Why a literalist presumption?

[SBG]

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?

It does take a lot to stand up and point to what is right.

How do I reconcile that? Well, stop calling God a liar because you cannot comprehend it being done in six days. Your including of even the thought of eluding to God being a liar, shows your heart. How do you think God views a heart that says if God's Word is true literally, God is a liar?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

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.

Where did Jesus say that we nullify God's teachings if we take a story as true in the sense of the way it is presented?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Well, stop calling God a liar because you cannot comprehend it being done in six days.

Two lies (that we call God a liar and that we "cannot comprehend" the YEC model), falsified here: 1) God is not a liar. 2) We can all most definitely comprehend God doing anything in six days.

Your including of even the thought of eluding to God being a liar, shows your heart. How do you think God views a heart that says if God's Word is true literally, God is a liar?

For what it's worth, I am not quick to say that our interpretations of the universe through modern science are perfect enough to conclude that God leaves testimony in it that puts the lie to a literal interpretation of Scripture. So personally, I feel unqualified to use the "if you're right, God lied" argument. I might add, however, that most Christians who know science are indeed that confident, believing the evidence is clear. That said, my understanding of the literary form of the Genesis accounts and the nature of the process of biblical authorship convinces me that we are barking up the wrong tree if we are looking for science in the Bible.

The Bible does not contain every truth under the sun. You will not find the medical cure for cancer within it, nor the value of pi, nor even the recipe for key lime pie. We can't fix our cars with it. We can't predict the weather with it. Neither will you find a scientific description for the beginning of the universe. God wasn't even concerned about making crystal clear the answer to the Calvinism/Arminianism question and other theological sticking points. It's only good for what it was intended for. We can't even figure out which Pharaoh it's talking about most of the time. You may want to find it, but you won't. How do you think God views a heart that demands something from God other than what He wants you to have?

 

[invisible trousers]

Well, stop calling God a liar because you cannot comprehend it being done in six days.

Did you even read my post? I'm not the one calling God a liar. The YECs who make God's story of creation incompatible with God's evidence of creation are the ones calling Him a liar. I can easily comprehend that He created the universe in 6 days. However, I don't believe that since the physical evidence points otherwise. If God actually did create the world in 6 days several thousand years ago, all the evidence would point towards it.

Your including of even the thought of eluding to God being a liar, shows your heart. How do you think God views a heart that says if God's Word is true literally, God is a liar?

Maybe you'd be better suited at answering that question.

edit:

The point is that preaching the gospel and teaching science ought not to lead to conflicting views of truth, since both come ultimately from God.

Bingo.

 

[gluadys]

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.

As far as I know the scriptures do not apply the appellation "word of God" to creation, but do often refer us to creation's testimony to the glory of God--even making it the basis of God's judgment on those who do not know the law. (And I would extend this to those who have never heard the gospel). Also, creation is the result of God speaking it into existence, so in that sense, it is clearly a word of God. The concept that God has given us two revelations: the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of scripture is well-founded in orthodox theology and was frequently expressed in the image of two books in early modern times.

There is certainly no question that creation is the Work of God and as such testifies of its Maker in much the same manner as scripture.

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

I don't know where you are drawing this from.

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.

I've never said otherwise. Just that the message is not always presented in written form. The kerygma (i.e. proclamation of the gospel) of the early church did not depend on it being set out in writing. Early Christians did not hand out bibles or tracts. They witnessed verbally to what they had heard. The written NT is derived from the kerygma, not vice versa.

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.

Sure. And that is because they are preaching the gospel, not teaching science. The point is that preaching the gospel and teaching science ought not to lead to conflicting views of truth, since both come ultimately from God.

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.

Again, agreed. But science (including evolution) is not presenting any new message relative to the gospel. All that scientific research is doing is giving us new information about nature. That information does not change the message of the bible or the church in any way. After all, the biblical message is principally about the broken and restored relationship of humanity and God. Information about the natural world is quite peripheral to this.

I am making a distinction here with what Paul said, test everything against Scripture.

Can you give a citation for that? I don't recall it off the top of my head.

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.

Nor is science offering one. The scientific investigation of nature deals with the general revelation of creation. It does not touch the special revelation which is the province of prophetic, apostolic, evangelistic and scriptural witness. It does not tell us anything new about God. It only gives us a more accurate view of God's creation.

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?

Not at all. Certainly not on the basis of scientific reality, as it does not touch on this question at all.

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.

Actually the first creation story is not a myth. It is more like a poem or liturgy. The second creation story in Gen. 2 is a myth. I do not say this in order to conform to scientific theory, but because that is the literary form in which the creation accounts are set. This does not mean they are not true! Literary form does not determine the truth or falsehood of what is presented. It does mean that the truth presented must be understood in terms of the literary form. And also in terms of the theology the author wished to convey. Why did the author of Gen. 1-2:4a present creation in the framework of seven days? Three reasons:
1. To proclaim God as the sole Creator and denounce pagan idolatry.
2. To do this by using the very same literary framework in which this idolatry was set out--as a counter to it.
3. To provide the theological basis for the sabbath. (It is this same writer who is the author of Exodus 20.)

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.

"World" can be a slippery term. I would prefer here to say "creation" so that we are clear that we are speaking of the natural world God created, not of the world of human thought.

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.

So? How does that mean that everything we know is a lie? Is it a lie that apple seeds produce apple trees? Is it a lie that water runs downhill? Is it a lie that iron filings are drawn to a magnet? And the created world did not come from humanity. It came from God. Humanity does not invent nature; humanity discovers nature. Do you really think that the fall turned nature into a liar?

We have the Bible, the teachings within are not fallen because they are from God.

Similarly, the teaching of nature also comes 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.

When fallen men and women study anything at all, they are likely to make incorrect assumptions and come to incorrect conclusions. This is just as true when they are studying scripture as when they are studying nature. That is why, in both cases, we need to cross-check our own assumptions and conclusions against those of others. Not that one person is necessarily less biased than another, but because each tends to be biased in different directions. So, what we can agree to in common is more likely to be accurate than what each person thinks on their own.

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.

How do you understand anything at all if not with your own understanding? Now I have just spoken of the need to cross-reference an understanding one has come to all on one's own against the understanding that others have come to--so don't quote "Lean not on thy own understanding" to me. I do agree we need to test our understanding and often change our understanding. But, taking that into account, I still understand with my understanding. What else is there to understand with?

How can even God speak to me, if I don't use my understanding to comprehend his message?

When I read something and I understand it, just how it is written, I am learning from the writers perspective.

But you are assuming that you know "just how it is written" and are reading it from the writer's perspective. In fact, unless you have made the effort to understand the writer's perspective, you are reading it from your own perspective, not the writer's 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.

No. YECs assume that a 21st century reading of Genesis is equivalent to reading Genesis as it was written. TEs say that if you want to read Genesis as it was written, you must learn enough about the author's way of thinking to read it as the author intended it to be read. The author did not write Genesis for us, but for his contemporaries.

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.

Actually this is a myth that is true, if you understand how it is written. But it is not true historically as we can plainly see from God's other book---nature.

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.

And this is where you fall into the trap of pitting truth against truth. If evolution is false, it must be shown to be false. If it is true, it is God's truth and must be respected as such.

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

Nothing, I hope. Truth must agree with truth, and if they are teaching the truth--no matter where they found it--it must agree with the truth of the scriptures.

 

[gluadys]

So science can study miracles now?

Sure. It just can't come to a conclusion about the cause of the miraculous event, because it cannot study the supernatural. It can study the effect of a miracle on nature. All the healing miracles at Lourdes are studied scientifically.

But you need to make up your mind here about what you are claiming for Gen. 1-11. My understanding of the claim that it is "literally" true, is that these events occurred historically in a physical world where they would leave evidence of them happening. (This applies especially to the flood.) If so, that evidence is a subject of scientific study. That is why you find so many Christians of the 18th and 19th centuries keenly interested in the new science of geology. They were eagerly looking for evidence of Noah's flood.

They never found evidence of a global flood. Lots of local/regional floods and lots of evidence that now land-locked areas, even mountains, had once been sea-beds. But nothing that pointed to a global flood, and much that contradicted that possibility.

Now, if you want to say that all these events were miracles that left no evidence to be studied, then in what sense do you claim they are "literal"?

And what do you do with evidence that contradicts the events? This is a tougher nut to crack than a miracle which simply leaves no evidence of the event.

For example, science would not dispute the miracle of Jesus walking on water just because there is no evidence that it happened. There is also no evidence that it did not happen. So there is nothing to study scientifically, and no possible scientific conclusion. All science can say is that it is not normally possible for a person to walk on water. That says nothing about a one-time special event.

On the question of the dating relative to the origin of the earth, life on earth, biodiversity and the origin of humanity, however, there is abundant evidence for the scientific chronology which plainly contradicts a YEC chronology. Similarly there is abundant evidence that the flood could not possibly have been a global event.

To get around these facts you need to claim three things. The first two are permissible, but you get into trouble with the third.

1. The cause of the event was supernatural, a miracle.

That's ok. Science cannot determine whether or not a supernatural force caused an event, and there is no contradiction with science on this basis.

2. No evidence of the event is left intact to study e.g. no part of the ark has survived the ravages of time.

That's ok too. If there is nothing left to study, there is nothing left to study and science is simply left in the dark.

3. Evidence has been created and planted in nature that specifically contradicts the possibility of the event.

This is where we run into a theological roadblock. Because who would create this evidence if not God? And why would God create evidence specifically to contradict the testimony of his written word? To me it is plain that such a God is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not the God revealed in Holy Scripture. This cannot be a God worthy of worship.

There absolutely has to be a different explanation for this evidence.

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

How can there be such a thing as fallen truth?

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.

But we are not proposing that a human word be placed above God's Word. Both nature and scripture come from God. Humanity's word does not come into this. You are asserting that God's Word can be self-contradictory--saying one thing in scripture and a different thing in nature.

In order for a TE to take both as true, the meaning of the text must be ignored.

Absolutely not. This is the usual "pick and choose" accusation often lodged against TEs. The meaning of the text must never be ignored. It must be studied and understood such that it does not contradict any of God's truth in any way.

As Jesus said, you nullify God's teachings by doing this.

I understand that this is your opinion. But to say it is Jesus' opinion is going too far. You should read his words in context. You will see they do not apply in this case. His words were a judgment on distorting the law for personal gain at the expense of others.

None of the examples you gave bear on this at all. Nor does science.

It is not that scientific truth can never be right. It is the scientific teaching of evolution that is wrong.

If the scientific teaching of evolution is wrong, then virtually all of science is wrong, because so much of science supports evolution. And if all of science is wrong we can trust virtually nothing we know about the natural world. And that would mean we could not trust the scripture's testimony about God turning the chaos of the first morning into an ordered world in which natural law rules over disorder and times and seasons can be counted on to appear in regular sequence.

As Kenneth Millar says, we can still hold a spiritual world view, we can still believe in God and in the bible, not because evolution is wrong, but because evolution is right. (Finding Darwin's God p. 17)

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.\

One would think you have never read a creationist source. You know that virtually the only thing they do is try---unsuccessfully--to falsify evolution.

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."

That is a cheap shot. You know better than this.

It is my claim as a YEC that Genesis is literally true because New Testament writers, including Jesus refered to as being true.

Freudian slip? You are right. Jesus referred to Genesis as true. But you are referring to it as literally true. I agree with Jesus and disagree with you.

 

[vossler]

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.

shernren - Not only are YECs called bible idolators by TEs they are also called blasphemers. Don't you find it fascinating how in a "Christian" forum someone who calls the bible the Word of God can be called an idolator or blasphemer?

 

[gluadys]

Don't you find it fascinating how in a "Christian" forum someone who calls the bible the Word of God can be called an idolator or blasphemer?

Where in this forum has anyone been called an idolator or blasphemer because they call the bible the Word of God?

I think you are guilty of careless reading if you think this has happened, but if you can substantiate it, please do so.

 

[Nightfire]

What's the difference between a sheer drop and a horizon? Nothing: we can't see past it, and both seem equally "true" from our perspective. The Bible gives us God's perspective on creation, which He proposed as a model for the way we live in it.

A man can witness a miracle, and when others come by later to investigate they might find nothing out of the ordinary. The miracle of creation may look very ordinary from our perspective, but that doesn't mean we're degrading God's work or misinterpreting the Bible.

The issue at stake here is that there seem to be two "testimonies". The testimony of creation, which we study and interpret as best we can, and the testimony (actually testimonies) of the Bible, which we study and interpret. In both cases, we are trying to get a human understanding of God's work, and are bound to have a limited perspective, a horizon.

God sometimes expands our horizons by giving ordinary things and words spiritual meaning, by giving local prophesies eternal validity, and even that only gets us halfway. What we see - from the Bible and from creation, is all "but a poor reflection as in a mirror". We're not protecting God by holding up our different interpretations, we're attacking each other's faith, when everybody are just trying to reconcile testimony A with testimony B. Putting one before the other is just a temporary solution: in the end we all believe they converge at some point beyond the horizon, because God created the World through the Word - and the Word was Christ, not the Bible. To read the Bible is like getting to know a person, and trying to understand Creation is like trying to find out that person's history.

SO in the end we all have knowledge, but Knowledge puffs up, and love builds up. If we miss that point, we miss the whole point. Even if we get the "facts" of creation right.

 

[gluadys]

SO in the end we all have knowledge, but Knowledge puffs up, and love builds up. If we miss that point, we miss the whole point. Even if we get the "facts" of creation right.

 

[Vance]

A few points:

1. I have never sought or expected proof for what God tells me in Genesis. I have never doubted any miracle, and I have no problem with God having created everything in a blink if He liked. I just don't think that is how He did it, since I don't find that either in Scripture or in His Creation itself.

2. I have never said any YEC makes an idol of Scripture. I have seen it said, and can see the point, but I think it overstates the point. I do think that many YEC's have an over-inflated opinion of their ability to interpret Scripture, since they assume that their interpretation MUST be correct.

 

[vossler]

Where in this forum has anyone been called an idolator or blasphemer because they call the bible the Word of God?

I think you are guilty of careless reading if you think this has happened, but if you can substantiate it, please do so.

Believe me I am not guilty of "careless reading", I went through this persecution by TEs. Since you were an active participant in the discussion, I'm sure you'll recognize some of the discussion. I know I will not soon forget the charges that were placed against me by fellow "Christians." It was a rather long thread but here are the cliff notes. BTW, as a result of my statements therein I was put on report and well since it's long over it's probably best that I don't go into the specific actions taken.

I make this statement (already previous to this statement I was called an idolator and blasphemer for the statement: The Bible is the Word of God):


Just because you don't consider the Bible to be the Word of God, that's up to you. I believe and worship God the Father, His Son, and Holy Spirit. Along with that I believe everything that the Bible says is God's Word. If that makes me an idolator, well then I'm proud to be one. Thank you!

A direct response to this from poster #1 was: “Apparently there is no saving you. All I can do is prevent you from leading anyone else astray.”

This same poster later states: “With Fundies for friends, Christianity doesn't need any enemies.”

Poster #2 then states this in response to my statement: “At this point, the task is merely to keep posting small reminders of the obvious inconsistency in your position until you get tired of it, or until someone actually enforces the rules against blasphemy and non-Christian teachings in the CO forums.”

Then the first poster states this: “So I just let you know that you are in my thoughts, but getting you personally to realize the heresy and false idol worship of your position is not necessary for my life or my posts here. My main concern is others who are not terminally ill.”

This statement by me (in response to you) preceded the earlier statement above:

Just to clarify a certain point for you. I have never stated that the Bible is to be worshiped, considered a part of the Trinity or that the Bible was God. Those are all inferences made by a certain poster along with being called a blasphemer and idolator. Isn't interesting that on a "Christian Only" board someone who identifies the Bible as the Word of God is called a blasphemer and idolator. The Christian faith surely is in trouble when this happens and no one thinks twice about it.

Rather than challenge the statements by these two poster, you (glaudys) seemed to concur with their positions by stating things like this in reference to they're claims:

"Given what you were saying it was a natural inference and I made the same inference myself."

And instead challenged me and my position.


If you wish to verify any of this here is a link to my statement and what followed:

http://www.christianforums.com/t725470-confessions-of-a-young-earth-creationist.html&page=27

 

[gluadys]

I want to add a few points too, because I think some subtle (possibly even unintentional) misrepresentation happening.

1. I have never said that referring to the bible as the Word of God is idolatry. In fact, somewhere earlier in this thread I have personally affirmed that the bible is, through and through, the Word of God.

2. I have questioned the stance of those who say that only the bible is the Word of God. This is a difference about the range of meaning of "Word"/"Word of God". Does it always refer to scripture or does its full meaning apply to many things besides scripture, such that an intepreter must discern the intended meaning whenever it occurs? Given that scripture itself applies the term to Jesus, that alone tells me that while scripture is always the Word of God, the Word of God is not always scripture, but can have a range of meaning broader than scripture. It is this question of the range of meaning of the term "Word of God" which has occupied much of this thread.

However, although I disagree strongly with those who limit the meaning of "Word of God" to scripture, I do not consider this stance to be idolatry of scripture.

3. As I understand it, the idolatry of scripture enters the picture when scripture is understood as taking the place of God. It is seen when God is made subject to scripture and required to act or not act because of what the bible says. An example of this would be to say that it is only through the bible that we can know God. The implication of this is that God is powerless to make himself known apart from the bible. Now "God" and "powerless" just don't go together in this way. The bible cannot put a leash on God.

4. I think I have only once come across someone who held a genuinely idolatrous view of the bible, and it was not on this forum. What I have seen is people who are passionately defending a high view of scripture overreach a bit and use language which implies such a view. Whenever I have pointed out the implications of this language, the authors have been quick to affirm that it was not their intention to place scripture above God and to explain what they actually meant. SBG in particular has rephrased his terminology to fit his actual, wholly non-idolatrous beliefs and I want to thank him for taking the trouble to do that.

To summarize:

IMO saying the bible is the Word of God is not at all an idolatrous statement and I don't think I have seen anyone suggest that it is.
Having a high view of scripture is not idolatrous either, nor is passionately defending that view.
Passion, however, can lead us to overreach and go farther than we mean to in defending our position (and this applies to any position, including my own.)
So sometimes, without intending to, a person may make a statement which, at face value, smacks of bibiliolatry (or some other idolatry).
In such a case the language should be questioned to determine whether it truthfully reflects the actual position held by the author.
In the cases I have seen on this forum, such language was affirmed by the author to be an unintentional overreach, and did not reflect his/her actual position.

I hope that clarifies where I, at least, am coming from.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.christianforums.com/t725470-confessions-of-a-young-earth-creationist.html&page=27

Yes, that was a hot and heavy thread and thanks for linking to it. It is worth the review.

But what did you expect people--especially Christians--to say when you said this:

Since the Bible is the Word of God then it is co-equal with Him.
http://www.christianforums.com/t725470-confessions-of-a-young-earth-creationist.html&page=12 post #116

Do you still want to abide by that or do you, upon reflection, think you went too far here?

(I would also concede that some of the posters debating you also went too far in the other direction.)

Also my reaction to the statements made in this thread about accusations of idolatry, were based on my assumption that the accusations were also made in this thread, not in one nearly a year old.

I would still say that by-and-large you read carelessly. I note that this occurred in our first exchange on the old thread. You moved the goal-posts twice and I had to keep bringing you back to the original statement.

 

[vossler]

But what did you expect people--especially Christians--to say when you said this:

Since the Bible is the Word of God then it is co-equal with Him.
http://www.christianforums.com/t725...st.html&page=12 post #116

You know if your going to quote me I think it might be appropriate to quote me correctly and not parse out or mine part of the sentence. Here is the entire sentence that I actually stated:

"Since the Bible is the Word of God then it is co-equal with Him because it came from Him."

How right is it for you to do that disservice to me? Look my point here wasn't to bring up old wounds but to disprove your statement and challenge, which was:

Where in this forum has anyone been called an idolator or blasphemer because they call the bible the Word of God?

I think you are guilty of careless reading if you think this has happened, but if you can substantiate it, please do so.

I would still say that by-and-large you read carelessly.

I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "careless" about being called an idolator or blasphemer. That is what I was called for stating "The Bible is the Word of God". Anyone can go back into that thread see that that is exactly what I repeatedly said and what I was continually being criticized for. Even after repeatedly clarifying my position I was still called those names. Yet TEs repeatedly tried to twist my words to imply and even came out and stated that I had said the "Bible is God", where I never made such a statement. Neither you or any of the the other TEs offered any rebuke to these very serious charges that were obviously false. So, no, I wasn't carelessly reading anything and the fact that you still wish to claim these things causes me to wonder what your motivation to state so may be.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The Bible is not the whole of the Word of God. In most cases what we know of the Word of God, if I may wax Platonian, is by phenomenal expressions of noumenal Truth. The idea is that the truths of the universe as they exist independent of the world and how anyone views them are termed "noumenal"; this is absolute Truth as it really is. Truth as it is perceived and intepreted by physical creatures in a physical world such as ours is called "phenomenal"; we can only know real truth through the warping glasses provided to our limited and sinful human frame by our physical realm. This is why misguided people have said that truth is not absolute - because they think that even if there is a noumenal form of truth, we can't know it. Christians know better!

The Word of God alluded to in Scripture is the noumenal truth of God imparted to us supernaturally, yet still not in its totality. Jesus alone is both a noumenal and phenomenal expression of Truth; that's what makes his statement "I am...the Truth" so amazing and important and His identity as the Word of God so meaningful. The Bible is a phenomenal window to noumenal Truth. So is the physical universe. This gets back to the OP. Both the Scriptures and the physical universe require interpretation, which can fail. YEC's think TE's fail to intepret it correctly, and some of us non-YEC's object that YEC's tend to view the Genesis accounts and other passages in the Bible as noumenal truth without any interpretation required, inconsistent because even YEC's recognize the need for interpretation in other passages.

It is a short leap (but, as Vance says, too long a leap) from this critique of YECism to say that because YEC's view the Scriptures as pure, uninterpretable, noumenal truth on a surface reading, that they are elevating the status of the Bible to that occupied only by our Savior, who is noumenal Truth in its only physical form. Although it is probably true idolatry for some (as modern science and human rationality can be for others), I want to back off from that overstatement.

Both camps here recognize the indispensable importance for the Holy Spirit to open the window ("the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are spiritually discerned"). But interpretation is a two-way street - we interpret as best we can with all the tools and resources available, and the Holy Spirit gives meaning to our interpretation. Thus even those who are getting wrong interpretations, if their heart and motives are right, can be shown Truth by the Holy Spirit. That's why none of us can even hint at the other side being unregenerate, because that's none of our business, and much more like the Accuser than the Mighty Counselor.

 

[gluadys]

You know if your going to quote me I think it might be appropriate to quote me correctly and not parse out or mine part of the sentence. Here is the entire sentence that I actually stated:

Doesn't change anything. You are still saying that the bible is co-equal with God. If the fact that it came from God gives it equality with God, you could say the same about nature. It also came from God. Are you prepared to say creation is also co-equal with God?

How right is it for you to do that disservice to me? Look my point here wasn't to bring up old wounds but to disprove your statement and challenge, which was:

Yes, I concede that. There were a couple of posts that said the bible is not the word of God and blamed you for stating otherwise. I don't think they meant that, but spoke carelessly in the heat of passion. But one would have to go back and check that out with them.

I was hoping that you would also concede that you had pushed the envelope too far in giving the bible co-equality with God.

I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "careless" about being called an idolator or blasphemer. That is what I was called for stating "The Bible is the Word of God".

As noted above, you were stating a lot more than that. I can see why people were upset with you. I am surprised that you do not.

 

[SBG]

When Jesus says 'I am the way, the Truth and the life..' is this co-equal to Jesus?

 

[Didaskomenos]

When you say "Jesus says 'I am the way, the Truth, and the life...'" is this co-equal to Jesus?

 

[vossler]

Doesn't change anything. You are still saying that the bible is co-equal with God. If the fact that it came from God gives it equality with God, you could say the same about nature. It also came from God. Are you prepared to say creation is also co-equal with God?

If you want to change the subject, which by the way was: TEs calling YECs bible idolators and blasphemers, go right ahead I'm not going to go there. Anyone who really wants to know what was said there now has access and can do so.

As I said before my intent was to disprove your claim that TEs didn't call YECs idolators and blasphemers. I think I did that.

If you wish to make more out of this then go ahead, you can have all the free shots at me you'd like.