YEC Limits God?

[Guest]

Who exactly did you have in mind when you posted these ideas?

 

~

 

Me

 

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. Isaiah 66:5

 

And Thee

[Enoch2021]

 

"Exactly. The point being some research needed to be done in order for the people to understand the text.

Again, if it was "written for them", the text would have used analogies that made sense to that people."

 

Of course.... you're "Exactly" is the answer to your very own Strawman.

How is that a strawman?

You are making the claim that the Bible is meant for everyone and in such a way that everyone would understand it, correct?

Thus Genesis 1 should be understood at face value through anyone's perspective and understand its meaning, correct?

If not, please explain how I am misunderstanding you.

 

"Which proves my point. Those slavery rules were not written for "you" nor for 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Americans. They were written for the Israelites several thousand years ago. We have to read these rules through their eyes, not ours."

 

(1 John 5:11-13) "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  {12} He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.  {13} These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

 

(1 Corinthians 10:11) "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

 

"Our Admonition"......who?

 

(Romans 15:4) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

 

(Romans 14:11) "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

 

If it wasn't written to Everyone....then how would people know that EVERY KNEE (including theirs) will Bow?

 

(John 20:30-31) "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:  {31} But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

 

"That Ye".......who?

 

(Psalms 102:18) "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD."

 

For WHO....?

 

Are you claiming by this that the Scriptures were to have no bearing, meaning, or relevance to the people before Jesus' resurrection?

 

If not, then please clarify. For this is how your presentation is coming across.

 

 

Likewise, if Genesis was written for us, why is there no mention of scientific principles?

 

And as I asked before, why do the historical accounts leave out the names of the Pharoahs?

 

And again, why make mention of such things as "green pastures" when that phrase gives us a false impression of what was being spoken of?

 

 

"Are you claiming by this that the Scriptures were to have no bearing, meaning, or relevance to the people before Jesus' resurrection?"

 

I haven't a clue of what you're talking about

 

 

Likewise, if Genesis was written for us, why is there no mention of scientific principles?

 

Non-Sequitur.  I haven't a clue what your driving @.  There's no mention of "Dinosaurs"... does that mean there weren't any? There's no mention of "Salamanders"...do we have Salamanders?

 

"And as I asked before, why do the historical accounts leave out the names of the Pharoahs?"

 

I haven't a clue.  Relevance??

 

"And again, why make mention of such things as "green pastures" when that phrase gives us a false impression of what was being spoken of?"

 

Green Pastures, eh? 

[Guest]

....why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER....

 

 

To Set

 

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8 (ESV)

 

The Sinner Free

 

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free.  John 8:34-36 (NLT)

 

To Fellowship With The KING

 

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20 (KJV)

[nebula]

"Are you claiming by this that the Scriptures were to have no bearing, meaning, or relevance to the people before Jesus' resurrection?"

 

I haven't a clue of what you're talking about

 

 

Likewise, if Genesis was written for us, why is there no mention of scientific principles?

 

Non-Sequitur.  I haven't a clue what your driving @.  There's no mention of "Dinosaurs"... does that mean there weren't any? There's no mention of "Salamanders"...do we have Salamanders?

 

"And as I asked before, why do the historical accounts leave out the names of the Pharoahs?"

 

I haven't a clue.  Relevance??

 

"And again, why make mention of such things as "green pastures" when that phrase gives us a false impression of what was being spoken of?"

 

Green Pastures, eh? 

 

Enoch, I can only shake my head at this point.

 

Why are you so obstinately dead set against interpreting Genesis 1 from the context of how the ancient Israelites would have understood and interpreted Genesis 1?

 

 

I have been pointing out examples of how the texts were written from the perspective of the people living at the time and not written in ways that make sense to us in modern times in different cultures and climates would understand them at face value in order to show you that we have to see things from their perspectives in order to understand what is being spoken.

 

If you can't get it, then there's nothing more to say.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

Very well....

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture.  If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them.  In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

clb

 

Sir,

 

Do you believe that there was DEATH and DISEASE (Fossils) in the dateless past before Adam Sinned?

 

 

Let’s define what we mean by death: obviously we are not worried about plants withering. 

 

We are concerned with sentient beings, i.e. animals.

 

I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall an. d perhaps died of disease This raises questions immediately:

 

Is the death of an animal evil?  Certainly it is not morally evil, for God not only allows but also commands such a thing (sacrifice).

Is it still a state of evil?  Yes….and that leaves us with a problem.  Evil before man’s fall!!!  But actually this is consistent with the central themes of Genesis.

 

 Adam and Eve were given orders to subdue the earth and rule over the beasts and guard Eden—the language of guarding recalls the priestly duties of the temple, to keep out unclean things.  Well, what comes slithering in later? Something unclean.  And do they subdue this creature?  No.  They yield to it.  The account of Genesis leaves room for what I shall here call “residual chaos”.  That is, there were things that needed tidying up—God subdued the great chaos at the beginning of Genesis: he charged man, His image bearer, with a similar assignment.  They ought to have judged the serpent.

 

Even if you reject my “symbolic” or “allegorical” (neither do justice to my reading) reading of Genesis, you will have to admit that it was not as “perfect as perfect can be” so long as there lived there a creature capable of questioning God’s word (i.e. the serpent).  Historically I find no problem (intellectually) reconciling a world in which death and disease roamed free in the presence of sinless man. The NT often attributes disease to the activity of Satan, who came to be identified in tradition with the serpent in Gen 3.

 

clb

 

 

"I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall and perhaps died of disease"

 

"This raises questions immediately:"....

 

I couldn't have said that better myself:

 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

The "CURSE" wasn't just for Man...."cursed is the ground".  Did you know there are Fossilized Thorns in with all the other DEAD Things?

 

GOD Says...."Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth".   As in..... NOW it will; As IN,  it wasn't there before!!

 

QUESTION:   Why would God "curse" the earth with thorns and thistles if they were already there?

 

 

(Isaiah 65:20-25) "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.  {21} And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.  {22} They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.  {23} They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.  {24} And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.  {25} The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

 

Credit to Shiloh for this.....

 

"You will notice that it is not just the human condition that undergoes a change when sin is removed. All of creation was effected.  It, therefore, follows that when sin came into the physical world via Adam's disobedience, there was a change in all of creation."

 

 

SO.........If death and disease (the clear result of SIN) was before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?

 

Look,

 

IF you insist on playing the "literal" game, then of course you're going to win.  It's YOUR game.  I don't read Genesis the way you do.  I try and read it as an ancient Hebrew would read it.  There are too many clues (for me) that suggest a non-literal reading is the best.  It doesn't make sense to me that God should on day 3 grow trees and plants without sunlight, and then on day 4 decide that sunlight was essential; it doesn't make sense to me that a serpent should one day talk and then not, and should somehow walk but then crawl.  It doesn't make sense that there exists an vernal enclosure cut off from us by a cherubim and flaming swords, yet no one has found it.  It doesn't make sense that Adam and EVe were so stupid they didn't think of reentering the garden from the west, north, or south.

 

Could all that be true on the basis of 'God can do whatever He wants'?  Sure.  Of course.  But I set out to see if there were an interpretation that made more sense....I found it.  It doesn't care how old the earth is or where thistles came from or how the serpent lost its voice.

 

And please withhold any quips about "so, Scripture has to yield to what makes sense to you...".   You (or someone from your side) will or has said that it doesn't make sense that God would describe Creation as He does without meaning it to be taken literally.  To this I would say, "So God has to accommodate your expectations?  He couldn't have been speaking to the Hebrews in terms meant for them, which can only be divulged to us through hard study? 

 

I am sorry my side frustrates you; but I must separate myself a little from "my side".

 

I will never attempt to show that the Bible teaches an OE.  I don't think it does; I don't think it teaches a young earth. I believe the 6 days has a completely different significance.   If somehow it could be proven scientifically that the earth were young, I would still hold to my interpretation.  I believe that interpretation to be the one intended by God, or at least closer to His intention.

 

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

The Point, as I see it is....

 

"But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation."

 

It's Juxtaposing, Biblical Authority vs "science" or mans authority and highlighting the concept of filtering ones hermeneutics through science rather than the WORD.

 

It places the reader in that all to familiar position of................................ MAKING A CHOICE!!

 

 

It's a Poignant and very Illuminating Piece, IMHO.

 

I suppose I must be resolved to never tire of saying this:  NO!!! It is juxtaposing man's interpretation of Biblical authority with man's interpretation of nature.  It is the exegesis of one of God's books compared with the exegesis of the other of God's books.  Two books.....both by God....in discussion with each other.  Augustine.

 

clb

 

 

"man's interpretation of Biblical authority"

 

??  So it depends on what man thinks of Biblical Authority?  So the question and only question......is GOD'S WORD Authoritative?  It's a Yes or No answer, no GREY AREA.

 

"with man's interpretation of nature."

 

Or "science", right?

 

(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

Anything CREATED is the CREATURE........nature is one of the CREATURES because it was CREATED.

 

 

"with the exegesis of the other of God's books"

 

I just have ONE BOOK....The Holy Bible (AKJV)

 

 

"Augustine."

I see.  You cannot see that there is a difference between objective truth (God's Word as He intended it which is ABSOLUTELY AUTHORATATIVE) and the difficult and somewhat subjective process of arriving at that truth (through exegesis, which is at times fallible).  Can you really not see the difference between God's INFALLIBLE WORD and man's FALLIBLE EXEGESIS of that Word?  Or do you not want to because it is frightening to think that reading the Bible is not so simple as you would like?  I am really at a loss with some of you guys.

 

From this I must assume: a) you have never once consulted a commentary (i.e. one man's interpretation) for difficult passages? b) you never, EVER read a translation of the Bible; ALWAYS you read in the original language.  c) you have access to the actual, first edition copies of Scripture (the very parchment that Paul touched with pen) and therefore have no need of the translations which are based on textual criticism?

 

 

clb

 

 

"You cannot see that there is a difference between objective truth (God's Word as He intended it which is ABSOLUTELY AUTHORATATIVE) and the difficult and somewhat subjective process of arriving at that truth (through exegesis, which is at times fallible)."

 

SO......QUESTION:  Why write a Book for Man's Salvation with ABSOLUTE TRUTH.... if there was no way to ascertain that TRUTH???????

 

 

"Can you really not see the difference between God's INFALLIBLE WORD and man's FALLIBLE EXEGESIS of that Word?"

 

Oh I surely see it.

 

 

"Or do you not want to because it is frightening to think that reading the Bible is not so simple as you would like?"

 

??  Try to steer clear of what you think that I think without me specifically saying it.  This is in Conjure Strawman Territory.

 

 

"I am really at a loss with some of you guys."

 

Generalized Baseless Opinion implying a lack of common understanding? Is this what you're driving @ with this statement?  Can you be a bit more specific...it sounds as if you know something that we don't or can't grasp intellectually.

 

 

"From this I must assume:"

 

BIG MISTAKE!!  And is the ROOT CAUSE of Many Issues.

 

a) you have never once consulted a commentary (i.e. one man's interpretation) for difficult passages?

 

Are you kidding?

 

 

b) you never, EVER read a translation of the Bible; ALWAYS you read in the original language.

 

Do you have some secret knowledge of Scripture?  Can you show me "IN SCRIPTURE" where it says I need to read SCRIPTURE in it's Original Penned Language(s) to understand it?

 

 

c) you have access to the actual, first edition copies of Scripture (the very parchment that Paul touched with pen) and therefore have no need of the translations which are based on textual criticism?

 

Do you?  Again.......Can you show me "IN SCRIPTURE" where it says I need to read the "first edition" copies to receive the Revelation of TRUTH?

 

 

Overall, are you saying that GOD (THE HOLDER AND KEEPER OF EVERY ELECTRON IN THE ORBITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ATOMS) could not provide the common person, regardless of language/culture, the simple life giving ABSOLUTE TRUTH whereby they could be SAVED ??

 

Is that what you're attempting to sell here? 

[Guest shiloh357]

So, immediately, the subject is "seekers".  You answered by pointing out that evolution shipwrecks people's faith. Juxtapose those two things and what else am I to do other than suppose you think that OE and Evolution poses a threat to evangelism?  I was merely bringing you back to the subject of "seekers" and away from believers.

When gray wolf asked me, "why subject seekers to this, here was my response:

 

"If I had written an article about OEC or Theistic Evolution and why I thought either one was biblically sound, I doubt you would be questioning the need to write such an article. These are not nonessential details. One's worldview is shaped by how you view the origin of man and humanity."

 

If I were promoting OEC with the same passion I have for the YEC model, there would be NO objections.  I would be getting kudos and pats on the back. 

 

Seekers are not necessarily nonChristians.  They are, in some cases, Christians with doubts and are sitting on the fence regarding their faith and in many cases, it is because they grew up believing the Bible, but have been subjected to worldviews that are putting their faith in serious jeopardy.

 

The arrgument that if we promote YEC, it will cause people to reject the Christian faith is an empty and baseless argument.  People reject the Christian faith for many, many reasons and it is ususally not because of YEC.  It is usually because they love their sin more than they love the truth.  It is because they have been brainwashed with evolutionary thought and teaching and frankly even OEC is stupid to them.

 

I would submit that any version of creationism is absurd and laughable to many people in the world.  The notion that YEC is only version of creationism that unbelievers would reject is simply a false argument.  

 

Yec is not rejected in a vacuum.  No one rejects YEC on its own merits unless they have already been taught and have been convinced against creastionism.  The rejection of creationism is wholesale.  It doesn't matter which one you are talking about.

 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall and perhaps died of disease"

 

"This raises questions immediately:"....

 

I couldn't have said that better myself:

 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

The "CURSE" wasn't just for Man...."cursed is the ground".  Did you know there are Fossilized Thorns in with all the other DEAD Things?

 

GOD Says...."Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth".   As in..... NOW it will; As IN,  it wasn't there before!!

 

QUESTION:   Why would God "curse" the earth with thorns and thistles if they were already there?

 

 

(Isaiah 65:20-25) "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.  {21} And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.  {22} They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.  {23} They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.  {24} And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.  {25} The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

 

Credit to Shiloh for this.....

 

"You will notice that it is not just the human condition that undergoes a change when sin is removed. All of creation was effected.  It, therefore, follows that when sin came into the physical world via Adam's disobedience, there was a change in all of creation."

 

 

SO.........If death and disease (the clear result of SIN) was before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?

 

Look,

 

IF you insist on playing the "literal" game, then of course you're going to win.  It's YOUR game.  I don't read Genesis the way you do.  I try and read it as an ancient Hebrew would read it.  There are too many clues (for me) that suggest a non-literal reading is the best.  It doesn't make sense to me that God should on day 3 grow trees and plants without sunlight, and then on day 4 decide that sunlight was essential; it doesn't make sense to me that a serpent should one day talk and then not, and should somehow walk but then crawl.  It doesn't make sense that there exists an vernal enclosure cut off from us by a cherubim and flaming swords, yet no one has found it.  It doesn't make sense that Adam and EVe were so stupid they didn't think of reentering the garden from the west, north, or south.

 

Could all that be true on the basis of 'God can do whatever He wants'?  Sure.  Of course.  But I set out to see if there were an interpretation that made more sense....I found it.  It doesn't care how old the earth is or where thistles came from or how the serpent lost its voice.

 

And please withhold any quips about "so, Scripture has to yield to what makes sense to you...".   You (or someone from your side) will or has said that it doesn't make sense that God would describe Creation as He does without meaning it to be taken literally.  To this I would say, "So God has to accommodate your expectations?  He couldn't have been speaking to the Hebrews in terms meant for them, which can only be divulged to us through hard study? 

 

I am sorry my side frustrates you; but I must separate myself a little from "my side".

 

I will never attempt to show that the Bible teaches an OE.  I don't think it does; I don't think it teaches a young earth. I believe the 6 days has a completely different significance.   If somehow it could be proven scientifically that the earth were young, I would still hold to my interpretation.  I believe that interpretation to be the one intended by God, or at least closer to His intention.

 

 

clb

 

 

"IF you insist on playing the "literal" game"

 

I'm not playing games Sir.  Genesis is a LITERAL Historical Narrative.

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

This is what I'm doing.

 

"then of course you're going to win."

 

Winning is Irrelevant...it's not a game, so there is no "Winning"

 

"It doesn't make sense to me that God should on day 3 grow trees and plants without sunlight, and then on day 4 decide that sunlight was essential; it doesn't make sense to me that a serpent should one day talk and then not, and should somehow walk but then crawl.  It doesn't make sense that there exists an vernal enclosure cut off from us by a cherubim and flaming swords, yet no one has found it.  It doesn't make sense that Adam and EVe were so stupid they didn't think of reentering the garden from the west, north, or south."    ........

 

(Proverbs 3:5) "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

 

(1 Corinthians 3:19) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."

 

 

"And please withhold any quips about "so, Scripture has to yield to what makes sense to you...".

 

Strawman

 

 

"I am sorry my side frustrates you"

 

It Breaks my Heart

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh>>>>  God intended Genesis to be interpreted literally, just as much as you expect me to read and interpret your own words literally.  What is the point of writing something down, what is the point of expressing yourself in words if you didn't expect people to understand you as you intended.  To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view.  NonChristians are far more honest about the text of Genesis 1 than Christians are, it seems.  But then nonChristians do not have a need to re-write the Bible to suit an agenda.  The irony is that it is Christians who are workting the hardest at  trying to erode the integrity of God's word.

 

 

Connorliambrown>>>>> Behind the boldface lies an assumption which i do not hold.  You (seem) to imply that God can only say something if all generations of readers can come to it on equal footing, i.e. it will make perfect sense to all parties involved.  I do not believe that.  I believe that when God wrote Genesis through Moses the message was perfectly clear to Moses and his own audience.  THEY would've gotten it; and IT was not a debate between Scripture and science.  THAT is OUR problem, and we foist it on Scripture, i.e. we subordinate Scripture to our own fears and prejudices.

 

 

That is wrong.  The notion that the book of Genesis only makes sense to the original audience is nonsense.  Israel was commissioned to take God's word to the whole world.  God's purpose for choosing Israel to be His "oracle" through which He would send His prophets and eventually the Messiah presupposes a Word and a law that could be understood by the nations as well as by the original audience.

 

Paul tells us that the Scriptures (including Genesis) were not only inspired by God but also good for our correction, instruction in righteousness, etc.   That makes no sense if the text is only understandable to the original audience.

 

Sure there are, throughout the Old Testament, there are cultural idoms and figures of speech, but those are easily searched out and discerned.  There is no need for confusion at all.   God gave us a Bible that is easy to understand.  It is so easy to understand, people have needed help to misunderstand it.

 

Those who muddy the water who try to tell us we cannot understand it are the ones to watch out for.  They have an agenda and it is usually to mislead the flock into false doctrine.   God's interests are not served by providing us a set of Scriptures, tell us we are accountable for beleiving and obeying it and then make it so confusing that only those were the original recipients have any hope of understanding it.  Your claim is absurd on its face.

 

Often times, we must do a good amount of research to get to that original meaning.  You believe this too; otherwise you wouldn't get into the Hebrew and would never have gone to school.

 

The problem is that I have produced evidence regarding the original meaning from the Hebrew grammar on several occasions and the Hebrew grammar is rejected by those who have an agenda that the grammar won't allow for.   So this is not about "meaning."  It is about truth.  

 

 

Science (for me) is simply one tool of exegesis and not the most important. 

 

Science is not a tool of exegesis. In fact that is a lousy tool for exegesis.  

 

 

For instance (again, following Augustine) if something in Scripture seems completely absurd with what my own experience and the experience of others (including observations made by the sciences) teaches, then I ask, "hmm...maybe I am misreading this text". 

 

From that standpoint, the fall in the Garden, Balaam's talking donkey, the crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus and His resurrection are suspect due to the fact that they are completely absurd by most human experience and the observations maded by science. 

 

What you are talking about puts science and not the Holy Spirit in the driver's seat where exegesis is concerned.  Science becomes the standard against which the Bible is judged.   The Bible comes from an all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn't lie or make mistakes.  Science is the invention of fallible men who often lie and make lots of mistakes.   The Bible should be standard measure of truth that science is measured by, not the other way around.

 

 

So, when the psalmists talk of the world as square and having pillars, well, not one explorer has corroborated this.  So I ask, "hmm, maybe the psalmist wasn't being literal."  So, I do some research....lo and behold I see how important the temple was for ancient Israelites!  Lo and behold, the psalmist is describing the earth as God's temple. He isn't interested in geography or topography. Wow, that makes sense.  And that is SOOOO much more significant (and interesting and nourishing!!) than holding out against the claims of every sea navigator since who knows when.

 

Nice try, but the Psalmist is just speaking in phenomenological language.  The four corners of the earth is simply a mode of expression and we even use it today even though we know the earth doesn't have corners.   You are reading waaaaaay too much into the statement. 

 

 

Ah, but sometimes we Christians buckle when we shouldn't.  I am told that the resurrection is impossible because it is miraculous and the sciences have refuted the possibility of miracles.  Thus some Christians now talk of the resurrection as "an existential experience available to all".  Okay, I get to work.  I discover that the question of miracles is a philosopical, not scientific, question. Over much pondering and many books I realize that there is no way to prove against miracles......etc. etc. 

 

Or take a moral issue: promiscuity or cohabitation.  I am told that the Biblical injunctions against these are taboo and have served their purpose.  "Hmm," I ask, "What purpose and how have they served it?"  I set to thinking; I set to reading Scripture.  I realize the only reason I would have sex before marriage is out of selfishness (it's fun and I want to do it).  I see in Scripture that sex is a physical covenant between husband and wife.  I see how much hurt is done by having premarital sex. etc. etc.

 

you get the point?  The sciences (for me) simply prod me to do a little more research.  They whisper, "are you sure of that interpretation?"  I respond: "Let me check". Then I set about to see whether I am sure of my original reading.  Sometimes I am, sometimes not. 

 

Note; the importance of critical thinking is not what divides us.

I don't see science playing any role in any of that which you have cited.  Science is not a tool used to interpret Scripture.   Scripture is the plumline, not science.  It is critical thinking that has kept me clear of both OEC and Evolution.

 

[Enoch2021]

 

"Are you claiming by this that the Scriptures were to have no bearing, meaning, or relevance to the people before Jesus' resurrection?"

 

I haven't a clue of what you're talking about

 

 

Likewise, if Genesis was written for us, why is there no mention of scientific principles?

 

Non-Sequitur.  I haven't a clue what your driving @.  There's no mention of "Dinosaurs"... does that mean there weren't any? There's no mention of "Salamanders"...do we have Salamanders?

 

"And as I asked before, why do the historical accounts leave out the names of the Pharoahs?"

 

I haven't a clue.  Relevance??

 

"And again, why make mention of such things as "green pastures" when that phrase gives us a false impression of what was being spoken of?"

 

Green Pastures, eh? 

 

Enoch, I can only shake my head at this point.

 

Why are you so obstinately dead set against interpreting Genesis 1 from the context of how the ancient Israelites would have understood and interpreted Genesis 1?

 

 

I have been pointing out examples of how the texts were written from the perspective of the people living at the time and not written in ways that make sense to us in modern times in different cultures and climates would understand them at face value in order to show you that we have to see things from their perspectives in order to understand what is being spoken.

 

If you can't get it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

 

"Enoch, I can only shake my head at this point."

 

Please spare me your condescending remarks

 

"Why are you so obstinately dead set against interpreting Genesis 1 from the context of how the ancient Israelites would have understood and interpreted Genesis 1?"

 

Because it wasn't written JUST FOR THEM!!!

 

Who was the first Israelite and when were they first mentioned in the Bible:  Book, Chapter, and Verse?

 

 

"If you can't get it, then there's nothing more to say."

 

I surely get it.