Jump to content
IGNORED

Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

One thing I have learned over the years is that there are Bible scholars and there are Christian scholars.  There are many "Bible" scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it. 

 

 

From this it seems that at least one of several things follows for you:

 

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians

b) All scholars that disagree may or may not claim to be Christians--but they are not really Christians.  They will (assuming they never repent) be denied when Christ comes again.

 

Obviously the first is wrong:  we have many scholars that claim to be Christians yet are not 6dayers.

 

So then, is it the second? They (and I) are not really Christians?  They are not saved?  They don't love God's Word  

 

Remember I am just going off what you said: you put a divide between Christian scholars and Bible scholars, with the implied definition of "Christian" being those who believe God's Word (and in the context of this post, believe Genesis 1 should be read as you read it).  No doubt I mistook you; I am just reading your words which leave too much room for misinterpretation.  Please clarify

 

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

One thing I have learned over the years is that there are Bible scholars and there are Christian scholars.  There are many "Bible" scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it. 

 

 

From this it seems that at least one of several things follows for you:

 

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians

No.  Again, that is not what I said.  But there are those who are not Chrstians and  they make no secret of the fact that they view the Bible as mythology.  Either that or it was contrived by religious leaders trying to push their own agenda.  Many "Bible" scholars pit Paul against Jesus as if Jesus and Paul had completely different goals and messages.

 

 

 

Obviously the first is wrong:  we have many scholars that claim to be Christians yet are not 6dayers.

 

So then, is it the second? They (and I) are not really Christians?  They are not saved?  They don't love God's Word  

 

Since your initial premise about what I said is wrong, these sentences don't deserve to be taken seriously. And merit no response.

 

Remember I am just going off what you said:

 

No, you are going off the values you assign to what I said so that you have something to knock down.

 

 

you put a divide between Christian scholars and Bible scholars, with the implied definition of "Christian" being those who believe God's Word (and in the context of this post, believe Genesis 1 should be read as you read it).  

 

Let me see if I can put it better since you obviously lack either the skill, or the will to frame my position correctly.   This is not about the six day issue, as you have already said that you are neither OEC or YEC.  Good biblical scholarship DOES begin from a foundation of a healthy Christian faith.  Without that, arriving at the truth where the Bible is concerned in an act in futility.

 

Those who view the Bible as belonging to the pantheon of religious writings typically view the entire Bible, particularly the first five books of the Bible as works of fiction.  The "Jesus" seminar"  that focused so heavily on the words of Jesus were comprised of several "Bible" scholars who concluded that 90% of what is recorded pertaining to what Jesus said, He never said."  

 

One popular Scholar, Marcus Borg maintains that it doesn't really matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not, that even if Jesus isn't raised from the dead, he sees no real detriment to Christianity.   Other Bible scholars like Blutmann, Weiss and others who didn't believe in the factuality of Jesus resurrection, are often cited as if they were Christians.   Then of course there is document hypothesis promoted by the German higher critics.  All of that stuff is based on unbelief.

 

I don't just run with Bible scholars because they purport to be scholars.  I pick and choose who I allow to scholarly authorities in my life.  The Bible puts a high premium on making sure that a person seeks wise counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

One thing I have learned over the years is that there are Bible scholars and there are Christian scholars.  There are many "Bible" scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it. 

 

 

From this it seems that at least one of several things follows for you:

 

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians

No.  Again, that is not what I said.  But there are those who are not Chrstians and  they make no secret of the fact that they view the Bible as mythology.  Either that or it was contrived by religious leaders trying to push their own agenda.  Many "Bible" scholars pit Paul against Jesus as if Jesus and Paul had completely different goals and messages.

 

 

 

Obviously the first is wrong:  we have many scholars that claim to be Christians yet are not 6dayers.

 

So then, is it the second? They (and I) are not really Christians?  They are not saved?  They don't love God's Word  

 

Since your initial premise about what I said is wrong, these sentences don't deserve to be taken seriously. And merit no response.

 

Remember I am just going off what you said:

 

No, you are going off the values you assign to what I said so that you have something to knock down.

 

 

you put a divide between Christian scholars and Bible scholars, with the implied definition of "Christian" being those who believe God's Word (and in the context of this post, believe Genesis 1 should be read as you read it).  

 

Let me see if I can put it better since you obviously lack either the skill, or the will to frame my position correctly.   This is not about the six day issue, as you have already said that you are neither OEC or YEC.  Good biblical scholarship DOES begin from a foundation of a healthy Christian faith.  Without that, arriving at the truth where the Bible is concerned in an act in futility.

 

Those who view the Bible as belonging to the pantheon of religious writings typically view the entire Bible, particularly the first five books of the Bible as works of fiction.  The "Jesus" seminar"  that focused so heavily on the words of Jesus were comprised of several "Bible" scholars who concluded that 90% of what is recorded pertaining to what Jesus said, He never said."  

 

One popular Scholar, Marcus Borg maintains that it doesn't really matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not, that even if Jesus isn't raised from the dead, he sees no real detriment to Christianity.   Other Bible scholars like Blutmann, Weiss and others who didn't believe in the factuality of Jesus resurrection, are often cited as if they were Christians.   Then of course there is document hypothesis promoted by the German higher critics.  All of that stuff is based on unbelief.

 

I don't just run with Bible scholars because they purport to be scholars.  I pick and choose who I allow to scholarly authorities in my life.  The Bible puts a high premium on making sure that a person seeks wise counsel.

 

 

I am confused (well, not at the obvious insults; they were very clear :)  )  They were clear to Christ as well: and no doubt he is applauding you for so graciously correcting a fellow Christian.

 

As for the confusing part:

 

I have read all the names above and disagree with all of them.  There is nothing above you have written that I would disagree with.

 

P.S. Oh, nothing above except obviously the part of me lacking skill or will--is it possible you aren't the best of communicators? Your style is lacking because you think that in a sentence or two you have put the matter to rest, but have really only put it to rest for yourself and one or two others who already agreed with you?  Note here, I am not accusing you of bad exegesis or inferior intelligence; I just don't think you are very good at writing and therefore arguing--probably your anger gets in the way--by the by, why are you so angry Shiloh?--and I think if you let go of that you will make great progress.  Try writing more than a sentence or two.  Try imagining first where the other person is coming from before getting on to the far easier task of disagreeing with them; try anticipating what they will say: this will not only allow you to anticipate counter-arguments but will allow you to assess whether you really understand them--for instance, I could end it there.  But I go on and think, "What might he say to this?"  My guess is, Physician heal yourself.  Which is a fine response--I am no doubt guilty of my own judgments, but doesn't exempt you from the criticism. See what I mean?  

 

Unless of course you think there is a rhetorical strategy to such comments as these:

 

Let me see if I can put it better since you obviously lack either the skill, or the will to frame my position correctly. 

 

 

 

I don't see what that would do for an argument.  What was the need for that?  Was it intended to "coo" me, or put me in my place?  It doesn't work--you and I both think the other is inferior in exegesis and all brute force will only confirm this impression.  The only result from that response is, "Oh, once again Shiloh is losing his cool because he can't deal with me."  Of course that is probably untrue, but that is the only impression I have. So, can you please tell me what you hoped to accomplish when writing that?  No doubt you think you are the better writer and arguer; so no doubt that line was strategically calculated.  Be my teacher and tell me what the point of that was!  Please!

 

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

One thing I have learned over the years is that there are Bible scholars and there are Christian scholars.  There are many "Bible" scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it. 

 

 

From this it seems that at least one of several things follows for you:

 

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians

b) All scholars that disagree may or may not claim to be Christians--but they are not really Christians.  They will (assuming they never repent) be denied when Christ comes again.

 

Obviously the first is wrong:  we have many scholars that claim to be Christians yet are not 6dayers.

 

So then, is it the second? They (and I) are not really Christians?  They are not saved?  They don't love God's Word  

 

Remember I am just going off what you said: you put a divide between Christian scholars and Bible scholars, with the implied definition of "Christian" being those who believe God's Word (and in the context of this post, believe Genesis 1 should be read as you read it).  No doubt I mistook you; I am just reading your words which leave too much room for misinterpretation.  Please clarify

 

clb

 

 

Simply because one calls one's self a Bible scholar, or a theologian, or even a Christian does not mean that we should automatically accept what they say.  To do so without using discernment, and without examining the fruit of what they say is unwise.  Bible "scholars" whom dismiss things such as Genesis being literal, Jesus' virgin birth, Crucifixion and resurrection, as just a few examples, would have some major hurdles to overcome when it comes to adequately explaining just exactly they are placing their "faith" in.  A true biblical scholar begins from the point of realizing that the Bible is an inspired and inerrant work first, and then works out from there.  Otherwise, they can call themselves a biblical scholar, but to what end?  It isn't to further the Gospel or glorify Christ and both of those things are supposed to be  Christians primary prerogative. 

 

Hello Cobalt,

 

I have never met you and am always reluctant to respond to someone new on a very old thread, since there is so much back-story to everything.

 

Let me first say this: my status has me as a believer but I consider myself a Christian--I believe in Christ's divinity and resurrection and in the inspiration of Scripture.

 

Now, 2 questions:

 

1) Is it ever possible that a "mere" Bible scholar could ever discover something true about Scripture; something a "true" Christian Bible scholar did not notice?

 

2) Is it ever possible that an unbelieving Bible Scholar might begin his study of Scripture assuming it is "mere" ancient literature; then, because of his studies, come to believe it as God's Word?

 

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians....

 

Obviously the first is wrong:  we have many scholars that claim to be Christians yet are not 6dayers....

 

Please clarify....

 

~

 

Some Are

 

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

 

Some Aren't

 

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

 

~

 

a) all scholars who disagree with you on this are self-expressed non-Christians....

So then, is it the second? They (and I) are not really Christians?  They are not saved?  They don't love God's Word.... 

 

Please clarify....

 

~

 

Some Are

 

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 34:16

 

Some Aren't

 

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

 

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:1-4

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I am confused (well, not at the obvious insults; they were very clear :)  )  They were clear to Christ as well: and no doubt he is applauding you for so graciously correcting a fellow Christian.

 

I have not insulted you.  Just pointing the ongoing continual attempt on your part to misrepresent what I have written.  I don't stutter and I am not using $50 dollar words.  I have taken great pains to be clear and you cointinue to try and spin what I say into something I didn't intend.  It is an ongoing thing with you and it is getting really old.  It leads me to believe that you are not someone who can be trusted in a debate.

 

I have read all the names above and disagree with all of them.  There is nothing above you have written that I would disagree with.

 

The point I was making was that it is men of that caliber that tend to treat the Bible, particularly areas in Genesis as nonliteral.  It is apparent to to me that you use "scholars" to boost what you already chosen to believe.  You are looking for evidence to boost your point of view, rather than exegeting the text.  Appealing to scholars isn't exegesis and not every "scholar" is a competent exegete.

 

Oh, nothing above except obviously the part of me lacking skill or will--is it possible you aren't the best of communicators?

 

Well it is either lacking skill or will because I use plain wording and am easy to understand.  You have continued to misrepresent what I have said over and over and I am having to stop and correct everything you say when you try to frame my postion and as I said, it's getting really old.

 

Your style is lacking because you think that in a sentence or two you have put the matter to rest, but have really only put it to rest for yourself and one or two others who already agreed with you?

 

My style isn't lacking.  I don't have to drone on and on and turn my responses into online novels.  I have the truth.  I am simply telling you the truth.  I would not sit and engage a flat earther in a pro-longed debate.  I would simply tell them the truth.  If they reject the truth, that is their problem not mine.  I don't need to spend hours defending what doesn't need defending.

 

Note here, I am not accusing you of bad exegesis or inferior intelligence; I just don't think you are very good at writing and therefore arguing--probably your anger gets in the way--by the by, why are you so angry Shiloh?--

 

I am not angry.  I simply know the truth and I don't take your approach to the Scriptures very seriously, because I know what real exegesis looks like.   I don't compromise on the truth and I shoot straight with people.  I don't coddle them and treat false teaching with any kind of legitimacy.  See, you and I don't stand on equal ground.  I start from the vantage point of having the truth.  You start from some other point where it appears you are searching for what is true.  Why would I want to be like you?  That means, for me, going backward.  I have no intention of doing that.

 

I don't see what that would do for an argument.  What was the need for that?  Was it intended to "coo" me, or put me in my place?  

 

It wasn't an argument.  It was simply my frustration with your ongoing attempt to assign values to me that I didn't intend and there is no excuse for it. 

 

 It doesn't work--you and I both think the other is inferior in exegesis and all brute force will only confirm this impression.  

 

I don't consider what you do as inferior exegesis.  What you do isn't exegesis at all.  

 

 No doubt you think you are the better writer and arguer; so no doubt that line was strategically calculated.  

 

Nope, again, that is what you assign to me.  Like I said, this is always what I have to deal with when it comes to you.   Constantly assigning things to me that are popping into your head and all of the whining you do.

 

And btw, stop asking me to be your "teacher."  I have no intention of wasting my time with you in that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...