Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

[Sheniy]

 

And I didn't say anything about the inerrancy of Scripture. I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, so I don't understand why you added that...

How do you define inerrancy?

 

Is this another word we disagree on the meaning of? lol

 

This seems to sum it up nicely:

Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.

Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.

From wikipedia entry on "inerrancy" (emphasis mine)

 

 

 

In the context of that portion your response you compared people who you accuse of thinking they are infallible with the pre-converted Paul. The clear implication being that we consider people like you to be heretics and that is where the "martyr card" comes into play. That is what I am talking about.

I didn't accuse anyone. My whole point was that Saul, a student of Scripture, was not infallible. That was it. If there is a parallel in there (which was unintended, by the way), it only applies to someone who thinks they're infallible.

 

I honestly did not mean to offend.

 

 

 

 

YEC was a crack in my Shield. It held for a long time, but eventually it fell apart. Actually, it shattered.

What is it that you think shattered your shield of faith? How did believing the Bible to be literally true serve to be a detriment to your Christian life?

 

Here's that word literal, again.  I'm going to use different terms just to keep it straight in my head, ok?

Believing the Bible as intended by the author (shiloh-literal) wasn't the problem. The problem was that YEC was getting in the way. I had prioritized it too highly, so when it came under attack (usually by my own logical reasoning), my whole faith shook. It was build into my Shield and was the weakest part, therefore most subject to attack by the enemy. When my faith in YEC finally cracked (and it was a bible verse that did it), my faith in the rest of the bible went with it. because they were so inextricably tied together, one tiny doctrine pulled my whole faith over the edge.

 

 

Once my Shield broke, the rest of my Armor didn't last long. I didn't pick up the pieces immediately. I considered walking away for good, leaving the broken shards of my faith behind. I almost did. It is entirely by the Grace of God that I didn't. For awhile, I wandered. On the surface, I was still a Christian, but underneath...well, Jesus was just a nice guy. I liked the idea of him. Plus, there was Pascal's Wager (selfish reason), and...I didn't want to make my mom cry. On the other hand, there were some issues with YEC that I couldn't resolve logically/biblically, therefore Christianity didn't make any sense. I wanted to believe. I sooo wanted to believe. I even prayed to the God I no longer had faith in not to let me go. I was barely hanging on by a thread.

And all of that was because you dared to believe the Bible was true, as written? And suddenly when you lacked the ability to answer the challenges to your faith, it was the fault of the YEC model?

 

 

You seem a bit condescending here.

 

My answer is the same as above.

 

 

 

 

 

I can honestly say this as someone approaching Christianity without faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that one major thing holding me back was the required belief in a young earth and/or 6 day creation. I'd been defending it since I was six years old (I told someone that dinosaurs didn't exist because they weren't in the bible, lol). I couldn't defend it anymore. I didn't believe it.

But the fact that you couldn't defend the YEC model, speaks more to your lack of skill to answer the challenges to it, and not to the fact that it is indefensible or that it is wrong.

 

I'd been defending YEC since I was six. I was defending it in the classroom, on the internet, and with my friends.

If there was an argument I couldn't counter, I'd go find the answers. I had AiG bookmarked. I read book after book on YEC and Noah's Flood. But there were a few things that nagged at me. I realized that my biggest opponent in YEC was myself. I didn't drop YEC because I "lacked the skill to answer the challenges", it was because I didn't agree with their arguments. There is a difference.

Also, I didn't say it was wrong. I just said I let it go.

 

My official position on the age of the earth: I don't have an official position.  I don't know exactly what happened. I wasn't there.

 

If I do seem pushy about it, it's more the exclusivity of YEC than the model itself.   I've dealt with that way to often in the church concerning minor doctrines.  I know you believe it is a major doctrine and that your attitude is justified. 

 

This is just another area where we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I am glad that your faith is restored. My experience was the opposite. I used to accpet the Old Earth view, but I found myself a hair's breadth away from being an Evolutionist and I pulled back. I found that I could not be consistent in how I handled the Scriptures from a Old Earth view. I had to decide if I believed that God meant what He said, or not.

The Old Earth creationists heard were always saying, "The Bible says "xyz" but..." They would quote the Bible and then show why what the Bible said isn't really true. When the Bible contradicted science, science was given the benefit of the doubt by default. My experience with the OEC model was always leading me to rearrange the Bible to suit science and to suit the things I was being taught.

Wow, really?!

 

I can see why you'd have problems with OEC. 

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective. So...just curious. What brought you over the fence to YEC?

 

I have discovered that sometimes, holding to the Bible makes us the object of ridicule and derision.

 

I've found this true as well.

[Sheniy]

 

 

Definition of "Literal"
(A)  from the Dictionary
adj. in exact accordance with or limited to the primary or explicit meaning of a word or text; not figurative or symbolic in any way


(B) Shiloh's meaning
adj. determined meaning and intent of the original author of the text
    I couldn't find this specific meaning of "literal" in the dictionary. The closest thing I could find was this article on Biblical Literalism from Wikipedia. This seems to sum up the definition nicely: "The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.  Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)."

In literary analysis, when we speak of "literal," we are talking about reading a text as literature.  We are taking into account everything about the text, it genre, cultural idioms, the peripheral/immediate historical context (if applicable), language, figures of speech, etc.   These things all play into a literal reading of the text, where they occur in the text.
To take a text literally from a literary standpoint, means to analyze the text and lead out the meaning the author wants us to have.

(snip)

My definition is actually well understood among those who understand hermeneutics, which are the rules of literary analysis.  

(snip)

 
People often confuse "literal"  with "face-value."   They often think of those two as the same thing.   The face value approach would take Jesus' comment about being "the door" and assign Jesus a set of hinges and a door knob.    The literal approach understands the metaphorical character of the phrase.
 
Hyper-literal is the same as face-value.  Face value is a wooden approach to the text and is often employed by people who think they are using a "literal" approach.  That is the reason, at least in part, for the misunderstanding. 
 
I don't think changing the words we use will do any good.   What needs to happen is that people need to realize that in the literary world, word usage trumps word meaning and sometimes words are used in a way that doesn't follow the dictionary/lexical definitions.

 

Just trying to make things a little bit clearer.

 

I just think it's a little ironic that we're arguing the literal meaning of the word literal so I can discover the correct interpretation of your post on interpretations.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

And I didn't say anything about the inerrancy of Scripture. I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, so I don't understand why you added that...

How do you define inerrancy?

 

Is this another word we disagree on the meaning of? lol

 

This seems to sum it up nicely:

Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.

Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.

From wikipedia entry on "inerrancy" (emphasis mine)

 

 

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. It means that if the Bible says God created the earth in six days, that's what he did.  It means that if the Bible says the children of Israel walked across the floor of the Red Sea on dry ground, that's what happened.   The problem I have with the above definition is that the Bible makes no scientific claims.  Therefore the Bible cannot be interpreted scientifically.  It cannot be held to modern scientific precision.  It means that God can be trusted to mean exactly what He says. 

In the context of that portion your response you compared people who you accuse of thinking they are infallible with the pre-converted Paul. The clear implication being that we consider people like you to be heretics and that is where the "martyr card" comes into play. That is what I am talking about.

I didn't accuse anyone. My whole point was that Saul, a student of Scripture, was not infallible. That was it. If there is a parallel in there (which was unintended, by the way), it only applies to someone who thinks they're infallible.

 

I honestly did not mean to offend.

 

I understand but the context sure felt like you were making one of those backdoor jabs, as if to say, "you may think your infallible, but Paul thought he was infallible to and God had to smack him down to show him he wasn't infallible. 

 

 

Believing the Bible as intended by the author (shiloh-literal) wasn't the problem. The problem was that YEC was getting in the way. I had prioritized it too highly, so when it came under attack (usually by my own logical reasoning), my whole faith shook. It was build into my Shield and was the weakest part, therefore most subject to attack by the enemy. When my faith in YEC finally cracked (and it was a bible verse that did it), my faith in the rest of the bible went with it. because they were so inextricably tied together, one tiny doctrine pulled my whole faith over the edge.

 

Which Bible verse was it that cracked your "shield??"

 

You seem a bit condescending here.

 

My apologies, not trying to be.   It just seem strange to me that when our faith is challenged with questions and things we are not prepared for, people so often assume the problem was with what we believe and not with ourselves.    It wasn't YEC that wrecked your faith.  It was the challenges presented against it that you were not prepared for. I have seen it in other areas in other people's lives.

 

We have a member on WBs, "Hippos Hope is Him" who was a strong Christian before she went to university.  She was active in her church youth group went on mission trips galore, was planning on being  a missionary and within a year of being in college, gave up her faith due to the way her professors in science classes destroyed her faith in the Bible.  Not only that but if memory serves there was some other professors that played a part in that.

 

She blamed the Christian faith as being stupid and illogical.  She could no longer make sense of Christianity any longer.  She felt that she had been lied to and that Christianity was false.    She went from being a strong vibrant believer to having her faith pulled out from under her.    She doesn't seem to want to accept that her problem was that she was not prepared to answer the challenges set before her.   The problem isn't with Christianity or YEC.  The problem is when we get confronted by serious challenges to what we believe and are unable to really have a response prepared.   We have spent so much time "pro-YEC" or "pro-Christianity."that we never developed the critical thinking needed to deal with the opposition.

 

My official position on the age of the earth: I don't have an official position.  I don't know exactly what happened. I wasn't there.

 

There is an all-knowing, all-powerful Eyewitness who made it Himself and says He made it in six days.  Why isn't his testimony good enough?

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective. So...just curious. What brought you over the fence to YEC?

 

I came to a crossroads in life where I had to make a decision.   I was tired of constantly having to correct the Bible I said I believed.  Constantly having to reclarify the Bible was getting me frustrated because I was confronted by the fact that I didn't really believe was written.  I believed what I could justify believing in my mind.  Plus I was getting close to evolution and that is when I realized that I could no longer keep up the inconsistent, incoherent theology I was trying to put together in my mind. 

 

I decided to trust God.  I decided to believe Him and take Him at His word.  I don't have the answers to all of the challenges to YEC, admittedly, but I have the Word of an allknowing God who doesn't give us all the answers.  If He gave us all of the answers, we would have no reason to trust Him.  So it is possible to ask me questions that I can't answer about YEC.   But that doesn't bother me because I stopped defining my faith by what did or did not answers to.   My faith became defined by the Bible.  I got tired of cultural Christianity and decided to live in biblical Christianity.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I just think it's a little ironic that we're arguing the literal meaning of the word literal so I can discover the correct interpretation of your post on interpretations.

 

Yes the irony is pretty thick, LOL

[a-seeker]

 

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?

Yep, it means that God spoke.   The Bible says in Hebrews: 

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Heb 11:3)   The word used for "word" in Greek is "rhema" which refers to the uttered/spoken word of God

 

Ps. 33:6 also confirms this: 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

(Psa 33:6)

 

So God has a mouth?  How many teeth?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?

Yep, it means that God spoke.   The Bible says in Hebrews: 

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Heb 11:3)   The word used for "word" in Greek is "rhema" which refers to the uttered/spoken word of God

 

Ps. 33:6 also confirms this: 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

(Psa 33:6)

 

So God has a mouth?  How many teeth?

 

No, Connor.  I simply posted that verse to support the notion that God spoke the universe into the existence.  God does not have a physical mouth.  Had you bothered to read one or two posts further, you would have noticed that I pointed out that "mouth" and "breath" are anthropomorphisms.  

[Sheniy]

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. It means that if the Bible says God created the earth in six days, that's what he did.  It means that if the Bible says the children of Israel walked across the floor of the Red Sea on dry ground, that's what happened.   The problem I have with the above definition is that the Bible makes no scientific claims.  Therefore the Bible cannot be interpreted scientifically.  It cannot be held to modern scientific precision.

Agree to disagree? Because I disagree.  (I think I've seen you disagree with this, as well, but I can't remember where)

If we can't agree on the correct meaning of english, how in the world are we going to agree on Ancient Hebrew?

And I agree the bible isn't a science book. It's...you know, never mind. Arguing this with you is a lost cause. lol

 

I understand but the context sure felt like you were making one of those backdoor jabs, as if to say, "you may think your infallible, but Paul thought he was infallible to and God had to smack him down to show him he wasn't infallible.

Still, that would only apply if you think you're infallible. You don't, do you?

And by the way, I overlook offensive comments from you all the time. When I suggested your post seemed condescending, that was an understatement. You ripped my testimony apart, then made several implications about my intelligence. I was actually really offended, but I was trying to assume innocence on your part. I held my tongue.

Many of your posts, at least in this part of the boards, which is, I think, why people get so angry here.  Kindness is a fruit of the Spirit, you know.

(Note: I am not saying that you're the only one with this attitude. You're just the only one who gets away with it...)

 

Which Bible verse was it that cracked your "shield??"

Not gonna share this, sorry. I have good reasons for not doing so.

1. This was a personal (as in unique) experience. I don't think it will necessarily have the same effect on others that it did on me, in fact, I've seen it discussed here already. It was a favorite verse of mine (still is) before my faith shattered. It was the context and connection to YEC that made me question, not just the validity of the bible, but the character of God. Without YEC, IMHO, this issue is resolved. 

2. I don't want it to break anyone else's faith. Based on your testimony, YEC is a pillar holding your faith up, or plugging the hole in your shield left by OEC. There may be others who feel the same way. When my faith in YEC shattered, I almost walked away. I don't want to be the one to do that to someone else.

3. You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, anyway. This specific issue was already discussed in a different thread. I've seen your arguments against it, and all you really did basically was imply everyone was stupid. Sorry, but no thanks.

 

It wasn't YEC that wrecked your faith. It was the challenges presented against it that you were not prepared for.

This is just plain wrong.

 

We have a member on WBs, "Hippos Hope is Him" who was a strong Christian before she went to university.  She was active in her church youth group went on mission trips galore, was planning on being  a missionary and within a year of being in college, gave up her faith due to the way her professors in science classes destroyed her faith in the Bible.  Not only that but if memory serves there was some other professors that played a part in that.

 

She blamed the Christian faith as being stupid and illogical.  She could no longer make sense of Christianity any longer.  She felt that she had been lied to and that Christianity was false.    She went from being a strong vibrant believer to having her faith pulled out from under her.

Yeah, that sounds similar to what I went through. Except I held on to the Bible because of my "irrational, emotional attachment" to it. Haha.

I had no problem in the classroom. Yeah, they raised questions sometimes, but I would usually go to the Bible or a Christian leader to see what they said about it. And I'd pray. Because I trusted God, I'd take it to him. 

What more is anyone supposed to do?

(Don't insult my intelligence, again, please.)

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. It means that if the Bible says God created the earth in six days, that's what he did.  It means that if the Bible says the children of Israel walked across the floor of the Red Sea on dry ground, that's what happened.   The problem I have with the above definition is that the Bible makes no scientific claims.  Therefore the Bible cannot be interpreted scientifically.  It cannot be held to modern scientific precision.

Agree to disagree? Because I disagree.  (I think I've seen you disagree with this, as well, but I can't remember where)

 

 

No, you haven't seen me disagree with what I have presented as far as inerrancy goes.  This issue about inerrancy isn't a battle of opinions.  I am simply presenting the facts.  If you can't face up to the facts, there is really nothing I can do about that.  You want certain things on your own terms, and I simply won't accomodate that.  I am not going to bend the facts to get along.  You are simply wrong about this. As the old say goes, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.  What you do with that is up to you.

 

If we can't agree on the correct meaning of english, how in the world are we going to agree on Ancient Hebrew?

And I agree the bible isn't a science book. It's...you know, never mind. Arguing this with you is a lost cause. lol

 

 

It's only a lost cause because I have a firm grasp on the facts and you are not able to refute anything I have presented up to this point.  I can understand why that is frustrating.

 

 

Quote

I understand but the context sure felt like you were making one of those backdoor jabs, as if to say, "you may think your infallible, but Paul thought he was infallible to and God had to smack him down to show him he wasn't infallible.

Still, that would only apply if you think you're infallible. You don't, do you?

 

 

 

Of course it doesn't.  But I get accused of it all of the time when people can't seem to find anything else to say.   It looked like a veiled accusation.  I am sure had the situation been reversed, it would have come off the same to you.

 

And by the way, I overlook offensive comments from you all the time. When I suggested your post seemed condescending, that was an understatement. You ripped my testimony apart, then made several implications about my intelligence.

 

Oh please...  I didn' say thing or imply anything about your intelligence.  I said that you faced challenges that you were not prepared for and didn't have the skills to handle.  That is not a comment about your intelligence.  That is simply a reference to your apoolegetical prowess.

 

Not gonna share this, sorry. I have good reasons for not doing so.

 

 

Yes, because if it were exposed to proper exegesis, you might find out that it is not the death knell to the YEC model that you thought it was. 

 

I don't want it to break anyone else's faith. Based on your testimony, YEC is a pillar holding your faith up, or plugging the hole in your shield left by OEC. There may be others who feel the same way. When my faith in YEC shattered, I almost walked away. I don't want to be the one to do that to someone else.

LOL  YEC is not a pillar of my faith nor is it plugging any holes in my shield.   Believe me when I say you have nothing to say that would EVER be threat to my faith, based on what I have seen so far.

 

You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, anyway. This specific issue was already discussed in a different thread. I've seen your arguments against it, and all you really did basically was imply everyone was stupid. Sorry, but no thanks.

No, I just proved that they don't know Hebrew nor are they skilled at Exegesis or hermeneutics.  I never implied that anyone is stupid.  That's just what people run to when they come up against inconvenient truth they can't refute.  

[Sheniy]

You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, anyway. This specific issue was already discussed in a different thread. I've seen your arguments against it, and all you really did basically was imply everyone was stupid. Sorry, but no thanks.

No, I just proved that they don't know Hebrew nor are they skilled at Exegesis or hermeneutics.

No, you proved nothing.

You don't even know what I'm talking about. In fact your arguments showed a clear lack of understanding on the subject, so forgive me if I don't defer to your judgment.

And, like I said, it was already discussed in depth. No point in bringing it up again.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, anyway. This specific issue was already discussed in a different thread. I've seen your arguments against it, and all you really did basically was imply everyone was stupid. Sorry, but no thanks.

No, I just proved that they don't know Hebrew nor are they skilled at Exegesis or hermeneutics.

 

No, you proved nothing.

You don't even know what I'm talking about. In fact your arguments showed a clear lack of understanding on the subject, so forgive me if I don't defer to your judgment.

And, like I said, it was already discussed in depth. No point in bringing it up again.

 

Bring it up just long enough to falsely accuse me and then withdraw it because you suddenly don't want to bring up???   LOL, Whatever helps you sleep at night...   So typical of people who don't have a cogent or meaningful argument to make.