Why a literalist presumption?

[vossler]

Yet John's gospel identifies the Word of God with Christ. How do you deal with that?

Here are some additional reasons I would give for not considering the bible and the Word of God absolutely identical:

The Word is eternal.
The bible had a beginning.

The Word is an active creative agent which brought the universe into being.
The bible came into being within the universe.

The Word was given to the prophets directly, not through a written document.
For much of human history there was no bible or only portions of the bible.


So how can the bible be identical with the Word?

I think the posts previous to this explain my position. If they don't you're more than welcome to inquire further.

Now if you had stopped at "from the dirt" without adding "fully formed" I would agree this is what the bible says. I don't see "fully formed" in the bible, so I don't know that that is what the bible says. And there is still the question of literal vs. non-literal readings.

So how do you see this process playing out? God used some dirt and, as a metaphor, planted a human embryo of sorts into a pot (earth) and grew him into existence? I'm not trying to be funny or disrespectful, I really don't know how TEs see this.

I don't fear death either. But I would believe the evidence that the asteroid would strike.

This evidence would be contrary to Biblical prophecy, how do you account for that?

No. I am asking you how you know their testimony is reliable.

It says so in God's Word (That's the Bible for all you TEs ).

You are confusing the results of the poll with the process of the poll. When a poll is accurate, that means it has accurately measured the opinions of those sampled. It doesn't mean the opinions are right. So in your example, you are right that even 100% opinion in favour of a flat earth would not make the earth flat. But the poll would still be accurate, because it is not deciding if the earth is flat, but measuring how many people believe this.

O.K. I'm with you, now bring this back to creation, I've lost the context. Sorry!

Since the point of science is to discover the truth about nature and its processes, whenever it discovers such truth, it is being accountable to the absolute truth of God's Word.

Even if it runs contrary to how the God's Truth is being taught and most Biblical hermaneutics?

If that is not evident to you, it is probably an indication that you haven't read the bible correctly.

I pray each day for wisdom and understanding. Maybe I just don't have the same mental capacity to understand the evidence. Yet, God said: 1 Corinthians 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Maybe there is still hope for me!

 

[Vance]

"Even if it runs contrary to how the God's Truth is being taught and most Biblical hermaneutics?"

First of all, God's Truth is being taught both ways. It is not as if fundamentalist, Creationist teaching is all that is out there. Second, don't rely only on what fallible human men are teaching you about what Scripture says. Third, most Biblical hermaneutics throughout history have not been based on "fundamentalism", and the strict literalism that came with it, which is a product of about 100 years ago. Look at what the early fathers taught to get an idea of how diverse the hermaneutics were even just a couple hundred years into things.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, remember, Augustine was actually talking about the Genesis creation accounts when he described some Scripture as obscure and unclear. And he was much brighter than either of us! :0) A vast amount of the church doctrine taught by your preachers is based on what he thought, and yet he found Genesis so unclear that he also said it is folly to cling to one interpretation too strongly.

I haven't studied Augustine so I can't comment on what he was advocating or not. From what little I do know of him, he was certainly brighter than me; but then again the same could be said for most of you here.

I can definitely understand your feeling that you would need confirmation by the Spirit before you would accept a non-literal reading of these Creation accounts. As long as you accept the fact that many of us are deeply at peace with the idea already precisely because the Spirit HAS given such confirmation.

Without a doubt I can accept this!

As for this thread, it has been all over the place, but most recently the discussion has been over whether Scripture is speaking of, well, Scripture, when it uses the term "Word". Very often people will point to verses in Scripture talking about the "Word" and equate that with Scripture when it was almost assuredly not intended that way.

I'm not aware of a specific example that meets this description, but I'm not challenging the validity of your claim.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I understand what you saying, but I don't think you have to conclude that if something is being physically described that it cannot be literally true.

SBG, do you see how you twisted what I said? I said: "Is it using physical imagery to describe something spiritual? If so, it's probably figurative." You leave out the "to describe something spiritual" and "probably" part and claim I'm saying all physical descriptions aren't literally true. Obviously, I don't believe that. It is when spiritual things (things we can't physically see this side of eternity) are described in physical terms that the physical imagery is probably figurative.

This kind of tactic is very frustrating. You are not responding to what I say, but rather twisting what I say and then responding to a caricature of it.

Or could have God spoken only to that individual, and only that individual could have heard God? And if that only individual could hear God, does this mean that God did not speak to the prophet?

No, the speech does not have to be physical, literal speech in order for it to be true that God spoke to the prophet. This is what many of us have been saying all along. It is true that God spoke the universe into being regardless of what form beyond our imagination that speaking took. It is true that God breathed life into Adam regardless of what God's breath really means and what Adam represents. Taking things symbolically or metaphorically does not mean claiming these things are false.

[...] When God speaks to the universe, he is causing the universe to obey his will. I think tying this to an audible voice is as limiting as tying God speaking to us to a voice box. The truth of the metaphor does not depend on actual sound waves.

God can speak to us in many different ways, whether audible for all to hear or only so that we can hear, no matter how close another stands next to you. Are you suggesting that God can only speak if it is audible for all to hear?

My answer is in the text you were responding to. "I think tying this to an audible voice is as limiting as tying God speaking to us to a voice box. The truth of the metaphor does not depend on actual sound waves." Obviously, I am not suggesting God's speech needs to be physically audible.

I believe that this discussion has become sidetracked on this point because of my statement that the method of creation was God speaking it into being, not evolution.

Since you apparently accept that God's speaking was not sound waves and did not need to be anything else physical, you pretty much read it the same way TEs do. As such, it doesn't rule out evolution. God commands the world to bring forth life and the world obeys. Evolution and other natural processes describe how it obeys.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I'm not aware of a specific example that meets this description, but I'm not challenging the validity of your claim.

Many apply John 17:17 exclusively to the Bible, even though when Jesus' entire prayer is read, it is apparent that both "Scripture" and "your word" are mentioned, and they are not the same thing.

 

[invisible trousers]

If this was to me, you mind pointing to where I said this? This is serious misrepresentation if someone did not say what you have quoted.

Gladly! Fish in a barrel, my friend. Fish in a barrel.

All these quotes are from you. Each is from a different post unless marked by {}.

Yet, TE's take the approach of us revealing to God. It is theologically and simply, wrong.

We [YECs] don't spout off man created theories, but rather the True Word of God found only in His Word.

Once the Word has been planted, Satan comes and takes it away. It is no wonder to this YEC why I see what I do. Satan said, did God really say you would die, to Eve. So Satan says today, does God really tell you how you came to be. He hasn't changed at all, he has just accumulated more followers.

{That is not what I said. I don't think you [Vance] are being honest about what the Bible says. I also think you are leading people astray. I also think you are a false teacher. But, I am sure you believe everything that comes out of your mouth.

Your teachings do not harmonize with God's Word, in fact they fall directly in contradiction with God's Word on numerous teachings other than creation and the flood. Let me point to what the Apostle John said about false teachers:}

Vance does not follow and listen to the Apostles teachings, such as Peter speaking of a global flood, or Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit.

If you do not view Adam as a real person, first man to live, literally fell from God's Grace as Genesis 3 teaches, then you will not truly understand Paul's teaching of Jesus Christ.

For all these reasons, stated above, I have called and do call you a false teacher. You do not submit to the Spirit's Authority in these matters. You rather turn to the sayings and teachings of men, thus carrying them above what the Spirit has to say. Let it be known that these matters are not about computers or some random thing of science, but rather the things taught by God's Word that science says cannot be true, as God has written it to be.

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

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.

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....?'

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?

{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.}

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.

We [YECs] 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.

{I have seen Vance refute what the Bible says. You all simply try to cover this up by saying it is the interpretation you are refuting. But when verses are presented and you say the same thing, it is clear you are refuting God and His Word.

How far do you feel you need to go? Why do you desire destruction?}

I see. Next you will claim Paul spoke of a mythical Jesus. You clearly show you have no respect for the teachings within the Bible.

You truly show that you are more concerned with scientific teaching than the Biblical teaching. Science won't do you one bit of good on judgement day.

{You are dimissing it, if you do not agree with what is written. The Bible teaches Adam is the first man, you deny this. Paul teaches Adam brought death(physical and spiritual) into the world as a result of his sin. You deny this.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ embodied the Godhead fully, as He was here on earth. Many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ rose from the dead, many Christians deny this.

If you deny anything that is written, in God's Word, you are dismissing it. You are deny what Jesus Christ says.}

{I see post like, Genesis is wrong, by TEs.
...
They respond, well Genesis is wrong, even Christians admit this
...

TEs destroy Biblical reliablity for non-believers. }

Would rather I just be quiet, and let people teach that Jesus wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit, Genesis is wrong, etc.

God has laid this heavy upon my heart that I do not have a choice but to speak out on these things.

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.

{What I am telling you(not as an authority), is that when Jesus says He is the way and the truth, that is what Jesus is and it is equal to who He is.

What TEs say is that that is not equal to who Jesus is.}

And to say the Bible does not record literal history [misrepresented te view] is an insult to the Almighty God.

As I said, TEs do not treat God's Word with care, as it is painfully clear here with what Didaskomenos has said.

{This is why [Vance] you are a false teacher. You purposely mislead people to believe the wrong things about God, that God speaks to only the sophisticated...

This goes against what the Bible teaches about the unwise making the wise foolish.}

Why do so many TEs not give God's Word better care?

As I said, are you going to deny what the Psalmists says about God because it is poetry? Are you willing to believe God?

So if you claim you do treat the Bible with care, why do not believe what God says about this?

See what I mean? This isn't just a little here and little there, but systematic statements uttered by you and others that easily prove what I said.

Although your questionable scripture interpretations are an issue (which have been addressed by people with much more insight than I could possibly have), the more important issue is the extent of YEC hubris where they believe their interpretation is the only correct one, and other christians who question it do not believe in God.

This is asinine. Seriously. None of us TEs are questioning the spirituality of those who have different interpretations than us. None of us are claiming to have God behind us when we call you false prophets--if any of us even have that in this thread. None of us are claiming that you don't believe in God if you disagree with our interpretation of scripture. None of us are telling you that you aren't christian because you disagree with us.

We're just astounded that a group of christians can have such a unconsistent interpretation of scripture and then have the gall to accuse other christians (who don't share their views) to be non-believers and against God.

How are we supposed to draw non-believers to Christ when they see a borderline fanatic group of a christians who are the central source of strife between our religion and the rest of the world?

 

[SBG]

This is what I like to see. As we continue the conversation, we challenge each other to clarify our statements, and we find there is less of a difference that there seemed to be based on initial positions. Not that there is no difference, but I sense a rapprochement.

I agree.

Yes. That audience being mostly Gentile Christians of the 1st century who would be more familiar with the thought of Plato than with the Hebrew scriptures. John is borrowing what they are familiar with (the concept of Logos) to explain to them who Jesus is. At the same time, he is changing the concept of Logos to bring it closer to the Judaic understanding of the Word of God, and away from the pagan Platonic understanding. Plato would have been scandalized by the idea of Logos becoming flesh.


In fact, the controversies that shook the Church in the first 3-5 centuries often have their root in the scandal of the Incarnate God. Docetism, adoptionism, Arianism, etc are all attempts to avoid this scandal by suggesting that Jesus was either not fully God or not fully man.

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

Plato was aware of the Old Testament, for he tried to refute some of it teachings, like the global flood. Plato argued that it was not global, but rather local. Following in the tradition of Plato most all Greek philosophers argued against a gobal flood, except for one. Xenophanes believed in a universal flood, but different than what is recorded in the Bible. If you read some of Tertullian's works, you will see that he refuted Plato and those who followed his teachings on this subject(flood), creation, and the earth being young.

So it is a mistatement to say the Greeks were not really aware of the Old Testament teachings. Granted they were not as indoctrinated as the Jews, but even the Greeks borrowed from Jewish philosophy. Also, Xenophanes was the first one to explain the fossils found on hills and mountains, by periodic flooding by the sea. His argument was quite a stretch, but he did at least attempt an explanation while his contemporaries denied them.

Yes, this is phrased much more moderately than your earlier statements. This I can accept.

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

I believe we agree on this. If we are wanting to understanding John and what he means in verse 1 of his book named after him, we must look at why he called Jesus the Word and not something else.

The Word refers to the written word - Old Testament - that speaks of who God is. John makes it very clear that the God spoken of in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ Himself by refering to Jesus as the Word. John takes this a step further to describe that this One, the Word, is the Living Word, for He came in the flesh to redeem mankind. I see John making the God of the Old Testament a much more personal God, in Jesus Christ.

John sums up verse 1 saying Jesus is God. Jesus affirms that the Old Testament speaks of Him. John teaches this in a simple and sweet verse.

The Greeks weren't the only ones who read John's book either. They were the ones the Book is addressed to, but the Jews read it as well. And the Jews would have understood this comparison and announcement of who Jesus is.

Here, I would differ. I don't think Jesus is necessarily referring to scripture, although his reference would include scripture. The Word of God is a larger concept than scripture. IOW, one can say that all of scripture is the Word of God, but one cannot say that all of the Word of God is scripture. There is more to the Word of God than scripture.

I do agree with this thinking, but I do think Jesus was referring to what is written in Scripture as well as to Himself. I believe this because, what is written in Scripture is about Jesus. He referred to Scripture that refers to Him. If He wasn’t speaking about what is written, then Jesus wouldn’t have said, ‘it is written…’ It is like a circle, Jesus speaks of what is written, which what is written speaks of Jesus. Understand what I mean?

Ah, there we do agree again. I think we can also go on again to affirm (as the bible itself often does) that creation is the Word of God in concrete, physical form. And we can add other ways in which the Word of God is transmitted to us as well. Scripture has a unique and irreplaceable function among the ways God speaks to us, but it has never been the sole means by which God speaks to us.

I agree. But this leads to our disagreement, which I think you are aware of. As you have said, creation is in a sense God’s Word, but this is not the same as the Bible. As Paul puts it, creation is so that man is without excuse of where He came from because creation points to a Creator, God. Now, the creation doesn’t say anything more than God made me and the heavens proclaim His Glory. It isn’t the heavens that are speaking, but rather the heavens were created for His Glory. The Bible further teaches that God spoke those heavens into being, through Jesus Christ for Jesus Christ. This is all for His Glory, and they don’t say anything more than that.



Creation does not speak plainly about God as the Bible does. Creation does not teach man how to receive Salvation. Creation doesn’t teach man about Jesus Christ and who He is. Creation doesn’t build one’s faith. Creation doesn’t teach one the way of righteousness. Creation simply declares the Glory of God, that’s it. Evolution takes this Glory from God in my point of view. Instead, it focuses on man, instead of God. You may say this is rightly so, I disagree. Creation is to declare God’s Glory, which is what the Bible teaches. It is not to declare man’s glory or anything about man.



Too much focus is on man, here on earth. You realize we don’t even come to faith on our own. We could not come to Jesus on our own; we are too sinful and weak to do so. Faith is a gift from God, not our gift to God. All we can do is what Jesus said many times, ‘He who has an ear let him hear.’ Jesus further affirms this after many disciples left Him after He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His Blood. He turned to the disciples and said, “See, I chose you, you didn’t choose me.” We have no power of our own to choose Jesus. We are too rebellious against Him because of our sinful nature. Our flesh wars against God, the Bible teaches this.

That may be true for many in our generation. But it begs the question of how people learned who God is before there were any scriptures. How did the writers of scripture learn who God is, so that they could tell us?

For the Old Testament times, Moses and the Prophets told of God. Adam began telling his children about God, because Adam did walk with God in the garden, probably much like we will in heaven.



God never hid Himself from man. He has actively been pursuing man since the fall. He has used people to bring His message to others. He spoke with people like Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, Micah, etc. They had real experiences with God. God never abandoned us and still has never abandoned us. It has always fallen onto us if we will listen. If we give an ear, He will do the rest and lead us. But we must keep listening to His voice, not someone else’s voice. We do this today by believing and following what is written, what Moses and the Prophets were given by God to tell all. What Jesus told His disciples to tell all nations. Satan will use whoever to rise up against what is taught in the Bible. He always counters God’s Word. The Bible teaches that when the Word of God is planted in the hearts of men, Satan is there to come and take it away.



It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or not, we can all be led astray. Even the elect can fall from what it was taught. Paul vigorously wrote to the Churches to stop their falling away. Jesus said to Peter once, ‘stand behind me Satan.’ Satan leads us all astray, everyday. We give into, unknowingly and knowingly, to his temptations because we are already corrupt, because we are fallen and weak. Those who think this cannot happen to them are the most vulnerable and are already being lead astray.

It is interesting that you focus on a chronological "before". You are right, but I would also say that it is incorrect to put the bible before God or Jesus logically and theologically as well as chronologically.

I don’t think that is being done. I think we have many debates here and people take things the way they were not meant to be taken. I know I am guilty of this. And we are commanded to think better of each other. We are also to admonish one another, not to prove that we know more, but out of love for one another. For God disciplines those He loves.



This is not about the Bible being before Jesus or God. This is about the Bible telling us about Jesus and God. These are true messages of our Lord and Savior. Are we not to treat these messages carefully and also follow what we are told from what is written? And if one learns from the Bible that Jesus is the only way, and this one accepts this from the Bible, does this make them a Bible idolater? Does it make one a Bible idolater if they follow the messages written within the Bible rather than what the world teaches? Am I Bible idolater because I follow what is written when it says God created the world and everything in it in six days? You may think I am wrong, but do you also think I am worshipping the Bible because I follow what it says?



If this is what you think, then you cannot agree that when we read God’s Word, this is when God speaks to us. I say this because the Bible was not in the hearts or minds of men, but in God. And God gave these teachings to these authors to write to minister to all people. To tell all people about God, to give all people a way to train them in righteousness and strengthen them in their faith. And if we take the Bible for it what it says, we are then called idolaters. I think this is rather unfair and it does border on the line of persecution.



I say this because Jesus told His disciples, the world will hate you because of Me. They don’t hate us because we love Jesus Christ; they hate us because we follow what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. And yet, there are some Christians who will call other Christians idolaters because they do follow what is written about Jesus Christ. Because we do take the Bible as if God is speaking to us.



I am hoping you can realize that because we follow what God tells us in the Bible, we are not worshipping the pages or exalting the bindings. We are worshipping the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Righteous One, for He loves us so much that He has made His Words remain in this world as He said He would. So that we may learn about Him, come to know Him, and follow Him.



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

Sorry. I should have specified that John would not recognize his own gospel as scripture as he was writing it. (Or indeed at any time during his life.) Just as Paul would not think of his letters as scripture. It was only when many documents were being circulated in the churches, some of poor quality, some heretical, some complete fabrications, as well as those that were sound historically, morally and theologically, that there was a felt need to delineate those that were genuine scripture from those that were not. It was only then that these writings began to be recognized as scripture.

I agree that they may not have viewed what they wrote as Scripture, at the time. I do think that they knew they were writing under inspiration of God. That seems very clear to me, by what they wrote and believed.



The apocryphal is stilled used within the Catholic Church. The Protestants do not use it mainly because of skeptism and because what is written in those is also stated throughout the Bible we use now. I do think there may be some validity to what is written within those books, but that is a debatable subject.



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

 

[SBG]

The Word is Jesus; Jesus is the Word incarnate. For that reason, scripture describes Jesus as the Word. Let's keep things in order here. The fact precedes (both chronologically and logically) the teaching about the fact. The way you are phrasing it above almost suggests that Jesus is the incarnation of scripture, rather than the incarnation of the Word of God. I don't think you meant that (at least I hope you didn't), but it is the sort of tangle one gets into when the Word of God is limited in meaning to the written word.

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



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

I was not thinking about the physical construct of the book, but about its content, its message, what the authors wrote. I disagree in part with what you say above. The bible is not the Living Word; it is a collection of writings which testify to the Living Word. The Living Word is the spoken Word of God by which all things were created and which was given to the prophets for the guidance of God's people. The Living Word is the Son of God who appeared in flesh among us. The bible points us to the Living Word. It is not itself an incarnation of the Living Word, but a vehicle or medium that presents us with the Living Word. This is the sense in which the bible can also be called the Word of God. But we always need to keep the larger reality in mind, which lies behind this designation.

I disagree with the first part of what you are saying. The Bible is in fact from God. Men did not come up with these teachings. The Bible is not a product of man. Man penned the Bible, but what is contained within the Bible is from God. And if those messages and teachings within the Bible are from God, not man, then it is God’s own Word. God’s Word is Living because it is active in the hearts of men/women. When you read the Bible and learn something new, does it convict your heart? Do you attribute that to the person who penned it, or God who gave it?



When you first learned you were a sinner, where did this concept come from? Whether someone told you or you read it from the Bible, isn’t this message still from God? Does God’s Word ever move you? If so, it is not the words or the paper that moved you, but the realization that God has spoken to your heart, which makes it the Living Word.



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



Do you understand what I mean?

I am not at all suggestig a separation of what God says from what God is. I am suggesting a distinction between God's Voice and the bible. God's Voice, God's Word, as I said above, is a larger concept than the bible. Because when all is said and done, the bible is still a book and there is no way that any book can contain the whole of God or of God's Word. By its very nature a book (and I mean that in the full sense of the term, not just paper pages) is limited and can only say so much. God & God's Word are not limited/cannot be limited to the dimensions of a book.

The most important things we need to know about God and about ourselves are the subject of the bible. But we need to listen for God's Word when it is given to us in other media besides the written word as well. Otherwise, we will have only a written word and not the Living Word in all its fullness.

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



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



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



Did I do a better job at making this clearer?

 

[SBG]

Why can God's Word not be evolution?

How fast is evolution?

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

Why?

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

Note that no one is claiming that the bible never records literal history. Nor is anyone claiming that all the bible is literal history. Since the bible clearly contains passages that are literal history and passages that are not, and everyone agrees to this, how is it an insult to God to say that some passages of the bible are not literal history?

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

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

If God chooses to inspire David to write songs, is it an insult to God to say they are songs? If God chooses to inspire Paul to write letters or John to write an apocalypse, is it an insult to God to say that is what they wrote?

No it is not. Remember this discussion is on Genesis. When the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it, in six days, and you say no He didn't, you don't find that to be rebellious? To tell God, when He tells you what He did, that He did not do it.

If God chooses to inspire a biblical author to write fiction, such as the story of Job may be, is it an insult to God to say it is fiction? And, if God inspired a writer to compose a mythical account of creation, how is it an insult to God to identify it for what it is?

I wouldn't assume Job is fiction. I can see many doing the same things Job did, only they are doing them today.

I believe the creation account is very clear that it is a literal event. The writing does not suggest or resemble the Psalms. I do agree there are figures of speech within the creation accounts, but it is not all a figure of speech or a myth. I believe God knew that one of our biggest wonders would be, how did we get here. And He plainly told us, and so many turn and say to Him, no you didn't.

Why should we insist that God communicate with us only in the form of literal history?

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

But who here is questioning the integrity of God's Word?

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

Don't assume. In the case of some of these my only honest answer would be "I don't know." In the case of others my honest answer would be "This is what I believe to be true." Does that mean I can affirm it is literally, objectively true? No. I walk by faith here, not by sight. So even if I do believe it is literally true, my belief does not make it so. I could be wrong.

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

I am different than this. I am very deeply convicted that God is real. I have not second thoughts that what is written within the Bible is from God. I have no reservations about believing what is written. I have been broken at my knees and built up in His Word that I do not question when bad things happen to me that God is doing something good for me. All of the questions I asked, I am deeply convicted that they are true.

There are still many teachings within the Bible that I am unsure of their meanings, but what I have been taught, I am deeply convicted of.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am aware TEs are mostly skeptics.

what is the opposite of skeptical?
gullible? naive?

i have spent the better part of 2 months reading sermons from the antebellum South. Their passion, their Biblical basis, their conviction that they are doing God's work, their certainity that God is on their side, all lead me to a certain skepticism whenever i see the same passion, the same arguments, the same principles. I find this a healthy and historically aware skepticism, so thanks, skepticism is a label i think i like.

..

 

[Marshall Janzen]

How fast is evolution?

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

You're twisting a verse that speaks of certainty and inferring that it speaks of timing.

When God says something, that's all it takes for it to happen. That does not mean it happens immediately. When God told Abram, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing" (Genesis 12:2), this is all it took for Abram to know it would happen. But, it did not happen immediately.

A bit later God told Abram that "a son coming from your own body will be your heir" (Genesis 15:4b). Again, this didn't happen immediately, and in fact Abram got a bit impatient waiting. But, Abram should have known that, as Psalm 33:9 says, when God speaks, it will be done. It may not happen quickly, but it will be done.

Do you really think that whatever God speaks happens instantly? If so, did every prophecy spoken by God immediately come to pass? Or, do you not think that prophecies were spoken by God?

 

[shernren]

Wow. What a whole lot of posts. Let me just answer this paragraph with the core of the issue:

No YEC has ever tried to say and mean that all that God is is contained within the Bible. Rather we say, what God wants us to know about Him is contained within the Bible.

Question: does God need us to know that He created the heavens and the earth in 144 hours? Or, just that He created the heavens and the earth? TEs believe that the portion of God's word we are talking about here is only meant to tell us that God created the world and why. Is that so wrong? Why?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Question: does God need us to know that He created the heavens and the earth in 144 hours? Or, just that He created the heavens and the earth?

No, it's important to go beyond believing God created the world and also accept that he did it in 144 hours, just as it's important to go beyond believeing God is sovereign over natural events like weather and also accept that he stores snow and hail in storehouses (Job 38:22-23).

Separate the claim from the imagery and you're doubting God and denying the Bible.

[/sarcasm]

 

[gluadys]

I think the posts previous to this explain my position. If they don't you're more than welcome to inquire further.

I would appreciate an answer to the two specific questions I asked.

So how do you see this process playing out? God used some dirt and, as a metaphor, planted a human embryo of sorts into a pot (earth) and grew him into existence? I'm not trying to be funny or disrespectful, I really don't know how TEs see this.

I am trying not to laugh. It just strikes me that it is so hard to get out of a literalist mindset, that any attempt to see what a non-literalist is thinking leads to a ridiculously literalized version like this.

No, of course, this is not the way I understand this at all. I understand humanity to have been created through the process of evolution. I understand Gen. 2 to be a mythological account of creation. I don't try to fasten a one-to-one symbolism of one to the other such that "dirt"="elements of earth". That's a possible reading, but I would rather let the scriptural text alone without assigning meanings to it the author would not have understood or intended.

This evidence would be contrary to Biblical prophecy, how do you account for that?

What biblical prophecy would you be referring to?

It says so in God's Word (That's the Bible for all you TEs )

But how do you know the Bible is God's Word?

O.K. I'm with you, now bring this back to creation, I've lost the context. Sorry!

The context was the accuracy of scientific dating of the age of the universe and of the earth.

Even if it runs contrary to how the God's Truth is being taught and most Biblical hermaneutics?

You bet. Human teaching and hermeneutics is just as fallible, if not more so, than science. It is not as if our teaching about God's Truth is God's Truth or that interpretation of scripture is inspired as the scriptures are.

 

[gluadys]

The Word refers to the written word - Old Testament - that speaks of who God is.

I'll respond in more detail when I have time. But I do reject this. John presents us with a Word that, "in the beginning....was with God and was God." I cannot see that Word as referring to any written word whatsoever. As I said earlier, this sounds as if you think of Jesus as being an incarnation of scripture rather than an incarnation of God.

 

[vossler]

I would appreciate an answer to the two specific questions I asked.

O.K. here is what you asked:

Yet John's gospel identifies the Word of God with Christ. How do you deal with that?

and

So how can the bible be identical with the Word?

My previous answers to those questions were:

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

If all the wonderful preachers and pastors that I'm acquainted with have no problem with saying "Word of God" when refering to the Bible, then I'm not going to have a problem with it either.

I've stated over and over again that "Word of God" is a term or reference to the Bible.

I understand humanity to have been created through the process of evolution. I understand Gen. 2 to be a mythological account of creation. I don't try to fasten a one-to-one symbolism of one to the other such that "dirt"="elements of earth". That's a possible reading, but I would rather let the scriptural text alone without assigning meanings to it the author would not have understood or intended.

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

What biblical prophecy would you be referring to?

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

But how do you know the Bible is God's Word?

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

You bet. Human teaching and hermeneutics is just as fallible, if not more so, than science. It is not as if our teaching about God's Truth is God's Truth or that interpretation of scripture is inspired as the scriptures are.

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

 

[vossler]

Creation does not speak plainly about God as the Bible does. Creation does not teach man how to receive Salvation. Creation doesn’t teach man about Jesus Christ and who He is. Creation doesn’t build one’s faith. Creation doesn’t teach one the way of righteousness. Creation simply declares the Glory of God, that’s it. Evolution takes this Glory from God in my point of view. Instead, it focuses on man, instead of God. You may say this is rightly so, I disagree. Creation is to declare God’s Glory, which is what the Bible teaches. It is not to declare man’s glory or anything about man.

Too much focus is on man, here on earth. You realize we don’t even come to faith on our own. We could not come to Jesus on our own; we are too sinful and weak to do so. Faith is a gift from God, not our gift to God. All we can do is what Jesus said many times, ‘He who has an ear let him hear.’ Jesus further affirms this after many disciples left Him after He taught that they must eat His flesh and drink His Blood. He turned to the disciples and said, “See, I chose you, you didn’t choose me.” We have no power of our own to choose Jesus. We are too rebellious against Him because of our sinful nature. Our flesh wars against God, the Bible teaches this.

God never hid Himself from man. He has actively been pursuing man since the fall. He has used people to bring His message to others. He spoke with people like Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, Micah, etc. They had real experiences with God. God never abandoned us and still has never abandoned us. It has always fallen onto us if we will listen. If we give an ear, He will do the rest and lead us. But we must keep listening to His voice, not someone else’s voice. We do this today by believing and following what is written, what Moses and the Prophets were given by God to tell all. What Jesus told His disciples to tell all nations. Satan will use whoever to rise up against what is taught in the Bible. He always counters God’s Word. The Bible teaches that when the Word of God is planted in the hearts of men, Satan is there to come and take it away.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or not, we can all be led astray. Even the elect can fall from what it was taught. Paul vigorously wrote to the Churches to stop their falling away. Jesus said to Peter once, ‘stand behind me Satan.’ Satan leads us all astray, everyday. We give into, unknowingly and knowingly, to his temptations because we are already corrupt, because we are fallen and weak. Those who think this cannot happen to them are the most vulnerable and are already being lead astray.

I don’t think that is being done. I think we have many debates here and people take things the way they were not meant to be taken. I know I am guilty of this. And we are commanded to think better of each other. We are also to admonish one another, not to prove that we know more, but out of love for one another. For God disciplines those He loves.

This is not about the Bible being before Jesus or God. This is about the Bible telling us about Jesus and God. These are true messages of our Lord and Savior. Are we not to treat these messages carefully and also follow what we are told from what is written? And if one learns from the Bible that Jesus is the only way, and this one accepts this from the Bible, does this make them a Bible idolater? Does it make one a Bible idolater if they follow the messages written within the Bible rather than what the world teaches? Am I Bible idolater because I follow what is written when it says God created the world and everything in it in six days? You may think I am wrong, but do you also think I am worshipping the Bible because I follow what it says?

If this is what you think, then you cannot agree that when we read God’s Word, this is when God speaks to us. I say this because the Bible was not in the hearts or minds of men, but in God. And God gave these teachings to these authors to write to minister to all people. To tell all people about God, to give all people a way to train them in righteousness and strengthen them in their faith. And if we take the Bible for it what it says, we are then called idolaters. I think this is rather unfair and it does border on the line of persecution.

I say this because Jesus told His disciples, the world will hate you because of Me. They don’t hate us because we love Jesus Christ; they hate us because we follow what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. And yet, there are some Christians who will call other Christians idolaters because they do follow what is written about Jesus Christ. Because we do take the Bible as if God is speaking to us.

I am hoping you can realize that because we follow what God tells us in the Bible, we are not worshipping the pages or exalting the bindings. We are worshipping the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Righteous One, for He loves us so much that He has made His Words remain in this world as He said He would. So that we may learn about Him, come to know Him, and follow Him.

Wow! What an incredible post SBG.

A Holy Spirit inspired post if there ever was one. Thank you, thank you, thank you! These relatively few words say more than all the previous inadequate ones I've ever vainly attempted to convey here in these forums.

SBG, I'll just let you be my spokesman for all future discussions.

 

[Vance]

BTW, this thread was just cited by someone in the other forum as an example of Young Earth Creationists bashing their fellow Christians and questioning their faith. Someone was doubting Creationists actually did such a thing, and when cited to this thread, the doubter replied that he stood corrected.

 

[SBG]

Wow! What an incredible post SBG.

A Holy Spirit inspired post if there ever was one. Thank you, thank you, thank you! These relatively few words say more than all the previous inadequate ones I've ever vainly attempted to convey here in these forums.

SBG, I'll just let you be my spokesman for all future discussions.

I have only stated what is in God's Word - aka the Bible. Anything that is of good is not of me, but rather of the one who works through me, Jesus Christ. When we accept Him, He comes and lives in us. He will work through us, if we allow Him to. We allow Him to, by surrendering and listening. We cast away our previous barriers of skepticism of Him and His Word and just let Him lead.

All we have to do is listen and know we cannot do anything else, we are too weak. The closer God brings me to Him, the more sinful I see myself. I am like a rag that is the color of midnight, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ He covers up my disgrace and makes me clean. He presents me to the Father as one who is clean. These are not my doings - and someone may try and mischaracterise what I am saying here - this is all by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

I feel I have spent too much time here speaking with people who don't want to hear anything I have to say, but rather find what they can argue against. I too am guilty of this.

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

When you look to 1 Corithians 15:12-68, Paul talks of the resurrection of the body. He speaks how Jesus Christ was physically resurrected and says this death came into the world by one man, Adam. Here in this forum, this teaching is denied.(1 Corin 15:20-22) They say it is only a spiritual death, but was Christ only spiritually resurrected? Of course not. If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, all hope is lost, we are the ultimate of fools.

John says, if people don't teach as we do, you know they are not of God. I am convicted of all these things. I cannot hid, for God sees everything. I know there are people lost who are reading this, man does not have the answers, the only answer is in Jesus Christ and His Word - The Bible - given to man to know, learn and follow Jesus. There is only One Truth, Jesus Christ and everything that comes from Him.

Jesus' teachings - in the whole Bible - are not fallen, this world and everyone in it is. And therefore we cannot trust the world or all of us in it to speak of complete truth. This is why we must check everything against Scripture to see if it is truth.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I see. So are you saying what is written in Psalms cannot be true, since it is poetry? Or can we treat it as truth? And if we can, can we take statements about God to be factual? How about when the Psalmists calls God Holy, can we trust this to be true? Or when the Psalmists says God punishes the evil doers, can we trust this to be true? Can we believe the Psalmists when says God is a merciful God? How about all the other characteristics the Psalmists describes God as, can we trust them to be truthful? Such as, God is Holy, God is just, God is righteous, God is merciful, God is loving, God is kind, God good to His people.... Can we trust these?

Of course we can treat it as truth. My very point is that if we find nothing else in the Bible, we find the truth of God (theological truth)! And that is enough. Knowing how long ago the earth was created or its shape does not influence our faith in the Savior. It does call into question faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

When Revelations says Jesus will come again, can we treat this as truth, even though it is apocalyptic?

Do you have no understanding of what literary genres are for? They are not to make whatever is written untrue, but to present it using different sentence structures, literary devices, and vocabulary.

Really, ancients didn't do history? Have you seen the findings in Ur, Lagash, Accad, Jemdet Nasr, Obeid, Nineveh, Nippur, Babylon? There countless books there about history and many other subjects, including science. Have you seen the Weld Prism? It contains the names of 10 pre-flood kings, yes literal kings. Sounds like recorded history, you know what you claim they didn't do.

Have you seen the Hammurabi's Code? It contains writings on admin of Justice, Taxes, Wages, Interest, Money-lending, Property, disputes, marriage, partnerships, public works, canal building, care of canals, regulations regarding passenger and freight service by canal and caravan, international commerce, and many other subjects. Sounds like they were a bit more well-developed then you or any TE will credit them for.

In Ur, history texts were found, dated to the time of Abraham.

But, you can remain willfully ignorant and say these aren't true, even though they are archaeological facts.

I'm astounded that you believe everything in those Ancient Near Eastern sources. Those sources are the ones that give many thousand year lifespans to kings, and trace the divine ancestry of those kings, and blend mythology with actual occurances (which you should know if you had read any of them).

I did not say that people before the Greeks did not bother to compile a record of events! I said the Greeks were the first to attempt "pure history". This is history without any motive other than telling the story, without the embellishment and hyperbolic devices used by the ANE cultures you mentioned. The genre itself in earliest times was motivated by themes and bias, not simply "just the facts, ma'am." History was only as useful as it was relevant and meaningful. Embellishing aspects of the facts to give more weight to the theme or meaning of the story was considered good form. Much modern history is treated thematically, but we cannot blur or fudge any aspect of any fact without our whole theme being called into question. The obvious blurring of facts in some ANE texts can be seen to problematize or falsify the whole of their theme, but because we believe that God gave us the OT, we are assured that its themes are true.

We see theological themes in all the OT historical books - for instance, who could argue that there is a thematic push in the recurring phrase of Judges, "And man did what was right in his own eyes"? I would agree that the OT historical books are historical, but not history per se. Or rather, say that they are a form of the ANE type of history. They are true in the basic facts, but for instance, the numbers of men in the armies are idealizations based upon the storytelling, and the quotations of each individual are approximations and not necessarily direct quotes. The themes are true.

If God had decided to do scientific history, it would not have occurred to the mind of the Ancient Near Easterner to evaluate it that way: why recount events unless they had meaning?

I see, so anything before Jesus Christ really isn't significant for us. I guess that is why Jesus quoted the Old Testament so much, to show it isn't significant....

When did I say it wasn't significant? We don't have time to go into the significance of the Old Testament passages (and it's off-topic), but in most cases, the significance I see is exactly the same as what you see. But you don't have to make the Bible some cosmic monolith to appreciate the truth of it. It is the only inspired document, and the only authoritative written testimony of God's truth.

And God told us in Genesis 1-2 how He created, what He created, and when, and gives this to us so we can know. And you say this isn't significant to our faith... Wow.

SBG, for Pete's sake, tell me how the "how" and "when" is significant to our faith in and of themselves? Unless our faith is in the Bible to be something it's not. The signficance is in the Who and what. God created everything. That's signficant.

God gives us His Word - the Bible - and you say that parts of what God says aren't significant to us and our faith.

Everything is significant to some purpose. Many truths are intrinsically important to our theology. But there are other truths significant in other ways. For instance, God gave us the universe. But supernovas and roaches are not significant to our faith in and of themselves. It's how God uses them to impress us with His grandeur or remind us of the dangers of latent, infectious evil that is significant.

As I said, TEs do not treat God's Word with care, as it is painfully clear here with what Didaskomenos has said.

It is true that I don't treat the Bible with kid gloves, afraid of besmirching its demigod status. On the contrary, the Bible is the Holy Scripture of God, and handling it monolithically and researching its truths without the heart, soul, and mind it deserves is infinitely more careless.