Why a literalist presumption?

[gluadys]

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

So do TEs.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Sorry, SBG. I don't see it. How do you know "word of God" here refers to scripture?

 

[Remus]

Oh for crying out loud! The phrase "Word of God" has meant the Bible for as long as I can remember. If ya'll want to nitpick and say that the phrase can mean something else, then you're just equivocating and doing nothing more than wasting time.

 

[gluadys]

Oh for crying out loud! The phrase "Word of God" has meant the Bible for as long as I can remember. If ya'll want to nitpick and say that the phrase can mean something else, then you're just equivocating and doing nothing more than wasting time.

Unless you are a very exceptional person, your memory does not go back to the time John was writing this.

John is writing to Christians who are being persecuted, who are being "beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God...."

The only bible they had then was the OT. But the Jews had that too. And Jewish communities were not being persecuted for reading their scripture. They were not being beheaded for reading the Torah in the synagogues.

So it not likely John is referring to a scripture Jews and Christians held in common as the reason for the persecution of the church at this time. He is referring to something uniquely Christian.

And what would that be? John refers to their "testimony". I would venture that in this context, what is arousing the ire of the Roman authorities is the Christian proclamation of the "kerygma" or public, verbal proclamation of the gospel. I suspect this is what "word of God" refers to here. That would fit a time when there were few written Christian documents and no NT as we have it today.

But there was active oral testimony and preaching spreading the gospel.

 

[SBG]

Matthew 15:3-7
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:"

Here are the verses Jesus is refering to, calling them the Word of God:

Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9

Luke 11:28
"He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""

Acts 6:7
" So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

What word of God do you think they spread? Would that be the message of the Gospel that we have today and the teachings found in the New Testament? Would the letters Paul wrote be spreading the word of God?

Or are you suggesting that what is in the New Testament, the Gospels, the Letters, are not the word of God that they spread? And if they are not, what is written in the New Testament then?

And if it is the word of God, what is your problem with the phrase 'word of God?'

 

[SBG]

Sorry, SBG. I don't see it. How do you know "word of God" here refers to scripture?

Well, in Acts it says the Apostles spread the word of God. What is the word of God? Is it the Gospel? Would you consider the Letters of Paul to be spreading the word of God? And if the word of God is the teachings of God, then how can you not see that people will be persecuted for the word of God?

If you still cannot see and understand this, then I believe you choose to not understand. And upon your choosing I would be worried about your understanding of what the word of God truly is. Would you even recognize it, if you read it.

 

[SBG]

So do TEs.

What TEs rather do is ask for evidence if those events in Genesis literally happen. Yet you had this to say:

"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?" (bolded, mine)

Why do you say that you approach God in faith, not on the basis of verifying evidence and then ask for evidence to verify God's Word?

 

[gluadys]

Matthew 15:3-7
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:"

Here are the verses Jesus is refering to, calling them the Word of God:

Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9

Let's be clear that I have never said that scripture is not the Word of God. Scripture in its entirety is the Word of God.

What I have said is that the Word of God is not necessarily scripture. So we have to discern when it is scripture, when it is Jesus, when it is creation, when it is proclamation, etc.

In the passage above, Jesus is clearly referring to the word of God in the OT scripture.

Luke 11:28
"He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""

But in this case he is referring to his own teaching, which was oral, not written.

Acts 6:7
" So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

And this refers to the preaching of the gospel by the apostles.

What word of God do you think they spread? Would that be the message of the Gospel that we have today and the teachings found in the New Testament? Would the letters Paul wrote be spreading the word of God?

Yes, the message of the gospel, but in oral form (preaching, proclamation). Yes, eventually the gospel was put in writing (but no one would claim that what was written was identical to what was preached) and the writings eventually became the NT. Yes, Paul's letters spread the word of God. Some of Paul's letters (not all) became part of the NT, but whether they were canonized or not, if he wrote the message of the gospel, he was spreading God's word through his letters---and, of course, through his preaching and teaching and baptizing.

And if it is the word of God, what is your problem with the phrase 'word of God?'

My problem is not in saying the scriptures are the word of God. My problem is with saying that only the scriptures are the word of God. The latter concept limits God to a single vehicle of communication.

 

[gluadys]

What TEs rather do is ask for evidence if those events in Genesis literally happen. Yet you had this to say:

"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?" (bolded, mine)

Why do you say that you approach God in faith, not on the basis of verifying evidence and then ask for evidence to verify God's Word?

I am not asking for evidence to verify or falsify God's Word. That would only be necessary under two assumptions, which I do not accept.

1. That the physical, scientific evidence agree with a literal interpretation of the texts, and
2. If it does not, the biblical witness is falsified.

It seems to me that that is a YEC position, not a TE position.

My position is that
1.these chapters are true whether or not scientific evidence agrees with them, and that
2. a conflict between scientific evidence and a literal interpretation of scripture only falsifies a literal interpretation. It does not falsify the bible.

 

[SBG]

Let's be clear that I have never said that scripture is not the Word of God. Scripture in its entirety is the Word of God.

What I have said is that the Word of God is not necessarily scripture. So we have to discern when it is scripture, when it is Jesus, when it is creation, when it is proclamation, etc.

And what verse would you claim the Word of God is used to refer to creation?

In the passage above, Jesus is clearly referring to the word of God in the OT scripture.




But in this case he is referring to his own teaching, which was oral, not written.

So was Jesus also refering to believe the Word of God they heard in the synogogue when they read the Old Testament?

And this refers to the preaching of the gospel by the apostles.

Does the Bible contain their preaching? Acts as some preaching of Paul.

Yes, the message of the gospel, but in oral form (preaching, proclamation). Yes, eventually the gospel was put in writing (but no one would claim that what was written was identical to what was preached) and the writings eventually became the NT. Yes, Paul's letters spread the word of God. Some of Paul's letters (not all) became part of the NT, but whether they were canonized or not, if he wrote the message of the gospel, he was spreading God's word through his letters---and, of course, through his preaching and teaching and baptizing.

What is the message? Isn't it Jesus Christ Son of God, died on the Cross raised from the dead? And isn't this the message of the New Testament?

Paul was rather redundant in his teachings: Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

So the Bible may not have the exact word for word speeches, but it does contain the exact message of their teachings, which is the Word of God.

You see how it can be in different words, different languages, different ways of delivery and yet still be the same message? And that message is the Word of God.

My problem is not in saying the scriptures are the word of God. My problem is with saying that only the scriptures are the word of God. The latter concept limits God to a single vehicle of communication.

Or rather the latter is the chosen vehicle of communication in this day.

What do pastors preach? From the Bible correct? What message should be carried to the end of the earth? Jesus Christ crucified and risen, right? That would be in the Bible.

This isn't about limiting God, it is about God's chosen way of communication in this very day. Because God has chosen a way to speak with man, does this make Him limited?

 

[shernren]

Question: why are we arguing about what is the "word of God" and what does it matter to the issue at hand?

 

[SBG]

I am not asking for evidence to verify or falsify God's Word. That would only be necessary under two assumptions, which I do not accept.

1. That the physical, scientific evidence agree with a literal interpretation of the texts, and
2. If it does not, the biblical witness is falsified.

It seems to me that that is a YEC position, not a TE position.

My position is that
1.these chapters are true whether or not scientific evidence agrees with them, and that
2. a conflict between scientific evidence and a literal interpretation of scripture only falsifies a literal interpretation. It does not falsify the bible.

TEs do ask for evidence if one claims a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 is true. Can you explain to me how this makes sense with what you original said about faith in God?

 

[gluadys]

And what verse would you claim the Word of God is used to refer to creation?

Sorry, I don't understand this question.

So was Jesus also refering to believe the Word of God they heard in the synogogue when they read the Old Testament?

Possibly, but I don't think that is probable in this instance.

Does the Bible contain their preaching? Acts as some preaching of Paul.

Some of it. Obviously, not all of their preaching was reduced to written form.

What is the message? Isn't it Jesus Christ Son of God, died on the Cross raised from the dead? And isn't this the message of the New Testament?

Paul was rather redundant in his teachings: Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

So the Bible may not have the exact word for word speeches, but it does contain the exact message of their teachings, which is the Word of God.

Now you are starting to make an important distinction. The message does not have to be in written form, yet it is still the Word of God when it is not written. So Word of God does not necessarily equate to written Word of God aka the bible/scriptures. The Word of God exists in many forms, not the written form only.

You see how it can be in different words, different languages, different ways of delivery and yet still be the same message? And that message is the Word of God.

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to say. You cannot limit the Word of God to its written form in the bible.

Or rather the latter is the chosen vehicle of communication in this day.

I do not know of any reason to say the bible is God's only chosen vehicle of communication in this day or any other day. What of the Pentecostals and charismatics who believe in the word of prophecy as a present-day reality? Do you deny that God can or does speak directly to humans today?

The bible is a chosen vehicle of God's Word. It is not the chosen vehicle. God's Word cannot be confined to a book, not even an inspired book.

What do pastors preach? From the Bible correct? What message should be carried to the end of the earth? Jesus Christ crucified and risen, right? That would be in the Bible.

In the bible, yes, but not only in the bible.

This isn't about limiting God, it is about God's chosen way of communication in this very day. Because God has chosen a way to speak with man, does this make Him limited?

When did God choose to speak only through scripture?

 

[gluadys]

TEs do ask for evidence if one claims a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 is true. Can you explain to me how this makes sense with what you original said about faith in God?

Because that is a scientific claim, so it requires the support of scientific evidence.

Also it sets "biblical truth" against "scientific truth" as if only one of them could be true.

It is not possible for only one of two truths to be true. Either one is true and the other false or both are true.

TEs take the latter position: that both are true. Interpretation follows from the premise that both are true.

YECs take the position that since "biblical truth" is true, "scientific truth" must be false. While that solves the problem logically, it does not solve the problem empirically, because they have not shown that scientific truth is false. That is basically an evasion of the conundrum, not a solution to it. If "scientific truth" is not shown to be false, the door is always open to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the bible is false because science is true.

The only way to show that scientific "truth" is actually "false" is to show that scientific "truth" is contradicted by scientific evidence. The only way to show that a literal interpretation of scripture is scientifically as well as biblically true is with scientific evidence.

It is the YEC claim that a literal interpretation is scientifically valid that calls for scientific evidence. Withdraw that claim and no reference to science is necessary.

 

[shernren]

TEs do ask for evidence if one claims a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 is true. Can you explain to me how this makes sense with what you original said about faith in God?

Well, if Genesis 1 is historically true then it must leave historical evidence. If it is true as a metaphor, or as a foundation of a worldview, then it demands a different form of evidence: and all of us who believe know in our hearts by the Holy Spirit's testimony that indeed the world was created good, for His purposes, but ravaged by our sin and wrongdoing. That evidence of internal testimony (I believe) strongly corroborates the "literary" (if I may put it) truth of the Genesis accounts: it is a valid way to understand the "why" of the world.

Faith is not without evidence: it comes from evidence of a different sort that the eyes cannot see. We trust God because we recall and believe what He has done, both in the records of the Bible and in our own lives, and we believe that His character is consistently same today, yesterday and tomorrow. The whole point of the Bible is to present a picture of a God in whom we can have faith because His character will not change. Those who do not have faith are such not because there is no evidence, but because they reject the evidence: they choose to believe that contrary the Bible, God is not who the Bible says He is.

History also demands evidence: it asks for facts, figures, testimonials, remains.

Thus, Genesis 1 fulfills the evidence of faith. I believe therefore in Genesis 1 as a statement of faith and belief. However Genesis 1 seems to go against the evidence of history, and therefore without a compelling reason and explanation I find it exceedingly difficult to take Genesis 1 as a statement of history.

 

[SBG]

Question: why are we arguing about what is the "word of God" and what does it matter to the issue at hand?

Because one brought up and said another is a Bible idolator because they called the Bible the Word of God.

I believed this was a misunderstanding rather than a false accusation, so I have worked to explain what a YEC means by the Word of God.

YECs are called a bible idolator a lot around here because they follow what is written within the Bible and refer to what is written within the Bible as the Word of God. Just as the Apostles refer to what they taught as the Word of God. Those teachings can be found in the New Testament. And for sharing in their same belief, YECs are called idolators.

 

[SBG]

Sorry, I don't understand this question.

I believe you have said that creation is the Word of God. I was wondering if you Scripture references that speak of creation as the Word of God.

Possibly, but I don't think that is probable in this instance.

So the Ten Commandments wouldn't be including in obeying God's Word?

Some of it. Obviously, not all of their preaching was reduced to written form.

I agree, but the New Testament contains their message, does it not? Their preaching revolved around Jesus Christ, who He is, His death, and His resurrection. We find that in the New Testament.

Now you are starting to make an important distinction. The message does not have to be in written form, yet it is still the Word of God when it is not written. So Word of God does not necessarily equate to written Word of God aka the bible/scriptures. The Word of God exists in many forms, not the written form only.

And to that I agree. I don't think I have stated otherwise. I do think that what we need is within the Bible and that is why we do not see prophets speaking of the Word of God of which is not contained in the Bible. We have teachers, Pastors and Apostles today. They all derive their teachings from the Bible, if they are Bible based.

Maybe this is where we differ: we are in a time where nothing more about God needs to be said. By this I mean nothing more than what is contained within the Bible. We are to preach the same message as the Apostles did. Their message is in the New Testament. We do not need brand new teachings from God that are not within the Bible to preach today.

I am making a distinction here with what Paul said, test everything against Scripture. We can speak of God in various ways, but it all must be in alignment with what is already said about God. Therefore it is nothing new, but maybe presented differently.

We are not waiting for some new revelation to be given to us so that we can know more than what is already written about God. We are waiting for Jesus Christ to return and restore us and this world.

This has been the trap of the church in the last few hundred years. Mormons created new teachings from Joseph Smith. Jehovah Witness created new teachings, claiming them from God. Islam created new teachings. And many others. Yet John ends Revelation under God's inspirtation to say to not add or subtract to what is written. It is my belief that God inspired this, because He made this His last book within the Bible we have today. So God is speaking about the Bible as a whole, not just Revelation. Proverbs also gives this teachings about adding and subtracting.

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to say. You cannot limit the Word of God to its written form in the bible.

I can come to you and speak God's Word, I can prophecy to you, but if it doesn't align with what is already written, then I am not from God. If I teach that Jesus is no more than a just a man, I am not from God, because the New Testament clearly teaches Jesus is the Son of God. Now will there be one to bring charges against me for saying this is a clear teaching?

The Bible is rather clear about the main teachings. It becomes difficult to understand when we really get into the meat of the teachings. Creation is a main teaching, it is not difficult to grasp. You know this, you understand the Bible speaks of a six day creation, that is why you say it is a myth, to conform to current scientific teaching.

You believe scientific truth is equal in truth when compared with the truth of the Bible. For you say all truth is truth. I am not saying that you think science is equal to Jesus. I am rather saying that you see all truth from God, even if it has come from the world.

What I am pointing out is that this world is fallen. The earth is fallen, the animals are fallen, the plants are fallen, man is fallen, everything is fallen. So why does man think that what is fallen in this world can bring about complete truth on its own? Nothing good comes from man himself.

Let me see if I can make this clearer. We have the Bible, the teachings within are not fallen because they are from God. We have the evolutionary theory: fallen man studies fallen world, comes to fallen knowledge and tells others they must change their interpretation - based on fallen assumptions - of the unfallen Word of God.

Have you ever thought God might just tell you about creation in a simple language that is put very straight forward so that you wouldn't have to rely on ourselves to understand it. When I read something and I understand it, just how it is written, I am learning from the writers perspective. When I try to read into it, I lose the meaning. YECs read Genesis and understand it for how it is written. TEs say you cannot do this, it is just a myth that speaks through the lines and shouldn't be taken how it is written.

Example: God created everything in six days. TEs say this shouldn't be understand exactly how it is written. Rather this is a myth that isn't true if you understand it how it is written, you must read between the lines and understand what is really being said.

I do not know of any reason to say the bible is God's only chosen vehicle of communication in this day or any other day. What of the Pentecostals and charismatics who believe in the word of prophecy as a present-day reality? Do you deny that God can or does speak directly to humans today?

I do believe God speaks to us today. I don't think God is telling us anything different that what He has already told us. I think God speaks to us about things that are a concern in our lives. I have experienced this. But I don't think God is now teaching something to people that is contrary to what He has already given us. By this I mean evolution.

The bible is a chosen vehicle of God's Word. It is not the chosen vehicle. God's Word cannot be confined to a book, not even an inspired book.



In the bible, yes, but not only in the bible.



When did God choose to speak only through scripture?

I wasn't saying God is confined to the Bible. I was rather saying God has allowed the Bible to stand the test of time to speak of Him. He uses people all the time to speak for Him. But notice those who are really from God speak of what is written. They do not go against it.

What do Pastor teach that is not found within the Bible that has to do with God/Jesus?

As I said God isn't speaking only through Scripture. What I am saying is God isn't reaveling anything new that is not from Scripture. Everything that God says - through Pastor, teacher, Apostle - will be backed up by the Bible, if they are from God.

Have you read John's teachings on False Teachers?

 

[SBG]

Because that is a scientific claim, so it requires the support of scientific evidence.

So science can study miracles now?

Also it sets "biblical truth" against "scientific truth" as if only one of them could be true.

One is fallen, one is not. Which would you follow?

It is not possible for only one of two truths to be true. Either one is true and the other false or both are true.

I agree. Thus, evolution is false from my point of view. I would take God's unfallen word over anything fallen man gives, whether it be science or something else. If it is in the Bible and man says something different than what is written, I will always take God's Word over mans.

I know you and others don't like this phrasing, but that is how I see it. So I apologize, but I cannot see this as something different.

TEs take the latter position: that both are true. Interpretation follows from the premise that both are true.

YECs take the position that since "biblical truth" is true, "scientific truth" must be false. While that solves the problem logically, it does not solve the problem empirically, because they have not shown that scientific truth is false. That is basically an evasion of the conundrum, not a solution to it. If "scientific truth" is not shown to be false, the door is always open to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the bible is false because science is true.

In order for a TE to take both as true, the meaning of the text must be ignored. It is done so by calling it a myth. When one calls something a myth they say it can still be true, but in the sense of the way it is presented.

As Jesus said, you nullify God's teachings by doing this. Case in point, Paul's teachings of one man bringing sin into the world. Jesus' teachings of Noah, Peter's teachings of the flood. The New Testament says the world was purified by water and will be purified by fire in the future. Will this future purification of fire only be local? Will Jesus only judge local individuals?

It is not that scientific truth can never be right. It is the scientific teaching of evolution that is wrong. It is wrong because it is in conflict with the Bible's teachings of the beginning of the world. Again the myth idea just explains away the Biblical teaching to superimpose the scientific one.

You have made the correct statement in saying they have not made the evolutionary theory false. They do not try to falsify evolution, they rather falsify creation. This is backwards science. If you have a theory, you try and falsify that theory not prove it by falsify a counter theory.\

I wonder if your true belief slipped out in your above statement:

"If "scientific truth" is not shown to be false, the door is always open to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the bible is false because science is true."

The only way to show that scientific "truth" is actually "false" is to show that scientific "truth" is contradicted by scientific evidence. The only way to show that a literal interpretation of scripture is scientifically as well as biblically true is with scientific evidence.

It is the YEC claim that a literal interpretation is scientifically valid that calls for scientific evidence. Withdraw that claim and no reference to science is necessary.

It is my claim as a YEC that Genesis is literally true because New Testament writers, including Jesus refered to as being true. It is my belief that Jesus is God and knows all things and was not wrong in presenting Genesis as literally true. He neither corrected His disciples in their understanding of Genesis either. If Genesis is God's Word and Jesus is God's Son, Jesus would have corrected them on Genesis as He did correct them on their understanding of the rest of Scripture. He did not. This leads to my belief that Jesus upheld Genesis as literally true. If Jesus taught it, I believe it. I cannot do otherwise, no matter how badly you would like me to.

 

[shernren]

So science can study miracles now?

Of course not. So why don't you go inform the creation science ministry that they're wasting practically all their funding studying scientifically something that science cannot study?

It is my claim as a YEC that Genesis is literally true because New Testament writers, including Jesus refered to as being true. It is my belief that Jesus is God and knows all things and was not wrong in presenting Genesis as literally true. He neither corrected His disciples in their understanding of Genesis either. If Genesis is God's Word and Jesus is God's Son, Jesus would have corrected them on Genesis as He did correct them on their understanding of the rest of Scripture. He did not. This leads to my belief that Jesus upheld Genesis as literally true. If Jesus taught it, I believe it. I cannot do otherwise, no matter how badly you would like me to.

What if I suggested that nobody taught that Scripture need not hold authority over scientific knowledge not because it really does hold authority over scientific knowledge but because the scientific sphere of knowledge was dim or mostly unrevealed in that time.

There was little or no notion of scientific experimentation and the naturalistic paradigm besides the primitive ideas of recording what works and what doesn't. There was little or no successful reasoning that explained why things worked in terms of physical reasons. So why would Jesus have had to clarify that Scripture doesn't need to have authority over the sphere of science, if there was no science? There was little or no notion of any dichotomy between objective and subjective truth especially among the congregation which was Jesus' target (it's all the fault of you Westerners and your ideas ) and thus no need to clarify the exact sphere of authority of Scripture.

Does this make sense? If not, why not?

 

[invisible trousers]

It is not that scientific truth can never be right. It is the scientific teaching of evolution that is wrong. It is wrong because it is in conflict with the Bible's teachings of the beginning of the world.

Wrong homie, the scientific teachings are in conflict with the YEC interpretation of the Bible's teachings. I think it takes a lot to say that your interpretation is that of God and is only correct one.

Mind you, this is the same interpretation that says God's physical evidence of creation is at odds with God's written story of creation, making him a deceitful creator who is actively lying to His followers. How can you reconcile that?