Why a literalist presumption?

[SBG]

I would say it has not become a word in Greek. It is not used in the way a borrowing like "amok" is used in English. In Greek, it is used only as a proper noun, a name, and never as a common noun with a meaning. So the meaning still goes back to the Hebrew meaning of the common noun.

Is 'Adam' a word or not? If it is not a word, what is it, a picture?

No, Paul believed it was the name of the first man. He knew his Hebrew well enough to know that as a common noun it meant "red earth" or "man".

Sigh, this is what I have been saying all along: Adam is first man. This must be a terribly difficult subject.

That's backward about. You do not go to the Greek to determine the meaning of a Hebrew word. You go to the Hebrew. And when the Greek has borrowed the name/word from Hebrew, you still go to the Hebrew.

Well if that is how you see it. Then if you wanted to understand what Genesis 1-2 says, why do you go to science or allow science to even become part of your way of understanding? Why not just read the Bible. It is, after all, a backward way about it.

And when Jesus speaks of Old Testament teachings, why read what He says, go to the Old Testament. That would be a backward way of understand what the Old Testament really is saying.

If we cannot understand what meaning of the Hebrew word in the Bible, why go see how the Jews meant it to be used and not just read the Bible?

Sure, why in the world would we look to how Paul interpreted Adam....

Gluady's we don't go to the Greek to learn the Hebrew, and I never state this. We know that the Hebrew word 'Adam' can have many different meanings, do we not? And if we prefer to be ignorant to context, then we must look further, if we want to understand what meaning of the Hebrew word 'Adam' is being used. So we look to how the Jews translated the Bible into the Greek, since the Greek is a much more precise language.

If the Jews viewed Adam, not as an individual, but rather as a type of many, they would have used the plural form of 'anthropos.' They did not.

Can you understand why I have pointed to the Greek for more clarification?

Well no one has been questioning that. I have just been saying that "first man" as distinct from "man/mankind" is not the meaning of "adam".

I was under the impression that you have been questioning whether or not Adam to was a literal, historical, first man. And furthermore, what Paul taught about who Adam was.

Since you already believe Adam was the first, literal, historical, first man, I do not know why this is continuing as if you don't understand.

Unh-unh. TEs are just as concerned about consistent interpretation as you are. I find much YEC interpretation to be very muddled and inconsistent, and just as likely to be based on choosing what to believe as anything I have seen from TEs. Given the range of TE beliefs, I certainly don't agree with all of them.

Can you point me to what YECs inconsistent on with the Bible?

We all struggle to interpret scripture correctly, whether or not we consider science plays a role in determining correct interpretation.

Nobody is saying we don't struggle with understanding. And when we do, we know we are relying on ourselves too much. You are aware of the Psalmists teaching of leaning on the Lord, solely, for understanding, right?

Please substantiate this claim. I have never seen such a post. I have only seen posts which say the literal reading of Genesis is wrong. Not that Genesis per se is wrong.

There are posts like this over in the evo/crea, all members forum, scattered all over the place. There many TEs just ripping YECs up and down, as if this is the 'Christian' thing to do. I have yet to see any TE preach the Gospel to those over there.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1587030-is-genesis-all-wrong.html

And you think YEC doesn't?

No, not true seekers. Tell me, how does evolution help save someone from eternal damnation?

Do you feel God would want you to change His Word, so you can try and save people from eternal damnation?

 

[SBG]

Don't you mean that only God is truth? Or do you actually worship the bible?

Explain to all of us how God's Word, that comes from God, is less than God.

 

[gluadys]

Explain to all of us how God's Word, that comes from God, is less than God.

God's Word, the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, is God.

The bible is not.

 

[SBG]

These words imply that I and any other TE may not know of Jesus Christ and stand a chance of not being saved. I'm sorry, but at face value that is exactly what it seems. Right?

We all stand a chance of not being saved, do we not?

Those words were not meant to imply that a 'TE' will not or may not be saved. So many here insist to read into what is said. There were wrote so that *everyone* looks to their heart, what God sees, and evaluates it.

Who cares what words you write(about your beliefs), God sees who we each, truly are.

You forget that I was a YEC a few months ago, until I came to this forum. And you may not understand what the YEC ministries look like, being so far inside. Well let me be frank: to the rest of the world, the YEC ministry looks like one big disinformation / misinformation machine. When I bought YEC books, I never heard nothing about varves and isochron dating and algal bloom layers. I heard that the law of Entropy forbids evolution and that there are no transitional forms.

So you changed your beliefs upon your intial joining of this forum?

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

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

Nobody told me that there was evidence against YECism. Not even a treatment of the concept that all contrary evidence must be fake. (which would have turned me off, of course! "Science" and the Bible? )

There isn't evidence for or against anything. There is interpretations for and against. All of you are smart people, and yet none of you can understand this simple concept.

And you know what? I've also had experience with atheists before. I told them creationism and they laughed their behinds off at me. Now I realise why: because they were right (at least in that), darn it, evolution happened (or else the world looks jolly lot like it happened: and why need there be a difference?). And if you're trying to fight atheism with YECism, you're barking up the wrong tree. YECism can only be an adjustment of a Christian's beliefs instead of the conversion of an atheist, because the atheist always has stronger science than a Christian, always has a better brain (though not a better eternity because of that!) Fighting an atheist intellectually (in my experience) is like trying to kill a dragon with a Zippo lighter - guess who's going to get burnt? Winning a battle with an atheist is winning the battle of the heart - taking out the self-security that doesn't need God, healing the wounds of past experiences that the atheist blames on a God who must be evil if He exists, cutting through the darkened hide of ideas and treating the wounded soul inside. YECism does nothing for that. Atheists aren't atheists because of atheist education: they are atheists because of atheist emotions and worldviews. YECism does nothing to treat this.

Why did you even approach atheists with creationism? Are we not commanded to teach Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

That is one of the big problems I see with TEism, approaching the unsaved with creation/evolution instead of Jesus Christ. As if the dirt has some powerful live giving spirit in it.

Jesus is the Power of Christianity.

You know why atheists shy away from YECists? It's not because TEs come in and wallop you scientifically (they could do it themselves if they wanted), but because they know straight away that you have an agenda they don't agree with. But Christian evangelism has never been about agendas, it's about witnesses. Now, what sort of a witness is it when half the time, the evidence brought in has already been disproved?

You are wrong. Christian evangelism does have an agenda, to preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

I would think if you wanted to witness you would speak of Jesus Christ.

And of course TEs don't discuss Jesus Christ's salvation plan in the creation vs. evolution forum.

I see. So Jesus is only permitted in certain sections, how convient for you. Did Jesus tell you you can only speak of Him in certain places?

Fine. So convince people that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Convince people that the Gospels and Acts were completely historical, and I will back you with data and facts all the way. Does that have anything to do with bashing TEs? No. Don't let a "slippery slope" argument take your aim away from the real enemies. TEs are as opposed against naturalism as you are. I definitely am.

Who is bashing TEs? I do not go out into the all member forum to ridicule TEs as TEs do to YECs. I do not go gather support of non-believers to bash Christians, as TEs do to YECs.

I have not seen one TE has ever say it is not right to bash fellow Christians in the all members forum, and stand up and say something in those forums. I rather see more jumping in to get their words of ridicule in.

How many threads does Vance start over there a day/week to put down YECs?

And you YECs to be all good with this....

The thing is, YECism destroys scientific reliability for all. Wouldn't you agree?

I see, shifting it over to science. You are more worried about sciences' reliability than the Bible's reliability.

YECism sets up a false contradiction between the reliability of science and the reliability of the Bible. AiG itself admits that it considers all contrary evidence unreliable. A Christian may be able to stomach this, but for the atheist you know what happens?

I see. So one must side with atheist if there teachings go against Biblical ones.

You know what happens when you preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

IF the Bible is reliable THEN science is unreliable
BUT science is reliable THEREFORE the Bible is unreliable.

This is according to the world, not God. And you and the other TEs have sided with the later of your statements.

It's not rocket science. YECism turns atheists away - not because it is Christian, and not because TEs oppose it, but because it is simply wrong.

It is not rocket science, Jesus Christ should be preached to non-believers. It is not rocket science, Christians shouldn't go to non-believers to put down other Christians, it destroys credibility of all.

(There. I've said it. Full circle.)

The ironic thing is that this false contradiction is something very, very, very alien to Christianity. Christian science has always been based on the beliefs that science is reliable, that the physical world as a creation of a good and consistent God must be good and consistent and pleasing to Him and orderly instead of natural laws changing half the time. And along comes "Gee, if the earth looks a few billion years old, God must have badly wanted to trick us!"

In fact, TEism is upholding Biblical reliability. It is showing how what the Bible says is correct when it is read correctly.

I think I have been more and more cutting as time passes. But things need to be said.

TE is simply a compromise between God and the world. It is taking a fence sitters position on the subject.

Remember, man doesn't make God consistent. Man doesn't decide how God created. Man is truly nothing in the whole scheme of things. God has said what He has said in His Word. Believe it or not. It isn't rocket science.

 

[SBG]

God's Word, the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, is God.

The bible is not.

Why is Jesus called the Word?

 

[SBG]

Well, since the world was created by a true, self-consistent and orderly God, it should therefore be true, self-consistent and orderly. Unless the world was not created by God?

He didn't suggest this, don't put words in his mouth.

Have you forgotton that dirt doesn't speak? Have you forgotton that evidence needs to be interpreted inorder for it to say anything?

Everybody thought God's grand plan involved not eating bacon and getting circumcised until the Apostles adjusted to the situations. Truth never changes but interpretations do.

Then you don't understand what these teachings were truly meant for. Every action starts in the heart and the heart is what God judges, not the actions. Unless you think you are getting to heaven by works, and not faith, which I doubt you believe.

Circumcisen, even in the OT is taught in relation to the heart towards God. We are no longer under the law, but under grace. Do you understand what I mean?

I also believe what the Bible tells me! Don't I?

PS. it's kinda funny that CForums censors t-i-t... heh. what's the world coming to.

Do you believe the Bible when it says this: (??)

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

 

[gluadys]

Is 'Adam' a word or not? If it is not a word, what is it, a picture?

It is both a word and a proper noun or name. A proper noun is a special sub-set of nouns which are used to designate particular persons, places and things. As such, proper nouns do not have meanings. They are simply labels.

A common noun has a meaning, as it describes a class of things. It is not a label for one instance of that thing.

Both proper and common nouns are words, but both do not have meaning in the same way. A person’s name can have a meaning, but the meaning of the name is the meaning of the common noun.

As a common noun, ‘adam’ means ‘earth’ and ‘human’. It does not mean ‘first human’. As a proper noun, it is the name ascribed to the first human. Do you see the difference?

Then if you wanted to understand what Genesis 1-2 says, why do you go to science or allow science to even become part of your way of understanding? Why not just read the Bible.

When I am reading for theological insight, that is exactly what I do. I don’t try to turn Gen. 1-2 into science, because then we get into a serious contradiction with the facts of science. And, as I keep saying, truth cannot contradict truth.

If we cannot understand what meaning of the Hebrew word in the Bible, why go see how the Jews meant it to be used and not just read the Bible?

As long as the Jews are writing in Hebrew, why would we not use their writings to establish the meaning of a word? Lots of insights into the meaning of words in scripture has come from non-biblical Hebrew writings of the same era.

Sure, why in the world would we look to how Paul interpreted Adam....

Actually, it is very important to do that. I think a study of Paul’s Adam/Christ contrasts strongly supports the thesis that Paul is using a typological Adam.

So we look to how the Jews translated the Bible into the Greek, since the Greek is a much more precise language.

So you are not actually looking at NT usage at all, but at the Septuagint? Why didn’t you say that in the first place? Puts a whole new perspective on things.

If the Jews viewed Adam, not as an individual, but rather as a type of many, they would have used the plural form of 'anthropos.' They did not.

Incorrect. A type is normally referred to in the singular. There is, after all, only one type, though there may be many examples of the type.

I was under the impression that you have been questioning whether or not Adam to was a literal, historical, first man. And furthermore, what Paul taught about who Adam was.

No, I was questioning only the definition “adam”=”first man”. I was not questioning Paul’s teaching. As I said above, I think his teaching on Adam is a typological teaching which does not require the existence of a literal, historical individual person named Adam.

Since you already believe Adam was the first, literal, historical, first man

Well, no I don’t believe that. I don’t believe there was ever a single “first” human being.

Can you point me to what YECs inconsistent on with the Bible?

Generally, where YECs differ from TEs, it is on the basis of a “literal” interpretation of scripture, but they are very inconsistent in what they deem literal and what they deem not literal. For example, I have never seen a YEC uphold the literal meaning of “firmament” in Gen. 1. Usually they treat it non-literally as a reference to the atmosphere, to outer space or to a fictitious water canopy. None of these is the literal meaning of the term.

There are posts like this over in the evo/crea, all members forum, scattered all over the place. There many TEs just ripping YECs up and down, as if this is the 'Christian' thing to do. I have yet to see any TE preach the Gospel to those over there.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1587030-is-genesis-all-wrong.html

Sure there are TE posts that rip YEC to shreds. I’ve posted a few myself. But you contended that TEs were saying Genesis is wrong. I don’t think you can find any TE post that says this. What is said is that the YEC understanding of Genesis is wrong.

No, not true seekers. Tell me, how does evolution help save someone from eternal damnation?

Oh, only those willing to deny the evidence are “true seekers” ™?
Evolution doesn’t help save anyone. Why would anyone think that? Science has nothing to do with salvation. That is an error YECs continue to make.

Do you feel God would want you to change His Word, so you can try and save people from eternal damnation?

Of course not. But God may require me to understand his Word better so that I am not trying to pit truth against truth, one revelation from God against another.

 

[gluadys]

Why is Jesus called the Word?

Because Jesus is the incarnation of the Word.

 

[SBG]

Because Jesus is the incarnation of the Word.

Incarnation of what Word?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Explain to all of us how God's Word, that comes from God, is less than God.

Oh, man. Even Luther would be shocked. The Word of God is Jesus, because He and He alone is the perfect expression of the truth of God. Making the Bible equal with God is adding a person to the Trinity. The Bible is also an expression of God that comes from God, just as the trees and fish and stars are - but which of that list are not "less than God"? All the expressions of God are all in a limited sense, the "word of God", because the Word of God is the truth of God. The Bible testifies to the truth of God, but it is heresy to say that everything about it is the very truth of God. We as humans don't have access to complete and total truth except in the person of Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." It is a supreme irony that Protestants, having disrobed the Catholic pontiff, have turned to a paper pope.

 

[gluadys]

Incarnation of what Word?

The Logos or eternal Word which is God, the Creator of all that is.

Do you need a refresher course in basic Christian theology?

 

[SBG]

The Logos or eternal Word which is God, the Creator of all that is.

Do you need a refresher course in basic Christian theology?

Circular Reasoning here, Gluadys.

So God is the word. What is the Bible?

Please refresh me.

 

[SBG]

Oh, man. Even Luther would be shocked.

Really? Do you know what Luther taught about the Bible?

Here are some of the things he said concerning the Bible:

"We ought not to critize, explain, or judge the Scriptures by our mere reason, but diligently with prayer."

"The Holy Ghost must be our only master and tutor; and let the youth have no shame to learn of that preceptor."

"He who has made himself master of the principles and text of the Word runs little risk of committing errors. A theologian should be thoroughly in possession of the basis and source of faith. That is to say, the Holy Scriptures. Armed with this knowledge it was that I confounded and silenced all my adversaries; for they seek not to fathom and understand the Scriptures; they run them over negligently and drowsily. They speak, they write, they teach according to the suggestion of their heedless imaginations. My counsel is that we draw water from the true source and fountain, that is, that we diligently search the Scriptures."

"The Holy Scriptures surpass in efficaciousness all the arts and all the sciences of the philosophers and jurists."

"The Bible should be regarded with wholly different eyes from those with which we view other productions."

"Can he who understands not God's Word understand God's works?"

"I have grounded my teaching upon the literal word."

"No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God's Word taken from them or falsified so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God, grant that we and our descendants be not witnessess of such a calamity."

The Word of God is Jesus, because He and He alone is the perfect expression of the truth of God. Making the Bible equal with God is adding a person to the Trinity. The Bible is also an expression of God that comes from God, just as the trees and fish and stars are - but which of that list are not "less than God"? All the expressions of God are all in a limited sense, the "word of God", because the Word of God is the truth of God. The Bible testifies to the truth of God, but it is heresy to say that everything about it is the very truth of God. We as humans don't have access to complete and total truth except in the person of Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." It is a supreme irony that Protestants, having disrobed the Catholic pontiff, have turned to a paper pope.

Who is making the Book equal with God? We are talking about the teachings and Word within the Bible. Are they not God's teachings and God's words?

Explain how the teachings of God, and His own Words are less than Himself and shouldn't be taken as He is taken, True and Truthful.

 

[Vance]

In the beginning was the WORD. The Logos, the "Wisdom". We know that the actual text of our Scripture was not there in the beginning, so it can not be referring to the Scripture itself. It is referring to God's Truth, of which (as has been stated), the second person of the trinity has always been the perfect and full embodiment. Every reference to "the Word" in Scripture must be seen in that light.

That is why I always try to remember to refer to Scripture as God's Holy Scripture, or God's Holy message to us, since to do otherwise can create confusion. Yes, that Scripture IS holy because it is inspired and contains the written presentation of the message ABOUT the Truth, Wisdom and Logos of God. In that way, it can be called the "Word" in an important sense, but we must keep in mind that it is a presentation of the Word, not simply the Word in and of itself.

I still think it is appropriate to call Scripture the "Word of God", but only with the proper understanding of these issues.

 

[vossler]

It doesn’t matter which order you put it in. Truth does not disagree with truth. Some truths we learn from scripture. Some from other sources. Wherever you begin, any truth must agree with all other truths.

O.K. let's see if we can take it a step further in order to clear this up. The Bible, for me, is absolute truth. Any "facts or truths" that someone else comes up with will always have to be held up to the ultimate truth, God's Word. So for me - and what I used to think the vast majority of Christians, that is until I came to Christian Forums - the Bible is the foundation to all truth. No other source of "truth" whether science or whatever is to be on even par with it. All other knowledge is secondary to the Bible. So if a "truth" disagrees with the Bible then in my opinion it isn't true and worthy of such distinction. This is why evolution, no matter how you present it, can never be considered anything other than a poor attempt, by man, to explain his own origins and exhalt himself in the process.

Perhaps you don’t understand what a fact is? A fact is true, regardless of anyone’s opinion. Many opinions and hypotheses are considered fact that should not be. But that is a different matter.

I think we might have some common ground here. I believe that for anyone to say they know the age of the earth and universe it has to by a hypothesis because it can never be an established fact. We weren't there when it happened. If you think it is a fact then why is it that even evolutionists have billions of years difference in how long they think the earth and universe have been around?

I was pointing out that the bible is not God. In so far as the bible is true, it is, as you now say, as an extension of the truth of God. A consequence of this is that the bible is not a superior source of truth as compared to other sources. All truth, wherever it is found, is an extension of the truth of God. Since God and God alone, is the one source of all truth, all extensions, such as scripture/nature/teaching of the Church, etc. are on an equal footing. All can be used to correct/ expand /clarify each other.

This is very fascinating! You believe that the Bible is not a superior source of truth. Given that, we, you and I, will always struggle to find common ground. This explains a lot of things.

It was never a fact that no man could run a mile in under four minutes. It was a fact that no man had run a mile in under four minutes. This prompted the hypothesis that no man could run a mile under four minutes. When Roger Bannister did run a mile in under four minutes, the hypothesis was falsified. But no fact had changed. It was always a fact that a man could run a mile in under four minutes. We just didn’t know that until somebody did.

True, just when I thought there wasn't much common ground.

It is still a fact that man cannot fly. What we can do is built heavier than air machinery that flies. This falsified the hypothesis that no such machine could be created. It was never a fact that a heavier-than-air craft could not fly. But we did not know that a heavier-than-air craft could fly until the Wright brothers showed it could. It was always true that airplanes could fly. No fact changed. But an incorrect hypothesis was falsified.

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

Well, that is a truism. Or maybe a tautology. It is never the case that the truth is wrong. It may well be the case that we are wrong about the truth.

Something else we agree on.

IOW, you are not willing to allow your faith in your interpretation of the bible to be exposed to the facts.

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

What about your faith in God? It may be your interpretation of the bible cannot withstand the truth. But do you honestly think that God cannot?

Ahh...is this something akin to the Jack Nicholson movie "A Few Good Men" when he says: I'm paraphrasing, "The truth, you can't handle the truth" Look, I'm not sure what you're saying here so I can't comment directly. However, I'll just say this, the truth is all that matters to me.

After all, anything that is true is already known by God to be true, no? So, if evolution is true, that is not a surprise to God.

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

 

[SBG]

In the beginning was the WORD. The Logos, the "Wisdom". We know that the actual text of our Scripture was not there in the beginning, so it can not be referring to the Scripture itself. It is referring to God's Truth, of which (as has been stated), the second person of the trinity has always been the perfect and full embodiment. Every reference to "the Word" in Scripture must be seen in that light.

That is why I always try to remember to refer to Scripture as God's Holy Scripture, or God's Holy message to us, since to do otherwise can create confusion. Yes, that Scripture IS holy because it is inspired and contains the written presentation of the message ABOUT the Truth, Wisdom and Logos of God. In that way, it can be called the "Word" in an important sense, but we must keep in mind that it is a presentation of the Word, not simply the Word in and of itself.

I still think it is appropriate to call Scripture the "Word of God", but only with the proper understanding of these issues.

Everyone has yet to explain why Jesus is called the Word. Why not just refer to Jesus as Jesus, why use the word 'Word?' John has specific meaning to this, that seems to confound the TEs and many others.

TEs complain and get disgruntle when anyone says the Bible is God's Word. Worse yet, they will call anyone who says this, Bible idolators. Yet, they have no grounds to do so, other than their own ignorance. If you simply cannot understand, say so, and it will be explained. Why the stone throwing of accusations and assumptions? You claim YECs break the first commandment, yet anyone who breaks any commandment, breaks them all.

Do the people here not understand what is written in the Bible, what it teaches? It teaches of God. It explains who God is, in a way men can understand. Not everything of God is written, but what we need to know is. For if all things of God was written, the universe could not contain what is written.

Why treat what God gave us, what we need to know and understand, as something we don't need to know and understand? Why claim, we need not believe God meant us to understand it literally - all because of science?!?! Are you people that much lead by two masters that you must divide the truth in two, what you need to believe, what you don't need to believe?

The Bible is this: God's message to mankind, His perseverance of man, His mercy, grace, forgiveness, righteousness, and His just-ness. It tells us who God is. And now, you want to teach that the Book God wrote through human hands, is not as truthful as God Himself, even though it tells us who God is? That equating all these things that God is with God Himself is....idolator.

Not one person here in the YEC camp worships the binding or the pages. And you all know this. Yet, you will accuse us all, anyways.

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

 

[Vance]

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

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

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

Even all of us who agree on the three points mentioned above should not assume that our understanding of Scripture is what is absolute truth. We should be SEEKING to determine what Scripture is saying, but always with the understanding that we can be wrong. We are fallible human beings. We need to be humble, and follow Augustine in his commentary on Genesis:

"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture. "

and

"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."

When Christians look to science to help explain the HOW and WHEN of God's Creation, it is not IN THE LEAST a disbelief of Scripture, or an attempt to seek a greater source of wisdom. It is seeking clarification of something obscure in Scripture. Something that is NOT plain. It is only the modern mind that has come to see the Creation accounts as somehow a clear and unambiguous statement of the HOW and WHEN of Creation.

 

[gluadys]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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

it is a much more complex metaphor than this.

God speaks into existence the world.
Jesus is the Logos that existed before the foundation of the world and is the means whereby the Creator creates.
The Father proposes the Son disposes, as the aphorism states.
Jesus is first as the Creative Word and the Scriptures are second as the human-divine word (analogous to Jesus as human-divine) not as you imply above the opposite order.

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

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

 

[Vance]

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

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

Amen.