Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shiloh357

Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

Recommended Posts

It seems that what we disagree on is what exactly are the Basic and Absolute Truths that can be known. Specifically, is YEC the only possible interpretation of Gen 1.

 

 

I guess what is needed is an understanding on what the nature of "interpretation" is.    The idea behind interpretation is to lead out the meaning the author was intending to convey, not to figure out how many possible ways his words can be taken.

 

When we speak or write, we have ONE idea we are trying to communicate to others.   If I write you a letter and say, " Last night I went and saw a baskeball game and dined at Pizza Hut afterwards,"   what is the "interpretation" of those words?    Are you going to sit there and mull over the letter as to what else I could possibly have meant by "basketball" game,  or are you going to sit there and try to figure out the literal meaning behind "Pizza Hut?"    No, you would not.   You would simply take me at my word.

 

In literary analysis, "interpretation" is an objective exercise.   The purpose behind exegesis is to lead out the meaning fo the text.   There is only ONE interpretation of a given text.    Interpretation is not about what the text means to me.  That's application and that is subjective and personal.   Interpretation is meant to find out what the author wants me to understand from what he/she has written.

 

So, from the stanpoint of an objective activity like exegesis, the ONLY possible interpretation of a text is the meaning the author gives to it.  I am to read the text in the light of the object the author has in view.   So, interpretation is ALWAYS about find the literal meaning of the text.   To do that means I need to take into account the context, cultural idioms, figures of speech and so and so forth, and look for the literal meaning behind those devices.

 

Here, again, our area of contention seems to be which doctrines are vitally important to the integrity of Scripture.

 

The doctrine of creation is the source of our other doctrines.   Genesis 1-3 is seedbed for most, if not all,  major Bible doctrines.  The doctrines of sin and it origin, marriage, judgement, salvation, shedding of blood for remission of sins, the sovereignty of God, the incommunicable attributes of God, the redemptive Nature of God, the Word of God, eternal life,  and so many others all have their origins in the very beginning right back to the first two or three chapters of the Bible.  The first Messianic Prophecy is found right there at the very beginning of the book of Genesis.   That makes creation a very important doctrine, indeed.  Genesis 1-3 provides us with an explanation for why redemption is necessary and why Jesus had to come to earth and die for our sins.  

 

What's more those doctrines are predicated on a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.  If Genesis 1-3 is just some symbolic story, full of metaphors and is not meant ot be understood literally, as some suggest, it does damage to those doctrines.   For example, if the fall in Genesis 3 isn't a literal event, then the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin doesn't make sense anymore.   The NT treats Genesis 1-3 as a literal event, so if it didn't really happen the way the Bible says it happened, the Bible's integrity is questionable.

 

The integrity of Scripture doesn' rest merely on doctrine, but on the correctness of the biblical record.  One important doctrine of the Word of God is inerrancy.  If the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis to get the story straight, are there other places in the Bible that we should be skeptical about?   A person sitting on the fence, who doesn't know if they believe the Bible is true or not will not be inspired to trust the Bible at all if we argue that the Bible's account in Genesis can be taken literally, as written.  If they can successfully challenge what the Bible says about their origins, they have a basis for challenging what the Bible say about their sin and need for salvation.

 

There have been plenty of other biblical examples of rhetorical and literary devices that linked Gen 1 to many other parts of Scripture. Each one has been summarily ignored, dismissed, or deleted.

 

 

Those "links" are manufactured. They are being misused as a means of circumventing an honest dealing witht the text.    It amounts to reading other passages in different contexts into the text of Genesis.   The mods have their reasons for deleting things.

 

My comprehension of Hebrew is rudimentary (and I rely heavily on Strong's), but the closest thing I could find to a Synechdoche is the fact that Adam's name refers to his skin color (probably), and also the fact that the name can also mean mankind/humanity. This is symbolic of the fact that the fall of Man (literally Adam) affects humanity as a whole.

 

 

But that is is just a play on words.  That is not a metaphor, symbol or similie or allegorical device meant to make the text "nonliteral."  There are no figurative, literary devices in play anywhere in Genesis 1-3.

 

 

There are no Inquisitions or Crusades in our recent past, but that doesn't mean our hands don't have blood on them. And our doctrines are a mess! We, as a body, are nowhere near infallible. To claim otherwise is the highest level of arrogance and hubris. (And this is altogether a different topic.)

But I can give another example. There was a man who lived some time ago, really smart Jewish guy. Prodigy of Scripture. He heard about a group of heretics or apostates, and focused his energies on 'correcting' this problem. Until Jesus smacked him upside the head and said "Saul, why do you persecute Me?"  (true story) ;)

 

Yeah, so if we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture we are like the apostle Paul who murdered Christians???   Who is calling anyone a heretic??   No need to resort to the martyr/victim card.   That's what people do when they don't have solid argument to present.   They pretend that opposition to their position amounts to persecution.  It is an emotional and manipulative tactic.

 

 

My point is this: You and I (and any believer who has ever lived) are not infallible. If someone wants to come to Jesus ('cause, you know, He's the Door. haha ), but they don't agree with all of our minor pet doctrines, who are we to stand in their way? 

No one is claiming personal infallbility.  What we are proclaiming is the infalliblitiy of Scripture.    The whole jab at people like me, accusing me claiming infallbility is a way deflecting away from the fact that you don't really have a substantive response to the OP.  So far, no one has really responded to the substance of the claims in the OP.   All they can do attack me as if I think I am infallible just so they can have something to knock down because the OP makes an airtight case and they cannot bring themselves to admit it.

 

 

(And yes, YEC is a minor doctrine.  Like I said elsewhere, it's not a hill to die on.)

 

No, that is not true.  The timing of the rapture is not a hill to die on.  Which version of the Bible is best, is not a hill to die on.   The Bible says the earth was created in six days and that man was made from the dirt.  That IS a hill worth dying for, because is goes to the truth of the Word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

[Ecc 3:11]  He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

I don't think we were ever intended to know for sure.  When we get to heaven, and God reveals to us the specific details of how everything came to be, I think we will all be blown away by how amazing and awesome He really is.

 

I agree, to a point. There is enough in Scripture regarding Basic Truths and Absolute Truth that can be known.  We are also admonished to......

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 Agreed. ^_^

It seems that what we disagree on is what exactly are the Basic and Absolute Truths that can be known. Specifically, is YEC the only possible interpretation of Gen 1.

 

 

This whole argument will seem trivial (and kind of silly) in comparison.

 

That would depend on which argument(s) you are referring to.  There are some Doctrines in Scripture, that if compromised, challenge the Integrity of the Whole.

 

Agreed.

Here, again, our area of contention seems to be which doctrines are vitally important to the integrity of Scripture.

By the way, I used to agree with you 100% on the necessity of YEC as the foundation of the Word of God. Now I believe it is a possible interpretation, and that there are other possible interpretations out there that don't compromise Scripture in any way, but might open the doors for those who are seeking God but can't accept YEC as legit.

At the end of the day, isn't saving the lost sheep more important than winning arguments? ^_^

 

Science...."Real Science" is discovering the Hand of GOD, IMHO.  What we have now is a Counterfeit and an Agenda @ the core.

 

Agreed x10!

Although, just because some scientists have an agenda (including YEC scientists), doesn't mean the whole of scientific discovery should be dismissed.

 

And since you often post scientific evidence that proves the "agenda" you agree with, I'll assume you agree.  ;)

 

 

the Church has been infallible in her teachings of Scripture {sarcasm}

 

Again, careful with Equivocations.

 

I guess I don't understand your point here.

 

There are no Inquisitions or Crusades in our recent past, but that doesn't mean our hands don't have blood on them. And our doctrines are a mess! We, as a body, are nowhere near infallible. To claim otherwise is the highest level of arrogance and hubris. (And this is altogether a different topic.)

But I can give another example. There was a man who lived some time ago, really smart Jewish guy. Prodigy of Scripture. He heard about a group of heretics or apostates, and focused his energies on 'correcting' this problem. Until Jesus smacked him upside the head and said "Saul, why do you persecute Me?"  (true story) ;)

My point is this: You and I (and any believer who has ever lived) are not infallible. If someone wants to come to Jesus ('cause, you know, He's the Door. haha ), but they don't agree with all of our minor pet doctrines, who are we to stand in their way? 

(And yes, YEC is a minor doctrine.  Like I said elsewhere, it's not a hill to die on.)

 

 

 

I am pretty sure nobody here is suggesting that science trumps the Word of God.

 

Not overtly or specifically but their beliefs and comments as noted on these forums leave very little doubt where they stand, IMHO.

 

 I see you clipped out the rest of my statement, which went on to explain a bit further.

 

If someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't mean they don't believe the bible is 100% God-breathed Truth.

 

Unless...you believe you're infallible...? :huh:

 

 

Kind of like the "Jesus is a door" point made in that other thread

 

There are over 200 Rhetorical Devices in Scripture (Metaphors, Allegories, Similes, Types, Idioms, Synechdoche's, et al) and are very easily identified and differentiated from 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."

 

There are ZERO Rhetorical Devices in Genesis 1.  If you think there is....please Identify Specifically.

 

So I took this as a personal challenge. :D Bible study time!

My comprehension of Hebrew is rudimentary (and I rely heavily on Strong's), but the closest thing I could find to a Synechdoche is the fact that Adam's name refers to his skin color (probably), and also the fact that the name can also mean mankind/humanity. This is symbolic of the fact that the fall of Man (literally Adam) affects humanity as a whole.

Not that it proves anything. :laugh: Historical Narratives can use Rhetorical Devices, as well, I believe.

I don't know. I'm sort of afraid that if I post what I've discovered, someone will report it as a violation of the TOS. :unsure:

There was another post on this board that did exactly what you're asking. It's been deleted twice, and I still don't understand why.

Makes me wonder, though.

There have been plenty of other biblical examples of rhetorical and literary devices that linked Gen 1 to many other parts of Scripture. Each one has been summarily ignored, dismissed, or deleted.

So...Why should I go through the trouble of providing this information if it isn't even considered?

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================

 

 

Specifically, is YEC the only possible interpretation of Gen 1.

 

Yes, it surely is  :)

 

 

By the way, I used to agree with you 100% on the necessity of YEC as the foundation of the Word of God. Now I believe it is a possible interpretation, and that there are other possible interpretations out there that don't compromise Scripture in any way, but might open the doors for those who are seeking God but can't accept YEC as legit.

 

The Most important Doctrine IMHO is Salvation.  Having all the Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) before Adam sinned Compromises it @ the Very Core.....No way around it, IMHO.

 

 

At the end of the day, isn't saving the lost sheep more important than winning arguments?

 

We don't Save, GOD does.  IMHO, my duty is to Give them the Beauty of the TRUTH.  It's then up to them, the Holy Spirit/GOD to SAVE.  That's how I see it.  You're Presuming I'm trying to Win an Argument......I am not.  There is NO WINNING and this is not a GAME.

 

 

"doesn't mean the whole of scientific discovery should be dismissed."

 

I don't dismiss anything without completely Scrutinizing it....from whichever side!!  and....

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

 

"I guess I don't understand your point here.  {Equivocation with the Church}"

 

My point is the RCC doesn't equal Christianity.  I would post more but they frown on that here. 

 

 

"And yes, YEC is a minor doctrine."

 

I (strongly as possible) Disagree

 

 

"Unless...you believe you're infallible...?"

 

I assure you I'm not....just ask my wife :verkle:    But I am right with my position and have supported it.

 

 

"So...Why should I go through the trouble of providing this information if it isn't even considered?"

 

Don't know, I would consider it.  There are no Rhetorical Devices in Genesis 1 that I've come across.  Also, Be sure you have the correct definition of Rhetorical Devices/Figures of speech

 

 

** Green shade Your Quotes....ran over my "Quote Box" Limit  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a quote box limit? Good to know! lol
 

 

By the way, I used to agree with you 100% on the necessity of YEC as the foundation of the Word of God. Now I believe it is a possible interpretation, and that there are other possible interpretations out there that don't compromise Scripture in any way, but might open the doors for those who are seeking God but can't accept YEC as legit.

 
The Most important Doctrine IMHO is Salvation.  Having all the Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) before Adam sinned Compromises it @ the Very Core.....No way around it, IMHO.

 


First part of your reply I agree with.

Second part, though...what if it didn't?  What if there was a way around it without compromising the most important doctrines?  Would you honestly consider it with an open mind?

 

I'm not trying to convince you to change your doctrines.  Only to be more accepting of others who believe essentially the same thing as you but disagree on this one point. For example, my mother is YEC.  We've reached the point now where she no longer whacks me with the bible every time we discuss Genesis. :P

 

That is all I'm asking for. lol

 
 

 

At the end of the day, isn't saving the lost sheep more important than winning arguments?

 
We don't Save, GOD does.

 


God is notorious for using his people to accomplish His work.  We are the tools in His toolbox. (Otherwise, what would be the point of evangelism?)

But I agree completely that credit for salvation goes to God.
 

You're Presuming I'm trying to Win an Argument......I am not.

Coulda fooled me! ;)
 

 

"I guess I don't understand your point here.  {Equivocation with the Church}"
 
My point is the RCC doesn't equal Christianity.  I would post more but they frown on that here.

I think I agree with you on this. But it wasn't my point at all. The part that was my point you didn't reply to...(seems to happen quite often on this board...)

 
 

Also, Be sure you have the correct definition of Rhetorical Devices/Figures of speech


Definition of synecdoche (right?):
A figure of speech in which a part ("ruddy skin") is used to represent the whole ("man") or the whole for a part ("man/Adam" is actually sort of plural, as in "mankind")

Again, not using this to prove anything (I'm probably wrong, anyway). I didn't know what a synecdoche was yesterday. I just rose to your challenge of trying to find a synecdoche in Genesis 1. :P It was kind of fun. :D
 
Honestly, I've forgotten the point of the exercise.  Why did I need to find a rhetorical device again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a quote box limit? Good to know! lol

 

 

By the way, I used to agree with you 100% on the necessity of YEC as the foundation of the Word of God. Now I believe it is a possible interpretation, and that there are other possible interpretations out there that don't compromise Scripture in any way, but might open the doors for those who are seeking God but can't accept YEC as legit.

 

The Most important Doctrine IMHO is Salvation.  Having all the Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) before Adam sinned Compromises it @ the Very Core.....No way around it, IMHO.

 

First part of your reply I agree with.

Second part, though...what if it didn't?  What if there was a way around it without compromising the most important doctrines?  Would you honestly consider it with an open mind?

 

I'm not trying to convince you to change your doctrines.  Only to be more accepting of others who believe essentially the same thing as you but disagree on this one point. For example, my mother is YEC.  We've reached the point now where she no longer whacks me with the bible every time we discuss Genesis. :P

 

That is all I'm asking for. lol

 

 

 

At the end of the day, isn't saving the lost sheep more important than winning arguments?

 

We don't Save, GOD does.

 

God is notorious for using his people to accomplish His work.  We are the tools in His toolbox. (Otherwise, what would be the point of evangelism?)

But I agree completely that credit for salvation goes to God.

 

You're Presuming I'm trying to Win an Argument......I am not.

Coulda fooled me! ;)

 

 

"I guess I don't understand your point here.  {Equivocation with the Church}"

 

My point is the RCC doesn't equal Christianity.  I would post more but they frown on that here.

I think I agree with you on this. But it wasn't my point at all. The part that was my point you didn't reply to...(seems to happen quite often on this board...)

 

 

Also, Be sure you have the correct definition of Rhetorical Devices/Figures of speech

Definition of synecdoche (right?):

A figure of speech in which a part ("ruddy skin") is used to represent the whole ("man") or the whole for a part ("man/Adam" is actually sort of plural, as in "mankind")

Again, not using this to prove anything (I'm probably wrong, anyway). I didn't know what a synecdoche was yesterday. I just rose to your challenge of trying to find a synecdoche in Genesis 1. :P It was kind of fun. :D

 

Honestly, I've forgotten the point of the exercise.  Why did I need to find a rhetorical device again?

 

 

========================================================================

 

 

 

Second part, though...what if it didn't?  Would you honestly consider it with an open mind?

 

You're in quite a pickle:  Doctrinally speaking

 

Of course, I consider all angles...almost Obsessively.

 

 

Only to be more accepting of others.  Coulda fooled me!

 

As I said previously on another thread....it is quite difficult/impossible on this medium and format to assess/discern intent, and your conclusions may be way off.  You don't know me....I am short/concise/and to the point rather abruptly (it's my nature).  That can be misconstrued as Arrogant or Condescending but it's a mirage that they've conjured.  If you have something to say...fine.  If it's concerning the WORD of GOD or Science (as you most likely already know)  YA BETTER SUPPORT IT....if NOT, you're gonna to get CALLED rather quickly  :)  Now if that's offensive....I'm sorry, but you're gonna be offended then.

 

The part that was my point you didn't reply to...(seems to happen quite often on this board...)

 

It wasn't intentional....repost, and I will answer if I can

 

 

Definition of synecdoche (right?):

A figure of speech in which a part ("ruddy skin") is used to represent the whole ("man") or the whole for a part ("man/Adam" is actually sort of plural, as in "mankind")

 

Well there are a Boatload of Rhetorical Devices in Scripture as mentioned.

 

Synechdoche yes.  it's like..... lend me a Hand.  You don't want the persons hand LOL.  It's a part that represents a whole.

 

Honestly, I've forgotten the point of the exercise.  Why did I need to find a rhetorical device again?

 

Now that was hilarious!!  Yes, we were looking for Rhetorical Devices in Genesis 1 to prove it wasn't a Historic Narrative.

 

 

Have to go for a while....another Soccer Night  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said historic narratives can't use rhetorical devices

Edited by LookingForAnswers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said historic narratives can't use rhetorical devices

No one did.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is that Genesis 1-3 doesn't use figurative devices.  There is a difference between a figurative device and a rhetorical device. 

 

Figurative devices are a subset of rhetorical devices.  Not all rhetorcial devices are figurative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  If an actual voice and words didnt come out of God's mouth, would that make this a figurative device?  Does God have a mouth in the same way we humans do?

Edited by LookingForAnswers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 and breath just like us?  :confused:    What does God breath? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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 and breath just like us?  :confused:    What does God breath? 

 

It's not saying that God has a physical mouth, but God spoke, nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×