Why a literalist presumption?

[SBG]

Look to Psalm 16:7 and Proverbs 23:16 where the kidneys are talked about as the mind or seat of emotions. Why didn't God correct David and Solomon on the spot? In the New Testament Paul in Philippians 1:8, Col. 3:12, and Philemon 7:20 shows that he believes the intestines serve that function. Nowhere in the Bible do we have the word "brain" - because the ancients disregarded that gook in the head, scholars doubt there was even a word for it in the Hebrew language!

Psalms 16:7
"I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons."

The Hebrew word for reins, kilyah, can mean kidney or seat of emotion. Kidney is the literal translation of the word and set of emotion is the figurative translation of the word. Look it up and see what it says.

Adam [the word] does not have a figurative meaning in the Greek tongue, which helps us learn what Paul taught about Adam.

Proverbs 23:16
"my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right."

my inmost being is the same as reins. It is telling that you choose a Proverb and a Psalm to test the hebrew tongue to see if it can be figurative.

I was speaking not of the Hebrew language, but of the Greek, the language Paul wrote his letters and Epistles in. We could stand to learn a lot from Paul, if we only listen.

God evidently didn't have a problem with scientific inaccuracy in His Scriptures. It's beside the point.

I see. When Christ returns, are you prepared to tell Jesus to His face, He is scientifically wrong, and you know better than He?

Some people want God to have done things the way they would have, and insist that He did, despite all evidence to the contrary. Pretty cheeky, if you ask me.

This is quite funny coming from a TE. We present God's Word, TE's present man's philosophies turned science. TE's accuse YECs of wanting God to do things their way, yet it is the TE who presents man's philosophies turned science, not God's Word.

 

[Remus]

Sigh... communicating or being heard is rather difficult in this forum.

I think I've said something like this before, but I think some of these posts would make a lawyer envious.

 

[Vance]

If I am referring to a typological symbol that is singular, such as a single male character representing a group, I will necessarily refer to that singular typological symbol using singular language. That only makes sense.

So, if God, in discussing Mankind in the Creation accounts, chose to use the typological symbol of a single human character, then it would be appropriate for Paul to continue with this singular usage as well, even if he understood Adam to be a type or symbol for Mankind.

And Paul's context for using that symbol works fine as well. He would simply be saying God chose to tell us about the entry of sin into this world using the symbolism of a single man and He then came to earth AS a single man to take those sins away. The fact that God would CHOOSE to describe the events of the Fall using a single man creates just as valid a precursor to a literal human Jesus as would a literal human Adam.

We already know that the correspondence need not be one to one for the association to be valid. Even with a literal Adam, you would have a fully human, and not one whit divine, Adam, and a Jesus was was indeed fully divine. So, they would not be exactly the same in any case.

So, at the very least, it is impossible to say that Paul absolutely, and without doubt was referring to a literal, single human man in the text associating Adam with Jesus.

 

[SBG]

So, at the very least, it is impossible to say that Paul absolutely, and without doubt was referring to a literal, single human man in the text associating Adam with Jesus.

This is a great point of reference for all to see. Vance states that it is impossible to know if Paul was refering to a literal single human man.

Yet, Paul speaks about such a man, using the Greek word 'adam' which means first human, not first human(s). Paul speaks that through 'one' man came sin, thus inferring it was only one man. Paul compares a real literal Jesus Christ to a real literal Adam. Clement of Rome, who was taught by Paul teaches a literal Adam.

Jesus speaks of a literal Adam. The geneologies speak of a literal Adam that trace Jesus Christ to Adam and Eve. Paul speaks of Adam numerous times, Jude, the brother of James, teaches a real Adam.

Furthermore, Vance here ignorantly refutes God when He says in Genesis that Eve will bring forth the One who will crush Satan's head. To state that Eve is not real is stating this figurative person will bring about the figurative 'One.' Or simply, God is wrong.

Folks, TEs stand on quicksand and they are asking you to join them. Are you going to fall for the devils oldest trick, 'did God really say....?'

 

[SBG]

If Paul wanted to speak of more than one man to refer to Adam, all Paul had to do was change the usage of anthropos. When he is talking about Adam Paul uses the form of anthropos as anthropou, which is singular in usage. Just as we can make words plural in english, so can the Greek language.

In Romans 1:18 Paul uses anthropos as plural. The plural form used is anthropon.

In Romans 5, it is very clear that Paul is speaking of a certain individual, because he further speaks of him by name, Adam.

There would be no reason for Paul to believe Adam was not real. Jesus spoke of Adam as a real person. The lineage was traced from Jesus back to Adam. Why would Paul refute this teaching from God? Why would Paul refute God's teaching in Genesis 3 as Vance tries to do?

 

[Didaskomenos]

The Hebrew word for reins, kilyah, can mean kidney or seat of emotion. Kidney is the literal translation of the word and set of emotion is the figurative translation of the word. Look it up and see what it says.

"Figurative", huh? Well, how do you think it acquired that "figurative" connotation? Because they thought that organ actually had something to do with emotions! Were they intentionally using "figurative" language for poetry's sake? If so, how were the writers and the first readers aware that that organ was not responsible for emotions? Did God just tell them, without putting it in the Bible, that the emotion organ is the brain? Seems the early Christians could have made some outstanding contributions to science if they had let everyone in on the secret of the importance of the brain that the writers and readers of the NT were surely aware of. Using the word "figurative" is anachronistic - they believed it, and God didn't break His back to see that they were disabused of this and other faulty scientific notions.

Adam [the word] does not have a figurative meaning in the Greek tongue, which helps us learn what Paul taught about Adam.

What Paul taught about Adam would have been the same whether he knew Adam wasn't historical or not! In other words, the Adam that TE's and other non-literalists believe in and the Adam you believe in is identical in spiritual significance for the sake of Paul's argument. "Just as Pandora singehandedly brought all evil into the world, Jesus singlehandedly redeemed the world from that evil." This is true whether or not the speaker believes Pandora was an historical figure. Paul didn't have to be omniscient to convey God's truth!

I see. When Christ returns, are you prepared to tell Jesus to His face, He is scientifically wrong, and you know better than He?

Definitely not! But by the same token, if and when Jesus says to you, "It was not my plan to rearrange the ancient mind in peripheral matters in order to fulfill my purposes of revelation," I would hope you would not reply, "I don't approve of Your methodology for inspiration."

This is quite funny coming from a TE. We present God's Word, TE's present man's philosophies turned science. TE's accuse YECs of wanting God to do things their way, yet it is the TE who presents man's philosophies turned science, not God's Word.

I know very little of science. I look at the text and seek to interpret it accurately using all the means at my disposal (including literary, linguistic, and scientific information) because I believe that I would be treating the Scriptures God gave us flippantly and arrogantly if I took only a surface reading or insisted on the type of interpretation that I think would suit Christianity best. I would be irresponsible with the revelation of God to do so.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Yes, he could have used the plural if he was supposed to convey historical facts - but there was no need to if he was only intended to convey typological facts. You're ignoring what we're saying altogether.

 

[SBG]

"Figurative", huh? Well, how do you think it acquired that "figurative" connotation? Because they thought that organ actually had something to do with emotions! Were they intentionally using "figurative" language for poetry's sake? If so, how were the writers and the first readers aware that that organ was not responsible for emotions? Did God just tell them, without putting it in the Bible, that the emotion organ is the brain? Seems the early Christians could have made some outstanding contributions to science if they had let everyone in on the secret of the importance of the brain that the writers and readers of the NT were surely aware of. Using the word "figurative" is anachronistic - they believed it, and God didn't break His back to see that they were disabused of this and other faulty scientific notions.

Are you suggesting that the Psalms and Proverbs were meant literally by the writers, themselves?

The understanding of the Hebrew tongue didn't come to suit what is written in the Bible. The meanings of these words, are simply that. Do you have some support that David or Solomon believed the kidney brought emotion? I haven't seen anything that supports this thinking to suggest that this Hebrew word cannot be meant figuratively.

Take a look at Strongs, if you need something to help you see this.

The Hebrew language is rather interesting because it has very few words, and these words take on many different meanings. The meaning of a word is dependent on its context and usage. If you are suggesting that the Psalmist is using the word literally, then you might need to provide support for why all translators of the Bible say it is figurative. This is shown by how they translated it.

What Paul taught about Adam would have been the same whether he knew Adam wasn't historical or not! In other words, the Adam that TE's and other non-literalists believe in and the Adam you believe in is identical in spiritual significance for the sake of Paul's argument. "Just as Pandora singehandedly brought all evil into the world, Jesus singlehandedly redeemed the world from that evil." This is true whether or not the speaker believes Pandora was an historical figure. Paul didn't have to be omniscient to convey God's truth!

I never said he had to be. But he wasn't stupid and uneducated in these matters either. He was a Pharisee after all that spent years studying the Scriptures.(OT)

You may feel that it is ok to take God's Word or Jesus and compare Him to something that is just a myth. I don't believe Paul would be that careless with Christ. I think Paul understood and knew exactly what he taught, this including a literal and historical Adam.

Definitely not! But by the same token, if and when Jesus says to you, "It was not my plan to rearrange the ancient mind in peripheral matters in order to fulfill my purposes of revelation," I would hope you would not reply, "I don't approve of Your methodology for inspiration."

Why would I question Jesus? I don't question His Word to be accurate, I understand it exactly how it is written.

I know very little of science. I look at the text and seek to interpret it accurately using all the means at my disposal (including literary, linguistic, and scientific information) because I believe that I would be treating the Scriptures God gave us flippantly and arrogantly if I took only a surface reading or insisted on the type of interpretation that I think would suit Christianity best. I would be irresponsible with the revelation of God to do so.

I believe using science to say that Genesis 1-11 could not have happened as it is written is to be arrogant and defiant against God.

I believe in open my ears and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach me. I do not understand why so many TEs think they can lead themself to understanding by using science. Don't you know our hearts are evil and our flesh wars against God?

YOu don't seem to understand YEC. We don't just read it as literal and historically accurate. We also read it figuratively and allegorically to see what Jesus is trying to say to us. We yearn for the whole picture, the complete Truth. TEs say it can only be half true. The God that speaks to me doesn't say He is only half true. He is the Almighty, the One Who was, Who is, Who will be.

This is not about what suits "Christianity." This is about God leading us to understanding and revealing to us, through His Word, about Himself.

Who was there and who can tell God how He created? Only God can tell how He created, and He did, read Genesis 1-2. It is arrogance that dimisses this a complete truth.

This is not about me, or about YECism. This is about treating God's Word with respect and care. It is arrogance that swiftly judges that Jesus is scientifically wrong, that God could not have created as Genesis says He does. That evidence that is interpretated by men, should be treated with greater care than God's Word.

That is what TEs do.

 

[SBG]

Yes, he could have used the plural if he was supposed to convey historical facts - but there was no need to if he was only intended to convey typological facts. You're ignoring what we're saying altogether.

You are ignoring New Testament geneologies that trace Jesus Christ back to Adam. You are ignoring God's prophecy in Genesis 3 about Jesus coming from the line of Eve to crush Satan's head.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The understanding of the Hebrew tongue didn't come to suit what is written in the Bible. The meanings of these words, are simply that. Do you have some support that David or Solomon believed the kidney brought emotion? I haven't seen anything that supports this thinking to suggest that this Hebrew word cannot be meant figuratively.

Something can only be meant figuratively if the speaker knows it is incorrect literally. Like I said, do we have any evidence they, alone among ANE peoples, knew that the kidneys were not emotional organs?

Take a look at Strongs, if you need something to help you see this.

So Strong's is where you get your dogmatic proclamations! That explains some things.

The Hebrew language is rather interesting because it has very few words, and these words take on many different meanings. The meaning of a word is dependent on its context and usage. If you are suggesting that the Psalmist is using the word literally, then you might need to provide support for why all translators of the Bible say it is figurative. This is shown by how they translated it.

This is crucial, and you're missing it: it doesn't take a linguist to understand that meanings are not randomly associated with words; surely even you can see that the reason "backbone" or "toenail" didn't come to mean "seat of the emotions" was because "kidneys" was the prevailing scientific thought on which organ controlled feelings. According to your model, with semantic content randomly getting attached to words because there aren't enough words in the language, they might as well have said "door"! No, it is not accidental that the biblical writers said "kidneys", "bowels", and "heart".

If the source of referring to the seat of emotions was an inaccurate understanding of human physiology, and intending something to be figurative is dependent on knowing that a literal reading is improper, you have to say that the biblical writers and their first audiences were somehow in the know about what organ really housed emotion. This is quite a large pill to swallow.

Why would I question Jesus? I don't question His Word to be accurate, I understand it exactly how it is written.

All bow to SBG, who knows exactly how to interpret the Bible! This level of self-satisfcation is not only arrogance incarnate but also tantamount to heresy.

I believe using science to say that Genesis 1-11 could not have happened as it is written is to be arrogant and defiant against God.

Begging the question as to whether God wanted it to be interpreted simply as written.

I believe in open my ears and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach me. I do not understand why so many TEs think they can lead themself to understanding by using science. Don't you know our hearts are evil and our flesh wars against God?

So how do you trust your heart to know whether your ears are following the Holy Spirit? This is a useless line of reasoning. Studying sources outside the bald text is meant precisely because we can't trust our own reasoning alone. If all it took to understand the Bible was sitting there looking up at heaven for guidance, why can't illiterate people glean the knowledge of the Bible?

Can you be edified by perusing a Bible written in Classical Armenian? NO! In order for you to do that properly, you must rely on your intellect, which means building it up by learning Classical Armenian. How would you know that the kidney passages were "figurative" if science didn't tell us that they don't really play a role in human emotion? Shame on you for bowing at the altar of man's understanding to sacrifice the literal, plain text to the god of science.

YOu don't seem to understand YEC. We don't just read it as literal and historically accurate. We also read it figuratively and allegorically to see what Jesus is trying to say to us. We yearn for the whole picture, the complete Truth. TEs say it can only be half true. The God that speaks to me doesn't say He is only half true. He is the Almighty, the One Who was, Who is, Who will be.

Just because you'd like to say every facet is true doesn't mean that God wanted it to be. That's the point.

Who was there and who can tell God how He created? Only God can tell how He created, and He did, read Genesis 1-2. It is arrogance that dimisses this a complete truth.

It is foolishness that seeks a cure for cancer in penicillin. Even Paul didn't say the Scriptures were useful for everything. Only "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

This is not about me, or about YECism. This is about treating God's Word with respect and care. It is arrogance that swiftly judges that Jesus is scientifically wrong, that God could not have created as Genesis says He does. That evidence that is interpretated by men, should be treated with greater care than God's Word.

You interpret the Sciptures yourself. We treat evidence with care so that we can interpret the Bible correctly, apart from our limited human intellects and our fallible hearts. We all use a lens when looking at Scripture - and you prize yours above ours. That's what this argument is about.

 

[Didaskomenos]

You are ignoring New Testament geneologies that trace Jesus Christ back to Adam. You are ignoring God's prophecy in Genesis 3 about Jesus coming from the line of Eve to crush Satan's head.

What is the point of those genealogies? To show the noble birth of the Messiah. He came from David, as the prophecy said. He came from Adam? Shocker! Didn't everyone? This part of the genealogy followed a stylized format, which is remarkably similar in both Matthew and Luke (although they don't show the same lineage from David to Jesus).

I think the latter is a brilliant part of the Genesis accounts! There's nothing in my interpretation that is threatened by this beautiful prophecy. It's not like I don't believe the account is true or anything.

 

[SBG]

Something can only be meant figuratively if the speaker knows it is incorrect literally. Like I said, do we have any evidence they, alone among ANE peoples, knew that the kidneys were not emotional organs?

So are you asking me to prove a negative?

So Strong's is where you get your dogmatic proclamations! That explains some things.

That and the study of the Hebrew language. I do not know what every Hebrew word means.

This is crucial, and you're missing it: it doesn't take a linguist to understand that meanings are not randomly associated with words; surely even you can see that the reason "backbone" or "toenail" didn't come to mean "seat of the emotions" was because "kidneys" was the prevailing scientific thought on which organ controlled feelings. According to your model, with semantic content randomly getting attached to words because there aren't enough words in the language, they might as well have said "door"! No, it is not accidental that the biblical writers said "kidneys", "bowels", and "heart".

It seems you are thinking that the Author of the Psalms created the meaning of the word. Seat of emotion can very well be associated with kidney. I wasn't refuting that. I was speaking to how the Author used it. You insist that the Author must be using it to mean kidney. I am saying that the Author could have used it to mean the seat of emotion.

Do you have proof that the Author intended it to mean kidney and not seat of emotion? You are suggesting that every translator is wrong.

If the source of referring to the seat of emotions was an inaccurate understanding of human physiology, and intending something to be figurative is dependent on knowing that a literal reading is improper, you have to say that the biblical writers and their first audiences were somehow in the know about what organ really housed emotion. This is quite a large pill to swallow.

I see. So you believe that David believed that his kidneys taught him in the nights. And you believe this is how the readers would see it as well.

All bow to SBG, who knows exactly how to interpret the Bible! This level of self-satisfcation is not only arrogance incarnate but also tantamount to heresy.

Nice. I was refering to the creation account. I thought this was understood by my quoting your words that concerned the creation account.

I did not claim to know exactly how to interpret the whole Bible. I do understand what is written in Genesis 1-2.

Begging the question as to whether God wanted it to be interpreted simply as written.

Oh, so you think only us today could possible understand Genesis 1-11? And you claim I am arrogant.

So how do you trust your heart to know whether your ears are following the Holy Spirit? This is a useless line of reasoning. Studying sources outside the bald text is meant precisely because we can't trust our own reasoning alone. If all it took to understand the Bible was sitting there looking up at heaven for guidance, why can't illiterate people glean the knowledge of the Bible?

You don't trust your heart. You trust God. You stop listening to what the world tells you, and start believing what God tells you. All you have to do to hear God is open your Bible, open your ears/heart, and read.

You don't think the Holy Spirit is enough to understand the Bible? Maybe that is the problem with your understanding of the Bible, you lack belief in Him leading you.

Can you be edified by perusing a Bible written in Classical Armenian? NO! In order for you to do that properly, you must rely on your intellect, which means building it up by learning Classical Armenian. How would you know that the kidney passages were "figurative" if science didn't tell us that they don't really play a role in human emotion? Shame on you for bowing at the altar of man's understanding to sacrifice the literal, plain text to the god of science.

No, you must rely on God. I don't understand why this is hard for a Christian to understand.

Didaskmomenos, the Hebrew meaning of this word(seat of emotion) was there before science came along and talked about the kidney.

Just because you'd like to say every facet is true doesn't mean that God wanted it to be. That's the point.

Really. So when God speaks, it is only half true?

It is foolishness that seeks a cure for cancer in penicillin. Even Paul didn't say the Scriptures were useful for everything. Only "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

Ah, so you don't think creation, fall of man, the flood and such are doctrine.

You interpret the Sciptures yourself. We treat evidence with care so that we can interpret the Bible correctly, apart from our limited human intellects and our fallible hearts. We all use a lens when looking at Scripture - and you prize yours above ours. That's what this argument is about.

I see. You rather rely on man's interpretation of evidence to interpret the Bible rather than the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate you candor, I see why you might be having trouble understanding God's Word. Look to what Jesus taught about faith. If you have faith and tell the mountain to move from here to there, it will happen. Think about its meaning.

 

[SBG]

What is the point of those genealogies? To show the noble birth of the Messiah. He came from David, as the prophecy said. He came from Adam? Shocker! Didn't everyone? This part of the genealogy followed a stylized format, which is remarkably similar in both Matthew and Luke (although they don't show the same lineage from David to Jesus).

I think the latter is a brilliant part of the Genesis accounts! There's nothing in my interpretation that is threatened by this beautiful prophecy. It's not like I don't believe the account is true or anything.

Then you believe there was a literal Adam and a literal fall?

 

[shernren]

Look. The massive problem everybody seems to be reveling in is: we are attacking people where we should be attacking beliefs. "Vance is this Vance is that", "SBG is this SBG is that" ... until we learn how to attack beliefs without attacking people we will never communicate, we will never convince, and we will always stand guilty before God of judging without being able to withstand the standards by which we judge people. I implore you all here.

Having said that, let me indulge in a little attacking myself.

[bible]Acts 13:8-10[/bible]

Did Paul mean that Elymas was a biological offspring of the Devil?

 

[SBG]

Look. The massive problem everybody seems to be reveling in is: we are attacking people where we should be attacking beliefs. "Vance is this Vance is that", "SBG is this SBG is that" ... until we learn how to attack beliefs without attacking people we will never communicate, we will never convince, and we will always stand guilty before God of judging without being able to withstand the standards by which we judge people. I implore you all here.

Having said that, let me indulge in a little attacking myself.

Acts 13:8-108 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Did Paul mean that Elymas was a biological offspring of the Devil?

If I were to take a TE approach to this Scripture, I would say it is an allegorical teaching, and it didn't really happen. I would conclude this because it uses a figurative phrase, 'child of the devil.'


Realistically, Elymas was a child of the devil, not a literal offspring, but one that follows him.

Those who follow God are called children of God.

 

[shernren]

you think only us today could possible understand Genesis 1-11?

Actually, that's precisely what YECs think. No, it's not enough that Genesis 1 be a fantastic creation account that seals God's ownership over the universe: it has to be a scientific manual as well.

 

[shernren]

Now, when Jesus is called the "offspring of Adam" and the "Son of Man" ...

And I as a TE don't believe any such thing about that passage. Don't take me to extremes.

 

[SBG]

Actually, that's precisely what YECs think. No, it's not enough that Genesis 1 be a fantastic creation account that seals God's ownership over the universe: it has to be a scientific manual as well.

The YEC belief is much older than you might realize. It goes back to the Apostles and even further.

YECs are not claiming that the Bible is a scientific manual. We are claiming that God does tell us how He created and what He created when.

We don't claim that it teaches of DNA, RNA, cell structures, neutrons, etc. We do, however, say that God tells us how He created. The how is by His Word things came to be, not a thousand/million/billion years later, but immediately when He spoke of them. Psalms teaches us what happens when God speaks, it is done. TEs are the ones who say this isn't so.

 

[SBG]

Now, when Jesus is called the "offspring of Adam" and the "Son of Man" ...

And I as a TE don't believe any such thing about that passage. Don't take me to extremes.

Now you are taking it in the opposite way saying it must mean the samething.
You may have a point, if the geneologies were not there, and if Paul and Jude didn't teach of a literal Adam.

Sorry about taking you to the extremes.

 

[Didaskomenos]

It seems you are thinking that the Author of the Psalms created the meaning of the word. Seat of emotion can very well be associated with kidney. I wasn't refuting that. I was speaking to how the Author used it. You insist that the Author must be using it to mean kidney. I am saying that the Author could have used it to mean the seat of emotion.

Do you have proof that the Author intended it to mean kidney and not seat of emotion? You are suggesting that every translator is wrong.

Of course not! Of course "seat of emotion" is meant - but this is in spite of the unscientific use of the word "kidney". If the Author were inspiring this passage in English in our terms, inherited from our Greek and Latin heritage, He would say "heart", although that organ has nothing to do with emotions either. Why, in your worldview, would the Author have used it to refer to the seat of emotion when He knew good and well that it would bolster their erroneous belief that kidneys and not the brain was the source of emotion?

I see. So you believe that David believed that his kidneys taught him in the nights. And you believe this is how the readers would see it as well.

Not exactly the kidneys, but "seat of emotion" by synecdoche. Just like "I feel it in my heart" is referring past the supposed source of the aroused emotions to the emotions themselves.

Oh, so you think only us today could possible understand Genesis 1-11? And you claim I am arrogant.

Quite the opposite - I think we have to try extra hard to understand Genesis 1-11 as the original audiences did. You think you can pick up the Bible, pray, and process the whole thing perfectly well.

You don't trust your heart. You trust God. You stop listening to what the world tells you, and start believing what God tells you. All you have to do to hear God is open your Bible, open your ears/heart, and read.

So relying on your own ability to hear and comprehend God's message in the Scriptures is right, but admitting and compensating for personal fallibility by checking one's results against what is known about the world by scholars and other Christians is prideful. You really don't make much sense.

You don't think the Holy Spirit is enough to understand the Bible? Maybe that is the problem with your understanding of the Bible, you lack belief in Him leading you.

No I don't. I believe He's led me into looking beyond my own reasoning abilities, recognizing that the first thing that leaps off the page isn't necessarily Him talking to me, and learning to look where He's led other believers in the community of faith.

Ah, so you don't think creation, fall of man, the flood and such are doctrine.

Of course they are! And Genesis 1-11 is useful for this, even when we don't take a surface reading of them.

I see. You rather rely on man's interpretation of evidence to interpret the Bible rather than the Holy Spirit.

Here again, when listening to the Holy Spirit and reading the Scriptures, it is the epitome of arrogance to rely on what you think the Holy Spirit is telling you, rather than verifying it by looking at what He's told and is telling other people.