YECist's tragically weak view of God

[laptoppop]

Look at the statements of faith for various Baptist seminaries -- no mention of KJV. Look at icr.org and answersingenesis.org -- no mention in their statements of faith about KJV. Lots of mention about inspiration, etc -- but NOT kjv only. The KJV is a good old translation - more literal than many modern translations - but not bad at all, especially if you understand the changes in english ("love" instead of "charity", etc.). Many of the conservative folks prefer the NASB -- again, a more "literal" translation, even to the point of sometimes using the greek word order. You may want to paint all conservative scholars with a broad KJV only brush - but it is not accurate. The KJV folks are just one small (but very vocal) element. The one "prominent" YEC that is fairly KJV heavy is Kent Hovind - but he also takes some political positions I feel are indefensible. Most people who want a more literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis talk about "god-breathed" inspiration in the original autographs and are perfectly fine with discussing textual transmission issues and translation issues. Yes, we are extremely likely to believe in straight Mosaic authorship of the pentatuch as opposed to JEPD -- but that does NOT mean KJV only.

 

[Chief117]

Well, to be perfectly honest I think I even tended to paint Baptists with the KJV only brush. I don't mean it as a bad thing or anything...I guess that's just been my mental picture.

I guess it don't matter though. I enjoy Kent Hovind's debates and seminars. I don't agree with his defense of the absolute authority of the KJV, but oh well.

I think the real point of our discussion is on "who takes things literally". Baptists tend to be very fundamental. So do I. I am non-denominational, prefer NIV and NASB.

Interesting insight I suppose.

God Bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Look at the statements of faith for various Baptist seminaries -- no mention of KJV. Look at icr.org and answersingenesis.org -- no mention in their statements of faith about KJV. Lots of mention about inspiration, etc -- but NOT kjv only. The KJV is a good old translation - more literal than many modern translations - but not bad at all, especially if you understand the changes in english ("love" instead of "charity", etc.). Many of the conservative folks prefer the NASB -- again, a more "literal" translation, even to the point of sometimes using the greek word order. You may want to paint all conservative scholars with a broad KJV only brush - but it is not accurate. The KJV folks are just one small (but very vocal) element. The one "prominent" YEC that is fairly KJV heavy is Kent Hovind - but he also takes some political positions I feel are indefensible. Most people who want a more literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis talk about "god-breathed" inspiration in the original autographs and are perfectly fine with discussing textual transmission issues and translation issues. Yes, we are extremely likely to believe in straight Mosaic authorship of the pentatuch as opposed to JEPD -- but that does NOT mean KJV only.

I think this illustrates the problem with the word "literal".

It derives from the same word as letter and means "faithful to the letter", implying a distinction like:
literal vs allegorical
or literal vs figurative.
and it is a term of literary criticism.

the usage of the term literal in this quoted posting above is not using literal in this way but rather is shorthand for a translation idea.

The basic theme is that translations can be more faithful to word level (not letter) or more faithful to sentence and meaning level, these are somewhat contradictory principles. Easy of reading, faithful translation of genre like poetry are sentence levels goals. Word level goals involve things like always translating the same Hebrew or Greek into a few words of English or trying to capture the nuance of word choice by using adjectives so that people get the idea that two different words are being translated...

These are two very different ways of using the term literal.

 

[laptoppop]

The basic theme is that translations can be more faithful to word level (not letter) or more faithful to sentence and meaning level, these are somewhat contradictory principles. Easy of reading, faithful translation of genre like poetry are sentence levels goals. Word level goals involve things like always translating the same Hebrew or Greek into a few words of English or trying to capture the nuance of word choice by using adjectives so that people get the idea that two different words are being translated...

Absolutely. The dynamic tension between these two goals is a significant problem in translation. Different translations handle it in different ways. The NASB tends toward word level, the NIV tends toward phrase/idea level. The new ISV (isv.org) is one of the best I've seen at the balance.

 

[jereth]

Jereth,
I'm pretty darn sure you did not mean to flame or bait the entire YEC community - but your rhetoric is insulting and inflammatory. Attacking a group's beliefs is no different than attacking the members of the group. Ridiculing the group's beliefs is like an attack on each member, because of the way beliefs are held in such a personal way.

I acknowledge that my OP came across to you as a strong and inflammatory attack. Please let me assure you that I did not mean to personally insult or ridicule anyone.

In writing the OP I was in fact responding to the endless volley of hostile criticism that TEists receive from YECist writers. Much of this criticism accuses us of damaging the Christian faith, even damaging God himself. As a TEist it is exasperating to have to endure such hostility from people who are supposed to be fellow believers (and therefore on the same team). It is particularly offensive when their criticism calls into question our view of God, as if we have a compromised view of his power, his holiness, etc. This sort of criticism was very well exemplified by the YEC poster who told us that our God is "some idiot who wanted billions of years of death and blood".

I am simply trying to make the point that these sorts of accusations rest upon the accuser's inadequate view of God, not ours. Our view of God is not in the slightest bit compromised by our evolutionary views -- to suggest that this is so is rude and condescending. It is like pointing your finger at someone and saying "your god is a fool's god". Well, our God is the triune God of scripture -- the same God whom you worship -- thank you very much.

So yes, I acknowledge my post was a forceful one, but it was simply made in response to the vicious attacks that are meted out on us by the YECist community at large.

In any group, one can find a variety of knowledge, maturity, and depth of understanding. I believe the most helpful discussion in comparing positions is one which deals with the most mature expression of each position.

If only it were the case that it was the "less mature" who made such accusations! Sadly, it is the leaders of the YECist community, those who are privileged with a position which enables them to influence many, who are behind such attacks. Let me illustrate from the AiG website: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp)

In this system [theistic evolutionism] God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men...

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.

in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, ... and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.

The theistic evolutionist maligns God’s character and detracts from His glory.... The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator

Theistic evolution, however, again throws all into confusion. It portrays God as using suffering and death to create, .... It thereby diminishes our sense of His holiness and goodness.

The god of an old earth can’t be a loving God. .... Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth — it is not the loving God of the Bible. .... The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. ... Thus Christians who compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, are in that sense seemingly worshipping a different god — the cruel god of an old earth. ... There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.

Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?

Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to God's creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God.

Do you see? "Your God is not omnipotent". "Your God is a cruel and evil God". "Your God is a god of the gaps". "Your God is not holy and good". "Your God is an unnecessary hypothesis". "Your beliefs destroy the gospel and make the Bible meaningless". Etc.

Spend some time on the AiG website, and you'll see this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[jereth]

Well maybe we should talk about the text then. Everything in the text suggests that Genesis 1-3 is a literal, historical account. There is no indication that the text is to be taken any other way, to my knowledge. The only reason for wanting to take it non-literally, that I am aware of, is to reconcile the Bible with the modern Evolutionary theory.

This is a lie told by YECist leaders. I would encourage you to read some reputable commentaries on Genesis. There is plenty of evidence in the text itself which indicates that it is not to be interpreted literally.

Here's what I am saying: you do not accept the literal reading of Genesis. Why not? I am assuming the primary reason is it conflicts with the TE/Evolutionist understanding of natural sciences.

No, science is not the primary reason for interpreting Genesis non-literally, it is a secondary reason. The primary reason is an exegesis of the text itself, and a consideration of its literary and cultural context.

It is not these are necessarily "evil." It is that the Bible claims that SIN BROUGHT DEATH INTO THE WORLD:
...
Death is ultimately the punishment/judgment for sin (i.e. evil). This is where my previous argument was really coming from.

Do animals sin or commit evil? Why would God punish animals for the evil of men? Read romans 5:12 carefully: "death came to all men". Where are the animals mentioned?

Again, it is not that "animal death makes a blemish on God's character,"

That's what YECist leaders (such as AiG) have claimed for a long time, and continue to claim: if God used animal death to create, he must be an evil, unholy, unloving god. See the citations in my response to laptopop.

I have NEVER heard this in my life. You are the FIRST non-YEC I have ever heard claim this. I would like to hear your POV on a few things sometime then--if you wouldn't mind.

For example, evolutionists often claim there is no evidence for a flood. Do you know of any? Also, how does a global flood affect your interpretation of geologic strata, fossil study, etc.

I think you misunderstood me. There is no evidence for a global flood. But most TEists believe Gen 6-9 is about a historical LOCAL flood.

If anything, as I've said before, I believe that the ONLY way evolution would be true is if God had a hand in it. Otherwse it would be impossible.

I'm glad you understand this!! Perhaps you could spread the word amongst your peers...

I believe the meaning behind the claim of God's omnipotence is in reference to the "blind" nature of evolution. Evolution produces countless misfits and mistakes in order to make the onward progress of evolutionary change. This seems to contradict the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Why would He create the world with mistakes?

The whole idea of "misfits and mistakes" is a distortion of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not produce "mistakes", it produces species which are adapted to a particular environment at a particular time.

I believe you are "explaining" it away. So, in your opinion, Genesis "contains" some truth but is overall a fairy tale--a myth likened to that of the Roman gods?

No, I don't believe Genesis 1-3 "contains" some truth but is a fairy tale. That is yet another misrepresentation of TEism that you've no doubt heard from people like AiG. I believe Genesis 1-3 is full of profound and authoritative truth communicated by means of a mythical narrative. A "myth" is not a lie or nonsense, it is just a type of literature.

 

[Mallon]

Look at the statements of faith for various Baptist seminaries -- no mention of KJV. Look at icr.org and answersingenesis.org -- no mention in their statements of faith about KJV. Lots of mention about inspiration, etc -- but NOT kjv only.

Admittedly, I likely went a little overboard labelling most creationists KJV-onliests, and for that, I apologize. That said, I still stand by my statement that the majority of creationists are fundamentalist Baptists, and of those, most favour the KJV.
In any case, none of this relates to the OP.

 

[random_guy]

Ok- I am not going to go throogh the reasons why evolution contradicts the bible. I wanted an answer- a serious one. My God got it right hte first time- things didn't evolve slowly over time- the earth was created with age imbedded into it to support life- and the life that it supported came in the form of Adam and Eve- real modern day homosapiens- not primatives or other ape-like creature. Don't want to offend anyone- but am not wanting to hear ridicoulus answers- I wanted an answer based on a biblical perspective. You may say evolution is biblical- but the bible is to be taken literally.

Jereth was right on the money when it comes to some Creationists. This Creationist thinks her God would be flawed in some way since He got it wrong the first time if He used evolution.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well maybe we should talk about the text then. Everything in the text suggests that Genesis 1-3 is a literal, historical account.

Such as...?

 

[Chief117]

I don't have time to go through line through line just yet (I'll try to come back later. But I did want to address this one, which is in regards to the text of Genesis and whether it was meant to be a historical or "mythical" (I suppose?) account:

This is a lie told by YECist leaders. I would encourage you to read some reputable commentaries on Genesis. There is plenty of evidence in the text itself which indicates that it is not to be interpreted literally.

I didn't get my information from YEC leaders. That's the problem. It comes from careful study of Scripture, throughout all of which the text of Genesis is ALWAYS treated as a literal, historical, and NOT a metaphorical account. Jesus did it, Paul did, creation is referenced throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Prophets...you name it is there. There is not the slightest indication in Scripture that Genesis 1-3 is anything other than an historical account.

In addition to other references, the text itself contains tell-tale signs of a real story as opposed to a fiction. For example, it contains what would be superfluous details (such as a time frame, details on creation, names or people, etc.).

Thirdly, from what I have read of the church fathers (and all of history), the text has ALWAYS been regarded as a historical account.

So I am assuming what you mean is that I should read some Genesis commentaries by some TE or OEC writers who will put your spin on it. But I don't go by what people's spins are. All evidence points me in the direction of YEC, literal Genesis.

That's my stand.

God Bless.

 

[Jase]

Actually, it is not a hard passage to deal with at all. The word for "evil" here is the Hebrew ra' (8273 for NIV Strongest). The word has many meanings, which include evil but also includes words such as "calamity" (NKJV) or "disaster" (NIV).

Calamity or disaster fit the context MUCH better and are therefore the better translations of the word. To say that God "creates disaster" or "calamity" is in line with a just and loving God--He has the sovereign right to judge His people and to bring judgments upon them. Indeed, he has done so many times--the Curse, the Flood, the plagues of Egypt, etc etc. etc.

However, to say that He created "evil" is vastly different claim altogether--and this claim cannot be reconciled to a just and loving God. For if God is the author of evil, then He cannot be "all good" (He has no darkness in HIm at all).

While I agree with you that this verse probably refers to calamity, not moral evil, it's obviously an ambiguous English translation, and many people would certainly argue that sending a hurricane or an earthquake or an asteroid to destroy hundreds, thousands, or millions of people is certainly not "good".

 

[Jase]

I guess it don't matter though. I enjoy Kent Hovind's debates and seminars. I don't agree with his defense of the absolute authority of the KJV, but oh well.

Why do you enjoy his debates and seminars? Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Of course, you won't be enjoying his seminars anymore since the only seminar's he'll be giving are on the living standards of prison.

 

[Jase]

I don't have time to go through line through line just yet (I'll try to come back later. But I did want to address this one, which is in regards to the text of Genesis and whether it was meant to be a historical or "mythical" (I suppose?) account:



I didn't get my information from YEC leaders. That's the problem. It comes from careful study of Scripture, throughout all of which the text of Genesis is ALWAYS treated as a literal, historical, and NOT a metaphorical account. Jesus did it, Paul did, creation is referenced throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Prophets...you name it is there. There is not the slightest indication in Scripture that Genesis 1-3 is anything other than an historical account.

In addition to other references, the text itself contains tell-tale signs of a real story as opposed to a fiction. For example, it contains what would be superfluous details (such as a time frame, details on creation, names or people, etc.).

Thirdly, from what I have read of the church fathers (and all of history), the text has ALWAYS been regarded as a historical account.

So I am assuming what you mean is that I should read some Genesis commentaries by some TE or OEC writers who will put your spin on it. But I don't go by what people's spins are. All evidence points me in the direction of YEC, literal Genesis.

That's my stand.

God Bless.

Genesis is not written as a historical narrative. It is written in parallel, lyrical poetry intended to be sung, not read. It is in thematic order, not chronological order. Most Jews do not accept that Genesis is literal. The Hebrew doesn't convey that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It comes from careful study of Scripture, throughout all of which the text of Genesis is ALWAYS treated as a literal, historical, and NOT a metaphorical account.


the entire book of Hebrews is teaching an allegorical way of reading Genesis.

Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac as a type of Christ.
the whole comparison of Mt Sinai with the mount in Jerusalem. (chp 12)
The whole hall of the heroes of the faith is looking forward to Christ in the promises that they had, mostly as occupiers of the land of Israel. (chp 11)

Hebrews is showing that the OT speaks in types and shadows, foreshadowing the more real things to come in Christ. Even to assigning the furniture of the tabernacle as elements in the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

I don't know if Kent Hovind has every told a statement as untrue as this one that you just made which is easily proven to be false.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Genesis is not written as a historical narrative. It is written in parallel, lyrical poetry intended to be sung, not read. It is in thematic order, not chronological order. Most Jews do not accept that Genesis is literal. The Hebrew doesn't convey that.

It certainly is historical narrative. Jesus and the apostles thought it was and they were Jews. I'm sure you wouldn't say they had it wrong, would you? As mentioned before verses in the N.T. would make no sense if Adam was not a literal man.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Admittedly, I likely went a little overboard labelling most creationists KJV-onliests, and for that, I apologize. That said, I still stand by my statement that the majority of creationists are fundamentalist Baptists, and of those, most favour the KJV.
In any case, none of this relates to the OP.

I probably know more creationists then you do and I can say that most don't favour the KJV. I would say typically they favour the NASB, NKJV and ESV. So if you want to be accurate I would stick to that.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

It comes from careful study of Scripture, throughout all of which the text of Genesis is ALWAYS treated as a literal, historical, and NOT a metaphorical account.


the entire book of Hebrews is teaching an allegorical way of reading Genesis.

Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac as a type of Christ.
the whole comparison of Mt Sinai with the mount in Jerusalem. (chp 12)
The whole hall of the heroes of the faith is looking forward to Christ in the promises that they had, mostly as occupiers of the land of Israel. (chp 11)

Hebrews is showing that the OT speaks in types and shadows, foreshadowing the more real things to come in Christ. Even to assigning the furniture of the tabernacle as elements in the sacrifice of Christ.

Genesis 1-3 is not allegory. Adam is in the family tree. Does you family tree contain allegories? I know mine doesn't.

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[Chief117]

While I agree with you that this verse probably refers to calamity, not moral evil, it's obviously an ambiguous English translation, and many people would certainly argue that sending a hurricane or an earthquake or an asteroid to destroy hundreds, thousands, or millions of people is certainly not "good".

But it is just. God is sovereign so He can if He wants--we deserve judgment.

 

[Chief117]

No, science is not the primary reason for interpreting Genesis non-literally, it is a secondary reason. The primary reason is an exegesis of the text itself, and a consideration of its literary and cultural context.

Well then we disagree on the basis of the text only then, I suppose. I would certainly like to hear how your study of Scripture can lead away from a literal taking of Genesis 1-3.

The most obvious problem would be the genealogies in the Bible. Adam is in the line of Christ--obviously treated as a real person.

Do animals sin or commit evil? Why would God punish animals for the evil of men? Read romans 5:12 carefully: "death came to all men". Where are the animals mentioned?

I have already answered the question in regards to animals' sin. The answer is NO, they do not sin.

My position comes from many Scriptures:

"...For the creation was subjected to frustration....We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:19, 22)
​

The "pains of childbirth" are part of the Curse, which is the result of Adam's sin. THE WHOLE CREATION suffers from the results of Adam's sin. Not just man. Similarly:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin...(Romans 5:12 again)
​

Death, again, is the punishment for sin. Since animals don't sin, yet they die, and since death entered the world through sin, therefore animals must die as a result of man's sin. Simple as that.

That's what YECist leaders (such as AiG) have claimed for a long time, and continue to claim: if God used animal death to create, he must be an evil, unholy, unloving god. See the citations in my response to laptopop.

You only partly quoted me. I believe my original post would still stand here.

Nonetheless, it is far less fitting of an omnipotent, omniscient God to use a mechanism producing misfits and mistakes in order to slowly and gradually form life as we know it. And all that in spite of what Scripture says regarding such beliefs--such as the creation of animals in kinds, that man was made of dust, not another animal, etc.