such a literary style would cause "confusion" (given His knowledge that we would develop this modern mindset) is no true argument whatsoever. If God had chosen to make Scripture crystal clear so that there would be no disputes over proper interpretation, we would not have hundreds of different denominations and interpretive approaches. Obviously God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to allow the Scriptures to be written in a way that is subject to differing, but sincerely held, beliefs by devout, Bible-believing Christians. This is not evidence of a failure of communication on God's part elsewhere in Scripture, and it should not be seen so in Genesis. Why didn't God inspire the text to be written in a way that all would agree? I can not speak for the rest of Scripture, but for the Genesis accounts, I would argue that HE DID! Given our disputes over the HOW and WHEN, it is amazing that almost all Christians seem to agree on the WHO and WHY. We seem to agree on every theological and doctrinal issue in these Genesis accounts that is necessary for salvation. And isn't it these that are the TRUE message of these accounts?

I would suggest that we consider the texts of the early Genesis presentations in light of the culture, mindset and literary styles of those who first told them and wrote them down. I would suggest that we be willing to let God tell us about these past events using whatever literary style He chose (among the myriad available). I would suggest that we consider whether these presentations are meant to tell us about the WHO and WHY rather than the WHEN and HOW.

I would suggest that we come to these texts WITHOUT presumptions, other than that presumption that it is telling us truth, however that truth is told. I make this call because there is a danger that our attention will be drawn away from the essential message of these accounts by a focus on the historicity of the details. As Augustine said:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

and again when he says:

"37. 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. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

Agreed. We should take a hermeunutical "presupposition", not a literalist or symbolic one.

 

[Hortysir]

Instead of reposting it here, I'll just point you to post #2 in the How do TEs interpret Chapter 1? thread. The section on "Genesis 1 vs. 2" explains what I meant.

WOW, Mercury!!
That was avery good read, TY.

 

[gluadys]

Please, be my guest, I'm not looking to play any games.

No games, vossler. I don't know why the answer is not obvious to you.

Except where there has been some archeological confirmation of its subject matter, we don't know that anything in the bible is true.

We believe that the bible is true.

And isn't that the point? That we approach God in faith? Not on the basis of verifying evidence?

 

[SBG]

No games, vossler. I don't know why the answer is not obvious to you.

Except where there has been some archeological confirmation of its subject matter, we don't know that anything in the bible is true.

We believe that the bible is true.

And isn't that the point? That we approach God in faith? Not on the basis of verifying evidence?

And that is what YECs do with Genesis 1-11.

 

[SBG]

To finish my speaking on the word of God - The Bible - this phrase is used 40 times in the Bible. 38 of which that do not refer to Jesus. And let the reader read:

Revelation 20:4
"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God...."

If one here uses the phrase Word of God, let it be known that it refers to the Bible. And if one calls them an idolator because they use this phrase, then the one who makes the accusation will be found in sin.

To repent is not to say I am sorry. To repent of a deed/thought/action/word is to do them no more. To repent not, is to not be of God.