Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

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.

 

Hi Shiloh,

 

since you took things here in a refreshingly autobiographical direction, I wanted to ask you what you thought of the opposite maneuver (excluding abandoning faith as a maneuver)? Basically, why is it that I feel (I want to keep things subjective for the moment) just as close to God, and feel just as much admiration for His Word, receiving enormous nourishment from it at every reading, and insistent that my faith be defined by the Bible etc. etc.?  Should I not feel all that?  Are these subjective "feelings" of mine incongruent to my "interpretation"; is it simply that I don't realize that, if I really knew what I was saying, I would see my convictions were poorly grounded? How is it that we can differ soooo much on our interpretations, yet we both admire God and His Word and acknowledge Its authority over our life and conduct?

 

 

 

clb

 

I think the difference between us is that I trust His word.  I don't merely "admire" it.  I am not simply inspired by it.   I trust God to mean what He says.   So when God says He made the earth in six days, I simply trust Him to mean that.  It's how I approach the Bible.  I don't have to search for some other kind of "meaning" to the text because I can't bring myself to believe what I am reading in God's word. 

 

I don't think you and I start from the same point of reference when it comes to Scripture.   I start from the vantage point that it is the inspired, inerrant word of God and that God is competent to say what He means.   I don't have to spirtualize it, in order to give myself something else to believe since I can't wrap my head around what the text actually says.

 

I think the difference between us is that I trust His word.  I don't merely "admire" it.  I am not simply inspired by it.   I trust God to mean what He says.   So when God says He made the earth in six days, I simply trust Him to mean that.  It's how I approach the Bible.  I don't have to search for some other kind of "meaning" to the text because I can't bring myself to believe what I am reading in God's word. 

 

I don't think you and I start from the same point of reference when it comes to Scripture.   I start from the vantage point that it is the inspired, inerrant word of God and that God is competent to say what He means.   I don't have to spirtualize it, in order to give myself something else to believe since I can't wrap my head around what the text actually says.

 

Shiloh,

 

You are being incredibly unfair and (not surprisingly) reading my post at face-value (not as I obviously intend).  So here is a direct refutation (which cannot be argued with, since they are not based on logic or exegesis but on my introspection to which you are not privy)...

 

I do not merely admire God's word (you changed "admiration" for the more quaint sentimental act "to admire" which did not appear in my post).  I admire Homer.  If I knew classical Arabic I suppose I would admire the Koran as regards its composition. I do not in the same way "admire" Scripture.

 

True, I am inspired by it (but I don't believe I ever said that) but you decided to assume that I was "simply inspired by it".  You don't know me, Shiloh.  You are not a psychologist and even if you were, I have never sat on your couch.

 

I ABSOLUTELY trust God to mean what he says, and there again is an end of the matter.  You have no way of looking into my head and concluding that I don't trust God to mean what He says or is competent to say it.

 

Do we start from different vantage points?  Yes.  But the difference between them is not what you suppose.

 

I was not raised a YEC.  I never felt like I was apologizing for Scripture when I questioned whether light could exist without the sun or other sources; I always felt that Scripture was so much bigger than I that it needed no apologizing and that these were the sorts of questions that Scripture wanted me to ask.   Unlike you, I never reached a critical point where my faith in Scripture or in science was in jeopardy. It was exegesis of Scripture that led me to my current conclusions about Scripture (and by they by, we are really talking about Genesis 1).  I was never taught (perhaps nor were you) that such questions as "Hmm, this seems very very strange; does Scripture really mean this, or am I reading it wrongly?" were irreverent.  These were the very questions that God wanted me to ask.  I simply do not see the war that you see.  To cast about for alternative answers because something in the text seems very, very strange, was a reaction never scorned by my parents or elders or teachers. Perhaps they should have; but I think the damage is done. 

 

Here is a key to understanding something of my hermeneutical approach to any text.  Suppose I open up Plato and find something that appears silly or contradictory.  My approach is to give the benefit of the doubt and see if I am reading him correctly.  If a teacher comes along with historical or linguistic factors that evoke the response "Oh wow!!  That changes everything: not only is he not contradictory, but how insightful, elegant!"  Then, once again, I give Plato the benefit of the doubt and subscribe to that newly founded interpretation until the case for it is proved hopeless.

 

It is the same with Scripture, although more so; for I am willing to, eventually, abandon Plato as misguided here or there. When I find myself exclaiming, "Wow, I never saw that.  Look how it all comes together with this new piece of the puzzle, how elegant and powerful!" then yes, I presume I am on the right track. Might I be deceived by my own excitement?  Perhaps, but the alternative does not make sense to me: to ignore the impression that "this seems very strange for God to say" and quell the inquisitive spark that would have me search for clarify...that almost stops my relationship with Him and His Word.  

 

Of course there will be places in Scripture where we must conclude that it doesn't make sense; but the alternative interpretations make less sense.  I do not believe I have gotten to that point with Genesis.  I subscribed to my current interpretation because it shed SO much light on the text, elicited so much from it and brought everything together.... I cannot believe it coincidental or the work of Satan.

 

Now, if I thought I were in the same war that you perceive, I could see how this would be distasteful.  "I believe because it is absurd" said Tertullian.  From this vantage point, I would almost need to apply the opposite approach--the more "sound" the proposed interpretation seems, the more likely it is false, like devils dressed in light.  The more "silly"? well it is through folly that we are saved (1 Cor.).

 

But I don't feel the angst that you do, Shiloh. 

 

My proposed interpretation is not an allegorization of the text, nor does it spiritualize anything.  I have posted it twice and twice it was complained about and twice deleted. Could my interpretation be wrong?  Perhaps, but I have found none so far that makes so much more sense to me given what I know.   I was told I could engage someone in a one-on-one discussion, so if you would like then you and I could do that, though I am not familiar enough with this site to start it.

 

clb

[LookingForAnswers]

 

So when God says you should pluck out your eye, do you simply trust Him to mean that?

 

~

 

Beloved This Burning Hatred Of The God Of The Bible

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

Is Nearly A Reflection Of A Sinner's Heart

Love, Joe

 

 

I do not have a burning hatred of the God of the Bible, I have a problem with people who pick and choose which verses are directed at them.  You should not close your post with "love joe' there is no love in a false accusations, even ones hidden behind random, out of context bible verses.  Joe, I would suggest you get the booklet "Never Read a Bible Verse" and learn about the dangers of random use of bible verses out of context.

[Sheniy]

Blizzard! Oy! There are twin mountains of snow at the foot of my driveway that tower over me now. I am so ready for summer! Anyone have some nice weather they can send my way?


 

I trust God to mean what He says.   So when God says He made the earth in six days, I simply trust Him to mean that.  It's how I approach the Bible.  I don't have to search for some other kind of "meaning" to the text because I can't bring myself to believe what I am reading in God's word.

   So, say I do accept without question that the universe appeared out of nothing over a six day span approximately 6000 years ago. So what? How exactly is that specific information relevant to my daily walk with God? Is it particularly important for salvation? Is it going to make my journey doubt-free? Is it going to give me extra wisdom?  What exactly am I trusting for by accepting this? Why is this one thing so vitally important that by not accepting it, I am suddenly doomed to...what, question the entire bible?

   Why is it that if I believe that Genesis 1 was a narrative (story) expertly designed by the WORD Himself (Jn 1:1), full of foreshadowing and cultural parallels that have far more meaning and relevance to me as a believer then just merely a creation story, then I suddenly don't trust God...?
 
Honestly, I feel like my trust in God is greater by not needing to have it spelled out for me.  The burden of proof is gone.  God said "let there be..." and there was. 

(disclaimer: I am not saying YEC is wrong. Just that it doesn't need to be right. I am also not endorsing evolution. Just so we're clear. )
 

I was never taught (perhaps nor were you) that such questions as "Hmm, this seems very very strange; does Scripture really mean this, or am I reading it wrongly?" were irreverent.

For me, it was completely opposite. Sola Scriptura. It was drilled into me as a child. I didn't dare question the bible (except when I was told to, but that's another story), so I accepted what I read without question. I spend countless hours studying the Word and researching ways to defend my faith. YEC was a favorite subject, and I spent a lot of time in that area,  mostly breaking it down word for word and studying the Hebrew or reading through creationist science books for evidence of creation (I learned a lot of scientific stuff, so that was cool). I was so busy trying to prove the first chapter of the bible, that I never really considered it to be anything other than God creating the cosmos.

I have to say, I've learned more about Genesis 1 in the last week or so than probably the last twenty years of my life. Learned a lot about God and my faith, as well. Seriously, my mind has been blown. (I love when that happens )
 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Sheniy

[Guest]

Never

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Read

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
 

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
 

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11

 

A Bible

 

For verily I say unto you,

 

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle

 

shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

 

Verse?

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

~

 

The LORD Jesus

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

 

which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

IS

 

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. Matthew 12:8

 

Greater

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;

 

and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it:

 

because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

 

~

 

I do not have a burning hatred of the God of the Bible, I have a problem with people who pick and choose which verses are directed at them. 

 

You should not close your post with "love joe' there is no love in a false accusations, even ones hidden behind random, out of context bible verses. 

 

Joe, I would suggest you get the booklet "Never Read a Bible Verse" and learn about the dangers of random use of bible verses out of context.

 

 

Beloved Please Forgive Me

 

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2 Timothy 2:24

 

You Are A God Sent, Always Leading Me Back To The Bible Again And Again

 

To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. Titus 3:2

 

And Thank You Dear One For Taking The Time To Read

 

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18

 

And To Correct Me

 

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16

 

~

 

I Am Blessed

 

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Revelation 3:19

 

And Blessed

 

What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:27

 

Love, Joe

[EnochBethany]

 

 

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.

 

Hi Shiloh,

 

since you took things here in a refreshingly autobiographical direction, I wanted to ask you what you thought of the opposite maneuver (excluding abandoning faith as a maneuver)? Basically, why is it that I feel (I want to keep things subjective for the moment) just as close to God, and feel just as much admiration for His Word, receiving enormous nourishment from it at every reading, and insistent that my faith be defined by the Bible etc. etc.?  Should I not feel all that?  Are these subjective "feelings" of mine incongruent to my "interpretation"; is it simply that I don't realize that, if I really knew what I was saying, I would see my convictions were poorly grounded? How is it that we can differ soooo much on our interpretations, yet we both admire God and His Word and acknowledge Its authority over our life and conduct?

 

 

 

clb

 

We all see thru a glass darkly.  We'll understand it better bye and bye

[Guest shiloh357]

So, say I do accept without question that the universe appeared out of nothing over a six day span approximately 6000 years ago. So what? How exactly is that specific information relevant to my daily walk with God? Is it particularly important for salvation? Is it going to make my journey doubt-free? Is it going to give me extra wisdom?  What exactly am I trusting for by accepting this? Why is this one thing so vitally important that by not accepting it, I am suddenly doomed to...what, question the entire bible?

That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.  One of the biggest problems I see in these threads is the notion that if something is not a salvation issue, it is unimportant or periheral to the Christian life.

 

The problem with how we approach Scripture is embedded in a much larger context.  It may not be true for everyone, but there are those out there for who this is an issue, a huge credibility issue for the Bible and this credibility issue is central to them being able to accept the Bible at all.  

 

Think of it this way…  Let’s say you have a coworker or a friend and either because they are simply incompetent cannot be trusted to relate important information accurately?  They may not be trying to be dishonest, but they are, nonetheless always getting things wrong.   It would not take long for you to decide not to listen to that person because they just can’t get the facts down correctly.

 

The same with the Bible.  People are told that the Bible is wrong and that the earth was not created in six days, there was no literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no talking serpent, what the Bible calls “sin” is really nothing more than evolved survival traits, there was no global flood or an ark, that two of every kind of animal inhabited, the tower of Babel is a myth and so on.  There are people out there for whom this is a real problem.  Why should they trust the Bible at all?   If the first eleven chapters are nothing more than a myth or at best is a lot of stories with incorrect information about man’s origins, why should they trust the Bible in any other claim it makes?  In some cases they are thinking,  "If God is wrong about my origins, why should I believe Him when He tells me about my sin?"

 

 

 

Why is it that if I believe that Genesis 1 was a narrative (story) expertly designed by the WORD Himself (Jn 1:1), full of foreshadowing and cultural parallels that have far more meaning and relevance to me as a believer then just merely a creation story, then I suddenly don't trust God...?[/qutoe]

There are no foreshadowings or cultural parallels in Genesis.   Connor  is reading that INTO the book of Genesis. He is imposing that on to the text.  He is not exegeting it from the text.  Interpretation leads the meaning from the text.  Connor is reading his own meaning into the text and that is not interpretation.  It is a way for people who don’t like what the text actually means to create an alternate meaning that they can hang their hat on.  Suddenly the Bible means what they say it means and not what the author meant.  The author is ignored in deference to some liberal attempt to subjectivey pencil alternate views into the text.

 

Honestly, I feel like my trust in God is greater by not needing to have it spelled out for me.  The burden of proof is gone.  God said "let there be..." and there was. 

(disclaimer: I am not saying YEC is wrong. Just that it doesn't need to be right. I am also not endorsing evolution. Just so we're clear. )

I realize you are not endorsing evolution.   But the notion that a six day creation doesn’t need to be right makes no sense.  The claims made by Scripture must either be right or wrong.   The Bible doesn’t give any wiggle room for that.

[Sheniy]

We all see thru a glass darkly.  We'll understand it better bye and bye

Truth!

[Sheniy]

 

So, say I do accept without question that the universe appeared out of nothing over a six day span approximately 6000 years ago. So what? How exactly is that specific information relevant to my daily walk with God? Is it particularly important for salvation? Is it going to make my journey doubt-free? Is it going to give me extra wisdom?  What exactly am I trusting for by accepting this? Why is this one thing so vitally important that by not accepting it, I am suddenly doomed to...what, question the entire bible?

That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.  One of the biggest problems I see in these threads is the notion that if something is not a salvation issue, it is unimportant or periheral to the Christian life.

 

 You didn't answer my question. Any of them.

 

 

The same with the Bible.  People are told that the Bible is wrong and that the earth was not created in six days, there was no literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no talking serpent, what the Bible calls “sin” is really nothing more than evolved survival traits, there was no global flood or an ark, that two of every kind of animal inhabited, the tower of Babel is a myth and so on.

I am going to assume that you are directing this at someone else, since I was clearly only referring to Genesis 1 throughout my entire post. 

  Sin is "evolved survival traits"?  Where did that come from?

It may not be true for everyone, but there are those out there for who this is an issue, a huge credibility issue for the Bible and this credibility issue is central to them being able to accept the Bible at all.   (snip)

There are people out there for whom this is a real problem.  Why should they trust the Bible at all?   If the first eleven chapters are nothing more than a myth or at best is a lot of stories with incorrect information about man’s origins, why should they trust the Bible in any other claim it makes?  In some cases they are thinking,  "If God is wrong about my origins, why should I believe Him when He tells me about my sin?"

 "If God is wrong..."  Who's saying God is wrong? The Word is inerrant, remember? And God cannot lie.  

    If a portion of the bible is intended to be taken figuratively (i.e. Jesus is the Door),  then it cannot be accused of being factually wrong, because it wasn't claiming a fact (a truth, yes, but not a fact).  Thus, it can still be trusted when it does claim a factual truth (God created the earth).  If a portion of the bible is intended to be taken as a parable, poem, liturgy, etc (Genesis 1?), then it cannot be accused of inaccuracy, because it wasn't claiming to be historically (or scientifically) accurate.  Thus, it can still be trusted when it claims a moral truth (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God).

  

On the other hand, if a portion of the bible is intended to be taken as historically (and scientifically) accurate (Genesis 1?) and evidence appears (true or not) that counters this claim, then there is doubt cast over the integrity of the Book as a whole, and major truths (Jesus is God) are questioned.  

It may not be true for everyone, but there are those out there for who this is an issue, a huge credibility issue for the Bible and this credibility issue is central to them being able to accept the Bible at all.

  There are people out there for whom this is a real problem. Why should they trust the Bible at all?   (see what I did there? )

 

 

There are no foreshadowings or cultural parallels in Genesis.   Connor  is reading that INTO the book of Genesis. He is imposing that on to the text.  He is not exegeting it from the text.  Interpretation leads the meaning from the text.  Connor is reading his own meaning into the text and that is not interpretation.

 

No foreshadowing at all?  No cultural parallels? Really?  That is a rather myopic way of looking at it. 

Your assumption is mistaken.  I am referring to my own conclusions based on my own studies.

 Connor's bit on the Holy of Holies was seriously fascinating and enlightening (seriously!).  He didn't change my mind or convince me,  but he did expand my view on the subject, confirming things I'd learned ten years ago.  His perspective was extremely helpful, along with bits from Shar, Spock, Enoch, and even you, Shiloh. 

I have more to say (well, not actually me...) on exegesis.  Will post later.

 

But the notion that a six day creation doesn’t need to be right makes no sense.  The claims made by Scripture must either be right or wrong.   The Bible doesn’t give any wiggle room for that.

Does post-millenialism need to be right?  How about pre-millenialism?  Immersed or sprinkled?  Does the bread and wine actually physically become the body and blood of Christ, or is it just a spiritual truth?  Are the gifts of tongues, prophecy, etc relevant for today, or was that only intended for the disciples and early believers? Hymnal/liturgical worship vs contemporary worship vs (the more extreme) no instruments allowed?  

 The church is divided on most of these, as I'm sure you know.  Is there an actual right or wrong answer to these different, opposing doctrines? Of course.  Will we as a unified church body agree on them while on this earth?  Likely not.   We all see through a glass darkly while we are here (thank you, EB).  We won't have all the answers about everything.   We will disagree on things.   However, these things, while a part of Christian life,  will likely not be a big issue  Unless we make it one.

  I read a testimony once from a man who railed against contemporary worship music.  It was a stumbling block to him because it reminded him of his sinful past.  He found a church that was more liturgical, which he felt was more reverent.  This doesn't make contemporary worship bad or wrong.  Just wrong for him.  Many people are drawn to church by the contemporary style and repelled (or bored) by traditional services.  Both are good, but neither has to be right.

  YEC was wrong for me.  Looking back at my life, I can see it more and more.  The reason I held on so long was my own pride and stubbornness.  Similarly, OEC was wrong for you.  Some people can't accept OEC because of it's connection to  evolution and deviation from God's word.  Some can't accept YEC because it's too fantastical and weakens the rest of the Bible.  Neither OEC nor YEC need to be right because they are both plausible from a scriptural and scientific standpoint.  There is evidence for and against both.  (Although you are going to disagree, I'm sure.  That's ok. )

Note: I'm not recommending using this as an exegetical method or anything ("I don't like that passage. It's wrong for me" lol).

 

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

So, say I do accept without question that the universe appeared out of nothing over a six day span approximately 6000 years ago. So what? How exactly is that specific information relevant to my daily walk with God? Is it particularly important for salvation? Is it going to make my journey doubt-free? Is it going to give me extra wisdom?  What exactly am I trusting for by accepting this? Why is this one thing so vitally important that by not accepting it, I am suddenly doomed to...what, question the entire bible?

That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.  One of the biggest problems I see in these threads is the notion that if something is not a salvation issue, it is unimportant or periheral to the Christian life.

 

 You didn't answer my question. Any of them.

 

Yes, I did.   My point is that you and others keep up with same canard about how something isn't important if it isn't a salvation issue.    Your questions were the wrong questions to ask and since I have never made this a salvation issue, your quesitons are meant to address an argument I never raised.

 

I am going to assume that you are directing this at someone else, since I was clearly only referring to Genesis 1 throughout my entire post. 

I was seeking to further address the questions you raised by pointing out that what seems trivial or as a nonissue to YOU, isn't so trivial to unbelievers who are still trying to decide if they believe the Bible or not. I was pointing out that things like a six day creation make no difference to you, it could a huge difference to someone who is still weighing the evidence for the Bible's reliability. 

 

No foreshadowing at all?  No cultural parallels? Really?  That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.

 

No, it's simply the correct way to look at it.   If the Bible were drawing cultural parallels in Genesis, it would have told us so.  I am sorry that you lack the hermeneutic skills to understand that, but that is simply the facts, whether you are willing to make room for them or not.

 

Sin is "evolved survival traits"?  Where did that come from?

We are told by those who view the Bible as lacking credibility that what we call "sin"  like sexual immorality are really nothing more than evolved survival traits.  That is how some people who view Genesis 1 as a parable or a poem end up having to explain sin.  How you interpret Genesis 1 sets up how you will interpret the rest of Genesis and to large degree how you intepret the rest of the Bible. 

 

Many, "sin" is a religious term that is attached to behaviors that some people don't approve of.   To them pre-marital sex is only a "sin" because religious people deem it as such.   Since these critics of the Bible don't believe in sin, much less the Bible's authority to define it, they believe sin to be part of human nature and the need to survive.  That line of thinking explains other sins as well like murder, theft, lying adultery, etc.

 

 

"If God is wrong..."  Who's saying God is wrong? The Word is inerrant, remember? And God cannot lie.  

 

The Bible says that God made the earth in six days.   Science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old.   Old Earth Creationists claim that six days is really the 4.5 billion years science demands.   So either the Bible (and therefore by logical extension, God is right) and the earth was created in six days OR science and their OEC amen corner are right.  Both can't be right.

 

 

On the other hand, if a portion of the bible is intended to be taken as historically (and scientifically) accurate (Genesis 1?) and evidence appears (true or not) that counters this claim, then there is doubt cast over the integrity of the Book as a whole, and major truths (Jesus is God) are questioned.  

It may not be true for everyone, but there are those out there for who this is an issue, a huge credibility issue for the Bible and this credibility issue is central to them being able to accept the Bible at all.

  There are people out there for whom this is a real problem. Why should they trust the Bible at all?   (see what I did there? )

 

There is a difference though.   The difference is that YEC'ers don't have to stand before God and explain why we helped enable unbelief.  There are a lot of things in the Bible, that people don't believe and that is their choice.   They don't believe Jesus was resurrected.  They don't believe the miracles, and so on.  They don't even believe that God exists in the first place.   

 

There is a stark difference between a person who says, "you know, I realize the Bible says the earth was made in six days, but I just don't believe that the Bible is right about that because of the the scientific evidence that says otherwise"

 

And...

 

"You know, I realize the Bible says that God made the earth in six days, but I know Christians who don't even believe that.  They told me that they believe the scientific evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old.   So really, why is the Bible even important, when even Christians find that they can't believe what it says??  If Christians don't trust the Bible, why should I?

 

I would not want to be one of those Christians who will at some point have to stand and give an account for why I chose to aid others in their disbelief of the Bible. 

 

If a portion of the bible is intended to be taken figuratively (i.e. Jesus is the Door),  then it cannot be accused of being factually wrong, because it wasn't claiming a fact (a truth, yes, but not a fact).  Thus, it can still be trusted when it does claim a factual truth (God created the earth).  If a portion of the bible is intended to be taken as a parable, poem, liturgy, etc (Genesis 1?), then it cannot be accused of inaccuracy, because it wasn't claiming to be historically (or scientifically) accurate.  Thus, it can still be trusted when it claims a moral truth (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God).

 

 

Yes, but none of that applies to Genesis 1.  Genesis 1 isn't a parable or a poem, liturgy or whatever.   Genesis is written as a historical narrative and the style of writing, verbiage is the same as what is found in the rest of Genesis regarding the stories of Abraham, Joseph and the other patriarchs of  the Old Testament.  The notion that Genesis 1 is anything other than a historical narrative is the result of wishful thinking and is NOT the product of competent exegesis.

 

 

Does post-millenialism need to be right?  How about pre-millenialism?  Immersed or sprinkled?  Does the bread and wine actually physically become the body and blood of Christ, or is it just a spiritual truth?  Are the gifts of tongues, prophecy, etc relevant for today, or was that only intended for the disciples and early believers? Hymnal/liturgical worship vs contemporary worship vs (the more extreme) no instruments allowed?  

 The church is divided on most of these, as I'm sure you know.  Is there an actual right or wrong answer to these different, opposing doctrines? Of course.  Will we as a unified church body agree on them while on this earth?  Likely not.   We all see through a glass darkly while we are here (thank you, EB).  We won't have all the answers about everything.   We will disagree on things.   However, these things, while a part of Christian life,  will likely not be a big issue  Unless we make it one.

  I read a testimony once from a man who railed against contemporary worship music.  It was a stumbling block to him because it reminded him of his sinful past.  He found a church that was more liturgical, which he felt was more reverent.  This doesn't make contemporary worship bad or wrong.  Just wrong for him.  Many people are drawn to church by the contemporary style and repelled (or bored) by traditional services.  Both are good, but neither has to be right.

  YEC was wrong for me.  Looking back at my life, I can see it more and more.  The reason I held on so long was my own pride and stubbornness.  Similarly, OEC was wrong for you.  Some people can't accept OEC because of it's connection to  evolution and deviation from God's word.  Some can't accept YEC because it's too fantastical and weakens the rest of the Bible.  Neither OEC nor YEC need to be right because they are both plausible from a scriptural and scientific standpoint.  There is evidence for and against both.  (Although you are going to disagree, I'm sure.  That's ok. )

 

Comparing a direct statement from Genesis with things like the rapture or contemporary music really highlights the problem in your line of argumentation.   The timing of the rapture is a debatable issue because the Bible doesn't give us enough light to be dogmatic.   Contempary or traditional music is an issue of personal taste and nothing more.

 

You are trying to compare issues of conscience with a clear and unambigous claim of Scripture.   God explicitly says that He made the earth is six days.   Science says that's hogwash.    So you need to decide if God's word is more real or if science is more real.  Even atheists are honest enough about this issue to know that it can't be both ways.

[a-seeker]

 

No foreshadowing at all?  No cultural parallels? Really?  That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.

 

No, it's simply the correct way to look at it.   If the Bible were drawing cultural parallels in Genesis, it would have told us so.  I am sorry that you lack the hermeneutic skills to understand that, but that is simply the facts, whether you are willing to make room for them or not.

 

 

 

Sorry I've been gone a while Sheniy!  Let's note some things here

 

When Shiloh says the Bible “would tell us”, does he mean that somewhere in Scripture we would read words to this effect: “Everything I have just told you is a parallel to other parts of Scripture or your own cultural background?”  Or, more to the point, “Now, Hebrews, I am going to address 21st c. readers for a bit…21st c. readers, when I said this to the Hebrews I was making a reference to elements in their experience—let me explain those elements.”  In other words, we demand a footnote or parenthesis specifically for our benefit.

 

Or does he mean, “It would have told us by rhetorical devices which transcend time and require almost no education to detect”?

 

Or does he mean, “Anyone with Biblical training would see that there is no sign Genesis 1 is anything but narrative without any poetical features that might suggest otherwise”?

 

If the first, that is asinine: cultural parallels would not need to be made explicit to them and would only harm the thrust of the message if they were made so.  Consider this parallel. The World trade center now under construction is to be 1,776 (1776).  Those with a smidgen of U.S. history do not need to be told the significance of this detail; but it would be missed by many foreigners even today and may be missed by everyone but historians in the future should the U.S. become a political entity of the remote past like ancient Rome.  Even historians will have difficulty.  A historian 2,000 years from now can look at the blue-prints of that building which archaeology has dug up, all day long and never find the historical significance of that height; he can know 21st c. English like the back of his hand, or the unit of measurement used now better than the measurement which by then will have replaced it.  None of that knowledge will help him one bit reach the truth that the measurement is also a year.  To get that, he must leave the blue-print behind and dig into the culture which was its environment.  Again, the tower is designed so that every Sept 11th sunlight fills a particular room or corridor—a date that required no explanation for me to smile in awe at the ingenuity when I first heard it.  But in 2,000 years perhaps only intimate knowledge as that acquired by scholarship will be able to perceive the importance of that date.  Again, the absence of explicit reference to cultural elements is no proof that they do not exist; such explicit references would only have hindered the message.  Imagine a room in which that very building project mentioned above is being laid out by its designer to a gathered audience; then imagine that the designer digresses into a long history lesson explaining how important both 1776 and 9/11 is to American history.  It would be distracting.  The audience would feel the address was “not for them” or that the designer thought they were idiots. IF we demand that the Bible address us directly with explanations which the original hearers would not need, then that is pure narcissism: we must let it address them as they were: to borrow language from St. Paul, it is we who have been grafted into their story, not the other way round.

 

Note to other readers: deliberate obscurantism is far too frequent on this site.  The point I am making here is obvious—that what would have been obvious to them need not, a priori, be obvious to us.  I anticipate that some will attempt to dismiss the obvious point by flatly denying cultural parallels: I have not yet gotten to the point of presenting those (the mods won't let me).  Worst, I am afraid someone will remind me that Genesis is not a building and therefore the analogy of above is falsely made!

 

If the second is meant, well, it is less asinine but not by much; and the above parallel is enough to disarm it.  It is, again, narcissistic to lay on Scripture criterion without the meeting of which we will not accept it as intended by its Author.  Scripture defines its own criterion and part of scholarship is to discern what that is.

 

IF the third, well, that is, so to speak, worthy of refutation.  I have already given the invitation to discuss the cultural parallels with others (one on one is apparently the only way the Servants will allow it to happen).  If some have responded to that invitation, I apologize, I missed them.   Shiloh, would you like me to show you how I do exegesis one on one? 

 

 

 

 

There are no foreshadowings or cultural parallels in Genesis.   Connor  is reading that INTO the book of Genesis. He is imposing that on to the text.  He is not exegeting it from the text.  Interpretation leads the meaning from the text.  Connor is reading his own meaning into the text and that is not interpretation.  It is a way for people who don’t like what the text actually means to create an alternate meaning that they can hang their hat on.  Suddenly the Bible means what they say it means and not what the author meant.  The author is ignored in deference to some liberal attempt to subjectivey pencil alternate views into the text.

 

 

 

 

Like I said Shiloh, would you like to see how I do exegesis?  The mods won't let me do it publicly.

Edited February 27, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown