Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[Critias]

Ignorant would be the correct term. He could not have known that the flood was not global as he relied on the Genesis account and had no other. He spoke the truth as he knew it, but his knowledge was not that of scientific discovery of the evidence. It has only been within the last 300 years that we have confirmed the fact that there has never been a global flood. We should not fault biblical writers for being people of their own time speaking what they believed to be true, even though it wasn't.

Of course, if you wish to retreat into the super-natural, there could still have been a global flood, but one totally invisible to scientific inquiry and contradicted by scientific evidence.

That again, takes us into theological questions.

Then you believe Peter was ignorant to what God really did in the beginning. Basically following a cleverly invented story to tell us about God the Just but not God who actually carried out a world wide destruction. And when God brings fire to the heavens and the earth, shall it only be localized as well?

What else was Peter ignorant about? Was he ignorant about his understanding of what he saw when Jesus was transfigured before him on the Mount? Did he really hear God speaking about Jesus there, or is that more of a legend? Will there really be a day of Lord or is this more a myth with some truth, but not a future historical truth?

And Paul, was he also wrong when he taught that all men came from one man?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And Paul, was he also wrong when he taught that all men came from one man?

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.




where does it say anything about physical descent?
it talks about death and sin but nothing about physical descent, you are reading into it.
where does it say that Adam is the genetic progenitor of all of humanity?


hint: it is judical imputation not genetic transmission
....

 

[Critias]

Acts 17:24-26
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;"

 

[gluadys]

Then you believe Peter was ignorant to what God really did in the beginning. Basically following a cleverly invented story to tell us about God the Just but not God who actually carried out a world wide destruction. And when God brings fire to the heavens and the earth, shall it only be localized as well?

What else was Peter ignorant about? Was he ignorant about his understanding of what he saw when Jesus was transfigured before him on the Mount? Did he really hear God speaking about Jesus there, or is that more of a legend? Will there really be a day of Lord or is this more a myth with some truth, but not a future historical truth?

And Paul, was he also wrong when he taught that all men came from one man?

You see, this is the problem. I said earlier that Peter was not wrong theologically. You have to remember that his principle point is to speak about the judgment of God.

But you jumble together theology, mythology and science and assume that if he is ignorant and mistaken on one level he must be ignorant or mistaken on all. That is a non-sequitor.

Assuming that the flood would have to leave some physical traces of itself for future generations to find, then Peter was objectively wrong about it destroying the whole globe. But this overlooks the fact that Peter was also objectively ignorant about the extent of the globe, even about the earth being a globe.

But so what? His teaching, in which he uses the example of the flood, is not wrong. And how could he possibly be ignorant of his own experience?

Explaining that experience in words is another question. Did he actually sense air vibrations when God spoke? Or did he "hear" God on a different level of reality? I don't know and I will not guess. I expect if you pressed him on the point, Peter would say he didn't know either. Yet the experience of hearing God was real, so what does it matter?

I think you are trying too hard to fit things beyond human comprehension into a tidy world of space-time. Your questions are meaningless because the reality you are asking about doesn't fit into that framework.

 

[Floodnut]

So quite clearly here the TEs posting in this thread have declared that they do not hold to verbal plenary inspiration of the 66 books of Scripture. They do not believe that the Scriptures are infallible, so there is really no basis for further discussion with them. I would have thought that in the Christians Only section we would at least agree that the Scriptures are infallible.

Peter was not wrong and neither was Jesus, and neither was Paul, regardless of the incorrect conclusions of those who reject the Creation and the Flood as showing no evidence in the world as we see it today.

If there had been a flood we would expect to see millions of dead things buried in numerous layers at all atltitudes all over the planet, and we would expect to see some version of a flood legend in widely diverse cultures. However, until such evidence is forthcoming, we will contintue to believe the simple teaching of Jesus and his apostles that the earth was recently created.

 

[Critias]

You see, this is the problem. I said earlier that Peter was not wrong theologically. You have to remember that his principle point is to speak about the judgment of God.

And Genesis says all the men of the world were wicked. This is quite some time after Adam, and if you are claiming that there was pre-adamic man, there must have been a considerable size population then.

So did God actually punish all men but Noah and his family, or just some men? If some, then you have theological problems.

But you jumble together theology, mythology and science and assume that if he is ignorant and mistaken on one level he must be ignorant or mistaken on all. That is a non-sequitor.

Peter speaks of a world wide flood that killed all mankind but Noah and his family. This flood you claim is mythology and the teaching after Peter's statement is theology, so it is Peter who has combined the two, by your assertion. It was you who said Peter was ignorant of the historical truth of the origins and the flood.

It is Peter who says they didn't follow inventive stories, but by your claim the flood is in fact an inventive story to only speak about God's judgement not God actually carrying it within history on all mankind, who were all wicked. So, if Peter cannot get this simple historical teaching correct, can we actually trust him to get important and complex theological teachings correct?

I have no doubts that Jesus spoke of this historical fact of a world wide flood with the disciples because Jesus did talk about a time when He will come and judge and the earth will be purified by fire, just as God did with water in Noah's day.

Assuming that the flood would have to leave some physical traces of itself for future generations to find, then Peter was objectively wrong about it destroying the whole globe. But this overlooks the fact that Peter was also objectively ignorant about the extent of the globe, even about the earth being a globe.

You rely on what you see, in order to believe, about this teaching and origins. Instead of making the Bible your presupposition of truths of origins, that no man knows but God, you have chosen the route to believe and trust men who are not inspired by God.

But so what? His teaching, in which he uses the example of the flood, is not wrong. And how could he possibly be ignorant of his own experience?

I thought you said a world wide flood did not happen? Either Peter is wrong or there was a world wide flood.

Explaining that experience in words is another question. Did he actually sense air vibrations when God spoke? Or did he "hear" God on a different level of reality? I don't know and I will not guess. I expect if you pressed him on the point, Peter would say he didn't know either. Yet the experience of hearing God was real, so what does it matter?

I think you are trying too hard to fit things beyond human comprehension into a tidy world of space-time. Your questions are meaningless because the reality you are asking about doesn't fit into that framework.

Did God actually speak to the prophets of the OT or were they just making this stuff up?

If Peter is wrong about a simple historical event, then it is likely that Peter is wrong about the more complex theological teachings he gives in his Epistles. If Paul is wrong about a simple historical past of all men coming from one man, then it is likely that Paul's teachings that are more complex can be wrong as well.

And it was Jesus Christ who taught Peter and if Peter is wrong, then it is likely that Jesus was wrong as well. If Jesus is wrong, then Jesus is not who He claimed to be.

 

[gluadys]

Then, when the writer of Genesis 1 goes on to talk about what was created on what day, you don't think his intent was to say what was created on what day?

Yes, of course he did. That doesn't make his account historical if that was not his intent. Once he decided to frame the story according to a set number of days, obviously he had to assign to each day its appropriate creation events.

The framework interpretation is really just inadequate explanation. It is nothing more than trying to make modern views and ancient writing agree.

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

And there are many Christian scientists who disagree with these people. There are also over 400 resepected scientists who have signed a document stating they believe that Darwinian evolution is not the best answer we have. These are not Christian scientists either.

The statement they have signed does not say what you have said. It doesn't even mention evolution.

You said you don't see why scientists need to give God the credit for creating when they interpret the evidence. By this statement, you are supporting God not receiving the credit.

No, I have not said that. Christian scientists (and other theists) do give God credit as appropriate i.e. when they are speaking as believers. What more do you expect? Surely you are not expecting Dawkins to begin giving God credit?

You, as many here have created a statement that if six day creation and a young earth are true, God is a liar and/or deceptive.

Sometimes I really find it hard to follow your thinking. Why would it be lying to say that six day creation and a young earth are true, if they are true?
It is if they are false that it would be lying to say they are true. The evidence is very clear that they are false. The only way you can get away from that is to hold that the evidence itself is lying. And that is what creationists continually do without ever thinking through the consequences. How can that which God created be a falsehood?

With the lies that have been within science, particular one for 30 years, you want to claim that scientists don't easily trust experiments or studies?

That was not what I said. I said: Scientists don't easily trust anything that is based on only one study or one experiment.

And that is the heart of the matter I believe. Evolution's common descent's premise is wrong.

Common descent is not a premise. It is a logical conclusion based on the evidence, and in the case of observed speciation a directly observed fact.

Faith simply means trust and you do trust scientists interpretation of the evidence that claims the evolutionary theory, do you not?

No, I trust the evidence and the logic. If it didn't make sense based on the evidence I would not trust it solely on the say-so of scientists.

And that is why there are so many atheists on this board arguing against Christianity? And the atheists that have removed prayer from schools? And the atheist who is trying to have the name God removed off of all radio and tv stations? The Ten Commandments in courts? A large Cross on private property that received a court order to remove it because others could see it? I don't buy that atheist really don't care about others believing in God.

But all of those are examples of Christians trying to dominate public space and invade the right of others to believe or not believe as they will. A far cry from the modesty and humility which are the marks of genuine Christian witness.

If more Christians were willing to share public space with other faiths, extremist atheists would not find the ready hearing in the courts they do. In Canada we have no great outcry against religion in the schools and in Parliament and on the airwaves because we have developed ways to express multiple faiths in all these venues. School readings come from all the great faiths (and humanist philosophy too) not just from Christian sources. On the airways we have VisionTV providing access to Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Hindu and Sikh and Native American and various other teachings. No one is left out, so no one feels oppressed by the Christian majority. We don't argue about displaying the Ten Commandments. Instead we place the multi-faith Golden Rule poster in classrooms. A better summary of Jesus' teaching IMO anyway.

I personally don't believe in the privatization of religion which a thoroughgoing public secularism demands, but I think Christians have only themselves to blame when they refuse non-Christians a share of the public square. [/End rant].

The Words within Scripture will never pass away. Why? Because Jesus said so, those are His words that He has given to men to write about Him.

It was Jesus who said My Word will never pass away and I don't think He was speaking of Himself, but rather about His Words. Especially since He said not one jot or tittle.

Actually, Jesus was saying the precise opposite. He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until it was fulfilled. This implies that it will fade away when it was fulfilled, as it would not be needed any more.

So, are you denying that the Genesis speaks of when things were created on what day? Are you deny where God put these things that He created? Are you deny that God created by His Word, the how?

No, no and no. The first two are part of the arrangement of the story. The last is theological truth. God did create all things by his Word--for Jesus is the Word, the active agent of creation.

What was the authors purpose of each thing being created on a certain day, why not mix up the chronological order? It could have been changed and still keep a framework idea. So, why this order? What was the authors intent for this order?

You are asking questions that only the author knows. We can make some guesses, and you know what some of them are. Of course, the author could have used a different order. The author of the second account did.

I see this nothing more than when I decide I like a certain car and all the sudden I see it everywhere. I did not see it this much before I decided I liked the car, but now I see it everywhere. Point... we see what we want to see and by that we will prove what we want to prove.

Very bad analogy. You think that just because one fossil Archeopteryx shows up that seven others turn up just because we are paying more attention? I think it takes more than that to make fossils appear.

I have not claimed that a six day creation of the Bible is a modern day teaching. It is God's teaching from the days of old.

I know that. But you are also claiming that this was and is objectively true then and now. So that is a claim that it is a scientific fact today and always has been. And the evidence says you are wrong.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you for showing me how you pull Scripture out of context. We ought to be looking at this within its context.

Yes, we ought, and I am.

You seem to have missed Genesis 2:1-4. Notice what Genesis 2:1-3 says:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By thehttp://studylight.org/desk/?l=en&qu...1&new=1&nb=ge&ng=1&nnc=%A0%3E%3E%A0&ncc=1#R41 seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

I don't see how you can miss this before you read Genesis 2:4-5.

Those are the conclusion of the first account. The section I quoted is the beginning of the second account---which, btw, was written 2-3 centuries before the first account and so with no knowledge of what the first account says.

Genesis 2:4-5
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

First off, notice the phrase "in the day" we have talked about this figurative phrase that doesn't mean 1 day. It was very common at this time for one to write a brief summary of what took place and then a more detailed piece that focuses in on something more important within the brief summary. We can see this in other writings that we have from this same time period.

That does not apply in this case, given the order in which the accounts were written. Also you have to remember that no punctuation was used in ancient manuscripts. So when the editor who brought the stories together placed them as he did (more recent account first, followed by older account) there was nothing to distinguish the end sentence of the first from the beginning sentence of the second. So many versions combine them. In fact the first story ends with the words "this is the account (or "these are the generations") of the heavens and the earth." That is the summary you speak of.

Then the second account begins with "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....." Since this was written long before the first account, it is not a summary of it.

And that would be why God inspired what is written. Isaiah did not know of his own accord of the prophecies he gave. Instead God told him of these things to come. Likewise, God told the author of Genesis of times past.

It sounds as if you think inspiration is dictation. That would turn the bible into a Christian Qur'an.

And you are using modern day poetry to back up what ancient poetry is?

No, I am using poetry, both modern and ancient, to show that poetry is not always figurative, any more than prose is always non-figurative. I figured you could see the point easier if I used a modern one first.

Rather, poetry uses figurative language to get the meaning across and is not intended to be taken literally.

Not all lines of a poem are figurative. Some are intended to be taken literally.

Example would be saying I watched the sunset.

If you have ever used the phrase sun rise or sunset, then you must be a geocentrist because that is a TE claim of the Bible.

Good example. When the Psalmist uses "sunrise" and "sunset" s/he does intend the words to be understood literally. When I use them I do not intend them to be taken literally. It would be incorrect to impose my figurative use of these words on the Psalmist, since that was not the intention of the Psalmist.

But you still have not presented your claim that the Bible teaches about an earth that does not move.

Oh, I guess you missed this:

The world is firmly established: it shall never be moved. Ps. 96:10

You set the earth on its foundations do that it shall never be moved. Ps. 104: 5

You have established the earth and it stands fast Ps. 119:90

I don't see how you can equate the Bible and evolution. Evolution(common descent) is man's interpretation of the evidence. The Bible is God's teachings and we aren't even talking about an intepretation of the Bible but the Bible itself.

The text of the bible is like the evidence in nature. It is what it is and it doesn't change.

But the teachings derived from the bible are interpretations of the text just as the theories of science are interpretations of the evidence in nature.

All theories are human and fallible and changeable. And if you don't think that human understanding of what the bible teaches haven't changed over the millennia, you haven't read any church history.

I just don't see where you think you can equate man's interpretation of the earth with God's teachings of Himself and what He has done. We aren't even talking about men inspired by God within science.

That is not the equation I make. See above. And who says we are not talking about men and women inspired by God within science? I don't know that they are not inspired. Just as the contemporaries of the biblical writers did not know that they were inspired. Its not something obvious. That is why the canons of both the Old and New Testaments were the subject of decades even centuries of dispute.

 

[gluadys]

So quite clearly here the TEs posting in this thread have declared that they do not hold to verbal plenary inspiration of the 66 books of Scripture. They do not believe that the Scriptures are infallible, so there is really no basis for further discussion with them. I would have thought that in the Christians Only section we would at least agree that the Scriptures are infallible.

Do you mean infallible or inerrant? Or do you think those terms are equivalent? I do agree that scripture is an infallible guide to Christian belief and righteous living, which is the claim made by the Reformers. The doctine of verbal inspiration has never been accepted by all Christians, and the doctrine of inerrancy is a very recent creation that has never been accepted by even most Christians. So I don't know why you would expect agreement on these matters, any more than you would expect agreement on the mode of baptism.

If there had been a flood we would expect to see millions of dead things buried in numerous layers at all atltitudes all over the planet, and we would expect to see some version of a flood legend in widely diverse cultures. However, until such evidence is forthcoming, we will contintue to believe the simple teaching of Jesus and his apostles that the earth was recently created.

We would also expect to see a distribution of fossils that accords with a flood. We would expect to see a recent genetic bottleneck in all species including the human species. And we would expect--in addition to legends--to see evidence of an interruption in written records in civilizations such as the Chinese, Egyptian, Mayan etc which had already established such records. None of these things exist.

We have a very different pattern of fossil distribution. We have no recent genetic bottlenecks and we have uninterrupted written records right through the year usually assigned to the flood. When you consider the destruction of the Dec. 31 tsunami and how much evidence of its occurrence it will leave in both accounts of the tsunami and records lost because of it, how could a global flood leave less even 4-5 thousand years ago?

 

[gluadys]

And Genesis says all the men of the world were wicked. This is quite some time after Adam, and if you are claiming that there was pre-adamic man, there must have been a considerable size population then.

No, I am not making that claim. As far as I am concerned all humans are adamic. That is what adamic means. Human.

But it seems you just cannot grasp that people have different ways of looking at things, even in the same generation, and certainly in widely separated generations. You cannot detach yourself sufficiently from your personal POV to even imagine a different one.

So did God actually punish all men but Noah and his family, or just some men?

Do you mean in the story or in history?

Peter speaks of a world wide flood that killed all mankind but Noah and his family. This flood you claim is mythology and the teaching after Peter's statement is theology, so it is Peter who has combined the two, by your assertion. It was you who said Peter was ignorant of the historical truth of the origins and the flood.

The story was told originally to make a moral point and Peter is using it to make a moral point. Both were objectively wrong in their history, but of what importance is that when they read even correct history for its moral teachings rather than as an unadorned objective history? The writer of Genesis and Peter both believed that history was a moral enterprise in which God is an active participant and judge of the wicked. The idea of writing history in its modern form of providing an objective account of events with no analysis of values and no discernment of the activity of God was totally foreign to them. It is not so much that the biblical writers combined them as that modernity has separated them. We, perhaps, could take lessons from them.

It is Peter who says they didn't follow inventive stories, but by your claim the flood is in fact an inventive story to only speak about God's judgement not God actually carrying it within history on all mankind, who were all wicked. So, if Peter cannot get this simple historical teaching correct, can we actually trust him to get important and complex theological teachings correct?

Why not? He was obviously more expert on the will of God than on the natural history of the earth. Why would he not be more right on what he was more familiar with?

You rely on what you see, in order to believe, about this teaching and origins.

Of course. That is the nature of science. It is entirely built on what we perceive with our bodily senses and what we can reason from what we perceive. Faith, on the other hand, relies on evidence that is not seen. But faith never requires that we disbelieve science. Rather that we embrace the unseen realities which science cannot tell us of.

I thought you said a world wide flood did not happen? Either Peter is wrong or there was a world wide flood.

Not if we are to be guided by the evidence of nature, no. But you have to remember that Peter did not have access to the evidence of nature we have. He was relying on a tradition that went back to a time when these stories were passed on orally. So it is rather disingenuous to say he got it wrong. Even though, objectively, he did. But there was no way for him to avoid that. It is not as if he made a stupid mistake.

Did God actually speak to the prophets of the OT or were they just making this stuff up?

God certainly communicated to them, and they described that communication as speaking. That is as far as I can go, because I have not shared their experience. I don't know what it was that they were describing as speaking. Was it actual, physical, measurable auditory sound waves? Or some other way of speaking?

If Peter is wrong about a simple historical event, then it is likely that Peter is wrong about the more complex theological teachings he gives in his Epistles. If Paul is wrong about a simple historical past of all men coming from one man, then it is likely that Paul's teachings that are more complex can be wrong as well.

As I said above, I disagree with this line of reasoning. The simplest things can be fouled up by a person not familiar with them, while they can be expert in a more complex field they are familiar with. I have a pretty good intellect and can read and write complex material on complex subjects. But I still need to have my kids teach me how to use a remote to operate the DVD they gave me for Christmas. And of course I couldn't begin to tell you how to install it. I get totally befuddled by the simplest mechanical or electronic gadgets. That doesn't mean I am wrong about a Christian theology of the environment--a much more complex idea.

So the idea that if one is wrong about one thing one is wrong about everything makes no sense. Even if the thing one is wrong about is simple. And the historical past is not simple anyway.

And it was Jesus Christ who taught Peter and if Peter is wrong, then it is likely that Jesus was wrong as well. If Jesus is wrong, then Jesus is not who He claimed to be.

I suppose that depends on your theology of the incarnation. To what extent did Jesus limit his divine attributes in order to become human? Another one for apologetics.

 

[Critias]

No, I am not making that claim. As far as I am concerned all humans are adamic. That is what adamic means. Human.

But it seems you just cannot grasp that people have different ways of looking at things, even in the same generation, and certainly in widely separated generations. You cannot detach yourself sufficiently from your personal POV to even imagine a different one.

What I meant by pre-adamic man is that there were other humans living before Adam. If you follow this belief then there was a considerable size population that could have quite easily been all over the earth and not just in one country.

Do you mean in the story or in history?

I was refering to hisory, but how about both since we differ in pov?

The story was told originally to make a moral point and Peter is using it to make a moral point. Both were objectively wrong in their history, but of what importance is that when they read even correct history for its moral teachings rather than as an unadorned objective history? The writer of Genesis and Peter both believed that history was a moral enterprise in which God is an active participant and judge of the wicked. The idea of writing history in its modern form of providing an objective account of events with no analysis of values and no discernment of the activity of God was totally foreign to them. It is not so much that the biblical writers combined them as that modernity has separated them. We, perhaps, could take lessons from them.

So the story was for a moral value, not about God actually judging mankind? Honestly, I think you are too wrapped up in modern history to believe that mankind was capable to write of history in the days of Moses. Even though there is archaeological evidence of history books from the days of when it is thought Moses lived.

Why not? He was obviously more expert on the will of God than on the natural history of the earth. Why would he not be more right on what he was more familiar with?

So, Peter being a Jewish male who was taught about Jewish history in his upbringing was not able to give correct accounts of it? But when it comes to difficult theological concepts he has no problem whatsoever? And let us not forget that Peter was carried by the Holy Spirit to teach what he taught. So we also have to conclude that if the Holy Spirit is inacapable of giving correct history, can we actually rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us correctly, let alone that He is actually the Holy Spirit?

Peter was taught about these theological concepts for 3 years by Jesus Christ. Peter was taught about Jewish history for considerably longer than 3 years in his youth. Peter was more familiar with his own history than Jesus' teachings, not to say Peter wasn't familiar with Jesus' teachings.

So, how can you trust that Peter was led by the Holy Spirit to teach what he taught in his Epistles if he gets his own cultural history wrong?

Of course. That is the nature of science. It is entirely built on what we perceive with our bodily senses and what we can reason from what we perceive. Faith, on the other hand, relies on evidence that is not seen. But faith never requires that we disbelieve science. Rather that we embrace the unseen realities which science cannot tell us of.

Yes, and some of the OT Prophets were mocked and killed because the people did not see the prophecies come to pass immediately. The people did not "see" what they, the Prophets, spoke of. Moses, being a prophet of what was, was given divine inspiration to tell of what God did in creation. Because you cannot see this, you have denied it. Instead, you have given into what non-inspired teachers tell you because it works with what you see and want to believe.

Not if we are to be guided by the evidence of nature, no. But you have to remember that Peter did not have access to the evidence of nature we have. He was relying on a tradition that went back to a time when these stories were passed on orally. So it is rather disingenuous to say he got it wrong. Even though, objectively, he did. But there was no way for him to avoid that. It is not as if he made a stupid mistake.

I agree, Peter didn't have the science we do today. Instead, Peter had the Holy Spirit. He was rely on the Holy Spirits teaching to Moses. This teaching that you say is incorrect.

It is a rather simple argument, either Peter is wrong or he is right. Whether he understood correctly or not, is not the point. He either go it wrong or not. By your admission, Peter is wrong.

God certainly communicated to them, and they described that communication as speaking. That is as far as I can go, because I have not shared their experience. I don't know what it was that they were describing as speaking. Was it actual, physical, measurable auditory sound waves? Or some other way of speaking?

Well, we have the bush burning and Moses hearing an actual audible voice. I have seen some TEs say this is impossible for God to do because He doesn't have vocal cords. But in the same breath they say nothing is impossible for God.

The Ten Commandments were written by God's finger. God spoke at Jesus' baptism and John the Baptist as well as Jesus heard Him. God spoke at Jesus' transfiguration and Peter, John and James heard Him. Did they actually see the cloud as well? Did they actually see Moses and Elijah as well? Can we trust Peter's observation of this account when he cant even get his own history correct? Can we trust Peter not to be biased because he loved Jesus? Was Peter actually speaking the truth or was it that he just really liked Jesus a lot?

Peter made one mistake, it is likely that he made others in his writings as well. This is where your logic takes you. Paul spoke of all men coming from one man, something TEs deny and call an error. Paul wrote much of the NT, and if Paul being a Pharisee cannot get his own history correct, how can he get spiritual realities correct?

Jesus summed it up well saying

John 3:12
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"

So if we cannot trust Peter, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, to get the earthly things correct, how can we trust him to get the spiritual things correct?

As I said above, I disagree with this line of reasoning. The simplest things can be fouled up by a person not familiar with them, while they can be expert in a more complex field they are familiar with. I have a pretty good intellect and can read and write complex material on complex subjects. But I still need to have my kids teach me how to use a remote to operate the DVD they gave me for Christmas. And of course I couldn't begin to tell you how to install it. I get totally befuddled by the simplest mechanical or electronic gadgets. That doesn't mean I am wrong about a Christian theology of the environment--a much more complex idea.

So the idea that if one is wrong about one thing one is wrong about everything makes no sense. Even if the thing one is wrong about is simple. And the historical past is not simple anyway.



I suppose that depends on your theology of the incarnation. To what extent did Jesus limit his divine attributes in order to become human? Another one for apologetics.

It isn't that Peter can be wrong about everything, but if he wrote in one mistake, there can just as easily be another. And if there is, can you completely trust Peter and what he says as well as Paul?

Well, was Jesus incarnate of the Holy Spirit or not? Was He just partly or fully?

 

[gluadys]

What I meant by pre-adamic man is that there were other humans living before Adam. If you follow this belief then there was a considerable size population that could have quite easily been all over the earth and not just in one country.

Well, I don't consider that Adam is an individual (which makes me a radical even among TEs), so the point for me is moot. To me all humans are Adam.

I was refering to hisory, but how about both since we differ in pov?

And I would say true within the framework of the story, but the story is not history, or not fully history.

So the story was for a moral value, not about God actually judging mankind?

I don't understand this. When God brings judgment on a nation is it not because that nation has fallen away from righteousness? Is it not a moral judgment? Why would a form of history which emphasizes God's judgment on an unrighteous nation not be a story of judgment because of the moral element? Is not God's judgment always a moral judgment?

Honestly, I think you are too wrapped up in modern history to believe that mankind was capable to write of history in the days of Moses. Even though there is archaeological evidence of history books from the days of when it is thought Moses lived.

Well of course there are. I don't know why you think I am denying this. But read those books. Do they sound like modern history books? Or do they refer to God/gods, and attribute a nation's success in war or any other endeavour to the pleasure of God/gods? Do they consider natural catastrophes to be an ordinary if rare phenomenon of nature, or a judgment of God/gods?

So, Peter being a Jewish male who was taught about Jewish history in his upbringing was not able to give correct accounts of it?

He gave us the accounts that he was taught in the way he was taught. Why would any Jewish male of his day and age think differently about the flood than Peter did?

So we also have to conclude that if the Holy Spirit is inacapable of giving correct history, can we actually rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us correctly, let alone that He is actually the Holy Spirit?

No, we just conclude that the Holy Spirit had other priorities in mind.

Peter was taught about these theological concepts for 3 years by Jesus Christ. Peter was taught about Jewish history for considerably longer than 3 years in his youth. Peter was more familiar with his own history than Jesus' teachings, not to say Peter wasn't familiar with Jesus' teachings.

According to the gospels, Peter and most of the disciples were not scholars, but ordinary working folk. Peter would likely have stopped any formal learning by the time he was 12 if not before. How much of your grade school history do you remember?

So, how can you trust that Peter was led by the Holy Spirit to teach what he taught in his Epistles if he gets his own cultural history wrong?

But he did not get his own cultural history wrong. He got it right. His culture taught that the world (other than the inhabitants in the ark) was destroyed by a flood. And that is the basis of Peter's reference to it.

It was not that Peter was wrong about his cultural history. It was that the cultural history was wrong about scientific fact. It was only 200 years ago that it was discovered that the flood could not have been global.

I have no problem trusting that Peter was led of the Holy Spirit to teach the gospel.

Instead, you have given into what non-inspired teachers tell you because it works with what you see and want to believe.

Who are you to judge whether they are inspired or not?

I agree, Peter didn't have the science we do today. Instead, Peter had the Holy Spirit. He was rely on the Holy Spirits teaching to Moses. This teaching that you say is incorrect.

Moses, like Peter, was relying on an older oral tradition. In fact, on an older written tradition--the Gilgamesh epic. I have no problem with the Holy Spirit inspiring either Moses or Peter to use this ancient myth for teaching purposes.

It is a rather simple argument, either Peter is wrong or he is right. Whether he understood correctly or not, is not the point. He either go it wrong or not. By your admission, Peter is wrong.

He understood correctly what he was taught, what all Israelites were taught going back to Moses and even beyond Moses. And what they were all taught is not scientific fact. But given the nature of how they were taught, that is unimportant. It does not mean they were stupid or mistaken or not inspired in what they taught.

Well, we have the bush burning and Moses hearing an actual audible voice.

How do we know it was audible? How do we know that Moses did not hear God's voice in his brain without hearing it with his ears? How do we know that another person would also have heard it? There are other passages of scripture where prophets see and hear things of God that are not perceptible to the people around them.

I am not saying it was not audible, but we have no basis for saying so with certainty. What we have is a description of Moses being confronted by God and called into service. That description includes a burning bush and a voice. But we do not know that the description was of something everyone could perceive if they had been present, or a pictorial representation of a mystical experience given to Moses alone. The same goes for other such experiences.

Peter made one mistake, it is likely that he made others in his writings as well. This is where your logic takes you. Paul spoke of all men coming from one man, something TEs deny and call an error. Paul wrote much of the NT, and if Paul being a Pharisee cannot get his own history correct, how can he get spiritual realities correct?

All people are limited and get things wrong because of it. I really don't see why this would be a basis for not trusting them on what they knew--Jesus and the gospel. Why would not knowing a fact that no one would know for nearly 2000 years be relevant to their knowledge of spiritual realities?

Well, was Jesus incarnate of the Holy Spirit or not? Was He just partly or fully?

Fully. To me that implies that his mind was as fully human as his body. Do you agree?

 

[Floodnut]

So God doesn't love all people? Or God has favorites now?

Either Peter is wrong or science is wrong. The meaning of the verse is quite clear in the Greek.

God does love all people, but God also has those that he loves above all peoples of the earth. Peter is right, and Science is just the knowledge about what is right and true. The interpretations of MEN looking at a revelation of God in nature are wrong when those interpretations ring contrary to the plain and simple sense of Scripture as taken by Jesus and Peter.

 

[Floodnut]

Ignorant would be the correct term. He could not have known that the flood was not global as he relied on the Genesis account and had no other. He spoke the truth as he knew it, but his knowledge was not that of scientific discovery of the evidence. It has only been within the last 300 years that we have confirmed the fact that there has never been a global flood. We should not fault biblical writers for being people of their own time speaking what they believed to be true, even though it wasn't.

Of course, if you wish to retreat into the super-natural, there could still have been a global flood, but one totally invisible to scientific inquiry and contradicted by scientific evidence.

That again, takes us into theological questions.

Ignorant Huh? Interesting. "Ignorant" is precisely the term that your Ignorant Peter applies to those who deny the world-wide flood.

 

[gluadys]

Ignorant Huh? Interesting. "Ignorant" is precisely the term that your Ignorant Peter applies to those who deny the world-wide flood.

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.

 

[Critias]

Well, I don't consider that Adam is an individual (which makes me a radical even among TEs), so the point for me is moot. To me all humans are Adam.

And I would say true within the framework of the story, but the story is not history, or not fully history.

I don't understand this. When God brings judgment on a nation is it not because that nation has fallen away from righteousness? Is it not a moral judgment? Why would a form of history which emphasizes God's judgment on an unrighteous nation not be a story of judgment because of the moral element? Is not God's judgment always a moral judgment?

What I meant is that it seems you present the global flood as a "moral value" that did not actually happen in the scope of how it is written; that God did not actually kill all man and animals, but Noah, his family and those on the ark. So, it seems you are saying that there is a moral value to the story, but God did not actually in history kill off all mankind and animals but Noah and his family and the animals with him.

Well of course there are. I don't know why you think I am denying this. But read those books. Do they sound like modern history books? Or do they refer to God/gods, and attribute a nation's success in war or any other endeavour to the pleasure of God/gods? Do they consider natural catastrophes to be an ordinary if rare phenomenon of nature, or a judgment of God/gods?

So you don't think God is active in our world today? That God has no control over what happens; ex. natural events such as earthquakes or human events such as wars.

You don't think God uses these methods for His own Divine Will?

He gave us the accounts that he was taught in the way he was taught. Why would any Jewish male of his day and age think differently about the flood than Peter did?

And these were accounts taught by Moses, or whomever you wish to claim wrote them. The details of the flood are quite specific and are highly unlikely that they were passed down orally because of the specific nature of the event and the boat in which was built.

Either Noah wrote it all down as he saw it or Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it. You are suggesting the flood did not happen the way it is written, therefore either Noah who experienced it is wrong or Moses who was inspired by the Holy Spirit is wrong. You previously claimed that Peter couldn't be wrong about what he experienced, so therefore Noah most likely wouldn't be wrong. Therefore, the claim of this event being wrong is laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit. For it was Him who inpired Moses to write about the account with all of its specifics.

No, we just conclude that the Holy Spirit had other priorities in mind.

Since the Holy Spirit had other priorities in mind, is it your claim that the Holy Spirit sees nothing wrong with lying? Either the event happened world wide or it didn't and if it didn't someone is wrong. Since it is the Holy Spirit who inspired what is written, the obviously conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is wrong. If you cannot trust the Holy Spirit with earthly things how can you trust the Holy Spirit with heavenly things?

According to the gospels, Peter and most of the disciples were not scholars, but ordinary working folk. Peter would likely have stopped any formal learning by the time he was 12 if not before. How much of your grade school history do you remember?

A descent amount actually. And what is your claim on Paul, who was quite educated being a Pharisee; how can he get it wrong that all mankind came from one man? He was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time of this writing, again another claim laid at the Holy Spirits feet of being wrong.

I have no problem trusting that Peter was led of the Holy Spirit to teach the gospel.

How can you trust the Holy Spirit when He can't even get history of mankind right?

Who are you to judge whether they are inspired or not?

Oh, so you think those who deny Jesus Christ can be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Moses, like Peter, was relying on an older oral tradition. In fact, on an older written tradition--the Gilgamesh epic. I have no problem with the Holy Spirit inspiring either Moses or Peter to use this ancient myth for teaching purposes.

So you have proof of your claim that Moses wrote the flood based on the Gilgamesh Epic? I have only seen scholars make this assertion, but never one actually have the proof to show that Moses did what you are claiming. So, where is this proof?

He understood correctly what he was taught, what all Israelites were taught going back to Moses and even beyond Moses. And what they were all taught is not scientific fact. But given the nature of how they were taught, that is unimportant. It does not mean they were stupid or mistaken or not inspired in what they taught.

It either goes back to Noah's actual experience or the Holy Spirit taught it to Moses. Who is wrong, Noah understanding his own experience or the Holy Spirit?

How do we know it was audible? How do we know that Moses did not hear God's voice in his brain without hearing it with his ears? How do we know that another person would also have heard it? There are other passages of scripture where prophets see and hear things of God that are not perceptible to the people around them.

I am not saying it was not audible, but we have no basis for saying so with certainty. What we have is a description of Moses being confronted by God and called into service. That description includes a burning bush and a voice. But we do not know that the description was of something everyone could perceive if they had been present, or a pictorial representation of a mystical experience given to Moses alone. The same goes for other such experiences.

Your right, some could be blind to such an event and hear only what they want to hear. We see a lot of this today.

All people are limited and get things wrong because of it. I really don't see why this would be a basis for not trusting them on what they knew--Jesus and the gospel. Why would not knowing a fact that no one would know for nearly 2000 years be relevant to their knowledge of spiritual realities?

It shows that there are errors within the Bible and if we accept that the Bible is error filled, then we cannot have pure faith that what is written about Jesus is not error free. Did those people really see Jesus after His resurrection? Did He really ascend into heaven? Or is that an error? Did Jesus really say I am the Only Way, or is that an error?

And if these Apostles who claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit made errors while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what does that say of the Holy Spirit? That He too is fallible.

I am only taking your own beliefs to their logical conclusions. Those inspired, such as Peter and Paul, (according to you) wrote about things that are in error. (flood, all mankind from one man) So, even when one is inspired by the Holy Spirit they can make errors, thus showing that the Holy Spirit is not infallible when passing His teachings to men.

Fully. To me that implies that his mind was as fully human as his body. Do you agree?

Was Jesus completely God as well as man or not?

 

[ebia]

Well, I don't consider that Adam is an individual (which makes me a radical even among TEs), so the point for me is moot. To me all humans are Adam.

Does it? Hmmf. That would would make me a radical too. Hmmf.

 

[ebia]

Couldn't resist:

What I meant is that it seems you present the global flood as a "moral value" that did not actually happen in the scope of how it is written; that God did not actually kill all man and animals, but Noah, his family and those on the ark. So, it seems you are saying that there is a moral value to the story, but God did not actually in history kill off all mankind and animals but Noah and his family and the animals with him.

That's my take on it.

So you don't think God is active in our world today? That God has no control over what happens; ex. natural events such as earthquakes or human events such as wars.

You don't think God uses these methods for His own Divine Will?

I think there is a paradox between his will happening, and our ability to exercise freewill without his interfering that I can't resolve in a simple answer.

And these were accounts taught by Moses, or whomever you wish to claim wrote them. The details of the flood are quite specific and are highly unlikely that they were passed down orally because of the specific nature of the event and the boat in which was built.

I'll leave gluadys to answer that - she knows far more about such stuff than I.

Either Noah wrote it all down as he saw it or Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it. You are suggesting the flood did not happen the way it is written, therefore either Noah who experienced it is wrong or Moses who was inspired by the Holy Spirit is wrong. You previously claimed that Peter couldn't be wrong about what he experienced, so therefore Noah most likely wouldn't be wrong. Therefore, the claim of this event being wrong is laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit. For it was Him who inpired Moses to write about the account with all of its specifics.

If its a story to illustrate a moral truth, then calling any of it 'wrong' is inappropriate.

Since the Holy Spirit had other priorities in mind, is it your claim that the Holy Spirit sees nothing wrong with lying?

Using a story as illustration is not lying.

Either the event happened world wide or it didn't and if it didn't someone is wrong.

Those people who think it did are wrong.

Since it is the Holy Spirit who inspired what is written, the obviously conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is wrong.

Not if the Holy Spirit knows that it is a story to illustrate a point, not a history lesson.

If you cannot trust the Holy Spirit with earthly things how can you trust the Holy Spirit with heavenly things?

Because I don't think it's the Holy Ghost's job to teach me history, and I don't expect him to. It is the Holy Ghost's job to teach me about God and want God wants of me.

A descent amount actually. And what is your claim on Paul, who was quite educated being a Pharisee; how can he get it wrong that all mankind came from one man? He was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time of this writing, again another claim laid at the Holy Spirits feet of being wrong.

It's the Holy Ghosts job to teach us about God, not to teach irrelevent history. We can learn history on our own, we can learn about science on our own, we can learn about maths on our own, we can't learn about God on our own.

How can you trust the Holy Spirit when He can't even get history of mankind right?

Repeat the above ad infinitum.

 

[Micaiah]

Well, I don't consider that Adam is an individual (which makes me a radical even among TEs), so the point for me is moot. To me all humans are Adam.

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

 

[gluadys]

What I meant is that it seems you present the global flood as a "moral value" that did not actually happen in the scope of how it is written; that God did not actually kill all man and animals, but Noah, his family and those on the ark. So, it seems you are saying that there is a moral value to the story, but God did not actually in history kill off all mankind and animals but Noah and his family and the animals with him.

Right.

So you don't think God is active in our world today? That God has no control over what happens; ex. natural events such as earthquakes or human events such as wars.

You don't think God uses these methods for His own Divine Will?

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.

And these were accounts taught by Moses, or whomever you wish to claim wrote them. The details of the flood are quite specific and are highly unlikely that they were passed down orally because of the specific nature of the event and the boat in which was built.

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.

Either Noah wrote it all down as he saw it or Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it. You are suggesting the flood did not happen the way it is written, therefore either Noah who experienced it is wrong or Moses who was inspired by the Holy Spirit is wrong. You previously claimed that Peter couldn't be wrong about what he experienced, so therefore Noah most likely wouldn't be wrong. Therefore, the claim of this event being wrong is laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit. For it was Him who inpired Moses to write about the account with all of its specifics.

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

Since the Holy Spirit had other priorities in mind, is it your claim that the Holy Spirit sees nothing wrong with lying? Either the event happened world wide or it didn't and if it didn't someone is wrong. Since it is the Holy Spirit who inspired what is written, the obviously conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is wrong. If you cannot trust the Holy Spirit with earthly things how can you trust the Holy Spirit with heavenly things?

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?

And what is your claim on Paul, who was quite educated being a Pharisee;

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

Oh, so you think those who deny Jesus Christ can be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

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."

So you have proof of your claim that Moses wrote the flood based on the Gilgamesh Epic? I have only seen scholars make this assertion, but never one actually have the proof to show that Moses did what you are claiming. So, where is this proof?

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.

It either goes back to Noah's actual experience or the Holy Spirit taught it to Moses. Who is wrong, Noah understanding his own experience or the Holy Spirit?

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.

It shows that there are errors within the Bible and if we accept that the Bible is error filled, then we cannot have pure faith that what is written about Jesus is not error free.

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.

Did those people really see Jesus after His resurrection? Did He really ascend into heaven? Or is that an error? Did Jesus really say I am the Only Way, or is that an error?

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 if these Apostles who claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit made errors while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what does that say of the Holy Spirit? That He too is fallible.

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

I am only taking your own beliefs to their logical conclusions.

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.

Those inspired, such as Peter and Paul, (according to you) wrote about things that are in error. (flood, all mankind from one man) So, even when one is inspired by the Holy Spirit they can make errors,

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.

thus showing that the Holy Spirit is not infallible when passing His teachings to men.

So this does not follow.

Was Jesus completely God as well as man or not?

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.