Jump to content
IGNORED

Inerrancy vs. Infallibility


a-seeker

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

Where the Bible is concerned there is no discrepancy between the earthly writers an objective history.   You are assigning motives to Moses based on what?  If Moses got the facts on the six days of creation, where else did he get the facts wrong?  If the Bible can be found to untrustworthy in some areas, what is the standard for trusting it at all?  Is the Bible only true when it says what I am willing to accept as true?   Who decides when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

 

Hello Shiloh,

 

Sorry, life got busy for me.  Two responses here and then a question (I'm trying to keep things short for the sake of energy and time)

 

"If MOses got the facts on the six days wrong........"  

 

Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.  Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.  But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.  Later I will open a thread that addresses this very topic, but for now, to your question  "So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.  By conditional I mean that the Bible has proven itself again and again to be trustworthy on many matters, and so I will trust it on matters yet not proven. But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.  So why should one embrace the Bible over the Koran?  Is it a lottery, or a holy shambo!?  Or "because the Bible is right and the Koran wrong"?  But that obviously leads us into a vicious circle, in fact, naive fideism.

 

For me, my intellect perceives the Koran to be (I won't give the reasons here) a corruption of an earlier faith (Judaism) and a rejection of that faith's maturity (Christianity).  My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the significant claims made by the Bible, and articulated in Christian theology, is that those claims are true.  My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the universe, and my experience of it, is that there is a higher power (a God).  My intellect tells me that the best explanation of the Old Testament is, in fact, that that superior power revealed itself (turns out to be Himself, in that He is a Person) to a particular people.  The best explanation for the New Testament is that a certain man named Jesus (or Yeshua) died and was raised, and was in fact God Himself, though as Son.  

 

There is obviously a complex relation here between faith and Reason.  A classic conflict.  The question I will pose in the next thread will be something like this: when does Christianity (or the Bible) demand that we abandon Reason/the intellect altogether.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

You see the differentiation?  You either do not wish the salvation of certain people (like Jonah) or are making war upon persons already defeated.

 

 

clb

Edited by ConnorLiamBrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.

 

Well what we think doesn't matter.  It is a historical narrative from chapter one to the end of the book whether you are willing to make room for reality or not.  You can deny reality all you want until you are blue in the face, but all you have is an assertion and it is a rather pointless empty assertion.   Genesis 1 is as historical as the rest of the book.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

I get the distinction just fine.  And I don't need philosophical training when I have the Holy Spirit within me witnessing the truth to my heart.  You can rely on philosophy if you want.  I am relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth as Jesus promised He would.  

 

What you are failing to take into account in the inspiration and divine origin of the text. God is the ultimate author of the text.  Moses was the human instrument through which an all-knowing God communicated the truth.  That is something your pitiful, beggardly philosophical training evidently can't factor into all of this.   God who is all-knowing and doesn't inspire error communicated His truth through His word and He says that He created the earth in six days.  It really is that simple.  You can rely on your intellect and philosophical training, but I have an inerrant, all-knowing God to rely on and He was there at the creation week and I can trust Him because He never lies.

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.

 

Well I'll make it real simple for you.   If the Bible is wrong about creation, if it says six days when it was really billions of years, if all life is the product of an impersonal process like evolution, if Eve didn't actually have a conversation with a serpent, then what else does the Bible have to say that can't be trusted to be accurate?   What is the point in trusting a book in what it says about our eternal salvation if it can't get the facts right in the first chapter of the first book? 

 

It appears to me that you approach the Bible from the standpoint that the Bible is true when it needs to be true, and that it can be true philosophically no matter how wrong it is factually.  I could be wrong, but that is what is coming across to me in your posts. 

 

 

But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.

 

I addressed that problem in my last response to you a couple of weeks ago.   They didn't have an erroneous understanding of history or astronomy.  You have an erroneous understanding about those men.

 

"So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.

 

Again, the Bible means what your reason will allow you to believe it means.  What the Bible says is true when you need it to be true, but you reserve the right, via "reason" to cut away the parts that your intellect isn't prepared to accept.  The Bible becomes servant to the reader.

 

BTW, biblical faith is never blind.  Biblical faith, by nature is evidentiary and rational.   "Because the Bible says so," is not blind faith.  It is rooted in the knowledge and history of a God who has always been faithful to what He has put in His word.  It is rooted in the knowledge and experience of a God who is all-knowing and has proven time and time again that He knows what is best for us and is sovereignly guiding history to its inevitable conclusion.  I can put absolute faith in all that the Bible says because it is has never failed and it is the word of a God who never fails.

 

But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.

 

Our belief that the Bible is inspired isn't based merely on the claim to be inspired and of divine origin.  It is based on the internal evidence of the text that supports that claim.  There is a plethora of evidence that the Bible is inspired and that same evidence is not contained in the Koran. In fact, the Koran possesses evidence that isn't inspired, as it makes all kinds of historical errors.  The Biblical writers didn't make any historical errors.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

 

Wow, that is a lot a meaningless nonsense just to try to completely misread and misrepresent my comments.   My point about not giving people an excuse is that I am not going to an enabler for unbelief.

 

If I present the truth, biblically, they will probably still reject the truth.  Lot's of people do.  What I am saying is that I have given them the truth and it is up to them what they do with it.  It is ultimately between them and God.   I am only responsible to God for delivering the truth of what Scripture says.  If they ask me what my views are on evolution and the six days of Creation, I have no problem telling them.  I don't have to erect a complex platform to explain why the Bible can be true and yet untrue and historically unreliable, but worthy of their faith.  That  is incoherent theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,770
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

There is a uniqueness in the Spiritual Life whereby we see clearly faith and it's purpose!

We are in the infinite witness of The Creator both macro and micro in which either directed

view goes out of sight... but in this view what is seen perfectly matches the unbounded realm

of infinite possibilities God possesses. So if we are born of Spirit this become the awe we

live within day by day here yet only in the increase as knowledge increases so has the glory

we behold of The Creator 'Jesus The Christ'... Love, Steven

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

 

Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account.  This is a major problem of yours.  I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong.  But then I do not think Genesis 1  belongs to the historical genre.

 

Well what we think doesn't matter.  It is a historical narrative from chapter one to the end of the book whether you are willing to make room for reality or not.  You can deny reality all you want until you are blue in the face, but all you have is an assertion and it is a rather pointless empty assertion.   Genesis 1 is as historical as the rest of the book.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.  In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend.  Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong.  I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this.  But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again.  If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...

 

I get the distinction just fine.  And I don't need philosophical training when I have the Holy Spirit within me witnessing the truth to my heart.  You can rely on philosophy if you want.  I am relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth as Jesus promised He would.  

 

What you are failing to take into account in the inspiration and divine origin of the text. God is the ultimate author of the text.  Moses was the human instrument through which an all-knowing God communicated the truth.  That is something your pitiful, beggardly philosophical training evidently can't factor into all of this.   God who is all-knowing and doesn't inspire error communicated His truth through His word and He says that He created the earth in six days.  It really is that simple.  You can rely on your intellect and philosophical training, but I have an inerrant, all-knowing God to rely on and He was there at the creation week and I can trust Him because He never lies.

 

As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?"  Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here.

 

Well I'll make it real simple for you.   If the Bible is wrong about creation, if it says six days when it was really billions of years, if all life is the product of an impersonal process like evolution, if Eve didn't actually have a conversation with a serpent, then what else does the Bible have to say that can't be trusted to be accurate?   What is the point in trusting a book in what it says about our eternal salvation if it can't get the facts right in the first chapter of the first book? 

 

It appears to me that you approach the Bible from the standpoint that the Bible is true when it needs to be true, and that it can be true philosophically no matter how wrong it is factually.  I could be wrong, but that is what is coming across to me in your posts. 

 

 

But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy.  That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem.

 

I addressed that problem in my last response to you a couple of weeks ago.   They didn't have an erroneous understanding of history or astronomy.  You have an erroneous understanding about those men.

 

"So, who decides?"  REASON.  God gave me a brain.  I am not a fideist.  It is not blind faith that I rest on.  the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely.

 

Again, the Bible means what your reason will allow you to believe it means.  What the Bible says is true when you need it to be true, but you reserve the right, via "reason" to cut away the parts that your intellect isn't prepared to accept.  The Bible becomes servant to the reader.

 

BTW, biblical faith is never blind.  Biblical faith, by nature is evidentiary and rational.   "Because the Bible says so," is not blind faith.  It is rooted in the knowledge and history of a God who has always been faithful to what He has put in His word.  It is rooted in the knowledge and experience of a God who is all-knowing and has proven time and time again that He knows what is best for us and is sovereignly guiding history to its inevitable conclusion.  I can put absolute faith in all that the Bible says because it is has never failed and it is the word of a God who never fails.

 

But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences.

 

Our belief that the Bible is inspired isn't based merely on the claim to be inspired and of divine origin.  It is based on the internal evidence of the text that supports that claim.  There is a plethora of evidence that the Bible is inspired and that same evidence is not contained in the Koran. In fact, the Koran possesses evidence that isn't inspired, as it makes all kinds of historical errors.  The Biblical writers didn't make any historical errors.

 

And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse.  But then the term excuse needs a little more defining.  Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work.  Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given?  That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"?  i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?

 

You see the point I am getting at?  If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one).  It is your way or the highway.  To make this clear I will give a different example.  A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father.  Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses:  once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy.  The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse.  (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification). 

 

However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith.  They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless.  Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.

 

 

Wow, that is a lot a meaningless nonsense just to try to completely misread and misrepresent my comments.   My point about not giving people an excuse is that I am not going to an enabler for unbelief.

 

If I present the truth, biblically, they will probably still reject the truth.  Lot's of people do.  What I am saying is that I have given them the truth and it is up to them what they do with it.  It is ultimately between them and God.   I am only responsible to God for delivering the truth of what Scripture says.  If they ask me what my views are on evolution and the six days of Creation, I have no problem telling them.  I don't have to erect a complex platform to explain why the Bible can be true and yet untrue and historically unreliable, but worthy of their faith.  That  is incoherent theology.

 

 

 

You are all over the place Shiloh.

 

Here, I will break down the options for you

 

1) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that you do not think is true, even if it might enable belief."  This is really the only honest position, and it is the one I adhere to.  My guess is, it is the one you adhere to as well.  Yet you shift your reasons every other post: this is the option that you turn to again and again:

 

2) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that enables disbelief".  Yet you admit that both readings typically result in unbelief!  In other words, you are enabling unbelief either way.  What does it matter which you subscribe to if the result is the same either way?  That is not enabling.  To enable unbelief means that one has rejected an approach that would result in belief.    But that is not the case here.

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

NOw there is a 3rd position which is also respectable: 3) "You criticize persons who present readings of the Bible, not because they think them true, but because they think that reading will win converts, or dodge mockery."  That is, any presentation that thinks more of effects than truth should be avoided.

 

Now, if I were one of those Christians who presented what I thought the most accommodating reading, I should certainly be criticized.  But I am not.  I present what I think to be the reading intended by God and Moses.  Perhaps I am wrong, but that still leaves me in position 1.

 

 

 

clb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

1) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that you do not think is true, even if it might enable belief."  This is really the only honest position, and it is the one I adhere to.  My guess is, it is the one you adhere to as well.  Yet you shift your reasons every other post: this is the option that you turn to again and again:

 

2) "You will not present a reading of Genesis that enables disbelief".  Yet you admit that both readings typically result in unbelief!  In other words, you are enabling unbelief either way.  What does it matter which you subscribe to if the result is the same either way?  That is not enabling.  To enable unbelief means that one has rejected an approach that would result in belief.    But that is not the case here.

 

Wrong, as usual.

 

Presenting a view of Genesis that justifies rejecting the Bible as a true and accurate record of history, such as treating Genesis 1 as  parable or an allegory of something else, as opposed to an accurate record of history opens makes room for the unbeliever to draw the same conclusions about other parts of the Bible.   If Genesis 1-3 cannot be trusted to be accurate, then why should a person accept the account of Noah's flood, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, or any other alleged historical event mentioned?  If the Bible is inaccurate in some parts and not in others how does a nonbeliever set about trying to figure out which parts are accurate and historical and which parts are not?

 

One of the most frequent objections I hear about rejecting what the Bible says about Jesus is all of the mistakes the Bible makes in so many places.  It is hard to keep skeptics focused on talking about Jesus because when you begin any kind of discussion that includes the Bible, the first thing they want to do is point out that Genesis is a myth or fairytale.  It forms their first line of defense against believing anything the Bible says.  You, though can't seem to understand that. 

 

When a Christian confirms to a skeptic that yes, Genesis is not historical, and those events probably didn't happen as written, that only serves to make the skeptic comfortable in his skepticism.   It only shows him that his reasons for not accepting the Bible as a whole is justified. 

 

To try and draw a moral equivalence type of argument where sharing the Bible as accurate and truthful and inerrant is just as much an enabler as telling them that Genesis is a myth is a fallacious line of argumentation.  

 

Even if the result is the same, even if they reject the Bible after I have presented to them as the infallible,inerrant Word of God, I have not enabled their unbelief.  Their unbelief is rooted in the hardness of their heart against the truth.    I don't have to stand before the Lord and sputter up an explanation as to why I presented His word in a way that enabled a skeptic to be affirmed and comfortable in his skepticism.  

 

That he rejects the truth isn't really my problem.  I am only accountable to God for presenting the truth.  I am not accountable to God for his response once he has been told the truth.   Once he hears the truth, it is between him and God and he will stand before the Lord and give an account for his unbelief.   But at least I am not telling the skeptic that his view of Genesis 1-3 as  myth is true and thus enabling him to remain entrenched in unbelief.  I would hate to be the Christian who has to give an account to the Lord for that.

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

That is completely wrong.  The effects are not the same.  When you present the truth, you are planting seed that the Lord through the Holy Spirit can cause to germinate at some point in the future.   If I present something different, like saying that Genesis 1-3 is a myth, I am not planting seed; I am helping a skeptic remain a skeptic.

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

 

Really, you should drop all talk of enabling entirely, and simply stick to option 1.  The sole reason why anyone should ever present one reading over another is because that person thinks that reading to be the right one--the effects mean nothing, especially when they are the same.

 

That is completely wrong.  The effects are not the same.  When you present the truth, you are planting seed that the Lord through the Holy Spirit can cause to germinate at some point in the future.   If I present something different, like saying that Genesis 1-3 is a myth, I am not planting seed; I am helping a skeptic remain a skeptic.

 

 

 

You have again and again said that presenting Genesis 1 as historical results in them rejecting it as scientifically absurd.  You have stated again and again your reasons for presenting it such: so that their unbelief could not be justified.  Never once, until now, have you mentioned the possibility of conversion at a later time.  If that is your ultimate purpose in presenting Genesis 1 as pure history, then that is an acceptable position.  Debate would then be about the correctness of your reading of Genesis as historical in genre.

 

Again, what do you do with the people who come to faith only after an alternative reading of Genesis has been given them?  The numbers are enormous.

 

Again, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledged the distinction between false history, and historical myth.  If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

 

 

 

If I met an atheist who argued from my reading of Genesis to a whole-sale rejection of the Bible on the grounds that Genesis is a fairy tale, I would first correct him on the definition of myth, which is not fairy tale; then I would ask him how one genre of literature (myth) could possibly negate the contents of a completely different genre (history).  If I were both a writer of fiction and an historian, would my historical work be debunked because I write narratives that intentionally have no historical value?  That is absurd.  It is even more absurd with Genesis, for there we are dealing with historical content. The fact that Genesis 1 presents historical and theological content intentionally (intended by God Himself) in mythic form has no objective effect on the historical accuracy of the Gospels or any other historical work. Skeptics may say it did; but they are wrong and could be shown to be wrong. Eventually, when push comes to shove, they will admit that they simply do not want to believe and that the argument is just an excuse. 

 

Let me put it this way: What would you say to a skeptic who said, "Well Jesus told stories that weren't historical; so why should I accept Matthew in general as historically accurate?"

 

 

clb

Edited by ConnorLiamBrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
You are completely inconsistent.  You have again and again said that presenting Genesis 1 as historical results in them rejecting it as scientifically absurd.

 

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it.  It is totally in the realm of possibility that they will reject the truth.  There are also those who will accept the truth as well.  I didn't say that presenting the truth will result in them rejecting it.  I simply admit that they are free to reject the truth if they choose to harden their hearts against it.

 

You have stated again and again your reasons for presenting it such: so that their unbelief could not be justified.  Never once, until now, have you mentioned the possibility of conversion at a later time.

 

Wrong.  In  my last post, I pointed out that when I reveal the truth to them, I am planting seeds that God can cause to germinate later.  They may reject it at first, but the Holy Spirit can continue to work on them.  So I have not ruled out or failed to mention conversion at a later time.  You simply ignored that part of my post.

 

Again, what do you do with the people who come to faith only after an alternative reading of Genesis has been given them.  The numbers are enormous.

 

Can you elaborate on that?    I know a lot of religious people with mixed up theology and an incoherent view of God based on viewing the Bible inconsistently,  but I have never met a person who as ever gotten saved on the grounds that someone revealed to them that Genesis is a myth and the events described didn't really happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,770
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

but slandering is a far better practice?

It is the child who knows He is in the Light of Christ and upholds the Word

that rests in the peace of eternal substance kept by God... if saying that

truth is slander by any who are not in that light >then< it is God Who sorts

this in the end... Love, Steven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

@ConnorLiamBrown

If the author/AUTHOR was attempting to write an historical account, and the earth was in fact much much older, then that would be false.  But if the author/AUTHOR was not interested in writing pure history, then it is not false.  And anyhow, somehow I keep getting sucked back into the debate about the age of the earth, which was never really my concern.  I am only concerned with the genre of Genesis 1: the literal reading of the text.

Your view is completely unreasonable when you havnt explored all options regarding how you have been interpreting scripture in other words the literal reading of the text which I can prove is a historical account further I can also prove that Moses looked after these texts which was handed down to him, if you wish for me to provide this information.

                                                                                    

@ shiloh357

No, what I said was that I can present the truth about Genesis and they can reject it

How can one present the truth when you yourself has misinterpret the scriptures, esp gen 1?

Your teachings are false and will not entertain your responses.  I have nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say to me that I have any intention of entertaining. As such, all of your posts will be ignored by me.

 

 

but slandering is a far better practice?

 

I didn't slander you.  I said your teachings are false.   I simply refuse to entertain your false teachings.  By your own standard, you slandered me by accusing me misinterpreting the Scripture.  Again, you have nothing to say theologically or biblically that is worth me spending the time to address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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