Young Earth Six Day Creationism: The Scandal of the LCMS

[Edial]

Actually, I don't think the notion of "yom with a numeric" equaling 24hrs is a new thing made up to bug evolutionists. It simply is using the scriptures to interpret scriptures- a classic exegetical tool. It's not hard to find this ruling in ancient Rabbinic commentaries and Christian writings before the notion of evolution ever occurred to humans. Let's not forget the surrounding word in Gen 1:5- the "evening and the morning were the first day". While people can dispute the meaning of "yom" it's not going to be easy to get around "erev" and "boker" as the qualifiers for the first "yom".

Yet the Rabbinic commentaries and early Christian views are not great examples of interpretation.
Very few eyes at the time even seen the texts - no Printing Press.
No study aids, such as word studies software and things like that.

That was a stone age of interpretation and hermeneutics. How many scrolls were there? Who could even read? Ball point pens? Paper?

Also, what gave them a special insight that days were 24 hours? They had the same Bible we do. The Bible also tells us to examine the works of God in nature.

We have the technology to examine the nature, so we can interpret the texts better and more faithful to the text without adding our own comments that the time span MUST have been 24 hours.

Also, when we say we interpret Scriptures with Scriptures it does not mean we take 2 completely different contexts and mesh it into one.

As you mentioned, the day in genesis is defined by having an evening and the morning.
An evening and the morning takes 24 hours today.

What makes an evening and the morning last 24 hours today are Earth, Sun, even Moon.

There was no Sun nor Moon for first 3 days in Genesis.
And Earth was still getting shaped up.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Totally different contexts - planets are missing.:o
No clock to measure the hours.

And you know the objection I am getting to this? ... God can do anything!

This makes me climb the walls. And what makes me even more frustrated is that the person who made that objection has no idea why I just climbed a perfectly smooth wall.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Resha Caner]

What on Earth are you smoking? Luther came up with Sola Scriptura!

If you look up Sola Scriptura on Wikipedia half the entry is about Lutheranism!!!

If you're going to use insults and avoid addressing my points, this discussion will quickly be over. I am aware of Luther's position on the authority of scripture, but I clarified my statement as the Protestant position on sola scriptura. Maybe you are unaware of the extremes of that position, which rejects the use of anything except the Bible. IOW, it rejects the use of expositions such as Concord and references to any of our Christian predecessors or the guidance of any pastor. Their idea is that the meaning of the Bible is explicitly clear simply by reading it because the Spirit will guide the reader to the truth. Any misunderstanding (IOW, any deviation from the beliefs of whichever Protestant you're debating) is therefore evidence that you lack faith and are not one of the elect. It becomes very much a litmus-test works righteousneous approach.

Are you saying you agree with such a position?

You completely misunderstand our beliefs, you know.

You're attempting to make Historical Criticism more formulaic than it is so you can turn it around and use it as a means for rejecting whatever you don't like. You've used that term against both me and Gratia, and in both cases have misrepresented what Historical Criticism is ... as Gratia tried to explain. I don't like Historical Criticism simply because it is much more subjective than its proponents pretend, but that doesn't mean it is completely without value (gasp) when coupled with other tools. I should know. I am working on a master's degree in history.

Objections to the misuse of Historical Criticism as a means to reject the historicity of the Bible is perfectly legitimate. But trying to turn that around and use it as a label against people - as if there is some explicit formula for detecting what is and isn't Historical Criticism - even when the one accused is just having a discussion in an Internet forum - is just silly.

So please, either engage me in a conversation by answering the issues I've raised, or politely bow out. You'll not intimidate me by insinuating (improperly) that I use illegal drugs, or whatever other red herrings you have prepared.

[edit] What's odd about this whole thing is that my original reply to you regarding yom was that I agree with you on how the word should be interpreted.

 

[WirSindBettler]

If you're going to use insults and avoid addressing my points, this discussion will quickly be over.

You're the one who’s avoiding addressing my points!

I am aware of Luther's position on the authority of scripture, but I clarified my statement as the Protestant position on sola scriptura.

Lutherans are Protestants. Are you referring to the American Evangelical position? The Charismatic position? The nondenominational position? The Baptist position?

Maybe you are unaware of the extremes of that position, which rejects the use of anything except the Bible.

As a means to salvation.

IOW, it rejects the use of expositions such as Concord and references to any of our Christian predecessors or the guidance of any pastor.

Yet even the most die hard Independent Baptist will more than likely ascribe to any number of confessional documents in the same way that we ascribe to the Book of Concord.

Their idea is that the meaning of the Bible is explicitly clear simply by reading it because the Spirit will guide the reader to the truth. Any misunderstanding (IOW, any deviation from the beliefs of whichever Protestant you're debating) is therefore evidence that you lack faith and are not one of the elect. It becomes very much a litmus-test works righteousneous approach.

You’re mixing a Charismatic approach to Biblical interpretation (led by the Spirit) with a Calvinistic approach (“one of the elect”), which are generally two entirely different traditions.

Are you saying you agree with such a position?

But don’t we as Lutherans claim that the Word is a means to gain the Spirit? If you’re claiming that I believe that we look at Scripture alone, on the other hand, as the sole means of faith and doctrine and sufficient enough to lead one to faith, salvation, and Christian life, then yes, I do, as that is the Confessional Lutheran perspective.

You're attempting to make Historical Criticism more formulaic than it is so you can turn it around and use it as a means for rejecting whatever you don't like.

And you’re attempting to argue something that fits well within the bounds of historical criticism, that is, that in order to understand Scripture we need to understand how it would have been understood when it was first pronounced, and not what it says.

You've used that term against both me and Gratia, and in both cases have misrepresented what Historical Criticism is ... as Gratia tried to explain. I don't like Historical Criticism simply because it is much more subjective than its proponents pretend, but that doesn't mean it is completely without value (gasp) when coupled with other tools.

Yet the Synod has declared that it is completely without value.

I should know. I am working on a master's degree in history.

Good, but that doesn’t make you a master of the Scriptures. I should know, as I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the meaning of scriptures.

Objections to the misuse of Historical Criticism as a means to reject the historicity of the Bible is perfectly legitimate. But trying to turn that around and use it as a label against people - as if there is some explicit formula for detecting what is and isn't Historical Criticism - even when the one accused is just having a discussion in an Internet forum - is just silly.

I’m not trying to use it as a label, I’m trying to object to the use (not misuse) of Historical-Criticism as a means to interpret Scripture.

So please, either engage me in a conversation by answering the issues I've raised, or politely bow out.

I’ve responded to every issue you’ve raised to me. If you have other issues, tell me.

You'll not intimidate me by insinuating (improperly) that I use illegal drugs, or whatever other red herrings you have prepared.

It’s called a figure of speech. People use it whenever someone proposes something strange.

[edit] What's odd about this whole thing is that my original reply to you regarding yom was that I agree with you on how the word should be interpreted.

Kind of. You had me in agreement until you proposed that we should interpret Scripture as it was understood in history, rather than using it as the Word of God today.

Sorry if I’ve been caustic, I just am really stubborn in my beliefs. I apologize if I have acted rude and un-Christian.

 

[Resha Caner]

It’s called a figure of speech. People use it whenever someone proposes something strange.

I would recommend using different figures of speech. There are many "figures of speech" I would hope you find offensive. As I tell my children, words have meaning. Saying, "Go to @#$%" is not just a figure of speech. You are wishing a very serious fate upon someone. Likewise, the implications of your "figure of speech" were offensive.

Sorry if I’ve been caustic, I just am really stubborn in my beliefs. I apologize if I have acted rude and un-Christian.

I appreciate your apology. Being stubborn is fine, but that is different than being rude or dismissive. It is a gift (one I still hope to gain) to be able to talk through an issue with someone even if you've heard all the arguments a thousand times. Listening to someone does not mean you agree with them. Not listening to someone is the fastest way to cause them to hunker down and likewise refuse to budge.

You're the one who’s avoiding addressing my points!

Of course the conversation is not done, but to the best of my knowledge I've answered all your questions. If you think I have not addressed something properly, please highlight it.

You’re mixing a Charismatic approach to Biblical interpretation (led by the Spirit) with a Calvinistic approach (“one of the elect&#8221, which are generally two entirely different traditions.

I think I've heard people express every combination under the sun. So, yes, I was referencing a variety of viewpoints. I thought I had made that clear. Very few express what could be considered a pure Calvinist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. viewpoint. And honestly, I don't see the point of trying since none of them are perfect.

Even Luther wasn't perfect (another gasp).

Yet even the most die hard Independent Baptist will more than likely ascribe to any number of confessional documents in the same way that we ascribe to the Book of Concord.

Of course, but some refuse to admit that. They maintain they are adhering to sola scriptura in the strictest sense. I never said I thought their position was logically consistent. I was only conveying what some claim. Repeating what I said above, no one is perfect.

Lutherans are Protestants.

Only in a very narrow sense that differs from common usage of the term. I've heard many Lutheran pastors emphasizing that Lutherans are not Protestant. One example is here: http://www.zionbeecher.net/news/2012/06/can-a-protestant-wear-a-crucifix/

To try to argue Lutherans are Protestant promotes a misleading idea of uniformity among Methodists, Baptists, etc. It only creates confusion that must later be explained.

But don’t we as Lutherans claim that the Word is a means to gain the Spirit? If you’re claiming that I believe that we look at Scripture alone, on the other hand, as the sole means of faith and doctrine and sufficient enough to lead one to faith, salvation, and Christian life, then yes, I do, as that is the Confessional Lutheran perspective.

To be honest I found this part confusing. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. So if I misinterpret, please clarify.

Yes, the Word has sacramental power to lead someone to faith. And yes, it can do that without the aid of anything else. But that is different than saying it is the sole means. Baptism and the Eucharist also have sacramental power to lead someone to faith. In fact, the Spirit could lead someone to faith apart from the Bible as we know it.

There are two dangers in this at opposite extremes, and apparently I confused you on that. The one extreme would say the Bible stands alone (extreme sola scriptura) and there is no need for a Christian to engage anything else. While it is true the Word alone can lead someone to faith, for a Christian to be introduced to the Eucharist and then reject it because the Word suffices, or to remain ignorant of the rich tradition (e.g. Concord) that interpreted the Word because the Word suffices is very dangerous. I've seen it lead people to say they don't have to listen to their Lutheran pastor because they interpret the Bible differently.

On the other hand, for a Christian to reject the Bible because the Spirit suffices (yes, some do say that) is equally dangerous. I've seen it lead people to say they don't have to acknowledge the Bible verses given by their Lutheran pastor because the Spirit has led them to do something different.

Good, but that doesn’t make you a master of the Scriptures. I should know, as I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the meaning of scriptures.

I suppose you're trying to be clever somehow, but you lost me. Regardless, I will be the first to admit I'm not a scriptural expert. My first degrees were in engineering, which is how I make my living. My history degrees involve my future plans beyond engineering. Unless you're claiming to be a scriptural expert, I'm not quite sure where that leaves us.

In any event, that was not my point. My point was that I know history and historical methods, and I was not using the method you claim. Further, Historical-Grammatical is just equivocation. It's a realization by some that they tend to use methods that look somewhat Historical-Critical, but they wanted a different name to avoid the poison associated with that method. The confusion is readily apparent when you read the Wikipedia descriptions of them where they make exactly the same claims about what they're trying to achieve and yet criticize the other method. As far as I know, no historians ever claim to use a "historical-grammatical" method. It's simply an evangelical buzz word. To be honest, I was saddened to hear a Lutheran use the term.

You had me in agreement until you proposed that we should interpret Scripture as it was understood in history, rather than using it as the Word of God today.

I didn't say that. Those were the words you put in my mouth. But I have to ask what you mean by "the Word of God today". Did the meaning of Scripture change from OT times to NT times to today?

There is much in the Bible we would not understand without an understanding of Hebrew culture. What is interesting is that those who were raised in a Christian household often don't realize how much of Hebrew culture they've absorbed. You realize that when you try to introduce someone to the Bible who has never encountered anything connected to Hebrew culture. An English Lit teacher once told me of the trouble he has teaching Medieval pieces to post-modern students because they have no idea what the Biblical allusions mean.

Regardless, I stand on what I said. Certain aspects of historical criticism have value. The criticism of past uses that led to heretical conclusions were really a criticism of naturalistic assumptions, not of method. If you truly reject everything associated with the methods of history, you will be very disturbed to hear that a highly respected member of the Concordia Seminary staff (Andrew Steinmann) has published (through CPH) a chronology of the Bible that uses methods you probably consider historical-critical.

I’ve responded to every issue you’ve raised to me. If you have other issues, tell me.

Yom was just a peripheral comment. My intent was to focus on the issue of death before the fall. If you consider the one verse you quoted me as all there is to say, then I guess we're done, but I did say more about it.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I would recommend using different figures of speech. There are many "figures of speech" I would hope you find offensive. As I tell my children, words have meaning. Saying, "Go to @#$%" is not just a figure of speech. You are wishing a very serious fate upon someone. Likewise, the implications of your "figure of speech" were offensive.

Just because you were offended doesn't mean you're right. But if it means anything, I apologize for having offended you and I will try not to do so again.

I appreciate your apology. Being stubborn is fine, but that is different than being rude or dismissive. It is a gift (one I still hope to gain) to be able to talk through an issue with someone even if you've heard all the arguments a thousand times. Listening to someone does not mean you agree with them. Not listening to someone is the fastest way to cause them to hunker down and likewise refuse to budge.

I never said I wasn't listening.

Of course the conversation is not done, but to the best of my knowledge I've answered all your questions. If you think I have not addressed something properly, please highlight it.

I'll get to that in a second.

I think I've heard people express every combination under the sun. So, yes, I was referencing a variety of viewpoints. I thought I had made that clear. Very few express what could be considered a pure Calvinist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. viewpoint. And honestly, I don't see the point of trying since none of them are perfect.

Except for Lutheranism of course.

I wasn't clear at first on what you were speaking of, but now I believe I understand.

Even Luther wasn't perfect (another gasp).

Chief of sinners though I be . . .

Of course, but some refuse to admit that. They maintain they are adhering to sola scriptura in the strictest sense. I never said I thought their position was logically consistent. I was only conveying what some claim. Repeating what I said above, no one is perfect.

I agree. Only one was perfect, and He was crucified for our transgressions, and raised from the dead three days later.

Only in a very narrow sense that differs from common usage of the term.

Pardon? The definition of Protestant, at least according to Google, is:

"A member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."

Is this definition wrong?

I've heard many Lutheran pastors emphasizing that Lutherans are not Protestant. One example is here: Can A Protestant Wear A Crucifix?

I've heard that argued. I for one want to see us called Evangelical Catholic, as we are in Europe.

To try to argue Lutherans are Protestant promotes a misleading idea of uniformity among Methodists, Baptists, etc. It only creates confusion that must later be explained.

So is no church Protestant?

To be honest I found this part confusing. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. So if I misinterpret, please clarify.

I shall.

Yes, the Word has sacramental power to lead someone to faith. And yes, it can do that without the aid of anything else. But that is different than saying it is the sole means. Baptism and the Eucharist also have sacramental power to lead someone to faith. In fact, the Spirit could lead someone to faith apart from the Bible as we know it.

You're starting to lean over to some pretty sketchy theological ground in my opinion. First, we should be careful to clarify that the Word does not have sacramental power, per se, but rather simply power to lead someone to faith. The Spirit could lead someone to faith apart from the Bible, but since there are no theophanies any more (that we know of), Lutherans would say that faith if not given in the Word is given in Sacrament.

Also, don't forget the Sacrament of Confession/Absolution (though some lump it together with Baptism).

There are two dangers in this at opposite extremes, and apparently I confused you on that. The one extreme would say the Bible stands alone (extreme sola scriptura) and there is no need for a Christian to engage anything else. While it is true the Word alone can lead someone to faith, for a Christian to be introduced to the Eucharist and then reject it because the Word suffices, or to remain ignorant of the rich tradition (e.g. Concord) that interpreted the Word because the Word suffices is very dangerous. I've seen it lead people to say they don't have to listen to their Lutheran pastor because they interpret the Bible differently.

What I meant the Confessions state more clearly:

"The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

I mean that Scripture is the norm of norms, and that, to quote an outside source, "the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine."

On the other hand, for a Christian to reject the Bible because the Spirit suffices (yes, some do say that) is equally dangerous. I've seen it lead people to say they don't have to acknowledge the Bible verses given by their Lutheran pastor because the Spirit has led them to do something different.

Do you have any specific examples of a denomination that does that? Because that's extremely bad.

I suppose you're trying to be clever somehow, but you lost me.

No. I was trying to be humble. I apologize if that backfired and made me look even more stuck up.

Regardless, I will be the first to admit I'm not a scriptural expert. My first degrees were in engineering, which is how I make my living. My history degrees involve my future plans beyond engineering. Unless you're claiming to be a scriptural expert, I'm not quite sure where that leaves us.

How about as two sinners redeemed by Christ trying to work their way through Genesis?

In any event, that was not my point. My point was that I know history and historical methods, and I was not using the method you claim. Further, Historical-Grammatical is just equivocation. It's a realization by some that they tend to use methods that look somewhat Historical-Critical, but they wanted a different name to avoid the poison associated with that method. The confusion is readily apparent when you read the Wikipedia descriptions of them where they make exactly the same claims about what they're trying to achieve and yet criticize the other method. As far as I know, no historians ever claim to use a "historical-grammatical" method. It's simply an evangelical buzz word. To be honest, I was saddened to hear a Lutheran use the term.

Wikipedia is a pretty crappy source for theology. Also, the term Historical-Grammatical is used numerous times throughout LCMS statements of doctrine.

Just look at the 1973, "Comparative Study of Varying Contemporary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation."

Also, haven't you ever heard of the Seminex controversy?

To quote Wikipedia, your source, "ELCA clergy tend not to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but see validity in various scholarly methods of analysis to help in understanding the Bible. This is in concord with most moderate Protestant bodies and in contrast to the LCMS and WELS, which practice the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation."

I didn't say that. Those were the words you put in my mouth.

Really? Look at Post 50:

The pertinent question is: How would the Hebrews to whom Moses first delivered this text have interpreted it? Unfortunately, that is a very difficult question to answer, but as best I can tell the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis is as history with yom meaning "day".

That sounds like proposing “that we should interpret Scripture as it was understood in history, rather than using it as the Word of God today.”

But I have to ask what you mean by "the Word of God today". Did the meaning of Scripture change from OT times to NT times to today?

By no means. I simply mean to say that we should not seek to look at Scripture as something that once applied, but rather look apply it to today in everything. Stand under Scripture, not understand it, that is.

There is much in the Bible we would not understand without an understanding of Hebrew culture. What is interesting is that those who were raised in a Christian household often don't realize how much of Hebrew culture they've absorbed. You realize that when you try to introduce someone to the Bible who has never encountered anything connected to Hebrew culture. An English Lit teacher once told me of the trouble he has teaching Medieval pieces to post-modern students because they have no idea what the Biblical allusions mean.

I completely agree.

Regardless, I stand on what I said. Certain aspects of historical criticism have value. The criticism of past uses that led to heretical conclusions were really a criticism of naturalistic assumptions, not of method. If you truly reject everything associated with the methods of history, you will be very disturbed to hear that a highly respected member of the Concordia Seminary staff (Andrew Steinmann) has published (through CPH) a chronology of the Bible that uses methods you probably consider historical-critical.

But it’s Historical-Grammatical. I know, I’ve looked at it. Historical-Critical Biblical interpretation on the other hand, has no value whatsoever, and that is where you and I fundamentally disagree.

Yom was just a peripheral comment. My intent was to focus on the issue of death before the fall. If you consider the one verse you quoted me as all there is to say, then I guess we're done, but I did say more about it.

I gave you more than one verse!

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Romans 5:12

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

"For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

"So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:14
.

.

.

And let's not forget my personal favorite. You claim to believe in a literal Adam and a literal fall. So what was the point of God's warning when he told Adam:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17

If Adam is warned that when he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die, why is this a big deal? Didn't Adam's monkey ancestors die?

I’ll give you the same advice I give everyone. Read Job 38!

Were you there? In the beginning?

Or was God?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is this definition wrong?

As I said, it is narrowly correct in the sense that Luther precipitated the Reformation, and so is historically connected to the other reformers. Too many people think that means Lutherans are also theologically connected to other reformers, which is not true.

Sometime you should ask your LCMS brothers and sisters if Lutherans follow Reformed theology. Every one outside this forum to whom I've posed that question has answered "yes" because they connect the word "Reformed" in that phrase to the Reformation. Yet that isn't correct. It is a very confusing and unfortunate choice of words. As such, I do not refer to myself as a Protestant in the same way I do not refer to myself as Reformed. That is my point.

So is no church Protestant?

Outside historical contexts I'd be happy to do away with the term.

You're starting to lean over to some pretty sketchy theological ground in my opinion. First, we should be careful to clarify that the Word does not have sacramental power, per se, but rather simply power to lead someone to faith.

I misspoke. What I meant to say is that the Word is a means of grace.

The Spirit could lead someone to faith apart from the Bible, but since there are no theophanies any more (that we know of), Lutherans would say that faith if not given in the Word is given in Sacrament.

Despite the one misstep I was being very deliberate with my wording. My statement was that the Spirit could bring someone to faith apart from the Bible as we know it. The Word would obviously be involved.

Also, don't forget the Sacrament of Confession/Absolution (though some lump it together with Baptism).

IMO the LCMS waffles on that, which only goes to shore up what I said earlier that no denomination is perfect. As such, I'll echo what Gratia has also said to you. While the LCMS is the best I've found, and while the same goes for Confessional Lutheranism, I never claim either is perfect. I'm a follower of Christ, not Luther. I'm not bound to what mistakes Luther or the LCMS might make.

What I meant the Confessions state more clearly:

"The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

I mean that Scripture is the norm of norms, and that, to quote an outside source, "the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine."

You don't see the irony in appealing to outside references to support your claim that the Bible "contains everything that one needs"?

Do you have any specific examples of a denomination that does that? Because that's extremely bad.

You mean a denominational statement of faith? No, I don't have that. I've only heard it from individuals.

Wikipedia is a pretty crappy source for theology. Also, the term Historical-Grammatical is used numerous times throughout LCMS statements of doctrine.

Just look at the 1973, "Comparative Study of Varying Contemporary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation."

Also, haven't you ever heard of the Seminex controversy?

To quote Wikipedia, your source, "ELCA clergy tend not to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but see validity in various scholarly methods of analysis to help in understanding the Bible. This is in concord with most moderate Protestant bodies and in contrast to the LCMS and WELS, which practice the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation."

Yes, I'm familiar with Seminex. At one point I was hoping to write my thesis on it.

Wikipedia was just a convenient way to demonstrate the confusion of terms you're using. If you 'll notice, the Wikipedia entry on the Historical-Grammatical method is marked as being in dispute. I know the LCMS criticizes the Historical-Critical method, and that causes me some heartburn. Some of their YEC statements also make me cringe. As I said, all the rationalist, "historical Jesus", and minimalist movements deserve criticism, but those from the LCMS who compose these statements seem to miss the point. If you want a spot on and scathing criticism of the abuse of historical method in Biblical history, read Kitchen.

But, more on this historical-grammatical thing later.

Really? Look at Post 50:

Yes, really.

By no means. I simply mean to say that we should not seek to look at Scripture as something that once applied, but rather look apply it to today in everything. Stand under Scripture, not understand it, that is.

Though cute, I think that last phrase is a horrible idea. Nowhere does the Bible promote ignorance as an approach. I never meant to say we look to something that "once applied". Scripture applies once and for all. There is no yesterday and today. There is just how it applies. Attempts to nitpick the meaning of yom are doing exactly what you say we should not do. My only point in referencing the most ancient Jewish interpretations was to emphasize the consistency of that interpretation. You're making too much of what I said.

But it’s Historical-Grammatical. I know, I’ve looked at it. Historical-Critical Biblical interpretation on the other hand, has no value whatsoever, and that is where you and I fundamentally disagree.

It's historical-grammatical why? Because you say so? That's not good enough. Nowhere can I find any reference wherein Steinmann says he uses such a method. So it seems you're improperly applying that label to him.

Since you don't like Wikipedia, I will note that not only do I find no reference from Steinmann, I can find no reference in peer-reviewed historical literature to use of this method. Rather, in an essay published in 1892 by F.W.C. Meyer, he claims that Ernesti was the founder of the historical-grammatical method, and that it was an early form of higher criticism (your hated historical-critical method). IOW, it was something used by the Rationalists to promote the very idea you're arguing against. Why the term was later appropriated and inverted to mean the exact opposite of it's original meaning, I don't know.

Further, though I don't mean to smear Steinmann's reputation, for I greatly admire him, I will note that in Dec 2002 he published an article in JETS that subtly challenges the interpretation that yom in Genesis should be interpreted as "day". So, the man you claim is using the historical-grammatical method, the man who painstakingly discusses Hebrew number systems in his book and how they are to be interpreted in the Bible, is promoting an idea you disagree with. Therefore, either he is not using the method you claim, or this method you tout is flawed.

I gave you more than one verse!

I only recall the one, but I'll take your word for it.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Romans 5:12

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

"For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

"So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:14

And let's not forget my personal favorite. You claim to believe in a literal Adam and a literal fall. So what was the point of God's warning when he told Adam:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17

If Adam is warned that when he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die, why is this a big deal? Didn't Adam's monkey ancestors die?

I’ll give you the same advice I give everyone. Read Job 38!

Were you there? In the beginning?

Or was God?

Did you read my first posts? Again you misrepresent me. I do not accept evolution, so the reference to "monkey ancestors" is a strawman.

Further, Adam brought death to humanity just as those verses state. No person died prior to Adam's sin. Another view of mine you seem to have missed.

My question regarded plant and animal life. Did any plants die before the fall, such as those the animals ate? Did any single cell animals die? So let's start over from there. None of the verses you quoted refer to plants or animals. Or, if you're going to claim they do, that means salvation is also extended to them.

 

[ContraMundum]

Yet the Rabbinic commentaries and early Christian views are not great examples of interpretation.
Very few eyes at the time even seen the texts - no Printing Press.
No study aids, such as word studies software and things like that.

That was a stone age of interpretation and hermeneutics. How many scrolls were there? Who could even read? Ball point pens? Paper?

Actually, I beg to differ. Jews then and now are taught how to read the scriptures for themselves. Every synagogue had a scroll.

Also, what gave them a special insight that days were 24 hours? They had the same Bible we do. The Bible also tells us to examine the works of God in nature.

Actually, I beg to differ here too. The Jews wrote the Bible, it didn't fall from the sky. They knew the intended meaning and story before it was committed to writing. Furthermore, they wrote it without vowels and many Hebrew words share the same set of core consonants. This means the correct meaning of the word could only be known traditionally. Hence, the meanings were handed down, so the "special insight" into the meaning of "yom" is that it forms part of the same core tradition the resulted in the written word.

This of course ends up begging the question- is the ancient traditional meaning therefore the "stone age" of interpretation or the golden age? Seems to me that because tradition always precedes the written text (this goes for the NT as well) then the text reflects the God-inspired faith of the authors. I would argue that the further away from the author's time we go, the more we lose the intended meaning of the text and the more we exalt our own reasoning over it.

Also, when we say we interpret Scriptures with Scriptures it does not mean we take 2 completely different contexts and mesh it into one.

No one is saying that I hope.

As you mentioned, the day in genesis is defined by having an evening and the morning.
An evening and the morning takes 24 hours today.

What makes an evening and the morning last 24 hours today are Earth, Sun, even Moon.

There was no Sun nor Moon for first 3 days in Genesis.
And Earth was still getting shaped up.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Totally different contexts - planets are missing.:o
No clock to measure the hours.

And you know the objection I am getting to this? ... God can do anything!

This makes me climb the walls. And what makes me even more frustrated is that the person who made that objection has no idea why I just climbed a perfectly smooth wall.

Thanks,
Ed

I get ya. Totally see it too.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When I was Confirmed in an LCMS parish, my pastor instructed ME that I was affirming my embrace of Lutheran DOCTRINE (not any specific, particular hermeneutic) as expressed in the 10 pages or so of Luther's Small Catechism. Such says NOTHING about Creation other than to affirm God as the Creator. Thus MY opinion is that joining an LCMS parish does NOT mandate that we embrace a certain interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2.

I've read all the Confessions (although I'm NO expert!) and I personally don't recall any statement there about a certain mandated dogmatic interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2. So since PASTORS affirm their embrace not just of Luther's Small Catechism but also of the much more extensive Book of Concord, I'm personally not aware that they are mandated by the LCMS to hold to a particiular interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2, suggesting to ME that such is not binding or dogmatic or mandated.

I'm a bit aware that the CTCR and some Convention Resolutions have affirmed such a specific interpretation..... but I'm not aware that such is mandated upon all members - or even pastors. And I'm personally not aware of any LCMS pastor defrocked or any LCMS member excommunicated over this.


Sorry.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[ContraMundum]

But, more on this historical-grammatical thing later.

It's historical-grammatical why? Because you say so? That's not good enough. Nowhere can I find any reference wherein Steinmann says he uses such a method. So it seems you're improperly applying that label to him.

I hate to say it but one of the most whacky things I find in some Confessional Lutheran discussions is when they claim that Biblical criticism (eg usually in the form of the much maligned historical-critical method) is "not Lutheran" yet forgetting the fact that Luther himself was perhaps one of the first to use textual criticism in his development of the canon itself! In the Confessional Lutheran estimation, several books of the NT are not useful to draw dogma from, and James was almost booted out of the canon because it didn't "fit" with other books. This is the seed of higher criticism.

It seems to me wiser to say that classic Lutheran exegesis tends to shy away from terms like the "historical-grammatical method" etc- those terms are relatively modern and quite the distraction. I was taught exegesis from the old "Theological Hermeneutics" by Ludwig Fuerbringer (amongst other books as well). He was LCMS. It didn't worry itself with labels. It focused on getting the job done.

All this labeling of ideas seems a waste of time to me.

 

[Resha Caner]

All this labeling of ideas seems a waste of time to me.

Some of it is unavoidable, but for the most part I agree.

 

[Resha Caner]

When I was Confirmed in an LCMS parish, my pastor instructed ME that I was affirming my embrace of Lutheran DOCTRINE (not any specific, particular hermeneutic) as expressed in the 10 pages or so of Luther's Small Catechism. Such says NOTHING about Creation other than to affirm God as the Creator. Thus MY opinion is that joining an LCMS parish does NOT mandate that we embrace a certain interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2.

I've read all the Confessions (although I'm NO expert!) and I personally don't recall any statement there about a certain mandated dogmatic interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2. So since PASTORS affirm their embrace not just of Luther's Small Catechism but also of the much more extensive Book of Concord, I'm personally not aware that they are mandated by the LCMS to hold to a particiular interpretation of the accounts in Genesis 1-2, suggesting to ME that such is not binding or dogmatic or mandated.

I'm a bit aware that the CTCR and some Convention Resolutions have affirmed such a specific interpretation..... but I'm not aware that such is mandated upon all members - or even pastors. And I'm personally not aware of any LCMS pastor defrocked or any LCMS member excommunicated over this.

I think that is the spirit of it in order to uphold salvation by grace alone, but in practical matters it doesn't always play out that way ... such as when someone tries to hold the LCMS to the spirit of that intent by expressing a view counter to YEC.

And when such expressions become disruptive, I'm on the side of the LCMS. I frequently hold my tongue on my divergent views because I absolutely agree that the discussion can be very counter-productive. It causes me great pain when someone takes what I've said as agreement with their unBiblical views. IMO UCA conflicts with confessional theology. At the same time it also causes me great pain to see people trying to uphold the creaking structure of flawed ideas as they are bludgeoned by an overwhelming weight of opposing arguments for no good reason. Most of all it causes me the greatest pain to see people walking away from confessional churches like the LCMS because they think it futile to continue defending such positions.

Hopefully we can all agree that our only hope is to cling to God's promises as they are fulfilled in Christ, and pray the Spirit will make use of an open and honest conversation such as this.

 

[Edial]

Actually, I beg to differ. Jews then and now are taught how to read the scriptures for themselves. Every synagogue had a scroll.

Right. But my point was there were not that many eyes to actually read and study the scrolls back then.
No printing press. No concordance. No paper, no ballpoint pens, no search engines.
You are saying each synagogue has a scroll. OK.
What I am saying is that today each individual can have his/her own scroll as well as searching and other tools.
Computers are only like what, 25 years young?

For every 10 pairs of eyes studying the scroll, today we have 10,000.
Same scrolls yet more brain power and better study.

And are the Jews today taught to read the Scriptures for themselves?
Maybe, but not the ones I have met. To a Judaic Jew Talmud is the way to go - no difference from many Christians who read mainly commentaries on the texts, theological views and so forth.

The art of studying the Bible is getting lost.
People no longer see themselves studying the Bible without commentaries.

Actually, I beg to differ here too. The Jews wrote the Bible, it didn't fall from the sky. They knew the intended meaning and story before it was committed to writing. Furthermore, they wrote it without vowels and many Hebrew words share the same set of core consonants. This means the correct meaning of the word could only be known traditionally. Hence, the meanings were handed down, so the "special insight" into the meaning of "yom" is that it forms part of the same core tradition the resulted in the written word.

This of course ends up begging the question- is the ancient traditional meaning therefore the "stone age" of interpretation or the golden age? Seems to me that because tradition always precedes the written text (this goes for the NT as well) then the text reflects the God-inspired faith of the authors. I would argue that the further away from the author's time we go, the more we lose the intended meaning of the text and the more we exalt our own reasoning over it.

But traditions are not inspired by God, yet the word of God is inspired by God.
And the point I was also making was that we are told to examine the nature (in Romans and Psalms someplace) to understand the words of God, the meaning of the finer details of it.

We all know that by looking at true science (not junk science and no theories of this or that) we understand the unclear sayings of the Bible better without going even an inch away from the literal text.

I understand you are Messianic (I don't know if you are Jewish or not) and you see things in that light. Which is OK.
But I do not agree that the Jews of today know their own text the way we thing they do or should.
They know Talmud, and read the actual Bible (by itself) occasionally, but ALWAYS in the light of Talmud.

We need to examine the state of Christianity today, 2000 years later.
In my opinion although we are big we are losing the connection with the Head.

Christ gave us only 2 commandments, not 10, not 613, but 2.

And he said that without doing the 2nd one it is impossible to do the 1st one.

A 5 year old can understand it and see that we are in trouble.

Do we read about this?

Do we read about the pitiful state of Christianity where every denomination and faith groups claims to have the entire truth on everything they teach and are convinced that any denomination that disagrees with them on any point are wrong?

Do teachers teach us that, do commentators write about that?
Do theologians weep about that?

Am I the only one who is waving the red flag?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ContraMundum]

Right. But my point was there were not that many eyes to actually read and study the scrolls back then.
No printing press. No concordance. No paper, no ballpoint pens, no search engines.
You are saying each synagogue has a scroll. OK.
What I am saying is that today each individual can have his/her own scroll as well as searching and other tools.
Computers are only like what, 25 years young?

For every 10 pairs of eyes studying the scroll, today we have 10,000.
Same scrolls yet more brain power and better study.

OK- got it.

And are the Jews today taught to read the Scriptures for themselves?
Maybe, but not the ones I have met. To a Judaic Jew Talmud is the way to go - no difference from many Christians who read mainly commentaries on the texts, theological views and so forth.

Sure. In Judaism it is ok to question the commentaries etc. I'm just saying that for religious Jews it's encouraged that one should read the text for themselves- like when Jesus asked the young lawyer about the Torah- "how do you read it?"

The art of studying the Bible is getting lost.
People no longer see themselves studying the Bible without commentaries.

Agreed- but it has always been that way. I think we are meant to do that. We have individual access and responsibility to read the Bible but we are never really independent with it.

But traditions are not inspired by God, yet the word of God is inspired by God.

The word of God is inspired by God- agreed. But consider a text like 2 Thess 2:15. It is believed and taught before it is written down. So it is a tradition later committed to writing. Of course we follow that which is written and test all other tradition through that- now. But before it was written, it was believed. (eg. the Gospels are written years after the event)

I understand you are Messianic (I don't know if you are Jewish or not) and you see things in that light. Which is OK.

I'm Jewish, but not a member of a Messianic denomination. I've been pastoring an ecumenical urban mission for a few years now. Currently endorsed by a Lutheran denomination. My "title designation" stating my being a Messianic Jewish Christian is something I was asked to put up for the purposes of the forum. (It lets the others know that I still have Jewish practices and so forth in my personal life)

But I do not agree that the Jews of today know their own text the way we thing they do or should.
They know Talmud, and read the actual Bible (by itself) occasionally, but ALWAYS in the light of Talmud.

True. But most Jews are not religious at all. The folks studying the Talmud are really just studying a commentary of a commentary. But there's good stuff in there mixed with chaff.

We need to examine the state of Christianity today, 2000 years later.
In my opinion although we are big we are losing the connection with the Head.

Interesting comment. I was thinking just today that we are in danger of losing our heart. We need both.

Christ gave us only 2 commandments, not 10, not 613, but 2.

I think there's more than two commandments in the NT- Paul gives a number for example. However, they all come under those two, don't they.

Do we read about the pitiful state of Christianity where every denomination and faith groups claims to have the entire truth on everything they teach and are convinced that any denomination that disagrees with them on any point are wrong?

We see it on the forums constantly.

Do teachers teach us that, do commentators write about that?
Do theologians weep about that?

I think so.

Am I the only one who is waving the red flag?

I hope not!

 

[KEPLER]

OK, because I asked you a question about death (post #43), not the meaning of yom.

But since you brought it up ...

All of the semantic arguments are wholly unconvincing to me. IMO they don't matter. The pertinent question is: How would the Hebrews to whom Moses first delivered this text have interpreted it? Unfortunately, that is a very difficult question to answer, but as best I can tell the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis is as history with yom meaning "day".

The comprehension of the original audience is certainly an important thing for which we must account. HOWEVER, how did the Hebrews understand Joshua's long day? Most likely, they would have understood it to mean that the earth is stationary, and that the sun is revolving around the earth.

Should we be beholden to their understanding? Or is it perhaps better to think that God spoke to them in terms which would not cause confusion for them?

GOD: I want you to tell the Earth to stand still.

JOSHUA: Um, you mean the sun, right? Tell the sun to stand still?

GOD: No, the earth.

JOSHUA: But the earth isn't moving.

GOD: Yes, actually the earth is moving in two ways. First, it is rotating upon its axis at a speed of about 1670 kilometers per hour, and it's also revolving around the sun at a rate of...

JOSHUA: What's a kilometer?

GOD: Umm, here come the Amorites...we'd better discuss this later...

Just thinking out loud....

K

 

[Edial]

...
GOD: I want you to tell the Earth to stand still.

JOSHUA: Um, you mean the sun, right? Tell the sun to stand still?

GOD: No, the earth.

JOSHUA: But the earth isn't moving.

GOD: Yes, actually the earth is moving in two ways. First, it is rotating upon its axis at a speed of about 1670 kilometers per hour, and it's also revolving around the sun at a rate of...

JOSHUA: What's a kilometer?

GOD: Umm, here come the Amorites...we'd better discuss this later...

Just thinking out loud....

K

 

[Melethiel]

I'm trying to argue that by believing in evolution, you are undermining the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy, and thus, do not fall within "doctrinal unity."



It makes all the difference. Evolution posits that death was essential to the creation of modern man. Scripture posits that Adam brought death into the world.

While you're reading 1 Corinthians 15:56, you also might want to look at the following:

Of course, my original passage:

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Romans 5:12

But how about some other passages?

"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

"For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

"So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:14
.

.

.

And let's not forget my personal favorite. You claim to believe in a literal Adam and a literal fall. So what was the point of God's warning when he told Adam:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17

If Adam is warned that when he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die, why is this a big deal? Didn't Adam's monkey ancestors die?
.
.
.
Brother, you need to read Job 38.

Adam is warned that in the day he eats of the tree he will die. And yet Genesis states that Adam lived for 900+ years after that. if we're reading this so literally, shouldn't Adam have dropped dead right then? And if it's referring to physical death and Adam was immortal prior to the fall, why in the world was there a Tree of Life in the garden?

 

[LutheranChick]

Adam is warned that in the day he eats of the tree he will die. And yet Genesis states that Adam lived for 900+ years after that. if we're reading this so literally, shouldn't Adam have dropped dead right then? And if it's referring to physical death and Adam was immortal prior to the fall, why in the world was there a Tree of Life in the garden?

Adam died a spiritual death that day. In addition, that very day, his body began the process of physical death.

 

[Edial]

Adam is warned that in the day he eats of the tree he will die. And yet Genesis states that Adam lived for 900+ years after that. if we're reading this so literally, shouldn't Adam have dropped dead right then? And if it's referring to physical death and Adam was immortal prior to the fall, why in the world was there a Tree of Life in the garden?

Yet he did physically die that same day.

There is a verse where it says to God 1 day is like 1000 years and 1000 years are like 1 day.

On earth, after being cast out from Eden, he lived less than 1000 years.
Different clocks.

Hi Mel.
Long time no see.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Yet he did physically die that same day.

There is a verse where it says to God 1 day is like 1000 years and 1000 years are like 1 day.

On earth, after being cast out from Eden, he lived less than 1000 years.
Different clocks.

Hi Mel.
Long time no see.

What verse is that? If you're talking about 2 Peter 3:8 or Psalm 90:4, both are saying that God is not slow in His promise of returning to Earth.

 

[Edial]

What verse is that? If you're talking about 2 Peter 3:8 or Psalm 90:4, both are saying that God is not slow in His promise of returning to Earth.

Correct, however the fact remains that to God a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years are like a day.

We do see different clocks.