On Interpretation of Scripture

[Guest Butero]

 

Just one minor thing I want to say about your reply.  I never claimed that someone that doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture is unsaved.  I never made that claim about you or Augustine.  I just said that yours is not a legitimate means of interpretation.  You are claiming that unbelief in part of the scripture is a legitimate means of interpretation, and I reject that.  I also reject the idea that if science supposedly proves something, I have to make scripture agree with science.  I will do no such thing.  I will reject the claims of science. 

 

The reason why mankind is in the condition we are in is because of original sin, committed by the first man Adam.  It is because we all come from the first couple, Adam and Eve, we need a savior.  To accept evolution is to reject major doctrinal positions we must believe to truly understand the condition of the human race.  Of course, all of this is of little importance since science is far from proving evolution to be true.  They offer a sliver of evidence, but nothing close to conclusive. 

You said, "It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars.  I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture." From how you're addressing my position, I cannot see how this would not apply to me or Augustine or Aquinas when I or they would abandon [a particular explanation] if it be proved with certainty to be false." I note you have still not addressed the difference I've brought up at least three times now between an interpretation, or explanation in Aquinas' terms, and Scripture itself. Rejecting the former is not rejecting the latter, yet you still insist otherwise. Why? In what way is rejecting an explanation held by one reader of Scripture equivalent to rejecting Scripture? The only way I see this as being logically coherent is if one presumes from the start that their explanation is the absolute correct one that cannot have any possibility of being overturned. If this is the case, this is clearly not supported by Scripture or reason; I have never heard a good reason to hold such a position. 

 

And perhaps evolution does butt heads with doctrinal questions, but we will never know to what extent nor the appropriate response (ie. if these doctrines are based more on our own fallible reasoning than on Scripture or our understanding of Creation is wrong) if all we do is dogmatically hold to own positions without question. Such a false sense of certainty is unpragmatic, for an unquestioning nature leads to folly. What if we unquestionably accepted a spirit as God that was actually from Satan? Then we would have failed to heed the words of 1 John 4:1. And since 100% certainty is not required by the Bible, nor is a literal interpretation, then there is no upside that would counteract the unpragmatic nature of this attitude.

 

What you are saying is that if science proves something in scripture to be false, we should find a way to make scripture appear correct and in line with science.  Science becomes the standard.  I would say just the opposite.  If the Bible shows something being taught in science is false, we must make science match up with scripture.  The thing is, science hasn't proven the Bible false.  People claim that there is this overwhelming evidence for evolution, but that isn't true, and as I said earlier, evidence isn't proof.  Evidence is nothing more than something you present to try to build a case.  Scientists haven't come close to presenting enough evidence to make evolution true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone conclusively. 

 

I don't need for God or the Bible to force me to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.  I don't need it to be a requirement of salvation to believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.  I know that is not a requirement to be saved.  Yet I still believe.  I would have a hard time believing in Christ if I didn't trust the Bible more than that, because it is the Bible that gives us the knowledge of the Lord.  God reveals him to us, but the Bible gives the written account of why he came, and the plan of salvation. 

[x141]

To me this is not an interpretation but a present truth I am living, or abiding in, which defines the creation to me as the language of my father revealing the process of the path back into the captivity that the Word of God is, but how many words does it take to define one Word …

 

God or truth (which is not measurable by thought, which done (in the order found in first the Ishmael/Adam/Esau/Hagar/Egypt as the first tabernacle and the picture of the one rejected that flows from Abraham's perception of God, which you see the same thing with what the word of God or a dream from God becomes to the one who receives it ... it is a pattern that applies to all things just as much as it is the defining of the process in each of us) makes truth into a merchandised to be gained and becomes the revealing of our nakedness truth of oneself not being separate from knowledge, but defined by it as much as the law of our mother is defined by the commandment of our Father ... life/truth/God) is revealed in the moment.

It's hard to say fifty things at once, and why the word written out can become a path of a serpent to the one who reads it as if he were gaining something.

A servant does not abide in the house forever, which as far as the inheritance is concerned (which is God) to a son, all things that the Father has, has always been yours/ours from before the beginning, which includes knowledge, which defines what the year of jubilee is and the pictures thereof, to our soul.

Adam (the image) and the woman (his soul) did not keep the feast of Passover, and therefore from this deep sleep his nakedness was revealed, which began the second feast one is called up to Jerusalem to keep (but first the natural .... along came eve (named by Adam) as the mother or perception of all living).

I had begun writing this with only the thought of the words, it's hard to say fifty things at once, but yet it pales compared to what I see which increases daily ... exponentially.

This is the truth found in this verse that I am living, and is the inheritance of every son whether they understand the meaning of it yet or not, only God reveals God and this in every son that is God.

Micah 4:4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.

 

 

 

 

If it is indeed the word of God, then it is the language of God, and one must have God's interpretation of his own words which only the spirit that proceeded from the Father who is now in us can lead us into.

And if He has led me to the conclusion that, for instance, Genesis 1 is to be taken as more mythical than historical?

 

 
God speaks to us in picture form, cities, sons, mountains, fields, wilderness, serpent, brass, tree, cross, river, garden, sealed, enclosed, bread, meat, heaven, earth, etc. and how these things relate to the person, or persons that these things surround, all of which speak to the process of the son being revealed in us both individual and collectively, which is a coming out of one thing by coming into another, if it could be put into such feeble words.

We are living in the time where God is turning to us a pure language, a language he alone defines, and which is in the confines of every son, or as a tree whose seed or life is in itself.

As our Father ... we do not labor by thought to be, knowledge not being something separate from self. Neither do we prove that we are, which is the same temptation in a different form to eat of our own reasoning based on our five senses of an image that is without us which becomes the husband that is not our own (speaking from the feminine revealing, which equates to our soul, and finds its definition in the pictures found in the three's such as, Abraham's three men, Daniels three friends, Noah's three sons, Job's three friends, Nebuchadnezzar's three Hebrew children, or in the words of Leah when she bore Levi (priesthood), the third son, saying now will my husband be joined unto me ... the pictures of these things are endless, and come in exhaustive forms, both in the truth and the anti forms due to the perception given to us by the tree of knowledge).

The language of God is summed up in one word, which is God, and every son is a word of this language, as our thoughts equate to us.

With that somewhat said ...

The wilderness, depending on where one is viewing it in the moment, links itself with the second feast (all seven equating itself with the creative week of which the threefold manifestation of this is found in the book of Revelation), one is called up to Jerusalem to keep (first the natural) which brings confusion or a wandering around between two (dialectic) mountains, sons, or fruits of a tree, etc. which the true feast the wilderness represents (and the nakedness that is revealed in this as it was in the first garden, being a picture of the same thing in a different form) is found in the acceptable year as a place where we eat that which grows of itself, being the 50th year (Pentecost/knowledge) and equates itself with the liberty of a son, which is the perception given to us of our Father, as a feast that is internal and an unending fellowship.

The interesting thing about the knowledge of God is we must continually keep the feast of Passover which is seen in the words thou shalt not eat as it is in picking up our cross (being that there is a serpent in the path of every son), and the tree yields it's fruit to us without ever having touched it (a facet of Paul's touch not the unclean thing).

I have found to build a city out of any one truth cause our journey in to end, until we sacrifice that truth that became filled with worms by keeping it over a day.
 
Sorry its so long, but I didn't want to beat around the bush.

 

No problem at all. As you might have seen, my posts can be rather long as well. I find your approach interesting. It seems very much founded in the style of typology, which you don't see very much of these days. I'm also seeing shades of mysticism as well, which I border on at times depending where the conversation is going. Very interesting read.

 

[HumbleThinker]

Just one minor thing I want to say about your reply.  I never claimed that someone that doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture is unsaved.  I never made that claim about you or Augustine.  I just said that yours is not a legitimate means of interpretation.  You are claiming that unbelief in part of the scripture is a legitimate means of interpretation, and I reject that.  I also reject the idea that if science supposedly proves something, I have to make scripture agree with science.  I will do no such thing.  I will reject the claims of science. 

 

The reason why mankind is in the condition we are in is because of original sin, committed by the first man Adam.  It is because we all come from the first couple, Adam and Eve, we need a savior.  To accept evolution is to reject major doctrinal positions we must believe to truly understand the condition of the human race.  Of course, all of this is of little importance since science is far from proving evolution to be true.  They offer a sliver of evidence, but nothing close to conclusive.

You said, "It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars.  I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture." From how you're addressing my position, I cannot see how this would not apply to me or Augustine or Aquinas when I or they would abandon [a particular explanation] if it be proved with certainty to be false." I note you have still not addressed the difference I've brought up at least three times now between an interpretation, or explanation in Aquinas' terms, and Scripture itself. Rejecting the former is not rejecting the latter, yet you still insist otherwise. Why? In what way is rejecting an explanation held by one reader of Scripture equivalent to rejecting Scripture? The only way I see this as being logically coherent is if one presumes from the start that their explanation is the absolute correct one that cannot have any possibility of being overturned. If this is the case, this is clearly not supported by Scripture or reason; I have never heard a good reason to hold such a position. 

 

And perhaps evolution does butt heads with doctrinal questions, but we will never know to what extent nor the appropriate response (ie. if these doctrines are based more on our own fallible reasoning than on Scripture or our understanding of Creation is wrong) if all we do is dogmatically hold to own positions without question. Such a false sense of certainty is unpragmatic, for an unquestioning nature leads to folly. What if we unquestionably accepted a spirit as God that was actually from Satan? Then we would have failed to heed the words of 1 John 4:1. And since 100% certainty is not required by the Bible, nor is a literal interpretation, then there is no upside that would counteract the unpragmatic nature of this attitude.

What you are saying is that if science proves something in scripture to be false, we should find a way to make scripture appear correct and in line with science.  Science becomes the standard.  I would say just the opposite.  If the Bible shows something being taught in science is false, we must make science match up with scripture.  The thing is, science hasn't proven the Bible false.  People claim that there is this overwhelming evidence for evolution, but that isn't true, and as I said earlier, evidence isn't proof.  Evidence is nothing more than something you present to try to build a case.  Scientists haven't come close to presenting enough evidence to make evolution true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone conclusively. 

 

I don't need for God or the Bible to force me to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.  I don't need it to be a requirement of salvation to believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.  I know that is not a requirement to be saved.  Yet I still believe.  I would have a hard time believing in Christ if I didn't trust the Bible more than that, because it is the Bible that gives us the knowledge of the Lord.  God reveals him to us, but the Bible gives the written account of why he came, and the plan of salvation.

Again you seem to be equivocating a thing with the process by which it is understood. Neither scripture nor creation can or will be changed. Nor will they conflict. Our interpretations of both derived from science and hermeneutics are what can and should change and what will conflict. We will continue to talk past each other if we cannot agree on this common ground. Despite disagreeing with your interpretation of both svripture and creation, I still think you accept them unwaveringly as true. This common ground, while not being necessary, would also assist in our discussion.

[Guest shiloh357]

I realize I said that I was not going to engage in this thread any longer but this comment has to be responded to:

 

 

No, but it is up to us to decide what it means. Just because we want God's Word to be authoritative, inerrant, or whatever does not mean that we should build arguments around this want. Neither God nor the Bible has any need for such things to support them. The Bible says what it says, and unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure it out for ourselves.

 

What I am seeing here in this thread is not so much an issue of interpretation but an issue of authority.   The question is, to what degree do I have to be believe what the Bible says.

 

The notion that intepretation is entirely subjective and up to the individual reader means there is no fixed standard for finding truth.  Truth ends up being what the reader decides it is.  The Bible, from that perspective, has no real authority.

 

 

1. The Bible presents itself as wholly inspired by God and of divine origin.

2.  The Bible presents God as incapable of error or falsehood.

3. Therefore, there is an implicit understanding that the Bible is without error becuase it comes from a God who is incapable of error.

 

The only way around that is to simply deny the inspiration of the Bible and declare it to be a purely human document and thus subject to error. So when the Bible says that God created the earth in six days, and since God cannot be wrong, one then is required to either acknowledge the authority of the Bible or the authority of theories created by men.   If

 

 

Humbleseeker doesn't understand  theology and hermeneutics because he still relies on the erroneous assumption that intperpretation is somehow linked with the truth value of a particular passage in the Bible.  Humbleseeker refuses to acknowledge the coventional exegetical process accepted by the scholarly community and the rules of literary analysis that accompany that process.  

 

He also doesn't understand  that interpreting the Bible doesn't mean that the reader is free to arrive at any conclusion he chooses.  Interpretation has rules and there is a set process for it.  Interpretation only tells you about what you are reading.  Interpretation doesn't speak to whether or not the text in question is true.

 

The truth value is determined in part, by the authority that is recognized by the reader.  Is the author qualified to make the claims he/she makes?   Has the author ever been known to make knowingly or unknowingly false claims?   Is there any evidence in the author's favor for his/her claims to be true?

 

Those are not interpretative questions and humble seeker is confusing intepretation with truth seeking.   His current position is that the Bible doens't really have to be believed.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Just one minor thing I want to say about your reply.  I never claimed that someone that doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture is unsaved.  I never made that claim about you or Augustine.  I just said that yours is not a legitimate means of interpretation.  You are claiming that unbelief in part of the scripture is a legitimate means of interpretation, and I reject that.  I also reject the idea that if science supposedly proves something, I have to make scripture agree with science.  I will do no such thing.  I will reject the claims of science. 

 

The reason why mankind is in the condition we are in is because of original sin, committed by the first man Adam.  It is because we all come from the first couple, Adam and Eve, we need a savior.  To accept evolution is to reject major doctrinal positions we must believe to truly understand the condition of the human race.  Of course, all of this is of little importance since science is far from proving evolution to be true.  They offer a sliver of evidence, but nothing close to conclusive.

You said, "It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars.  I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture." From how you're addressing my position, I cannot see how this would not apply to me or Augustine or Aquinas when I or they would abandon [a particular explanation] if it be proved with certainty to be false." I note you have still not addressed the difference I've brought up at least three times now between an interpretation, or explanation in Aquinas' terms, and Scripture itself. Rejecting the former is not rejecting the latter, yet you still insist otherwise. Why? In what way is rejecting an explanation held by one reader of Scripture equivalent to rejecting Scripture? The only way I see this as being logically coherent is if one presumes from the start that their explanation is the absolute correct one that cannot have any possibility of being overturned. If this is the case, this is clearly not supported by Scripture or reason; I have never heard a good reason to hold such a position. 

 

And perhaps evolution does butt heads with doctrinal questions, but we will never know to what extent nor the appropriate response (ie. if these doctrines are based more on our own fallible reasoning than on Scripture or our understanding of Creation is wrong) if all we do is dogmatically hold to own positions without question. Such a false sense of certainty is unpragmatic, for an unquestioning nature leads to folly. What if we unquestionably accepted a spirit as God that was actually from Satan? Then we would have failed to heed the words of 1 John 4:1. And since 100% certainty is not required by the Bible, nor is a literal interpretation, then there is no upside that would counteract the unpragmatic nature of this attitude.

What you are saying is that if science proves something in scripture to be false, we should find a way to make scripture appear correct and in line with science.  Science becomes the standard.  I would say just the opposite.  If the Bible shows something being taught in science is false, we must make science match up with scripture.  The thing is, science hasn't proven the Bible false.  People claim that there is this overwhelming evidence for evolution, but that isn't true, and as I said earlier, evidence isn't proof.  Evidence is nothing more than something you present to try to build a case.  Scientists haven't come close to presenting enough evidence to make evolution true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone conclusively. 

 

I don't need for God or the Bible to force me to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.  I don't need it to be a requirement of salvation to believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.  I know that is not a requirement to be saved.  Yet I still believe.  I would have a hard time believing in Christ if I didn't trust the Bible more than that, because it is the Bible that gives us the knowledge of the Lord.  God reveals him to us, but the Bible gives the written account of why he came, and the plan of salvation.

Again you seem to be equivocating a thing with the process by which it is understood. Neither scripture nor creation can or will be changed. Nor will they conflict. Our interpretations of both derived from science and hermeneutics are what can and should change and what will conflict. We will continue to talk past each other if we cannot agree on this common ground. Despite disagreeing with your interpretation of both svripture and creation, I still think you accept them unwaveringly as true. This common ground, while not being necessary, would also assist in our discussion.

 

I am not trying to combine the two in order to come up with an interpretation, because I don't place science and the Bible on the same level.  The Bible is far superior to science.  I am interpreting scripture in a vacuum.  If science comes along and makes claims that something in scripture is wrong, I will reject science.  I won't try to create a Biblical interpretation to put both in agreement, because there is no need to do so.  That is especially the case when you even admit that science isn't based on proof, only evidence.  That means science can never disprove the Genesis account of creation.  All they can do is to present evidence as to why it may not have occurred as written.  I reject those notions, and believe 100 percent in the Genesis account of creation.

[WillfromTexas]

The longer I have studied the Bible there's one thing that I have learned.  The more literal I take the scripture, the more it makes sense, and more truth has been revealed to me.  The Bible is a masterwork that would be impossible to recreate.  It is an integrated message system written from outside our time domain.  God has even hid treasures within scripture to those that seek it.  The names, puns, symbolism, simile's, idioms all can have significant meanings that add to the overall meaning.  Every letter and detail is there for a reason.  You use scripture to interpret scripture and can't use worldly knowledge to apply an outside meaning.

 

Such as all those that hang on a tree are cursed.  That didn't make a lot of sense until Jesus hung on a symbolic tree on the cross bearing our curses.  Or take for example the first 10 names in the Bible.  Here's an paste from a webpage that shows it quite well.

 

The Names Bible Code:

An awesome prophecy emerges when the meanings of all 72 names in the genealogy from Adam to Jesus are read sequentially!

The meaning of a name was very important in bible days. Sometimes the bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Famous biblical persons such as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons, all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.

Some have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) were intended by God to be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the bible read when the meaning of each name is rendered in the order given in the bible.

Read down the right column where the meaning of each consecutive name
in Jesus' genealogy is given, and note the unfolding prophecy.

"The God-man is appointed; a mortal man of sorrow is born!
The Glory of God shall come down and teach that His death shall bring the grieving comfort and rest."

 

 

The Promise to Fallen Man
(Jesus is called, "The Glory of God", in 2Cor. 4:6.)

 

If you are worried something has got lost in translation over the years.  Well the oldest scriptures found, the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found to be completely accurate to the Bible we use today.  There's also other sources such as the Matthew fragment and translations of the day but hopefully you believe your Bible is accurate.  The Bible is there to bring us out of confusion not bring us into confusion.

 

Granted the Greek and Hebrew are more accurate languages than English.  Yet the overall meaning isn't lost in the translations.  You can read into a greater meaning and understanding BUT it will not change the original meaning only add to it.

 

Lastly Jesus himself said that not a single letter or punctuation mark would pass away before it was fullfilled.

 

Matthew 5:17-19

Amplified Bible (AMP)

¹⁷ Do not think that I have come to do away with or ^[a]undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

¹⁹ Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[HumbleThinker]

I am not trying to combine the two in order to come up with an interpretation, because I don't place science and the Bible on the same level.  The Bible is far superior to science.  I am interpreting scripture in a vacuum.  If science comes along and makes claims that something in scripture is wrong, I will reject science.  I won't try to create a Biblical interpretation to put both in agreement, because there is no need to do so.  That is especially the case when you even admit that science isn't based on proof, only evidence.  That means science can never disprove the Genesis account of creation.  All they can do is to present evidence as to why it may not have occurred as written.  I reject those notions, and believe 100 percent in the Genesis account of creation.

Do you understand what I mean when i say you are equivocating the two? I ask because i get the impression that ee are not understanding each other. We have to reach a common language if our discussion is to be profitable.

[HumbleThinker]

The longer I have studied the Bible there's one thing that I have learned.  The more literal I take the scripture, the more it makes sense, and more truth has been revealed to me. 

Im glad this approach has brought you such understanding. For me however, I have not found such a correlation in my practice. Whether taking a verse literally brings me greater understanding differs from verse to verse. I need to go so I will discuss the rest later. Thanks for the reply.

The Bible is a masterwork that would be impossible to recreate.  It is an integrated message system written from outside our time domain.  God has even hid treasures within scripture to those that seek it.  The names, puns, symbolism, simile's, idioms all can have significant meanings that add to the overall meaning.  Every letter and detail is there for a reason.  You use scripture to interpret scripture and can't use worldly knowledge to apply an outside meaning.

 

Such as all those that hang on a tree are cursed.  That didn't make a lot of sense until Jesus hung on a symbolic tree on the cross bearing our curses.  Or take for example the first 10 names in the Bible.  Here's an paste from a webpage that shows it quite well.

 

The Names Bible Code:

An awesome prophecy emerges when the meanings of all 72 names in the genealogy from Adam to Jesus are read sequentially!

The meaning of a name was very important in bible days. Sometimes the bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Famous biblical persons such as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons, all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.

Some have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) were intended by God to be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the bible read when the meaning of each name is rendered in the order given in the bible.

Read down the right column where the meaning of each consecutive name

in Jesus' genealogy is given, and note the unfolding prophecy.

"The God-man is appointed; a mortal man of sorrow is born!

The Glory of God shall come down and teach that His death shall bring the grieving comfort and rest."

 

 

The Promise to Fallen Man(Jesus is called, "The Glory of God", in 2Cor. 4:6.)

 

If you are worried something has got lost in translation over the years.  Well the oldest scriptures found, the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found to be completely accurate to the Bible we use today.  There's also other sources such as the Matthew fragment and translations of the day but hopefully you believe your Bible is accurate.  The Bible is there to bring us out of confusion not bring us into confusion.

 

Granted the Greek and Hebrew are more accurate languages than English.  Yet the overall meaning isn't lost in the translations.  You can read into a greater meaning and understanding BUT it will not change the original meaning only add to it.

 

Lastly Jesus himself said that not a single letter or punctuation mark would pass away before it was fullfilled.

 

Matthew 5:17-19

Amplified Bible (AMP)

¹⁷ Do not think that I have come to do away with or ^[a]undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

¹⁹ Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Guest Butero]

 

I am not trying to combine the two in order to come up with an interpretation, because I don't place science and the Bible on the same level.  The Bible is far superior to science.  I am interpreting scripture in a vacuum.  If science comes along and makes claims that something in scripture is wrong, I will reject science.  I won't try to create a Biblical interpretation to put both in agreement, because there is no need to do so.  That is especially the case when you even admit that science isn't based on proof, only evidence.  That means science can never disprove the Genesis account of creation.  All they can do is to present evidence as to why it may not have occurred as written.  I reject those notions, and believe 100 percent in the Genesis account of creation.

Do you understand what I mean when i say you are equivocating the two? I ask because i get the impression that ee are not understanding each other. We have to reach a common language if our discussion is to be profitable.

 

I am not sure I do understand what you are saying.  I just know that you posted something that seemed to be saying that if science proves something in scripture to be untrue, I can still hold to scripture by modifying my interpretation of scripture.  It seems you are saying that we can be saved and not believe the whole Bible is true, like I don't realize that already.  I am just saying that by your own admission, science doesn't set out to prove anything.  They just present evidence, meaning they can't disprove scripture, so I don't see the point you are making.  Are you lowering the bar from Constantine from proof to a lot of evidence?  If you are, I can't go along with that.  Evidence can appear overwhelming and still be wrong.  We have seen that in court cases where an innocent person was found guilty of a crime.  And I don't believe there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. 

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

I am not trying to combine the two in order to come up with an interpretation, because I don't place science and the Bible on the same level.  The Bible is far superior to science.  I am interpreting scripture in a vacuum.  If science comes along and makes claims that something in scripture is wrong, I will reject science.  I won't try to create a Biblical interpretation to put both in agreement, because there is no need to do so.  That is especially the case when you even admit that science isn't based on proof, only evidence.  That means science can never disprove the Genesis account of creation.  All they can do is to present evidence as to why it may not have occurred as written.  I reject those notions, and believe 100 percent in the Genesis account of creation.

Do you understand what I mean when i say you are equivocating the two? I ask because i get the impression that ee are not understanding each other. We have to reach a common language if our discussion is to be profitable.

I am not sure I do understand what you are saying.  I just know that you posted something that seemed to be saying that if science proves something in scripture to be untrue, I can still hold to scripture by modifying my interpretation of scripture.  It seems you are saying that we can be saved and not believe the whole Bible is true, like I don't realize that already.  I am just saying that by your own admission, science doesn't set out to prove anything.  They just present evidence, meaning they can't disprove scripture, so I don't see the point you are making.  Are you lowering the bar from Constantine from proof to a lot of evidence?  If you are, I can't go along with that.  Evidence can appear overwhelming and still be wrong.  We have seen that in court cases where an innocent person was found guilty of a crime.  And I don't believe there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Ok ill try to explain a bit better. When i say you are equivocating I mean you are creating a false comparison like a false analogy. It would be like comparing a noun and an adjective. So when I say you are making a false equivalence between science and the bible, I am saying you are comparing two different categories of things. The bible and creation both fall under works of God, while hermeneutics and science both fall under methods of interpreting the corresponding work of God. Then there are our interpretations that we derive from both methods. So saying science agrees or disagrees w ith the bible is a meaningless statement. Either one of the works disagree with each other or interpretations derived from the two methods disagree. The former of course is false., while the latter is quite possible and a source of discussion. Does that make more sense now?