Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums


Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Inerrancy vs. Infallibility

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male

Where the Bible is concerned there is no discrepancy between the earthly writers an objective history.   You are assigning motives to Moses based on what?  If Moses got the facts on the six days of creation, where else did he get the facts wrong?  If the Bible can be found to untrustworthy in some areas, what is the standard for trusting it at all?  Is the Bible only true when it says what I am willing to accept as true?   Who decides when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

 

Hello Shiloh,

 

Sorry, life got busy for me.  Two responses here and then a question (I'm trying to keep things short for the sake of energy and time)

 

"If MOses got the facts on the six days wrong........"  

 

Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.  Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.  But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.  Later I will open a thread that addresses this very topic, but for now, to your question  "So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.  By conditional I mean that the Bible has proven itself again and again to be trustworthy on many matters, and so I will trust it on matters yet not proven. But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.  So why should one embrace the Bible over the Koran?  Is it a lottery, or a holy shambo!?  Or "because the Bible is right and the Koran wrong"?  But that obviously leads us into a vicious circle, in fact, naive fideism.

 

For me, my intellect perceives the Koran to be (I won't give the reasons here) a corruption of an earlier faith (Judaism) and a rejection of that faith's maturity (Christianity).  My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the significant claims made by the Bible, and articulated in Christian theology, is that those claims are true.  My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the universe, and my experience of it, is that there is a higher power (a God).  My intellect tells me that the best explanation of the Old Testament is, in fact, that that superior power revealed itself (turns out to be Himself, in that He is a Person) to a particular people.  The best explanation for the New Testament is that a certain man named Jesus (or Yeshua) died and was raised, and was in fact God Himself, though as Son.  

 

There is obviously a complex relation here between faith and Reason.  A classic conflict.  The question I will pose in the next thread will be something like this: when does Christianity (or the Bible) demand that we abandon Reason/the intellect altogether.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

You see the differentiation?  You either do not wish the salvation of certain people (like Jonah) or are making war upon persons already defeated.

 

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 01 June 2014 - 07:29 PM.

  • 2

#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing
Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.

 

Well what we think doesn't matter.  It is a historical narrative from chapter one to the end of the book whether you are willing to make room for reality or not.  You can deny reality all you want until you are blue in the face, but all you have is an assertion and it is a rather pointless empty assertion.   Genesis 1 is as historical as the rest of the book.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

I get the distinction just fine.  And I don't need philosophical training when I have the Holy Spirit within me witnessing the truth to my heart.  You can rely on philosophy if you want.  I am relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth as Jesus promised He would.  

 

What you are failing to take into account in the inspiration and divine origin of the text. God is the ultimate author of the text.  Moses was the human instrument through which an all-knowing God communicated the truth.  That is something your pitiful, beggardly philosophical training evidently can't factor into all of this.   God who is all-knowing and doesn't inspire error communicated His truth through His word and He says that He created the earth in six days.  It really is that simple.  You can rely on your intellect and philosophical training, but I have an inerrant, all-knowing God to rely on and He was there at the creation week and I can trust Him because He never lies.

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.

 

Well I'll make it real simple for you.   If the Bible is wrong about creation, if it says six days when it was really billions of years, if all life is the product of an impersonal process like evolution, if Eve didn't actually have a conversation with a serpent, then what else does the Bible have to say that can't be trusted to be accurate?   What is the point in trusting a book in what it says about our eternal salvation if it can't get the facts right in the first chapter of the first book? 

 

It appears to me that you approach the Bible from the standpoint that the Bible is true when it needs to be true, and that it can be true philosophically no matter how wrong it is factually.  I could be wrong, but that is what is coming across to me in your posts. 

 

 

But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.

 

I addressed that problem in my last response to you a couple of weeks ago.   They didn't have an erroneous understanding of history or astronomy.  You have an erroneous understanding about those men.

 

"So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.

 

Again, the Bible means what your reason will allow you to believe it means.  What the Bible says is true when you need it to be true, but you reserve the right, via "reason" to cut away the parts that your intellect isn't prepared to accept.  The Bible becomes servant to the reader.

 

BTW, biblical faith is never blind.  Biblical faith, by nature is evidentiary and rational.   "Because the Bible says so," is not blind faith.  It is rooted in the knowledge and history of a God who has always been faithful to what He has put in His word.  It is rooted in the knowledge and experience of a God who is all-knowing and has proven time and time again that He knows what is best for us and is sovereignly guiding history to its inevitable conclusion.  I can put absolute faith in all that the Bible says because it is has never failed and it is the word of a God who never fails.

 

But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.

 

Our belief that the Bible is inspired isn't based merely on the claim to be inspired and of divine origin.  It is based on the internal evidence of the text that supports that claim.  There is a plethora of evidence that the Bible is inspired and that same evidence is not contained in the Koran. In fact, the Koran possesses evidence that isn't inspired, as it makes all kinds of historical errors.  The Biblical writers didn't make any historical errors.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

 

Wow, that is a lot a meaningless nonsense just to try to completely misread and misrepresent my comments.   My point about not giving people an excuse is that I am not going to an enabler for unbelief.

 

If I present the truth, biblically, they will probably still reject the truth.  Lot's of people do.  What I am saying is that I have given them the truth and it is up to them what they do with it.  It is ultimately between them and God.   I am only responsible to God for delivering the truth of what Scripture says.  If they ask me what my views are on evolution and the six days of Creation, I have no problem telling them.  I don't have to erect a complex platform to explain why the Bible can be true and yet untrue and historically unreliable, but worthy of their faith.  That  is incoherent theology.


  • 2

#3
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,783 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grove, Oklahoma
  • Interests:What ever my Father places in my heart at the start of new mercies each morning... in effort to unbind my heart from self...
There is a uniqueness in the Spiritual Life whereby we see clearly faith and it's purpose!
We are in the infinite witness of The Creator both macro and micro in which either directed
view goes out of sight... but in this view what is seen perfectly matches the unbounded realm
of infinite possibilities God possesses. So if we are born of Spirit this become the awe we
live within day by day here yet only in the increase as knowledge increases so has the glory
we behold of The Creator 'Jesus The Christ'... Love, Steven
  • 1

#4
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.

 

Well what we think doesn't matter.  It is a historical narrative from chapter one to the end of the book whether you are willing to make room for reality or not.  You can deny reality all you want until you are blue in the face, but all you have is an assertion and it is a rather pointless empty assertion.   Genesis 1 is as historical as the rest of the book.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

I get the distinction just fine.  And I don't need philosophical training when I have the Holy Spirit within me witnessing the truth to my heart.  You can rely on philosophy if you want.  I am relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth as Jesus promised He would.  

 

What you are failing to take into account in the inspiration and divine origin of the text. God is the ultimate author of the text.  Moses was the human instrument through which an all-knowing God communicated the truth.  That is something your pitiful, beggardly philosophical training evidently can't factor into all of this.   God who is all-knowing and doesn't inspire error communicated His truth through His word and He says that He created the earth in six days.  It really is that simple.  You can rely on your intellect and philosophical training, but I have an inerrant, all-knowing God to rely on and He was there at the creation week and I can trust Him because He never lies.

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.

 

Well I'll make it real simple for you.   If the Bible is wrong about creation, if it says six days when it was really billions of years, if all life is the product of an impersonal process like evolution, if Eve didn't actually have a conversation with a serpent, then what else does the Bible have to say that can't be trusted to be accurate?   What is the point in trusting a book in what it says about our eternal salvation if it can't get the facts right in the first chapter of the first book? 

 

It appears to me that you approach the Bible from the standpoint that the Bible is true when it needs to be true, and that it can be true philosophically no matter how wrong it is factually.  I could be wrong, but that is what is coming across to me in your posts. 

 

 

But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.

 

I addressed that problem in my last response to you a couple of weeks ago.   They didn't have an erroneous understanding of history or astronomy.  You have an erroneous understanding about those men.

 

"So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.

 

Again, the Bible means what your reason will allow you to believe it means.  What the Bible says is true when you need it to be true, but you reserve the right, via "reason" to cut away the parts that your intellect isn't prepared to accept.  The Bible becomes servant to the reader.

 

BTW, biblical faith is never blind.  Biblical faith, by nature is evidentiary and rational.   "Because the Bible says so," is not blind faith.  It is rooted in the knowledge and history of a God who has always been faithful to what He has put in His word.  It is rooted in the knowledge and experience of a God who is all-knowing and has proven time and time again that He knows what is best for us and is sovereignly guiding history to its inevitable conclusion.  I can put absolute faith in all that the Bible says because it is has never failed and it is the word of a God who never fails.

 

But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.

 

Our belief that the Bible is inspired isn't based merely on the claim to be inspired and of divine origin.  It is based on the internal evidence of the text that supports that claim.  There is a plethora of evidence that the Bible is inspired and that same evidence is not contained in the Koran. In fact, the Koran possesses evidence that isn't inspired, as it makes all kinds of historical errors.  The Biblical writers didn't make any historical errors.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

 

Wow, that is a lot a meaningless nonsense just to try to completely misread and misrepresent my comments.   My point about not giving people an excuse is that I am not going to an enabler for unbelief.

 

If I present the truth, biblically, they will probably still reject the truth.  Lot's of people do.  What I am saying is that I have given them the truth and it is up to them what they do with it.  It is ultimately between them and God.   I am only responsible to God for delivering the truth of what Scripture says.  If they ask me what my views are on evolution and the six days of Creation, I have no problem telling them.  I don't have to erect a complex platform to explain why the Bible can be true and yet untrue and historically unreliable, but worthy of their faith.  That  is incoherent theology.

 

 

 

You are all over the place Shiloh.

 

Here, I will break down the options for you

 

1) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that you do not think is true, even if it might enable belief."  This is really the only honest position, and it is the one I adhere to.  My guess is, it is the one you adhere to as well.  Yet you shift your reasons every other post: this is the option that you turn to again and again:

 

2) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that enables disbelief".  Yet you admit that both readings typically result in unbelief!  In other words, you are enabling unbelief either way.  What does it matter which you subscribe to if the result is the same either way?  That is not enabling.  To enable unbelief means that one has rejected an approach that would result in belief.    But that is not the case here.

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

NOw there is a 3rd position which is also respectable: 3) "You criticize persons who present readings of the Bible, not because they think them true, but because they think that reading will win converts, or dodge mockery."  That is, any presentation that thinks more of effects than truth should be avoided.

 

Now, if I were one of those Christians who presented what I thought the most accommodating reading, I should certainly be criticized.  But I am not.  I present what I think to be the reading intended by God and Moses.  Perhaps I am wrong, but that still leaves me in position 1.

 

 

 

clb


  • 2

#5
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

1) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that you do not think is true, even if it might enable belief."  This is really the only honest position, and it is the one I adhere to.  My guess is, it is the one you adhere to as well.  Yet you shift your reasons every other post: this is the option that you turn to again and again:

 

2) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that enables disbelief".  Yet you admit that both readings typically result in unbelief!  In other words, you are enabling unbelief either way.  What does it matter which you subscribe to if the result is the same either way?  That is not enabling.  To enable unbelief means that one has rejected an approach that would result in belief.    But that is not the case here.

 

Wrong, as usual.

 

Presenting a view of Genesis that justifies rejecting the Bible as a true and accurate record of history, such as treating Genesis 1 as  parable or an allegory of something else, as opposed to an accurate record of history opens makes room for the unbeliever to draw the same conclusions about other parts of the Bible.   If Genesis 1-3 cannot be trusted to be accurate, then why should a person accept the account of Noah's flood, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, or any other alleged historical event mentioned?  If the Bible is inaccurate in some parts and not in others how does a nonbeliever set about trying to figure out which parts are accurate and historical and which parts are not?

 

One of the most frequent objections I hear about rejecting what the Bible says about Jesus is all of the mistakes the Bible makes in so many places.  It is hard to keep skeptics focused on talking about Jesus because when you begin any kind of discussion that includes the Bible, the first thing they want to do is point out that Genesis is a myth or fairytale.  It forms their first line of defense against believing anything the Bible says.  You, though can't seem to understand that. 

 

When a Christian confirms to a skeptic that yes, Genesis is not historical, and those events probably didn't happen as written, that only serves to make the skeptic comfortable in his skepticism.   It only shows him that his reasons for not accepting the Bible as a whole is justified. 

 

To try and draw a moral equivalence type of argument where sharing the Bible as accurate and truthful and inerrant is just as much an enabler as telling them that Genesis is a myth is a fallacious line of argumentation.  

 

Even if the result is the same, even if they reject the Bible after I have presented to them as the infallible,inerrant Word of God, I have not enabled their unbelief.  Their unbelief is rooted in the hardness of their heart against the truth.    I don't have to stand before the Lord and sputter up an explanation as to why I presented His word in a way that enabled a skeptic to be affirmed and comfortable in his skepticism.  

 

That he rejects the truth isn't really my problem.  I am only accountable to God for presenting the truth.  I am not accountable to God for his response once he has been told the truth.   Once he hears the truth, it is between him and God and he will stand before the Lord and give an account for his unbelief.   But at least I am not telling the skeptic that his view of Genesis 1-3 as  myth is true and thus enabling him to remain entrenched in unbelief.  I would hate to be the Christian who has to give an account to the Lord for that.

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

That is completely wrong.  The effects are not the same.  When you present the truth, you are planting seed that the Lord through the Holy Spirit can cause to germinate at some point in the future.   If I present something different, like saying that Genesis 1-3 is a myth, I am not planting seed; I am helping a skeptic remain a skeptic.


  • 1

#6
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

That is completely wrong.  The effects are not the same.  When you present the truth, you are planting seed that the Lord through the Holy Spirit can cause to germinate at some point in the future.   If I present something different, like saying that Genesis 1-3 is a myth, I am not planting seed; I am helping a skeptic remain a skeptic.

 

 

 

You have again and again said that presenting Genesis 1 as historical results in them rejecting it as scientifically absurd.  You have stated again and again your reasons for presenting it such: so that their unbelief could not be justified.  Never once, until now, have you mentioned the possibility of conversion at a later time.  If that is your ultimate purpose in presenting Genesis 1 as pure history, then that is an acceptable position.  Debate would then be about the correctness of your reading of Genesis as historical in genre.

 

Again, what do you do with the people who come to faith only after an alternative reading of Genesis has been given them?  The numbers are enormous.

 

Again, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledged the distinction between false history, and historical myth.  If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

 

 

 

If I met an atheist who argued from my reading of Genesis to a whole-sale rejection of the Bible on the grounds that Genesis is a fairy tale, I would first correct him on the definition of myth, which is not fairy tale; then I would ask him how one genre of literature (myth) could possibly negate the contents of a completely different genre (history).  If I were both a writer of fiction and an historian, would my historical work be debunked because I write narratives that intentionally have no historical value?  That is absurd.  It is even more absurd with Genesis, for there we are dealing with historical content. The fact that Genesis 1 presents historical and theological content intentionally (intended by God Himself) in mythic form has no objective effect on the historical accuracy of the Gospels or any other historical work. Skeptics may say it did; but they are wrong and could be shown to be wrong. Eventually, when push comes to shove, they will admit that they simply do not want to believe and that the argument is just an excuse. 

 

Let me put it this way: What would you say to a skeptic who said, "Well Jesus told stories that weren't historical; so why should I accept Matthew in general as historically accurate?"

 

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 02 June 2014 - 07:02 PM.

  • 1

#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing
You are completely inconsistent.  You have again and again said that presenting Genesis 1 as historical results in them rejecting it as scientifically absurd.

 

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it.  It is totally in the realm of possibility that they will reject the truth.  There are also those who will accept the truth as well.  I didn't say that presenting the truth will result in them rejecting it.  I simply admit that they are free to reject the truth if they choose to harden their hearts against it.

 

You have stated again and again your reasons for presenting it such: so that their unbelief could not be justified.  Never once, until now, have you mentioned the possibility of conversion at a later time.

 

Wrong.  In  my last post, I pointed out that when I reveal the truth to them, I am planting seeds that God can cause to germinate later.  They may reject it at first, but the Holy Spirit can continue to work on them.  So I have not ruled out or failed to mention conversion at a later time.  You simply ignored that part of my post.

 

Again, what do you do with the people who come to faith only after an alternative reading of Genesis has been given them.  The numbers are enormous.

 

Can you elaborate on that?    I know a lot of religious people with mixed up theology and an incoherent view of God based on viewing the Bible inconsistently,  but I have never met a person who as ever gotten saved on the grounds that someone revealed to them that Genesis is a myth and the events described didn't really happen.


  • 1

#8
inchrist

inchrist

    Veteran Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Gender:Male

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

 

Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text – Lets start deconstructing the confusion

The Bible itself does not say that YEHOVAH God created the universe about the time He created man and the plants and animals described in Genesis 1.

 

Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Compare this with Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

 

The Hebrew words for "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 are tohu and bohu. They have the English meaning of "waste, empty, confusion, and chaos." The Hebrew word translated "in vain" in Isaiah 45:18 is also tohu, the very same word used in Genesis 1:2

 

So we see that YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in a state of tohu, but rather it had become that way. In the beginning the earth was not created in chaos. Something happened, however, that made it a chaos. Genesis 1, verse 2, reveals what both of you do not understand, the earth was no longer in a state of order. It was (or had become) in a state of utter confusion and waste.

So the Bible does tell us that in the beginning YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in tohu, but that it was now, as a result of some catastrophic event, in a state of tohu and bohu -- confusion

In Genesis 1:2 we find that YEHOVAH's spirit moved above the face of the waters. The earth was already in existence, but its surface and atmosphere were in confusion.

 

Moving quickly to the fourth day of Genesis 1:14-19. Many people have read these verses -- along with Genesis 1:3-5 -- and, as a result, have come to the conclusion that the Bible  contradicts itself and is therefore an unreliable guide for human behavior. Genesis 1:14-19 reads as follows:

 

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

People look at these verses and say -- "this is referring to the creation of the sun, moon and stars!" But then some go back to Genesis 1:3-5 and read --

 

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

Now we seemingly have a problem: The fact that verse 3 says, "Let there be light: and there was light" indicates that the sun must be in existence to produce that light! Right here people start to think that these verses in Genesis are contradictory and, therefore, the Bible is unreliable. Let's, however, study this question in more detail.

 

Hence why your statement below

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  

 

You havnt been looking at scripture correctly,

 

Genesis 1:1-2 refers to a time BEFORE the six days of creation. When these days commenced in Genesis 1:3, the sun, moon and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, just prior to these six days of re-creation  "the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep" (Genesis 1:2). Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth -- preventing light from reaching its surface. (Job 38:9: "When I made the clouds its [the earth's] garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band.)

 

What your witnessing is the 6 days of re-creation

 

When God said, Let there be light: and there was light." This statement refers to the light that came from the sun illuminating around the earth but not reaching the earth.

 

The sun was created long before the earth became a form, because the sun is the center of attraction of the solar system. Light from the sun was shining through space, but had not yet shined upon the earth because of the "swaddling band" that surrounded it.

 

The Bible does not reveal the exact age of the earth, but the Bible does tell us that man has been on the earth almost 6,000 years. Much unnecessary confusion has arisen because creationists generally have not understood that the earth was created -- along with the sun, moon and stars -- at some unrevealed length of time before man's creation.


  • 1

#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.


  • 1

#10
inchrist

inchrist

    Veteran Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

but slandering is a far better practice?


  • 1

#11
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,783 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grove, Oklahoma
  • Interests:What ever my Father places in my heart at the start of new mercies each morning... in effort to unbind my heart from self...

@ConnorLiamBrown
If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.
Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.
                                                                                    
@ shiloh357
No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it
How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 
but slandering is a far better practice?

It is the child who knows He is in the Light of Christ and upholds the Word
that rests in the peace of eternal substance kept by God... if saying that
truth is slander by any who are not in that light >then< it is God Who sorts
this in the end... Love, Steven
  • 1

#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

but slandering is a far better practice?

 

I didn't slander you.  I said your teachings are false.   I simply refuse to entertain your false teachings.  By your own standard, you slandered me by accusing me misinterpreting the Scripture.  Again, you have nothing to say theologically or biblically that is worth me spending the time to address.


  • 1

#13
inchrist

inchrist

    Veteran Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Gender:Male
It is the child who knows He is in the Light of Christ and upholds the Word
that rests in the peace of eternal substance kept by God... if saying that
truth is slander by any who are not in that light >then< it is God Who sorts
this in the end... Love, Steven

 

 

Well said


  • 1

#14
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Theology, Sci-Fi (I'm a nerd), anything artsy or creative, Japan, Astronomy, books (reading and/or collecting), worship music, and I have a slight addiction to computer games...

Wow, this thread is getting entertaining.  I'm gonna go get some popcorn.  Anyone want popcorn? :D
 
@inchrist
  Shiloh and others have already argued this topic into the ground in the Faith vs Science part of the forums, including the arguments you gave.  It's nothing really new.  Probably why Shiloh doesn't want to get into it with you here.  That, and the fact that your wording probably came across as a bit insulting to some people.  I agree with some of your points, but I was  cringing a bit at the way you presented them.  Telling someone their ideas are unreasonable isn't a good way to convince them to consider your side. ;)
 
Also, it's not the topic of the original post.  Anyone remember what that was...?
 
*munches popcorn*


  • 1

#15
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Theology, Sci-Fi (I'm a nerd), anything artsy or creative, Japan, Astronomy, books (reading and/or collecting), worship music, and I have a slight addiction to computer games...

So I was doing some bible study and research for the Open Theism thread when I came across this post on Greg Boyd's blog.  I thought it was relevant to this thread regarding the inerrancy of Scripture and our foundation in Christ.

 

I thought it raised some good points. :)


  • 1

#16
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing
 

Boyd's analogy of a house of cards it is just a tad oversimplifying the issue of inerrancy.   As an open theist, Boyd like his predecessors in open theism hold to the notion that it is possible for God to make mistakes because God doesn't and can't know the future.  So, in that vein of thinking, the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant because God isn't necessarily inerrant.  In truth, Boyd's views border on heresy, as he limits God's inerrancy only to what He can know, thus leaving all Bible prophecies that have not yet come to pass, up in the air.

 

The problem is that the Bible offers itself up as something we can put our ultimate faith in, particularly for salvation.  The Bible says in Rom. 10:17 that faith comes from hearing (or reading) the Word of God.   But how can one put their faith in something when it is not really clear when what we are reading is accurate or not?

 

Since we are putting our ultimate faith in the Bible for salvation, because we have forsaken all other faiths and are exclusively committed to the Bible isn't it reasonable that we would want what we are putting all of our faith in to be something we can trust 100% of the time???  When it is okay for the Bible to wrong about something, when we are depending on every word to be true, particularly where eternal salvation is at stake???

 

On purely natural level, would anyone ride in a car if they knew that the brakes only work ninety-nine times out of a hundred?

 

Boyd appears to be arguing that the Bible is true even if it isn't accurate, but when you examine the Bible, it doesn't offer us that option.  The Bible does give us the option of accepting as true spiritually, but inaccurate in matters of fact, history, etc.   The problem with Boyd's view is that it really isn't based on the clear revelation of Scripture but is rooted in philosophy, namely a philosophical position that finds its origin with Clark Pinnock back 1980.

 

Here is another point relevant to inerrancy:   Bible prophecy.   So far, Jesus has fulfilled all 300+ prophecies relative to his first coming and they were fulfilled to the letter.   How can a God who doesn't know the future and can't know the future offer up such a stunning and spotless record of prophetic accuracy?    These were not vague prophecies that could have meant anything.  They were all detailed prophecies.

 

If as Boyd argues that God can't know the future, how was God able to predict the crucifixion of Jesus over 500 years before crucifixion even existed?  This is an argument for inerrancy that goes beyond just knowing facts.   God inerrantly predicted Jesus birth and all of the circumstances surrounding it.  He predicted that Jesus would be rejected and beaten beyond recognition, that he would die as a result of crucifixion and rise again in the Old Testament hundreds of years into the future.  Again, there over 300 OT prophecies inerrantly prophesied and each one fulfilled precisely proving their inerrancy.

 

I would also point to the fact that we don't hold to inerrancy because we are afraid our little house of cards is going to collapse.  We hold to inerrancy because God presents us with no other option with regard to how we are to accept His word.   The Bible judges US .  We do not sit in judgment on it.   We don't get the option of treating the Bible like an all you can eat buffet where we can just pick what we want and leave the other stuff.    It is presented to us as one inspired, 100% inerrant word of God.  If we reject God's word on the basis of how God has presented to us, we are in rebellion against God.


  • 1

#17
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

Shiloh, don't you think that was a little harsh?  Or was that aimed at me?  AFter all, you have denounced me as a false teacher but continue to correspond.

 

clb 


  • 1

#18
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

Shiloh, don't you think that was a little harsh?  Or was that aimed at me?  AFter all, you have denounced me as a false teacher but continue to correspond.

 

clb 

 

His errors are worse than yours in another thread and have nothing to do with what he presented in this thread. 


  • 1

#19
inchrist

inchrist

    Veteran Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Gender:Male

ConnorLiamBrown

I am rather interested to further discuss this debate with you, I notice your not overly sensitive so I believe we can discover the truth. 

 

I've given my "literal reading of the text." for you to consider


  • 1

#20
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male

ConnorLiamBrown

I am rather interested to further discuss this debate with you, I notice your not overly sensitive so I believe we can discover the truth. 

 

I've given my "literal reading of the text." for you to consider

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

 

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be more hestitant with these sentences:

 

when you havnt explored all options 

 

 

 

How could you possibly know what options I have and have not explored?

 

And a view becomes only unreasonable when an alternative is demonstrated to be the ONLY reasonable view.  And there is no way you can prove Genesis to be historical in genre: we are not dealing with a math or logic problem.  In this science, there is only probability.  You can show that by certain literary signs the probability of Genesis belonging to the historical genre is very high; that is not proof.

 

As to your reading: I have heard it before, and obviously am not convinced by the arguments.  Pick up any 10 commentaries and you will find numerous renderings of the Hebrew.  If the literal reading of the Hebrew were so obvious as you present it, we would have to assume that myriad scholars are idiots.  That is improbable to me. 

                                                                                    

Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text – Lets start deconstructing the confusion

The Bible itself does not say that YEHOVAH God created the universe about the time He created man and the plants and animals described in Genesis 1.

 

Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Compare this with Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

 

The Hebrew words for "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2 are tohu and bohu. They have the English meaning of "waste, empty, confusion, and chaos." The Hebrew word translated "in vain" in Isaiah 45:18 is also tohu, the very same word used in Genesis 1:2

 

So we see that YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in a state of tohu, but rather it had become that way. In the beginning the earth was not created in chaos. Something happened, however, that made it a chaos. Genesis 1, verse 2, reveals what both of you do not understand, the earth was no longer in a state of order. It was (or had become) in a state of utter confusion and waste.

So the Bible does tell us that in the beginning YEHOVAH God did not create the earth in tohu, but that it was now, as a result of some catastrophic event, in a state of tohu and bohu – confusion

 

 

 

That is an enormous leap to take from two different Biblcal contexts.  Isaiah is not giving a commentary on Genesis 1:1-3.  He is talking about the entire creation process: the goal of creation was to be inhabited; as eventually it was: this does not mean that it could not have proceeded from a state of chaos to a state of habitable order.  And in fact, that is just what we see.

 

 

 

In Genesis 1:2 we find that YEHOVAH's spirit moved above the face of the waters. The earth was already in existence, but its surface and atmosphere were in confusion.

 

Moving quickly to the fourth day of Genesis 1:14-19. Many people have read these verses -- along with Genesis 1:3-5 -- and, as a result, have come to the conclusion that the Bible  contradicts itself and is therefore an unreliable guide for human behavior. Genesis 1:14-19 reads as follows:

 

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

 

 

People look at these verses and say -- "this is referring to the creation of the sun, moon and stars!" But then some go back to Genesis 1:3-5 and read --

 

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

Now we seemingly have a problem: The fact that verse 3 says, "Let there be light: and there was light" indicates that the sun must be in existence to produce that light! Right here people start to think that these verses in Genesis are contradictory and, therefore, the Bible is unreliable. Let's, however, study this question in more detail.

 

Hence why your statement below

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  

 

You havnt been looking at scripture correctly,

 

 

Shiloh’s and my debate were not primarily on the reading of Genesis 1.  It was a philosophical topic on the criterion of error; ultimately what it would mean if the Bible contained certain errors—historical and geographical specifically.  Shiloh consistently accused me of attributing error to the author of Genesis 1.  I was insisting that I wasn’t.  There is a thread already established on the “literal reading” of Genesis.  That might be a better place to take this up…?

 

Genesis 1:1-2 refers to a time BEFORE the six days of creation. When these days commenced in Genesis 1:3, the sun, moon and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, just prior to these six days of re-creation  "the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep" (Genesis 1:2). Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth -- preventing light from reaching its surface. (Job 38:9: "When I made the clouds its [the earth's] garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band.)

 

 

 

APPARENTLY?  I have looked at the text a million times and that is still not apparent.  It is eisogesis.  Once more, all I see is a false connection from two different biblical texts.

 

What your witnessing is the 6 days of re-creation

 

When God said, Let there be light: and there was light." This statement refers to the light that came from the sun illuminating around the earth but not reaching the earth.

 

The sun was created long before the earth became a form, because the sun is the center of attraction of the solar system. Light from the sun was shining through space, but had not yet shined upon the earth because of the "swaddling band" that surrounded it.

 

The Bible does not reveal the exact age of the earth, but the Bible does tell us that man has been on the earth almost 6,000 years. Much unnecessary confusion has arisen because creationists generally have not understood that the earth was created -- along with the sun, moon and stars -- at some unrevealed length of time before man's creatiton.

 

 

 

Ah.  So this interpretation was constructed to accommodate science…?  That is not the purpose of exegesis.

 

I have given my own reading elsewhere: in short, I subscribe to the framework theory.  The 6 days are a literary device, with days 1-3 corresponding to days 4-6.  Light to luminaries, sky/sea to birds/fish, land with vegetation to beasts/man.  It was a way of telling the story of creation, moving along the theme of habitable places (days 1-3) to inhabitants (days3-6).  That theme is introduced by your two words tohu and bohu which should be translated "uninhabitable and uninhabited".  Thus God first makes it habitable, then inhabited.

 

 

clb


  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2015 part of the Worthy Network