Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Just about every mammal can speak, how is that a gift from God just for humans?  Where does the Bible say that the ability to speak is a gift of God?  You are grasping at straws now.   Just for fun, what language did God speak?

LOL  that is just ridiculous.  Animals don't speak.   Speaking is uniquely human; we use words and communicate ideas, thoughts and information  Dogs and cats do not "speak." Stop being absurd.   The person grasping at straws is you.

 

So...the serpent in the garden is figurative?

What about Balaam's donkey?

 

those are supernatural events and not normative.  I will assume that you are trying to be funny and not serious.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

Question: Here, you use "literal" specifically to mean author's intent, and not word for word face value (unless intended by the author), right?  That's what I'm getting from the context.  It's hard to tell with you, sometimes. lol

 

If so, I agree with this.

 

 

I am saying more than that.  I am saying that there is only ONE interpretation of any given in text in the Bible and it is the literal interpretation.   There is no other kind of interpretation.   There may be more than one way to apply a text, but there has only ever been one possible interpretation, IF one understands and accepts the reality of what interpretation really is.   The problem is that people see interpretation as a subjective exercize and not an objective one.

 

Question: In this section, do you mean "literal" as in author's intent or as in word for word face value?  I mean, I know technically you believe both, but which are you referring to in this section?

 

Literal ONLY ever refers to the intent of the author and the meaning the author supplies to the text.  I never use "literal" to mean "face-value."  

 

In context, it seems you are referring to a face value meaning specifically, since you mention metaphors and such.

 

If so, I disagree.  I don't think seeing metaphors and symbolism in Genesis does any harm whatsoever to any doctrines (other than YEC) or the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture. 

 

They do  harm the integrity of Scripture when they are assigned to the text by the reader.   If the author doesn't use a metaphor, if he doesn't indicate the presence of such devices in the text, the reader does not have the right to decide to make a text figurative in nature.  This is true particularly when a person simply can't accept the text as written feels the need to assign values to the text in order to make it more palatable to what the reader is willing ito accept as true.

 

Note: that is not me saying that I believe Genesis is a fairytale or fiction or anything.  I believe it actually happened.  Just likely not word for word.  And I don't believe it was intended by the author to be read that way.

I realize that, but you're wrong.   The author uses no figurative language.  There is nothing in the character of the text that indicates anything but a straightforward and ordinary historical account that intends to be read and understood as written.   What you "believe" about it is irrelevant.  What matters is that any competent literary analysis of the text indicates that the author means to be understood as written.  That is an objective fact.  You can kick against the goads about it, but at the end of the day, you have no hermeneutic leg to stand on.    Your belief simply has no basis other than your emotinoal desire to cling to it.

 

My point with Saul was that he thought he knew the truth but was wrong.  He was a student of Scripture. And he was wrong.

 

 

To be honest that is a sloppy comparison.   Paul didn't do what he was doing based  knowing truth.  Paul's persecution of the Jewish Christians had NOTHING to do with an interpretation of Scripture.  The persecution of Christians was more politically motivated by the Sanhedrin and Paul than it was anything else.

 

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?

 

2.  This is an historical narrative (autobiographical). Notice that there are a few analogies/metaphors/symbolism throughout, yet the entire narrative is still historically accurate.  Just throwing that out there...

 

Well if my argument had been than an historical narrative cannot have metaphors and symbolism throughout, then you might actually have a point.   I never said that.  So again, you are assigning values to me and trying refute an argument I never raised.   The point is that Genesis has no metaphors or similies or symbolism or analogies or whatever.   If you can't correctly frame my argument, it isn't surprising that you cannot correctly frame the text of Genesis.

 

 

Did someone mention the martyr/victim card?

 

You throw a barb at people like me as if we think we are infallible, and by way of example you referenced Paul prior to his conversion who sought to "correct" (murder, imprison) "heretics."     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.

 

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?

 

 

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? 

 

 

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.   

 

 

One day, I listened to a podcast by a couple of Christian guys who defended the old earth position. It was one I'd never considered before, because I was afraid if I'd honestly considered any position other then YEC, my faith would crumble (which happened anyway...).   If I had listened to them before I'd lost my faith, I would have rejected what they said without a second thought.  Probably scoffed and rolled my eyes, as well.  Now, though, I had nothing to lose.  I was so spiritually bankrupt that I listened with rapt attention.  They were making sense.

  I went back to where I left the shards of my Shield, and started picking them up.   Inerrancy of Scripture, Godhood of Jesus, Salvation through Grace,  these I grabbed first.  The weaker parts, the pieces that were irreparably damaged, I left behind.  I gave the remaining pieces to God and he forged a new Shield, a stronger Shield.

 

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.   To actually hold up for the Bible was seen as naive and makes biblical literalists who trust God's word the objects of ridicule.    I have discovered that sometimes, holding to the Bible makes us the object of ridicule and derision.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

So, when all is said and done, we dont really know what the phrase "and God said" means since it seems that "saying" something can be done in a multitude of ways and does not need to be verbal speech.  And save the passive/aggressive insults for someone else, if you cannot do so then just let me know and I will discontinue dealing with you.

 

 

We know exactly what it means.   It means "God said."   There is nothing confusing about that.  You are trying to muddy the waters, here.   God said, how he spoke is irrelevant to the fact that He spoke.   There is nothing figurative in that. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

So, when all is said and done, we dont really know what the phrase "and God said" means since it seems that "saying" something can be done in a multitude of ways and does not need to be verbal speech.  And save the passive/aggressive insults for someone else, if you cannot do so then just let me know and I will discontinue dealing with you.

 

 

We know exactly what it means.   It means "God said."   There is nothing confusing about that.  You are trying to muddy the waters, here.   God said, how he spoke is irrelevant to the fact that He spoke.   There is nothing figurative in that. 

 

 

So, which manner of the word said is meant...

is it...

"Bob said he liked pizza"

Or

"The paper said it was going to rain today"

or

"His clothes said all you need to know about him"

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

So, when all is said and done, we dont really know what the phrase "and God said" means since it seems that "saying" something can be done in a multitude of ways and does not need to be verbal speech.  And save the passive/aggressive insults for someone else, if you cannot do so then just let me know and I will discontinue dealing with you.

 

 

We know exactly what it means.   It means "God said."   There is nothing confusing about that.  You are trying to muddy the waters, here.   God said, how he spoke is irrelevant to the fact that He spoke.   There is nothing figurative in that. 

 

 

So, which manner of the word said is meant...

is it...

"Bob said he liked pizza"

Or

"The paper said it was going to rain today"

or

"His clothes said all you need to know about him"

 

That is a ridiculous question.   You need to come to grips with the fact that the Bible says that God can speak.  That is not a figurative claim.   It is an objective claim of historical fact. 

 

If you can't muster up the faith to believe the Bible, that is your problem.   But i am not going to entertain ykour silly, immature questions.   When you come up with something intelligent to say, let me know.  Until then, it is apparent that you have nothing meaningful, imiportant, substantive or intelligent to contribute to this conversation.

[LookingForAnswers]

Wow, somebody is grumpy in the morning.  Tell me this, if you don't mind.  If "and God said" is a figure of speech, what does that change about God or even Genesis 1? Figures of speech get used in historical narratives all the time.   Does it make God less of a God?  Does it make Genesis untrue?  Why is looking at "and God said" the same way as I look at "He will spread his wings" an example of not having faith in the Bible? 

 

And aren't personal attacks against that TOS that you like to throw out every so often to silence other people?

Edited February 19, 2014 by LookingForAnswers

[Guest shiloh357]

Wow, somebody is grumpy in the morning.

 

No, I am just getting weary of the way you constantly try to take conversations in circles with your pointless questions.

 

If "and God said" is a figure of speech, what does that change about God or even Genesis 1

 

The question is a nonstarter.   It isn't a figure of speech. 

 

But since you seem to think it is figure of speech, what is it figurative of?  

 

Figures of speech get used in historical narratives all the time.

 

I never said otherwise.   The problem here is that you and others are trying to assign a figurative values to the text.   Since you can't actually produce any, your next step is just to manurfacture them.   It would just take way too much integrity for you to admit they are not there, so you resort to making them up and trying to get me to disprove what you have not really proven by your endless nonsensical questions.

And aren't personal attacks against that TOS that you like to throw out every so often to silence other people?

 

I didn't attack you.  I attacked the ridiculousness and pointlessness of your questions.  Every conversation with you always seems to descend into endless nonsensical and silly questions that eventually are simply beneath intelligent people to even entertain.

 

You can't bring yourself to believe that Bible and so you resort to nonsense.

[Enoch2021]

 

Wow, somebody is grumpy in the morning.

 

No, I am just getting weary of the way you constantly try to take conversations in circles with your pointless questions.

 

If "and God said" is a figure of speech, what does that change about God or even Genesis 1

 

The question is a nonstarter.   It isn't a figure of speech. 

 

But since you seem to think it is figure of speech, what is it figurative of?  

 

Figures of speech get used in historical narratives all the time.

 

I never said otherwise.   The problem here is that you and others are trying to assign a figurative values to the text.   Since you can't actually produce any, your next step is just to manurfacture them.   It would just way too much integrity for you to admit theyi are not there, so you resort to making them up and trying to get me to disprove what you have not really proven by your endless nonsensical questions.

And aren't personal attacks against that TOS that you like to throw out every so often to silence other people?

 

I didn't attack you.  I attacked the ridiculous and pointlessness of your questions.  Every conversation with you always seems to descend into endless nonsensical and silly questions that eventually are simply beneath intelligent people to even entertain.

 

You can't bring yourself to believe that Bible and so you resort to nonsense.

 

 

Hey Shiloh,

 

Maybe this question would be appropriate to pose @ this Juncture....

 

Do you believe that we are here due to:  Random Chance  "nature"  or   Intelligent Design  "GOD" ??

 

 

So you can get to the "possible" ROOT CAUSE, so to speak.

[Sheniy]

I am saying that there is only ONE interpretation of any given in text in the Bible and it is the literal interpretation. There is no other kind of interpretation. There may be more than one way to apply a text, but there has only ever been one possible interpretation, IF one understands and accepts the reality of what interpretation really is.

See, I agree with all of this. I'm thinking there's a communication issue somewhere.

If you don't mind, I'm going to break down what you said in a previous post to further understand what you were trying to say. Because I want to understand, honestly.

 

 

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)."

 

So, Shiloh, I understand that in the case of Genesis 1, you see these two distinct definitions as basically the same thing. The author's intent (definition B) was the explicit meaning of the text (definition A).

What I'm unclear on is how you handle portions of the bible that are clearly meant to be interpreted as figurative or as a parable.

We'll use John 10:7 as an example. I know we've been over this, but please bear with me.

 

So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

If we interpret this in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that Jesus is not saying that he is an actual door. So, using definition A, we can say that the first half of this verse is literal, the second half is not. It is figurative. And according to definition B, this would be correct as well, since that is clearly the intent of the author.

Am I right so far?

This is where I get confused:

(shiloh quote part 1)

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, you are clearly using definition B "literal" to refer to the meaning and intent of the author.

(shiloh quote part 2)

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.

But here, it seems your definition of literal has changed to refer to definition A. I suppose technically both could apply since that is what you believe for those chapters. But in the context of this post, it seems like you're using "literal" to mean "not figurative", especially since you use the words "metaphor", "Symbolic" as a comparison.  You seem to use both definitions interchangeably in Genesis.

 

I'm just saying...it's confusing.  Especially since your definition of literal is not commonly accepted, and is therefore misunderstood.

I know there are a few times when you've misunderstood someone who used literal differently.  People misunderstand you all the time, it seems. Is there a word we can use instead of "literal" for one of the definitions above? I've tried suggesting hyper-literal for definition A and/or shiloh-literal for definition B, just for some clarity on these boards, but it didn't stick. lol

 

 

I don't think seeing metaphors and symbolism in Genesis does any harm whatsoever to any doctrines (other than YEC) or the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture.

They do  harm the integrity of Scripture when they are assigned to the text by the reader.

 

Any interpretation of any text includes things "assigned by the reader". That is the nature of interpretation. (please keep reading before you accuse me of something)

I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation of a passage. (Maybe...? What about Prophecy, for example, which is usually secondary to the initial meaning of the prophetic text. A passage can be just a psalm until the prophecy came to pass, then it was interpreted to be also a prophecy. Is that two interpretations, or one interpretation with two meanings...? ).

I also agree with you that the only correct interpretation is the one intended by the author. If a reader ignores things that were intended to be major or assigns importance to things that should be minor, that is wrong. However, if two different readers read the same passage and come to different conclusions about the true interpretation, how do they know which is right? Both believe they are correct, obviously. Both are seeking the author's intent. Who has the truth?

You feel like I'm ignoring important parts of Genesis 1. I believe you're assigning greater importance to things that were intended to be non-issues. I believe you're adding, you believe I'm taking away. But both of us are honestly and respectfully looking for the author's intent.

Can't we just agree to disagree?

Edited February 19, 2014 by Sheniy

[Guest shiloh357]

See, I agree with all of this. I'm thinking there's a communication issue somewhere.

If you don't mind, I'm going to break down what you said in a previous post to further understand what you were trying to say. Because I want to understand, honestly.

 

 

Gotcha!

 

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)."

 

 

 

When I speak to the "intent" of the author, it means reading the text in the light of the object the author has in view.  I am letting the author tell me what HE means.  Literalism as a literary term isn't the same concept as how it is defined in the dictionary.  

 

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.

What I'm unclear on is how you handle portions of the bible that are clearly meant to be interpreted as figurative or as a parable.

We'll use John 10:7 as an example. I know we've been over this, but please bear with me.

 

Quote

So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

 

If we interpret this in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that Jesus is not saying that he is an actual door. So, using definition A, we can say that the first half of this verse is literal, the second half is not. It is figurative. And according to definition B, this would be correct as well, since that is clearly the intent of the author.

Am I right so far?

 

 

I think you are grasping it, but I would add the following:

 

  If a text is mean to be understood as a parable, for example, and I take that fact into account and I apply the rules for how to analyze the text as a parable, then I am taking the text literally because the author told me he is telling me a parable and I adusted my understanding to his intent.  

 

So when Jesus uses a metaphor like, "I am the door,"  it is not hard to tell that Jesus is meaning that he is the way into the Kingdom.  There are figurative devices, but there is no such thing as a figurative interpretation.   You never intepret a text figuratively.   "Figurative interpreation" is a contradiction in terms.

 

(

shiloh quote part 1)

Quote

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, you are clearly using definition B "literal" to refer to the meaning and intent of the author.

(shiloh quote part 2)

Quote

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.

 

But here, it seems your definition of literal has changed to refer to definition A. I suppose technically both could apply since that is what you believe for those chapters. But in the context of this post, it seems like you're using "literal" to mean "not figurative", especially since you use the words "metaphor", "Symbolic" as a comparison.  You seem to use both definitions interchangeably in Genesis.

 

I'm just saying...it's confusing.  Especially since your definition of literal is not commonly accepted, and is therefore misunderstood.

 

 

Actually both quotes are referencing definition "B" as you call it.  I am using "literal" to counteract the misgiven notion of a "figurative interpretation" as some are wanting to impose on the text.   My point in that second quote is that the doctrines that have their origin in Genesis make no sense if Genesis 1-3 is just a parable, or an allegory, or something like Aesop's fables.  If the only reason those first three chapters were written were to teach us moral lessons and are not actually historical as some have suggested, then there is a lot of the NT that doesn't make sense and it gets confusing when the NT references Genesis 1-3 in its explanation of the origin of sin, and other major doctrines. 

 

My definition is actually well understood among those who understand hermeneutics, which are the rules of literary analysis.   Furthermore, think of it like this.   Do you read a fictional novel the same way you read a newspaper???   Of course not.   You naturally adjust your thinking to match the intent of the author of whatever it is you are reading.   You don't read a biography the same way you would read Shakespeare. When you read a book or a newspaper or poetry, you interpret it according to the author's intent on an daily basis.   Hermeneutics is really nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.  

 

I know there are a few times when you've misunderstood someone who used literal differently.  People misunderstand you all the time, it seems. Is there a word we can use instead of "literal" for one of the definitions above? I've tried suggesting hyper-literal for definition A and/or shiloh-literal for definition B, just for some clarity on these boards, but it didn't stick. lol

 

 

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. 

 

Any interpretation of any text includes things "assigned by the reader". That is the nature of interpretation. (please keep reading before you accuse me of something)

 

Nope, not true.

 

 

I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation of a passage. (Maybe...? What about Prophecy, for example, which is usually secondary to the initial meaning of the prophetic text. A passage can be just a psalm until the prophecy came to pass, then it was interpreted to be also a prophecy. Is that two interpretations, or one interpretation with two meanings...? ).

 

Yes but in those cases, the Bible still informs the reader of that secondary understanding of the text such as a dual fufillment of a prophetic passage.  The reader does not assign that to the text.  The Bible tells the reader how to understand the dual fulfillment.   

 

Keep in mind that with the exceptions of dual fulfillment of some prophecies, what I said about only ONE correct interpretation stands true. The exception to the rule doesn't negate the rule.  In either case it is the author, not the reader, that is assigning the values to the text.

 

I also agree with you that the only correct interpretation is the one intended by the author. If a reader ignores things that were intended to be major or assigns importance to things that should be minor, that is wrong.

 

More accurately, if  the reader assigns things to the text that the author didn't intend for text, that is wrong.   It is not up to you, the reader to decide what is major or minor.   The problem in interpretation, particularly as it applies to Genesis 1 and the discussions we are having about it, is that we have people assigning values to the text that are not there.  We have people trying manufacture "figurative" devices and imposing them on Genesis 1.

The author decidees the value of what he places in his text and in most cases, authors tend to think what they write is pretty important and what we may see as minor details may be pretty important to the author and may an important key to understanding his message.    This multiplied by 1000 when approaching the Bible.   The whole Bible is the word of God and we don't have the license to arbitrarily decide what we think is important and what is not important.  The Bible doesn't serve us and we are not given the authority to pick and choose which parts are important and which parts can be discarded or ignored as lacking value.

 

However, if two different readers read the same passage and come to different conclusions about the true interpretation, how do they know which is right? Both believe they are correct, obviously. Both are seeking the author's intent. Who has the truth?

There are several reasons for that.

 

1.  Lack of skill in hermeneutics

 

2.  Some people adhere to the JEPD (document hypothesis) notion that says that Genesis was written by two anonymous authors (J,E) and that the creation account was not a literal historical even but was written around 850 BC as a polemic against the gods of Babylon.

 

3.  Some people confuse interpretation with application. 

 

Who has the truth?   The Author has the truth and we need more Christians who take the time to even learn basic hermenetuical principles and apply sound exegesis to get grounded in the word of God.

 

A lot of really kooky doctrines in many denominations exist due to people taking liberties with the Bible to suit their own personal agendas.  Just look at the Word of Faith movement and the Healh and Wealth gospel teachings and so on.

 

I don't know where you are from, but a few years ago, there was an article in Christianity Today citing a survey, which I think was done by Christianity Today and they found that only 4% of Christians in the US are doctrinally sound.  Many Christians either don't read their Bibles every much or don't know how to read/study the Bible.