Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[gluadys]

A good example of the important theological truths that are lost when the TE mode of interpretation is adopted.

And what theological truth do you think is lost?

That God created humanity?
That God created humanity in the image of God?
That God created humanity to live in communion with God?
That the communion God intended has been broken and we live in separation from God?
That in separation from God we stray from God's will for us and commit sin?
That we need God's grace to be liberated from sin and its effects?
That in Christ we are liberated from sin and restored to communion with God?


In summary: creation, fall, redemption.

All this I believe.

So what important theological truth has been lost?

 

[Floodnut]

He is speaking of those who choose to be ignorant. But his emphasis is not on the flood. He is speaking of those who choose to ignore the coming of God's judgment as those in the days of Noah did.

No, he is not saying they are ignorant of the judgment to come, but that they are willingly ignorant of the fact that the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. He is saying they are willingly ignorant of the global flood, a historical reality which serves to illustrate a future judgment that will be just as real, and just as universal.

 

[gluadys]

No, he is not saying they are ignorant of the judgment to come, but that they are willingly ignorant of the fact that the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. He is saying they are willingly ignorant of the global flood, a historical reality which serves to illustrate a future judgment that will be just as real, and just as universal.

That's what I said. He is speaking of those who choose to be ignorant. He is speaking of those who are willingly ignorant. Two ways of saying the same thing.

Peter, OTOH, had no choice about being ignorant of scientific facts that would not be discovered for another 1800 years.

 

[Critias]

Right.



On the contrary, I think that is very much the case and that we have seen evidence of it in our life-time.

But we do not write history that way today. Our history only records the events as seen from a human perspective with no indication of God's involvement or moral judgment.

You are right, we write history with man as the center piece instead of God. Is this what you are calling "real" history today.

Nonsense. Any anthropologist who has worked with non-literate peoples will confirm their capacity to remember masses of specific details. Their creation stories are no less detailed than those of the bible. They often commit lengthy genealogies to memory and have enough botanical and zoological knowledge to fill an encyclopedia. One of the great tragedies of our time is that we are allowing much of this knowledge to disappear without recording it, through the destruction of these cultures and languages.



There would be no need for Noah to write anything. Oral history could keep the story alive until someone was moved to write it down. Nor do I see any reason why the eventual author could not invent any details which oral history did not preserve. And I do not see why these inventions, if they exist, need to be attributed to the Holy Spirit. There is nothing about inspiration that requires the authors to limit their creativity, as long as it does not mar the theological message.

btw did you know that as we have it, the flood story is a marvel of editing in which the editor combined two separate accounts of the flood?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html

Yes, I am aware of many people stating that more than one person wrote these accounts.

Interesting that you don't think the inspired authors getting simple facts wrong is a big deal as long as He is able to get the theology correct. Does that lend to their credibility?

What makes the Holy Spirit wrong if a common cultural myth is used for teaching purposes? I really don't follow your logic here. Why does the myth have to be historically accurate in order to be used by the Holy Spirit?

The authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit passed on teachings that are wrong. This is what your position ultimately leads to.

Highly educated in Jewish theology, including its mythical cultural lore.

So Paul too is wrong, correct?

Sure. Wasn't Nebuchadnezzer inspired to destroy Jerusalem for its sins? Was not Cyrus inspired to restore the Jews to their homeland to rebuild the temple and the city? Isaiah even refers to Cyrus as "messiah". Was not Caiaphas inspired to crucify Jesus? Just because people deny the Holy Spirit does not mean the Holy Spirit cannot move them according to God's purpose. Remember the words of Joseph to his brothers? "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good."

You are changing the meaning of inspiration now. We have been talking about the Holy Spirit physically moving one to write or speak about His teachings. So, are scientists who deny Christ being moved by the Holy Spirit to tell about His teachings of creation of how God created?

We don't have proof Moses wrote anything, so how can there be proof of his method of writing? The close parallels of the biblical story to the older story indicate that it was modeled on the older version, no matter who put it into writing. And no, we have no proof of that, only the textual evidence.

Than your previously posted statement is nothing but an assertion without support.

This logic is based on so many prior assumptions which I don't accept in the first place that no answer would be relevant to the question.

Do you accept that Peter and Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you accept that they were teaching what the Holy Spirit taught them?

So? I never heard that faith has to be pure to be saving faith. Most of us don't have pure faith. Being subject to doubt from time to time is part of the nature of faith. The important thing is not that the bible is free from error but whether you trust the witness of its human authors on the essentials it tells us about God and Christ and salvation such that you rest your hope of salvation on Christ's work of atonement. If you personally need the text of scripture to be entirely free of all error before you can commit yourself to Christ, I pity you. My faith does not require that scripture meet that criterion.

By your beliefs you are creating a Bible that is like swiss cheese. We don't know what passages we can truly trust and believe in because by your admission there are many errors within. So, if you yourself cannot completely trust God's Word how are you going to lead another to trust God's Word?

And please, I do not need your pity. It is not I who is calling Peter and Paul into error as if I know more than they.

We don't know do we? We have their testimony preserved in scripture. And we don't know if it is or is not fact.

Here is the essential of faith. We BELIEVE their testimony without knowing it to be fact. We BELIEVE it is true, without knowing it is true.

Belief always implies a measure of trust in the integrity of the messenger. That trust is the essential quality of faith.

That is one of the most important marks that distinguishes faith from science. In science there is never any need to trust in the integrity of the messenger. In fact, such trust is actively discouraged. One is expected to demand evidence, and to scrutinize how a theory was arrived at, and whether its predictions align with the data.

And your belief goes hot and cold between Scripture. One passage you will believe while another you will not. You have already said Peter is wrong and ignorant. I assume you feel the same way about Paul. And if Jesus taught them what they know about creation, I assume you would call Jesus ignorant in one breath and Lord in another.

This is not logical. Why attribute human limitations to the Holy Spirit? Why do you identify inspiration with protection from human limitations?

Why do you assume that the Holy Spirit is limited by man? Can He not get His teachings across to those who believe in Him?

No, you are taking your beliefs to their logical conclusions. I do not accept your beliefs, so the conclusions you are coming to are not logical to me.

Well it is you who are calling Peter into error and ignorant. If one of his teachings is found to be in error it is quite possible that there are other teachings in error.

Right, up to this point. But the errors will be due to the inadequate knowledge base of their culture. They will not be theological or spiritual errors. They express the eternal truths revealed to them by the Holy Spirit in the concepts available to them in their time and culture. What Paul says about treasure in earthen jars is a propos here. The earthen jar of the particularity of time and culture-bound knowledge may indeed mean scripture contains errors on this level, but that does not affect the treasure of spiritual truth that it contains.

More errors for Paul? It seems you feel quite comfortable standing there calling Peter and Paul into error.

So this does not follow.

If the Holy Spirit cannot get His teachings correctly to those who yearn for them, then the Holy Spirit is fallible. That is where your own logic takes you.

I really appreciate getting answers to my questions before going on to another question. How be you ask this again after you answer my question.

Jesus was fully man and fully God. I don't believe we can truly understand what it means to be a man/woman without sin, without our bodies being corrupted by sin.

So, did Jesus contain God fully within Him or not?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Interesting that you don't think the inspired authors getting simple facts wrong is a big deal as long as He is able to get the theology correct. Does that lend to their credibility?

they are not "simple facts"
look at the verse Acts17:24 quoted in this forum
Paul uses the metaphor of blood to indicate how he and his culture viewed the transmission of characteristics from one generation to another. But we know that genetics is not blood, i am not a human being looking like my folks, nor do my children look like me because of anything in th blood. It is in the dna of the cell nucleus. Paul knew nothing of this science. Am i required to believe that blood transmits XXX between the generations? no. it is now a generalized metaphor to us, but it is not to Paul. To Paul it is his science, his knowledge of how the world works. He is wrong. period. genetics is better and more accurate way to see the real world, not the ancient science of blood.

in no way is this simple.


....

 

[Floodnut]

That's what I said. He is speaking of those who choose to be ignorant. He is speaking of those who are willingly ignorant. Two ways of saying the same thing.

Peter, OTOH, had no choice about being ignorant of scientific facts that would not be discovered for another 1800 years.

But what you were wrong about is the assertion: He is speaking of those who choose to ignore the coming of God's judgment as those in the days of Noah did.
It is not that they chose to ignore the COMING judgment, but that they choose to ignore the Scriptural Fact that the world that then was being over flowed with Water, Perished. They ignore the Judgment that HAS happened, and in a similar manner they scoff at the coming judgment.

 

[Floodnut]

We are here asking: Why not take the Scripture for what it says? TEs have said that we cannot take the account of Genesis in its plain and simple sense as being a true account of the actual creation (ex nihilo, and by fiat), and we can't take the Flood Narrative in the sense that it is intending to convey a literal worldwide flood BECAUSE science has falsified both Creation (in the normal sense of the word) as well as the global flood.
That is the reason they give, with no compunction, no guilt, no apologies. The plain and simple sense of Genesis is wrong. Peter was ignorant.

OK.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We are here asking: Why not take the Scripture for what it says? TEs have said that we cannot take the account of Genesis in its plain and simple sense as being a true account of the actual creation (ex nihilo, and by fiat), and we can't take the Flood Narrative in the sense that it is intending to convey a literal worldwide flood BECAUSE science has falsified both Creation (in the normal sense of the word) as well as the global flood.
That is the reason they give, with no compunction, no guilt, no apologies. The plain and simple sense of Genesis is wrong. Peter was ignorant.

OK.

first because it is bad hermeneutics.
the literal, as you word it "take it for what it says" hermeneutic puts my modern common sense understandings into Scripture where what is important is the ancient Hebrews ideas, not mine.
This is the big problem with the literal hermeneutic which has its origin in the American theology of the early 19thC and its battle first with deism and second with the rise of rationalism in the form of Unitarianism. The hermeneutic is wrong.

second, because your modern literal common sense notions of the universe are wrong. Science has shown that the universe is not less than 10KYA, that there never was a global Flood of the dimensions and timing of a common sense literal exegesis of Noah's flood would contend. This information must inform our understanding and interpretation just as certainly as our language studies of Ugaritic informs our word studies of Job or archeology informs our understanding of ancient Israel.

God has given us both books, one of Words, the Scripture and one of Works, the Creation. Creation can be read to show that God is Creator but it can not tell us that God is our Father, it has limitations, but those limitation have nothing to do with seeing the age of the earth or the lack of a global flood.

.....

 

[statrei]

Too many have decided to look to the Bible for directives when instead, they should be looking to it for direction. That is the only value that a book written in response to events occurring in the first century could have to men living the reality of the twenty-first century.

 

[Critias]

first because it is bad hermeneutics.
the literal, as you word it "take it for what it says" hermeneutic puts my modern common sense understandings into Scripture where what is important is the ancient Hebrews ideas, not mine.
This is the big problem with the literal hermeneutic which has its origin in the American theology of the early 19thC and its battle first with deism and second with the rise of rationalism in the form of Unitarianism. The hermeneutic is wrong.

second, because your modern literal common sense notions of the universe are wrong. Science has shown that the universe is not less than 10KYA, that there never was a global Flood of the dimensions and timing of a common sense literal exegesis of Noah's flood would contend. This information must inform our understanding and interpretation just as certainly as our language studies of Ugaritic informs our word studies of Job or archeology informs our understanding of ancient Israel.

God has given us both books, one of Words, the Scripture and one of Works, the Creation. Creation can be read to show that God is Creator but it can not tell us that God is our Father, it has limitations, but those limitation have nothing to do with seeing the age of the earth or the lack of a global flood.

.....

You know, I have explained hermeneutics here - I dunno how many times - and yet our explanations (yecs) still fall on deaf ears.

It isn't a literal hermeneutic, and I don't really know how many times I need to state this for people to understand. If you actually take a seminary or masters level theology course on hermeneutics you would have a greater understanding of the art of interpretation.

"Literal" is not a hermeneutic, its type of writing.

No matter how much anyone here wants to "change" or "alter" the meaning of Scripture, the author's message - intended meaning - still remains the same. It never changes throughout history and must be accepted no matter what point in history we are in - whether 2000 years later or 4.6 billion. If you do not accept it, you are changing the meaning of the Text and imposing your own meaning.

This forum is really like standing on a tall mountain with no one around, and you yell out "hello" and all you hear is echos. Just banging my head away on the wall....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You know, I have explained hermeneutics here - I dunno how many times - and yet our explanations (yecs) still fall on deaf ears.

It isn't a literal hermeneutic, and I don't really know how many times I need to state this for people to understand. If you actually take a seminary or masters level theology course on hermeneutics you would have a greater understanding of the art of interpretation.

"Literal" is not a hermeneutic, its type of writing.

No matter how much anyone here wants to "change" or "alter" the meaning of Scripture, the author's message - intended meaning - still remains the same. It never changes throughout history and must be accepted no matter what point in history we are in - whether 2000 years later or 4.6 billion. If you do not accept it, you are changing the meaning of the Text and imposing your own meaning.

This forum is really like standing on a tall mountain with no one around, and you yell out "hello" and all you hear is echos. Just banging my head away on the wall....

i have been to seminary and have taken several hermeneutical classes.

please inform Mark Noll that you dont like his use of the term literal in his "literal reformed hermeneutic" see _America's God_ for the best example of its usage.

My favorite hermeneutic text is _the Hermeneutical Spiral_, please inform that author G. osborne that you do not like the word literal to label the surface meaning of the words themselves before you exegete the passage.

please inform the 1480 people who use the term "literal hermeneutic" on their webpages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="literal+hermeneutic"&btnG=Search) that you don't like the term.

you might take it up with AiG which uses the term on 25 pages (http://answersingenesis.org/search/...et=iso-8859-1&btnSearchGo.x=0&btnSearchGo.y=0)

or talk to the 25K people that use the term here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=literal+hermeneutic&btnG=Google+Search)


literal is in fact the most common label for this hermeneutic, to strive to change the vocabulary of the discussion is commendable but not necessary.

until you effect such a change, and provide us with an alternative label, i'll continue to use what is a common and accepted term- literal hermeneutic to describe this phenomena-to read with modern, common sense, man in the pew, meaning resides at the level of words, unsophisticated, etc etc. hermeneutic.

if i need to be more exact and less general i always have the more specific vocublary i've learned from my reading, although that tends to confuse people who do not share it. *grin*
....

 

[gluadys]

We are here asking: Why not take the Scripture for what it says? TEs have said that we cannot take the account of Genesis in its plain and simple sense as being a true account of the actual creation (ex nihilo, and by fiat), and we can't take the Flood Narrative in the sense that it is intending to convey a literal worldwide flood BECAUSE science has falsified both Creation (in the normal sense of the word) as well as the global flood.
That is the reason they give, with no compunction, no guilt, no apologies. The plain and simple sense of Genesis is wrong. Peter was ignorant.

OK.

Actually that creation was ex nihilo and by fiat is what we agree with. These are theological statements which are not affected by scientific findings.

It is the order and timing of creation that does not bear a literal reading, because God's creation tells us that is not the way it was.

And what is the purpose of the flood narrative? Is it to tell us that the flood was world wide or to tell us that God judges human wickedness? Does the latter really require the former?

 

[gluadys]

No matter how much anyone here wants to "change" or "alter" the meaning of Scripture, the author's message - intended meaning - still remains the same. It never changes throughout history and must be accepted no matter what point in history we are in - whether 2000 years later or 4.6 billion. If you do not accept it, you are changing the meaning of the Text and imposing your own meaning.

You know, I agree with you. What I don't see you noting though is that the author's intention includes a pre-scientific world-view that simply does not jibe with the reality of creation as it has been discovered through scientific study.

The author's intention does not change. But does that really obligate us to interpret the scriptural message as if we shared his cosmology? Are we not, in fact, required to, as it were, "translate" the message, not only from Hebrew to English, but from ancient near east culture to modern American culture?

Much as missionaries translating the scripture have to devise ways to convey to tribespeoples of the Amazon or Indonesia familiar biblical concepts which have no part in those cultures. How do you convey the meaning of the 23rd Psalm to people who know nothing of sheep and shepherding?

 

[Critias]

i have been to seminary and have taken several hermeneutical classes.

please inform Mark Noll that you dont like his use of the term literal in his "literal reformed hermeneutic" see _America's God_ for the best example of its usage.

My favorite hermeneutic text is _the Hermeneutical Spiral_, please inform that author G. osborne that you do not like the word literal to label the surface meaning of the words themselves before you exegete the passage.

please inform the 1480 people who use the term "literal hermeneutic" on their webpages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22literal+hermeneutic%22&btnG=Search) that you don't like the term.

you might take it up with AiG which uses the term on 25 pages (http://answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=literal+hermeneutic&loadpage=query.html&charset=iso-8859-1&btnSearchGo.x=0&btnSearchGo.y=0)

or talk to the 25K people that use the term here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=literal+hermeneutic&btnG=Google+Search)


literal is in fact the most common label for this hermeneutic, to strive to change the vocabulary of the discussion is commendable but not necessary.

until you effect such a change, and provide us with an alternative label, i'll continue to use what is a common and accepted term- literal hermeneutic to describe this phenomena-to read with modern, common sense, man in the pew, meaning resides at the level of words, unsophisticated, etc etc. hermeneutic.

if i need to be more exact and less general i always have the more specific vocublary i've learned from my reading, although that tends to confuse people who do not share it. *grin*
....

Did you happen to notice the usage of "literal" hermeneutic? Did you notice the "" around literal?

Literal Hermeneutic is not a type of hermeneutically approach. It is a term created recently to denouce those who take passages of the Bible literally.

It is the same tactic as calling someone a literalists because they understand Genesis 1-3 to be a a historical narrative. The one making this "literalist" claim isn't even aware that a "literalist" is one who takes everything literally.

Resort to whatever tactics you wish and use what ever names make you feel good. I am pointing out that from a theological stand point that there is no literal hermeneutical approach.

 

[Critias]

You know, I agree with you. What I don't see you noting though is that the author's intention includes a pre-scientific world-view that simply does not jibe with the reality of creation as it has been discovered through scientific study.

The author's intention does not change. But does that really obligate us to interpret the scriptural message as if we shared his cosmology? Are we not, in fact, required to, as it were, "translate" the message, not only from Hebrew to English, but from ancient near east culture to modern American culture?

Much as missionaries translating the scripture have to devise ways to convey to tribespeoples of the Amazon or Indonesia familiar biblical concepts which have no part in those cultures. How do you convey the meaning of the 23rd Psalm to people who know nothing of sheep and shepherding?

For those who don't know of sheeps, shall we tell them the Bible doesn't speak of sheeps? Shall we changed the meaning of the text to suit them?

The author's meaning will never change. You can change it and make it say whatever you wish, but doesn't mean that is what the author intended to say.

And as far as what the Hebrew is saying, since Floodnut is here, I will let him cover the Hebrew language. He has had many more years teaching it than I have studying it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

For those who don't know of sheeps, shall we tell them the Bible doesn't speak of sheeps? Shall we changed the meaning of the text to suit them?

The author's meaning will never change. You can change it and make it say whatever you wish, but doesn't mean that is what the author intended to say.

And as far as what the Hebrew is saying, since Floodnut is here, I will let him cover the Hebrew language. He has had many more years teaching it than I have studying it.

actually look at it a little differently.
do we REWRITE the text, say to substitute pigs for sheep, where the only domesticated animal for this language group is pig and they know nothing of sheep? no. the text is authoritative and is fixed.

the meaning of the text is not just one level but two.
the meaning for the original readers, and the meaning to the current readers.
in this case there will be a translation problem first, because their language doesn't have the symbol "sheep", then there is an exegetical problem, what is it about sheep that each passage is trying to teach? is the meaning sheep independent? or will just any stupid herd-instinct metaphor do?
what about exegesis of the Hebraic laws of sacrifice? is a sheep required for the symbology to work?

so does the meaning change?
no but our understanding of it does.
but most importantly there are a lot of issues involved in the transmission of the Gospel into a new language and culture that are not obvious until the attempt is in process.


....

 

[Floodnut]

first because it is bad hermeneutics.
the literal, as you word it "take it for what it says" hermeneutic puts my modern common sense understandings into Scripture where what is important is the ancient Hebrews ideas, not mine.
This is the big problem with the literal hermeneutic which has its origin in the American theology of the early 19thC and its battle first with deism and second with the rise of rationalism in the form of Unitarianism. The hermeneutic is wrong.

second, because your modern literal common sense notions of the universe are wrong. Science has shown that the universe is not less than 10KYA, that there never was a global Flood of the dimensions and timing of a common sense literal exegesis of Noah's flood would contend. This information must inform our understanding and interpretation just as certainly as our language studies of Ugaritic informs our word studies of Job or archeology informs our understanding of ancient Israel.

God has given us both books, one of Words, the Scripture and one of Works, the Creation. Creation can be read to show that God is Creator but it can not tell us that God is our Father, it has limitations, but those limitation have nothing to do with seeing the age of the earth or the lack of a global flood.

.....

Like I said, you reject the straight forward reading of the account because science has declared that reading to be incorrect.

 

[Floodnut]

You know, I have explained hermeneutics here - I dunno how many times - and yet our explanations (yecs) still fall on deaf ears.

It isn't a literal hermeneutic, and I don't really know how many times I need to state this for people to understand. If you actually take a seminary or masters level theology course on hermeneutics you would have a greater understanding of the art of interpretation.
* * * * *
This forum is really like standing on a tall mountain with no one around, and you yell out "hello" and all you hear is echos. Just banging my head away on the wall....

Critias, they know exactly what a hermeneutic is, but they want to paint YECs as lunatics who think that everything is to be taken literally. They keep repeating the same tired old dodges and evasions to escape the fact that they deny the plain and simple sense of narrative passage, and to escape the fact that this the the sense of writing intended by Moses, and to escape the fact that this is how it was taken by Jesus and the Apostles.
The TEs don't want to be rejected by "thinking men and women," by the scientists of the world. They don't want to offend them.
I have written things over and over, just like over and over the Bible affirms the literalness of the Flood. The TEs just choose to ignore what we are saying just like they choose to ignore what the Scriptures are plainly saying.
They then engage in all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics and twist the Scripture to make them say what ever they are comfortable with.
In the same way Evolutionists twist the revelation of nature to come up with a doctrine that is contrary to the infallible revealed truth of God in the inerrant word.
They cannot be trusted with Scripture and they cannot be trusted with the revelation of nature. They will always come up with the lie of evolution. Not that they are lying mind you, they are the victims of the lie. If they really don't know that what they are saying is false then they are not liars, just deluded.
But at least they stubbornly continue to disregard the studied findings of Science and continue to believe in the Gospel, that Christ was crucified for our sins, and that he was buried and rose bodily. If they could not reject science and believe this reality they would be unsaved.
I don't know how they do it, but I am glad they are my brothers and sisters even if they are deluded and ignornat as Paul and Peter have declared.

 

[gluadys]

Like I said, you reject the straight forward reading of the account because science has declared that reading to be incorrect.

And what is wrong with that? Why assume that what you call the straight forward reading is the correct reading?

This, after all, is nothing new for Christians.

When Isaiah told King Ahaz that a young woman would bear a son and call him Emmanuel, the straight forward reading is that he is speaking of a young woman known to the king who is already pregnant, and that before that child has the capacity to "choose the good and refuse the evil" the military threat the king is facing will have melted away.

But ever since Matthew wrote his gospel, Christians have been reading that text with a very different meaning. Does that make Matthew and his readers wrong?

 

[SackLunch]

Why not take the bible for what it says? Well, you go tell everyone that your God kills children.

You obviously don't really know what Christianity is about. To find out the real story, click here.