Inerrancy vs. Infallibility

[a-seeker]

@ConnorLiamBrown

 

"""Shiloh’s and my debate were not primarily on the reading of Genesis 1.  It was a philosophical topic on the criterion of error; ultimately what it would mean if the Bible contained certain errors—historical and geographical specifically.

I subscribe to the framework theory""

 

Ah interesting….I subscribe to integration to biblical scripture, hence why you would dismiss my scriptures concerning the creation.

 

One must assume you have an agenda or reasoning behind in introducing a notion of errors – historical and geographical in the bible…You must clearly believe you have found such errors.

 

Lets look at the consequences of it if there were

You are making modern scientific philosophy a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture, and what it would mean for criterion of errors is mere human opinions that come into play that have no divine authority whatsoever--to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted. Can you see the problem?

 

 

There is no warrant for that. Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis which your framework theory subscribes to (or any other portion of Scripture, for that matter). Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16)--inspired truth from God. "[scripture] never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17, KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific or philosophical theory should be evaluated, not vice versa as you are suggesting

 

The word “literal” creates all kinds of difficulties in people’s minds and therefore must be a “literalist” But this is wholly unfair, as no such claim is made. Indeed, if we try to interpret the Bible literally at all points we find ourselves in all kinds of trouble, for a literal statement is a statement of precise fact, or as close to that as human language will allow....

 

Therefore there are different literary forms employed in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible uses literary devices such as metaphor, simile, anthropomorphism and dramatic forms to convey its message....

 

Having established, then, that we do not necessarily interpret Scripture in a slavishly literal manner, but rather according to its literary genre which your contesting for it not to be Historical which is the agenda of someone who subscribes to Framework theory, I must nevertheless insist that those passages where the form and content are historical must be interpreted as genuine history....

 

When we turn to such passages as Genesis 1 to 3, and to the flood narrative, for example, we find that their contents are presented plainly as historical fact. Those facts may be expressed using a variety of dramatic and literary devices, but the author nevertheless claims to be relating events that actually took place. The narratives are accounts, not of myth, but of reality.

 

There is nothing in the biblical record that suggests Genesis 1-11 should be viewed as containing mythical or allegorical material. And such a claim is supported quite adequately by the available evidence. Here is a portion of that evidence.

 

1. The style of these chapters, as indeed, of the whole book of Genesis, is strictly historical, and betrays no vestige whatever of allegorical or figurative description; this is so evident to anyone that reads with attention as to need no proof.

 

From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and appearance of sane and sober history. There is not the slightest intimation that these Scriptures contain myth. The historical and literal nature of the Record is easily determined in contrast to the parables, allegories, and symbolisms which are usually defined within the context. We know, for an illustration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at the beginning. We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for the same reason. Where the Bible teaches by allegory or parable or symbolism it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise easily understood in the context. To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it is—historical fact.

 

Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one.

 

2. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal history because this is the view adopted by Jesus Christ, who spoke the truth. Adam and Jesus Christ stand or fall together, for Jesus said: “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46- 47). Our Lord also insisted that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (and this includes Genesis) till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) criterion of error would make the creature of the universe Jesus Christ who was there when it was created a liar.

 

Denying the historical validity of the Creation account also undermines the authority of the New Testament and of Christ Himself If Genesis is not historically dependable, then Jesus is not a dependable guide to all truth, and we are without a Savior.

 

3. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical because any attempt to “mythologize” it represents an overt attack upon God’s nature.

 

The Bible teaches that the creation of the heavens, the earth, and the inhabitants thereof, was for the glorification of Almighty God. Any attempt, therefore, to nullify the doctrine of creation is in reality an assault upon God Himself. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork” (Psalms 19:1). “

 

4. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical because genuine science has not discredited, and from the very nature of the scientific method cannot discredit, the Genesis account of origins.

 

Conclusion

The problem with accepting errors specific to historical and geographic, would introduce a blend of fiction and fact. Such a blend of fact and fiction is a flimsy foundation on which to build a doctrine of eternal life.

 

InChrist,

 

To be candid, that was a long list of assertions without arguments (i.e. demonstration).  To tell me again and again that "Genesis is historical" will hardly have the effect you are looking for.

 

As said, this debate was taken up in the thread Genesis 1--the literal reading--or something like that.

 

For now, the signs of myth and fable are obvious:

 

"the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters".  The Hebrew for "hover" makes the scene highly figurative.  It is used to describe a bird hovering: highly figurative.

 

Day 1 we have light without any source (no offense, but your suggestion that the sun was already in place is untenable).

 

We have God speaking, to no one in particular.

 

We have instantaneous growth of all species of plants, God forming man from dust and breathing life into him (highly anthropomorphic), woman crafted from Adam's side, a talking snake that raises no surprise (contrast with Balaam's donkey) a tree whose fruit gives everlasting life, the only access to is from the east (so why not just go around and enter from the north!?); and such archetypal names as Adam and Eve; we have a boat which houses 2 of every species of living creatures--including dinosaurs!   Again, they "heard the sound of Lord God walking in the garden"--highly figurative.

 

 

 

IF these are not the elements of myth or fable or whatever one wishes to call it, then I don't know what is...but I do, and these are they.  The parallels between Genesis and other myths from the ANE are obvious and striking.

 

The 6dayers have a response to each one of these--which typically boil down to an attack on piety ("Are you saying God could't...etc. etc. etc."?!). Nope, I am just saying that the text is not to be read that way.

 

 

The arguments for an historical genre typically focus on the lack of parallelisms--which would be damaging if any one was saying that it is poetry.  Poetry and Poetic are not the same thing.  It is also pointed out that the syntactical structure is that of history--the waw-consecutive.  OF COURSE IT IS!  If Jesus' parables were translated into Hebrew they would use the structure.  If aesop's fables were translated into Hebrew, the waw-consecutive would be employed.  Anything with a plot line is going to use that construction.  So that is a moot point.

 

 

clb

[a-seeker]

Hello Shiloh,

 

There is a common element in all these entries pulled from various posts of yours:

 

 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?

 

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? 

 

The bottom line is what is the preacher doing?  If the preacher isn’t preaching thus saith the Lord, he is only reflecting his own opinion. And the distinction between thus saith the Lord and “here is my opinion is an infinite distance.  The congregation needs the word of God and confidence in the Word of God is what the pastor must have and then share.  If it less than inerrant it is less than authoritative and it will show up in preaching."

 

 

But to argue that Jesus could have actually been factually wrong at any point, means that Jesus' words can't really be trusted.  He would not be 100% reliable. 

 

 

 

 

All of these are based on a subjective need on the side of man, not on objective truth.  Its fundamental syllogism is “If A, then B….but I don’t like B….therefore not A but C”.  It is faulty logic; logic that is discredited by the highly emotional premise “but I don’t like..”   It is for this reason that I once proposed the underlying fundamental of fundamentalists to be fear…i.e. “I don’t like.   Or if I am to believe A then I need B”.  We don’t like the thought of uncertainty, thus we construct a doctrine which relieves us from that fear.  It is like a man who determines a ladder is safe because he is afraid of falling; not because he has tested the ladder.

 

This is a mode of reasoning that I cannot employ for myself.  It is far too subjective, begins by begging  the question.  In no other discipline would it be accepted:  “My proposal must be correct, otherwise I am out of a job.”  “He has to be dying of poison, otherwise the injection I gave him won’t work.”   “The Bible has to be inerrant, otherwise how can I trust its essentials?”

 

Now, we have this statement:

 

 

The Bible is infallible in every claim it makes be it fact or doctrine.   More to the point, the doctrinal claims in Scripture are rooted in historical and geographic fact.  The two are inseparable.   The Bible draws a lot of doctrinal truth from the historical records it provides.   The writers of the Bible consistently from start to finish unanimously treat the Bible as  history as completely true and factual and that includes the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself.  So the notion that infallibility allows for factual errors is untenable.

 

 

 

That is, for the most part, a factual argument: that is, it can be tested to be either true or false.  OF course, if you begin by begging the question, then the subjectivity will vitiate the entire test.   My guess (but I may be wrong) is that for many the subjective underlies the objective: they have determined that the Bible is inerrant, not because they have tested it, but because they need it to be; and then proceed to “test” its inerrancy….which of course is no real test at all.  It is no wonder that such have an answer for every question: once the subjective side hardens into the illusion of objectivity, the imagination will find any answer whatsoever for any objection.

 

That is an erroneous concept of infallibility.  It doesn't really matter how many denominations you can cite who operate from that application of the term, it is still erroneous.

 

 

 

If you simply don’t like the term, then come up with another one.  It is the term used by denominations, so I use it.

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

I know this game all too well: the trump card—“Well I am relying on the Holy Spirit!”  Any heretic could say the same thing.  In the end, the Holy Spirit (in this arena) is manifested in sound reasoning.  You said you have an M.A.  I assume you wrote papers?  Did your papers consist of assertions concluded with “And I have the Holy Spirit, therefore these assertions are correct”?  Probably not.  Probably you relied upon arguments—i.e. Reason.  If you object to the term “Philosophy” you may substitute it with “reasoning”.

 

 

All you have done is bend the truth, up to this point.  This insistence on a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-3 is a liability to the Kingdom of God and to evangelism.  I would not want to be in your shoes when you stand before the Lord and have to explain why you compromised the inerrancy and authority of God's word. 

 

 

 

What I will say is, “I presented Genesis as I thought YOU intended it.”  And, if I am wrong, I will assume that God appreciates honesty over accuracy.  Why is the distinction so hard for you?!  Embracing the wrong reading of a text is not compromising it; it’s just getting it wrong.  If I get my sums wrong, have I compromised the rules of mathematics? No, I simply got something wrong.  Is Ptolemy morally culpable because he thought the Sun moved and the earth stood still?!  Nonsense.   If I presented Genesis in a way, not because I thought it the best reading, but primarily to avoid ridicule from the intelligentsia, or in the hopes of winning converts, then that would add dishonesty to error.  But I actually believe I am reading Genesis as it was intended to be read.  This is not a moral issue; it is purely an exegetical issue.  Is the distinction really that subtle that you can’t perceive it?  Again and again your responses suggest that I present a reading of Genesis that I don’t really believe in.  Is that what you think?  There is a difference between lying and error.

 

The biblical writers are not making cosmological statements nor are they attempting to be scientific.  Science as we know it, didn't exist at that time.   So to assign scientific error to people who were not making scientific statements is in itself erroneous.

 

From a phenomenological vantage point, the biblical authors make NO erroneous cosmological statements at any point in the Bible.  The Bible doesn't teach that the sun orbits the earth or anything like that.

 

 

Yes, I understand the phenomenological argument, and it is a subterfuge.   Yes, the Bible uses common language to describe physical events; and so we cannot say that it teaches geocentricism.  But for that very reason we cannot say that it teaches heliocentricism.  To find that out, we have to go to the predominating view of the cosmos—which is through and through geocentric.  To maintain that the Biblical authors were an exception poses an astonishing situation—somehow that information got lost and was not rediscovered until Copernicus!?  Did the authors fail to explain this to their contemporary readers/hearers?  Did the readers/hearers fail to communicate this to their children?  Did the Jews contemporary with Jesus know this?  Did Jesus know this and yet in 30 some years never reveal it, even casually?  Somehow in our ancient texts that radical view never raised an eyebro for Gentiles fostered on the Aristotelian model?  Why is it that we hear nothing of heliocentricism attributed to the Jewish people anywhere in our ancient sources?  You would think, given the general hostility to the Jewish people, this would be one more arrow to sling at them (“Ha, those people who think the earth moves around the Sun!  Idiots!”  When did the heliocentrism of the cosmos get lost?

 

And this to Sheniy

 

It's more likely that your faith wasn't strong enough in the right thing.  Lot's of people have the right beliefs but they were never really taught how to answer challenges to their faith.   Many former Christians can also testify to the shattered shield analogy.  There are many atheists who used to be Christians, on fire for God and their faith was shattered by questions put to them that they could not answer, they didn't have the critical thinking skills available to them to defend what they believed.  They believed the right thing, but in the end, the Evolutionists, the skeptics, the atheists finally made more sense to them and they discarded their faith.   Having your shield shattered and assuming that your inability to defend what you believe must be evidence that you were putting faith in the wrong thing is not necessarily an indicator that your faith is misplaced. It may be that you believe the right things but needed help defending what you believed.

 

 

 

Telling another person why their faith weakened is pretty presumptuous.  I will trust Sheniy for her own diagnosis. And, what happens when the “answers” you mentioned sound ridiculous to people like Sheniy?  If the contents of this and numerous other threads on this forum constitute the bulk of those “answers”, my view of Genesis has if anything been strengthened.  Frankly, they sound very weak, often desperate, and constantly need to retreat into the “God can do whatever He wants” trump card.  Which is true; but could easily be abused (“God can lie and who are you to say He cannot”).

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

To be candid, that was a long list of assertions without arguments (i.e. demonstration).  To tell me again and again that "Genesis is historical" will hardly have the effect you are looking for.

 

I’m not telling you Genesis is historical, the bible is, Jesus Christ is… The problem is your hearing but not listening….hence your statement you can tell me over and over again… in one ear out the other as they say.

 

 

 

 

The Bible is historical…?  That is oddly phrased.  Are you saying that the parables of Jesus were historical (that there really is a man named Lazarus sitting at the edge of a precipice, the otherside of which lies in torment a rich man)?  Is proverbs a history book?

 

The real problem is that you have barged into a discussion that has been going on for 6 months and think that you are up to speed in less than 6 days.

 

The real problem is, you are not very clear in your writing.

 

 

As said, this debate was taken up in the thread Genesis 1--the literal reading--or something like that.

 

Simply using Genesis as an example, we can look at others…how about revelations or the resurrections? By your doctrines logic Rev should also be put into the mythological section…The resurrection should be classed into the mythological section….the question is what are we left with?

 

 

 

 

Revelation is clearly not historical in genre—it was a vision.  Indeed, it borrows many themes from Genesis in highly symbolic fashion.  And the Resurrection is not a genre at all—it is an event, presented in the Gospels which are clearly historical in genre:  hence I believe it literally happened.  It is the same with Balaam’s donkey.  The narrative bears all the signs of historicity, thus I believe that once a donkey talked to a man.  The scene in the garden however, does not read historically, it bears the sign of myth or fable. 

 

Keep in mind that the problem is not with the miraculous.  I have no philosophical difficulty accepting miracles.  The question is about the style or genre of what we are reading.

 

 

For now, the signs of myth and fable are obvious:

 

Based purely on your opinion and that’s really all it is an opinion. Is it factual? No, because you can’t proof it only give an opinion…The problem is this…if the bible is mythological, then why be a Christian? Why not take up Egyptology? Greek mythology? African mythologies? Why not be an Atheist?

 

 

 

 

As I said elsewhere, this discipline does not admit proof.  The highest degree of certainty it admits is probability.  You too give only opinions.

 

Again, “if the Bible is mythological”?!  Who ever said the Bible is mythological?  How could one possibly read the psalms and say that they are faced with myth.  We were on the subject of Genesis and primarily Genesis 1 -11.  The Bible is consists of many genres.

 

I am a Christian because I believe the central tenets of the Christian faith.

 

And all you have to offer are opinions of your own as well.

 

 

 

By your theories logic, not your logic as you are simply rehashing your doctrine from its founders…the question that begs to be answered…so when does mythology start and facts start in the bible? Who determines that? You? The scholars you prefer and put your faith in? Or is it the founders of your doctrine?

 

 

 

 

Seems Shiloh is not the only sensitive one here.  How could you possibly know whether I am using my own logic or rehashing other’s?  Ad hominem arguments don’t go over well on this forum, and they only make one’s own position look very desperate.  I suggest easing off them.

 

Let me ask you this:  did you come up with the gap theory—that God created the world perfectly, but then it collapsed into chaos?  I am guessing no, or you must be very, very old.  So, why do you put your faith in that theory, or, as you say, in the founders of that theory?

 

 

Who determines what God is capable of doing and isn’t?

 

 

 

God does.  This question is not about the omnipotence of God but of the genre of Genesis.  I already mentioned above that it is a common ad hominem argument here to attack one’s piety rather than one’s arguments.  I was hoping to preempt it.

 

"the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters".  The Hebrew for "hover" makes the scene highly figurative.  It is used to describe a bird hovering: highly figurative.

 

No comparing the HS to a bird is figurative….How do you know the nature of the HS, can it hover? Can it descend or even ascend can it go through things? If it can, how is that figurative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe that the Holy Spirit is corporeal than we have a completely different problem on our hands.

 

 

We have instantaneous growth of all species of plants, God forming man from dust and breathing life into him (highly anthropomorphic), woman crafted from Adam's side, a talking snake that raises no surprise (contrast with Balaam's donkey) a tree whose fruit gives everlasting life, the only access to is from the east (so why not just go around and enter from the north!?); and such archetypal names as Adam and Eve; we have a boat which houses 2 of every species of living creatures--including dinosaurs!   Again, they "heard the sound of Lord God walking in the garden"--highly figurative.

 

[a-seeker]

 

I’m afraid its you who is asserting assumptions

 

Including dinosaurs?? Don’t know where you getting your information from….as I said you have not explored all options or refuse to explore all options…One of the options was the recreation of the world with man in it.

 

 

 

 

 

I know the option.  I think it is very silly, and requires an enormous amount of eisogesis.  As for dinosaurs, yes, if I am a 6dayer like many here, I have to conclude that some dinosaurs made it on to the boat (2 of EVERY species).  I suppose it is possible that the entire race of dinosaurs died before the flood...?  Not sure; don’t really need to be since I don’t belong to that crowd.

 

 

 "heard the sound of Lord God walking in the garden"

 

Again who are you to determine what God sounds like walking in the Garden? Perhaps he was singing, whistling, talking, who knows, but to dismiss it is no more than just your opinion. Were you there in the Garden to determine what God sounds like or does when walking in his garden?

 

 

 

 

Once more, if you believe God is corporeal than we have a different problem.

 

 

The same can be applied were you there when Adam was created? Where you there when Noah built the boat to house 2 animals of each? Were you there when God created the earth?

 

 

NO, neither were you.

 

 

Why must I take your word for it to be  a myth which is based on a MAN MADE theory, which is subject to fault as with all man mad theories than what the bible says which is subject to truth?

 

 

 

You don’t have to.  I never said you had to.  Believe your gap theory if it sustains your faith.  And the Gap theory is most certainly Man MADE.  There is a subtle  but very important distinction between objective truth and subjective understanding.  Yours, my, and the 6dayers’ theories are all subjective attempts at the objective meaning of Genesis.

 

 

 

Thy word is truth" (John 17:17, KJV). Is this to be a lie now? Based on your doctrines logic? Who determines then what is not fact and what word is the truth? Why must I trust your reasoning?

 

 

 

 

Once more, you don’t have to trust my reasoning.  You are taking this way to personally.  As far as “they word is truth”, of course.  But then, when Jesus calls Herod a fox, am I to believe that Herod actually was a furry quadruped?  No, my and your reasoning rejects that as ridiculous and concludes that Jesus is using metaphor.  Like it or not, when you read Genesis or anything for that matter, your reasoning is at work.

 

 

Jesus said: “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

Again why must I believe you over Jesus, when it comes to Moses writings? Are you more reasonable, more logical, more intelligent, more correct and more knowing than Jesus himself?

 

 

 

Again, you don’t have to.  And again, these ad hominem attacks against my piety are so, so very tiresome.  Please refrain from them in future correspondences.

 

Believe Moses—I do believe Moses.  I don’t believe he wrote Genesis to be read as you read it.

 

 

IF these are not the elements of myth or fable or whatever one wishes to call it, then I don't know what is...but I do, and these are they.  The parallels between Genesis and other myths from the ANE are obvious and striking.

 

 That’s the problem, the bible claims to be the truth, this is why it sets itself apart from other mythologies and other Gods, who are you to claim otherwise…you simply don’t believe it or refuse to believe it, as your intellect and reasoning cant wrap its logic round it. Since when is the bible ever reasonable? Was it reasonable for God to create man and then save man, infinite possibilities could of happened by an infinite God.

 

 

 

 

Not sure where it says anywhere in the Bible that “the Bible claims to be the truth”.  Are you referring to 2 Tim 3.16?

 

Are you claiming that the Bible is unreasonable?  Do you mean contradictory at times?

 

And most certainly Genesis sets itself apart from other mythologies.  It is certainly superior to them in that it teaches correct theology.  Just as Christianity adopted and purified old pagan holidays, so Genesis borrowed, modified, gutted, and added to polytheistic myths prevalent in those days.

 

 

 

The 6dayers have a response to each one of these--which typically boil down to an attack on piety ("Are you saying God could't...etc. etc. etc."?!). Nope, I am just saying that the text is not to be read that way.

 

Again by who’s standard? Yours? Jesus read the script that way. The reason why you would avoid asking the questions “Could God not create the word in 6 days?’ is simply because its an attack on your theology nothing else and is simply an escape to answer to the responsibility of what you seem to hold true than the bible itself? Is God really that limited in power, scope and might to create the world in 6 days? This is a fundamental question you need to ask yourself. Where are your priorities…is the attack on piety more important than an attack on the Glory of God and might of God?

 

 

 

 

Not sure where we see Jesus saying that God created the world and then it collapsed into chaos….please show me.

 

 

 

Now, I just said that arguments against me and mine typically boil down to attacks like these “Are you saying God couldn’t..”.  And then, within your very response you say this:

 

Is God really that limited in power, scope and might to create the world in 6 days?

 

 

You requested that we continue a discussion and I obliged.  But if you are not going to read for understanding, then there is no point in this.  The next time it becomes clear to me that you are not at all interested in understanding what I am saying, we will have to conclude this correspondence.

 

Someone like you needs to reflect on this: you are faced with a person who believes in the Resurrection, the 10 plagues, the miracles of Jesus, but not that Genesis was to be read literalistically.  Once you have reflected on that, you should see that all future comments about God’s power are inapplicable (i.e. stop bringing up that argument).

 

The arguments for an historical genre typically focus on the lack of parallelisms--which would be damaging if any one was saying that it is poetry.  Poetry and Poetic are not the same thing.  It is also pointed out that the syntactical structure is that of history--the waw-consecutive.  OF COURSE IT IS!  If Jesus' parables were translated into Hebrew they would use the structure.  If aesop's fables were translated into Hebrew, the waw-consecutive would be employed.  Anything with a plot line is going to use that construction.  So that is a moot point.

 

Again that’s the problem you face or the denials’ of your doctrine

 

Jesus said: “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

 

This is not a parable or mythological statement or poetry, rather this is a statement of intent, a statement of fact…who are you or what is your doctrine to know any better? In other words what is your doctrines responsibility towards this? It appears to be none

 

 

 

 

I have read that quote from Jesus several times now.  I can’t even find a dubious manuscript in my text critical copy that says “If you believed that Moses intended the gap theory, or intended Genesis 1 to be read literalistically, then you would believe me…”

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

The Bible is historical…?  That is oddly phrased. 

Youve missed read what I said, I was referring to the fact the bible says genesis is historical, Jesus Christ is saying that genesis is historical...In other words I’m not the one telling you that genesis is historical the bible is telling you that genesis is historical...But I’ll claim that as my fault for your misunderstanding.

 

 

 

Where does Jesus talk about the 6 days again?  But really, you should stroll over to the other thread to fully understand my position.

 

Revelation is clearly not historical in genre—it was a vision

I wasn’t referring to revelation as historical, you were going on with the theme that genesis is mythical...I’m simply putting it to you why don’t we make Revelations mythical also while we at it? Why don’t we make the resurrection mythical? Why don’t we make Jesus mythical? why don’t we make the fact Heaven coming down to earth mythical? Why don’t we make God mythical? I’m simply trying to find out where does mythology stop and facts start by your doctrine?

 

 

 

Do you understand what mythological means?  Or do you think it means fiction, or fairy-tale, as in completely false, a fabric of man’s imagination?  Once more, a stroll through the before mentioned thread might help

 

 

This is simply a philosophical question that I’m asking because at the end of the day what are we then left with in the bible? How does this affect my salvation? This is an honest question that deserves an honest answer by your doctrine?

 

 

 

Depends on you.  Clearly it does not affect my salvation in a bit.  Here is how I see the situation facing us both:   There is a general fear or anxiety that if we cannot trust the Bible in one part, how can we trust it another?  This is a good question.  But it yields at least two routes.  There is the one route-- devise a doctrine which says we can trust each part.  There is the other--test each part.  If something seems doubtful in the Bible, analyze why it seems doubtful, what the logical consequences of doubting it might entail.

 

The second route is the one I have chosen to taken; for intellectual honesty prohibits me from taking the first.  The first is a sort of self-hypnosis.  Granted, it generates a certain psychological assurance--but the assurance is illusory, based on an assumption, and an assumption that is highly emotional.  It is like a man who declares a ladder to be safe, not because it has been tested, but because he is afraid of falling.  Or, put in syllogistic terms, the argument goes like this:

 

1) If the Bible is wrong in parts of its science, then how can I be sure it isn't wrong everything else?  (Note here that many would jump immediatley to the conclusion that it MUST be wrong...which is absurd....was Ptolemy wrong about everything because he got our system wrong?).

 

2) I don't like being unsure about these matters...

 

3)Therefore the Bible contains no errors.

 

That is a kind of reasoning that I cannot employ.  Now I grant that the route I have taken can be nerve-racking to many, and hence I do not recommend to everyone.  But the anxiety that arises (even for me at times) is irrational.  The conclusion that the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted simply because Genesis is not pure-history, is simply nonsense.  A non-sequitur.  Even admitting geographic or cosmological errors poses no real (i.e. objective) threat to the Bible as a whole in its message. It might pose a subjective threat to my assurance, and therefore comfort, but that has no legitimate bearing on the objective question. To say that if the author's don't know that the our system is heliocentric then they can't possibly know more important things like Creation, or Redemption, is like a child arguing that “If mommy doesn’t know x then she must not know a-z either.”   Which, as far as my up-bringing goes, is completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

hence I believe it literally happened.  It is the same with Balaam’s donkey.  The narrative bears all the signs of historicity, thus I believe that once a donkey talked to a man.  The scene in the garden however, does not read historically, it bears the sign of myth or fable. 

But you being selective now...your doctrine is playing gymnastics and determining what is mythical and what is not. Dispite the fact I’ve used a number of other scriptures to back up the historicalness of genesis which you’ve dismissed, which is actually completely illogical to do as everything is integrated with everything, one verse can not do without the other. The OT cannot do without the NT and the NT cannot do without the OT its all interlocked, like blood vessils all connected all feeding each other.

 

 

 

OF course I am being selective.  I am also being selective when I say that the Psalm 74 is poetry and not history—and that it uses figurative language and even mythological language similar to other myths.  I am being selective when I say that Hamlet is a play and not based on history.  I am being selective when I say that Lord of the Rings is fantasy.  Any time I identify a piece of work as belonging to one genre and not another, I am being selective.   Selectivity is not wrong when it is based on evidence—you can dispute the evidence, but not “selectivity” per se: we all do it.

 

I do believe that the authors often allude or even cite other parts of Scripture.  But I think what you have done with Isaiah and Job is illegitimate.  It is not the principle, but the specific application that I disagree with.  

 

One can believe in a talking donkey but not a 6 day creation, it’s an illogical conclusion. The mere fact that a donkey could talk is a miracle itself...but the creation of the earth in 6 days is beyond a miracle?, its completely contradictory and inconsistent.

 

 

 

Nope, wrong again.  You really are not trying to understand me, are you?  I am not sure how else to put it, but I’ll try once more.  I have no doubt that God could’ve created the universe in 6 days.  Not a single doubt. But the way in which Genesis reads signifies to me that THAT was not the intention. In other words, had the author told the story in a different way that read like a historical work, and still maintained the 6 days, then I would agree that Genesis is historical.  It is ALL ABOUT THE GENRE, THE WAY IT READS, NOT ABOUT GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE.

 

As I said elsewhere, this discipline does not admit proof.  The highest degree of certainty it admits is probability.  You too give only opinions.

If that is the standard to which we are to measure things then we must admit to a probability of God, it is probable that God exists, it is probable that he created the universe, it is probable he created the earth in 6 days, it is probable that Jesus came in God’s name, it is probable that what he said was true, it is probable that he died on the cross it is probable that he will have a second coming. That’s the highest degree of certainty that we have? Really?

 

 

 

 

In a sense yes, but this question (which is a very good one) will lead us into a much deeper matter which I don’t have the space for.  For the moment, I will point out that there are different types of knowledge or “ways of knowing”.  For instance, it is highly improbable that my brother, who is in the other room watching ( I suppose) television, is actually planning my murder.  Highly improbable.  But can I prove it?  No.  I have some 30 years of experience to the contrary, but that is not proof.  Perhaps he has recently acquired a mental illness?   Does the absence of proof raise doubts for me in the least?  No.  Not even remotely.  In that sense, I can say that I know my brother is not planning my murder, though I could not prove it, at least not with the level of proof that mathematics or logical deduction admits.  Even the Bible admits a certain discrepancy between our knowing now and our knowing in the next age--for we see through glasses darkly.

 

Again, “if the Bible is mythological”?!  Who ever said the Bible is mythological? 

Well you doctrine did, you mentioned Genesis is just like other mythologies, so why can I not then treat the entire bible as mythological...Your doctrine left the door open to that...After all the highst degree of certainty is probability that’s all I’m left with, so there is the probability the entire bible is mythological also.

 

 

I didn’t say the Bible is mythological…you made the enormous and illegitimate inference that if Genesis is mythological then the rest of the Bible must be. Or, if all you mean is that it raises the question of the Bible’s status, well, once more, test it out.  It is these types of syllogisms, implied in your kind of reasoning, that do not make any sense to me:

 

1)    If Genesis is mythological, how can I be sure that the Bible is not also mythological?

2)    I don’t like uncertainty

3)    Therefore Genesis is not mythological.

 

Obviously it is the second premise that needs to be replaced with something rational.

 

 

Let me ask you this:  did you come up with the gap theory—that God created the world perfectly, but then it collapsed into chaos?  I am guessing no, or you must be very, very old.  So, why do you put your faith in that theory, or, as you say, in the founders of that theory?

Gap theory proposes a Gap between Gen 1:1 --- Gap ---Gen 1.2 in a nut shell without going into it is simply rubbish. I think we just agreed on something...

 

Let me show you what i believe....

 

Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Where does it say in that verse God created  the Universe and Earth instintanously simutanuisly? In other words with just a snap of a finger, we now have Universe and earth. We are assuming he created the Universe and the earth all at once all together with a snap of a finger, then it takes God 6 days to sort the earth out? It simply doesn’t flow. On top of that nowhere in the bible does God tell us how old the universe is...if you can find it for me please share...

 

 

It flows just fine on my reading, for it is styled thematically.  The transition from chaos to order is a prevalent theme throughout all the Bible.  The theme of providing land and offspring (a theme maintained in the correspondence between days 1-3 and 4-6) is the central theme of Genesis.  Also, the proper rendering the Hebrew is greatly debated.  Some would say that it should be translated “In the beginning when God created…” and the rest is the process of that creation.  Even as most translations have it, the 6 days are simply an examination of verse 1—the details as it were.  You probably regard Genesis 2:4 onward as a close up account of day 6, correct?  It is the same here.  The six days are a close up of verse 1.

 

And I agree, the Bible tells us nowhere how old the earth is.  That debate is not one I am interested in.  Let it be 6,000, let it be 6 billion.

 

 

God does.  This question is not about the omnipotence of God but of the genre of Genesis.  I already mentioned above that it is a common ad hominem argument here to attack one’s piety rather than one’s arguments.  I was hoping to preempt it.

 

Well the question still remains, you simply can’t ignore it or sweep it away the omnipotence of God is central to genesis, you cannot ignore that element...be truthful

 

 

 

 

I have been truthful.  Do you understand what “genre” means?

 

 

If you believe that the Holy Spirit is corporeal than we have a completely different problem on our hands.

No, the Holy Spirit is incorporeal, still doesn’t stop him from hovering in the invisible, ascending or descending or entering or going through things even if he is in the invisible. The point is do you know how the Holy spirit moves about? Can he be in motion? Or is the Holy spirit stationary never moving continuously static.

 

 

How do I know Herod wasn't literally a fox?  Maybe he could turn into a fox, like a lycanthrope...?  How do I now Jesus did not literally wish to turn into an enormous hen and sit atop Jerusalem?  If a person cannot recognize figurative language, then no argument will get them to.

 

Once more, if you believe God is corporeal than we have a different problem.

Lol God can be anything he wants incorporeal or corporeal...If God wants to be a butterfly now, who am I to argue? Why do you set limits to God’s infinite power?

 

 

 

Can God lie?  No?  Is that not a limit upon His infinite power?

 

NO, neither were you.

Thats why I believe Jesus, who would be in a better position to know whither the earth was created in 6 days or not. And if he says believe Moses writings and all of his writings, then logically I must accept it to be true all of Moses writings...who am I to argue with Jesus on this fact?

 

 

 

 

Still awaiting Jesus’ commentary on Genesis 1:1-2:4.

 

 

 

Like it or not, when you read Genesis or anything for that matter, your reasoning is at work

My reasoning is dictated by backed up verses, as mentioned above everything is integrated...if my reasoning does not fit with scripture then my reasoning is wrong...my reasoning is dictated by a measurement. However my reasoning is not at work specific to your theory as I’m presenting you Jesus Christs reasoning. Jesus Christ is telling you that you are wrong, its not me that’s telling you...Jesus Christ is telling...Believe what Moses wrote...if its 6 days it’s 6 days...You cant argue it...as much as you would like to reasoning with it....Jesus is telling you no...accept it.

 

 

 

 

Interesting.  So here you have a guy (me) that does not believe Genesis is to be read literalistically, and yet I still believe in Jesus.  AGain, Jesus Christ called Herod a fox.  Do you believe the governor of Judea was literally a furry quadruped?

 

 

Believe Moses—I do believe Moses.  I don’t believe he wrote Genesis to be read as you read it.

Well then you don’t believe Moses, because your trying to force fit a theory in what you believe Moses should of wrote it like...but he didn’t...he wrote it the way it is a 6 day creation....Jesus confirms it...why would Jesus confirm as fact a mythology? Makes no sense...he was there during the 6 day creation...he also read the writings that man had written down about it...He confirms it to be true...why would Jesus confirm a mythology?

 

 

Where does Jesus mention the genre of Genesis 1?  Probably see above where I ask you what you understand by the term mythology.

 

 

I mean can you picture Jesus Christ saying its "probable" that the earth was created in 6 days? Can you picture Jesus saying its "probable" to believe in Moses writings?

 

 

Nope, Jesus never gives a commentary on the 6 days.  The arguments centered on the obvious passages are very weak and ignore the context of those passages.  But once more, stroll over to the Genesis thread, or maybe I'll revive it with a post to you....as food for thought in the meantime, why did God create it in 6 days?  Why not 1, or 30.  Seems kind of arbitrary...

[Sheniy]

 

However, I have yet to hear any argument or logic that would have prevented my "house of cards" from toppling.

Which is again, what every atheist I have ever encountered who claimed to believe the Bible has attested to.

 

 

 I do appreciate your concern, but by your logic here, I should be an atheist, then?  If I'm using their logic and arguments, then why do I still believe Jesus is God?  Isn't that illogical?   Or is it that you expect my faith to ultimately fail?

 

  That already happened, remember?  I saw the crash coming and I tied myself to Jesus.  That was the only thing that saved me.  My faith is being rebuilt completely from the ground up, and Jesus is the foundation.  My only foundation.  He is the only thing that I am absolutely sure about. 

 

  This gives me freedom that I never allowed myself before.  I am now able to question things that were 'forbidden' to question before.  This may appear like I'm rejecting truth, but I am actually just testing it.  I want to make sure it is God's Truth and not man's. 

 

 

 

 

There was no defense that could have saved it as it was. I am perfectly fine with that. My understanding and love for Jesus has increased exponentially since I let the other stuff go, and I wouldn't go back to the way it was before for anything.

Ah yes, that postmodern mindset where feelings override facts.

 

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  My faith isn't dependent on cold, hard facts but on recognizing the truth.  (And I know him by name!)

 

What's wrong with putting Jesus first?  I am honestly puzzled by this.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, you seem to be diminishing the Bible by saying it is just His testimony and that the truth that matters is in Jesus, as if one is more important than the other.  What you again fail to realize is that the Bible doesn't give you the option of believing that about it.  The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name.   Given that He has the Name above all Names and that one's Name is connected to one's integrity and character in the Bible, for God to say He exalts it above His Name, means that He holds the Bible as more important than His own Name.  He is pouring all of His integrity into the Bible.  That level of importance defies God not caring about the details and getting the details right.

  I'm really sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but this smacks of borderline idolatry in my honest opinion.

 

It doesn't seem harsh at all.  But what you're doing is accusing God of making an idol out of His own word.   Here is what the Bible says.

 

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

(Psa 138:2)

 

That's what it says.  It is not idolatry and it shows a lack of discernment to accuse God of committing idolatry.   What this shows is that God puts far more importance on the Bible than you think it deserves and it demonstrates that your perspective on the Bible is skewed.

 

I didn't accuse God of committing idolatry.  That...would be ridiculous.

 

That verse you posted says "for thou hast magnified thy word above thy name."

 

"Thy word" is Jesus, and we know that he has been given the name above every other name. That sounds pretty magnified to me.

 

Also, Jesus is the truth. 

 

This verse sounds to me like it's referring to Jesus.  

 

 

Secondly you said this:

 

The bible is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc.   It is a true and accurate testimony of His Word, but the Word is Jesus.

Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God.   Jesus is the Word of God in the sense that Jesus is the personification of all of the prophecies and foreshadowing and allusions made about Him in the Old Testament.  All of the promises and prophecies of the coming Redeemer were met in Jesus Christ. 

 

The Bible is the Word of God and it claims to contain the very words of God.   You are trying to draw a false dichotomy where the Bible is a testimony of the Word and that is false teaching.   The Bible is God's written Word that testifies of the One who is the living Word of God. 

 

The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error.  You made a qualified statement claiming that it is a true and accurate testimony of Jesus, leaving to question whether or not it is a true and accurate testimony of everything it addresses or simply what it says about Jesus.  In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life).  It stems from your rather low view of the Bible as not being the Word of God.   If we call it the Word of God, then it places an expectation of accuracy that you are not willing accept because that level of absolute accuracy doesn't fit well with theology you adopted after your "shield" was shattered and returning to the place where God's word can be trusted in all matters is something you say you are not interested in.

 

Lot to address in this chunk.  Let me break it down:

 

Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God.

  I merely said that Jesus and the bible are not on the same level.  I trust the bible, yes, but I don't worship it as a member of the Trinity.

 

...it claims to contain the very words of God.

   I'm not denying this.  But a container is not the same thing as the thing it contains.  Sort of like an image is not the same thing as the object captured in it.  The bible, from Genesis to Revelations, reveals an image of God; who He is, what he's done, and how we can know Him.  It is the testimony of Jesus.

 

The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error.

  I see a few false assumptions with this statement.  1) I never said that.  I still believe it is "God-breathed".  2) Your definition of "error" seems to indicate that the bible becomes untrustworthy if it contains one.  But "error" can mean a lot of things.  Would a transcription error mean the bible loses all authority?  How about a mistaken fact?  If so, why?  Because "God's Word must be perfect" in order to be trustworthy?  So...do we trust it because it is "error-free" or because it is God-breathed?

 

 

In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life).

  Not really. The opposite is true, actually.  Do I use a dictionary as a recipe book?  It may contain information about the food I'm making, but it isn't an authority on actually making that food item.  Do I look for the meaning of life in a science or history textbook?  No?

  Likewise, I don't look to the bible for science or history lessons.  Or recipes.  It can be accurate in those things (except maybe recipes...), but it isn't what the book was written for.  It's real purpose is far more important.

 

 

 

The purpose of Scripture has always been to lead us to Jesus, who is the full revelation of God.

That is ONE purpose of Scripture.  You're trying to limit the scope of Scripture and its purposes in order to avoid some of the glaring problems that stick out in your theology.

 

Maybe there are more purposes of Scripture. But revealing Jesus is the primary one. I've provided verses to show this is true, but you seem to ignore them...

 

 

In light of this, can you please show me where what I said is unbiblical?

A low view of Scripture will produce an inaccurate definition of what being "biblical" means.  When we talk about something being biblical, we mean that it is in line with all of the doctrines of Scripture, that there are no doctrines that a particular teaching is in contradiction with.

 

Your position denies the authority and inerrancy/accuracy of the Bible and denies that the Bible is God's word.  You seem to stand in opposition to God's view that His Word is exalted above His own Name.

 

 

Low view?  I just said it's not on the same level as Jesus (aka God).  Maybe that view is lower than yours, but it's still fairly high.  I never denied the authority of the Bible. I still believe it's inspired.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

However, I have yet to hear any argument or logic that would have prevented my "house of cards" from toppling.

Which is again, what every atheist I have ever encountered who claimed to believe the Bible has attested to.

 

 

 I do appreciate your concern, but by your logic here, I should be an atheist, then?  If I'm using their logic and arguments, then why do I still believe Jesus is God?  Isn't that illogical?   Or is it that you expect my faith to ultimately fail? 

No, I am not saying that you should be an atheist.  You are missing the point.   My point is that both you and the atheists who claim that  you encountered arguments that you are convinced that there is no solid response to that would have prevented your theological house of cards from falling.  Both of you are probably wrong because neither of you were likely exposed to anyone who could have offered up a substantive challenge to the views that affected the fall of your "house of cards."    It's not that your views are so solid as to be insurmountable;  you simply were not equipped to defend them and the "shield" was shattered as you say. 

 

The only point of comparison I was making was that both you and these people who think they are former Christians haves one line of reasoning in common.  You assume that your current position is solid because up to this point neither of you had been exposed to lines of reasoning and evidence by someone who competent to address the challenges you were facing that shattered the shield, so to speak.

 

That already happened, remember?  I saw the crash coming and I tied myself to Jesus.  That was the only thing that saved me.  My faith is being rebuilt completely from the ground up, and Jesus is the foundation.  My only foundation.  He is the only thing that I am absolutely sure about.

 

 

The problem is though, based on what I have observed in your posts, your views about Jesus are not doctrinally or theologically sound, nor are they internally consistent.   You can't trust Jesus as a sure foundation if you can't trust Him to be able know future.   In your theological view, Jesus' can't really be sure about a lot of stuff.  Doesn't sound you can make a foundation of someone who you can't be sure won't be mistaken, or fail at some point in the future. That's not someone you want to anchor your heart to.  He might let you down if He got some of His promises wrong.   Do you see the problem in how you approach theology?

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  My faith isn't dependent on cold, hard facts but on recognizing the truth.  (And I know him by name!)

 

What's wrong with putting Jesus first?  I am honestly puzzled by this.

 

Postmodernism is a bad thing; that's why I say it like its a bad thing.   Postmodernism is less interested in truth and so far truth is rather vacant in your theology.  You are operating from emotion in your theology, by what feels right to you.    When you talk about cold hard facts, you are referring to biblical data and the truth is that those "cold hard facts"  are what form a biblical and sound theological base from which we are able to have a real relationship with Jesus.  The more you know (correctly) about Jesus the more you are able to love and relate to Him correctly.  This is because each thing I learn about Jesus is another reason to love Him.   Your faith MUST be rooted in biblical data, otherwise it is misplaced faith.   And you cannot recognize truth apart from what the Bible says.  You can't discard the "cold hard facts" that the Bible gives us and have real relationship with Jesus.

I

didn't accuse God of committing idolatry.  That...would be ridiculous.

 

That verse you posted says "for thou hast magnified thy word above thy name."

 

"Thy word" is Jesus, and we know that he has been given the name above every other name. That sounds pretty magnified to me.

 

Also, Jesus is the truth. 

 

This verse sounds to me like it's referring to Jesus.

 

 

It's not referring to Jesus.  This goes back to the fact that your theology isn't very sound nor is it biblical.   Your theology is rooted in something else, that I can't quite put my finger on except that I can see the huge impact that the postmodern mindset has had on it. 

 

The reason that Psalm 138:2 cannot be a reference to Person of Jesus Christ is that the Hebrew word for the phrase "thy word" used is "imrahtekha"  It is a feminine noun and refers to "commandment," "word" or "speech."   There is absolutely no way you can twist that verse into referring to a person.   The Bible only ever uses this word to refer to what God has said in the Scriptures (Deut. 32:2; 33:9; 2Sa. 22:31; Psa. 12:6; 17:6; 18:30; 105:19; 119:11,38, 41,50,58,67,76,82, 103,116,123, 133,140,148, 154,158,  162,170,172; 138:2; 147:15; Pro. 30:5; Isa. 5:24; 28:23; 29:4; 32:9; Lam. 2:17)

 

 

He is not saying that He magnifies Jesus above His own Name.  That is, again, theologically incorrect because Jesus is the second member of the Trinity and occupies a rank lower than the Father.   In Psalm 138:2, God is talking about His integrity.   A person's name was connected with his honor in the ancient near east. Your name was good or bad based on your character and trustworthiness (or the lack thereof).   God's character is spotless.  He is perfect in every way and the honor of His Name is so important to Him that He places in His Word (commandments, prophecies, promises/covenants) above His own Name.  It is a way of expressing how sure His word is. 

 

The other word used for "word" in the OT Scriptures is "devar" and it refers to speech.  And is the same word used to refer to prophetic writings and it is used to refer to the "Ten Commandments."   This word occurs many times and is never used in connection with a person

 

Genesis. 11:1; 12:17; 15:1,4; 18:14,25; 19:8,21,22; 20:8,10,11,18; 21:11,26; 22:1,16,20; 24:9,28,30,33,50,52,66; 27:34,42; 29:13; 30:31,34; 31:1; 32:19; 34:14,18,19; 37:8,11,14; 39:7,17,19; 40:1; 41:28,32,37; 42:16,20; 43:7,18; 44:2,6,7,10,18,24; 45:27; 47:30; 48:1;

 

Exodus. 1:18; 2:14,15; 4:10,15,28,30; 5:9,11,13,19; 8:10,12,13,31; 9:4,5,6,20,21; 12:24,35; 14:12; 16:4,16,32; 18:11,14,16,17,18,19,22,23,26; 19:6,7,8,9; 20:1; 22:9; 23:7,8; 24:3,4,8,14; 29:1; 32:28; 33:4,17; 34:1,27,28; 35:1,4;

 

Leviticus. 4:13; 5:2; 8:5,36; 9:6; 10:7; 17:2; 23:37;

 

Numbers. 11:23,24; 12:6; 13:26; 14:20,39; 15:31; 16:31,49; 18:7; 20:19; 22:7,8,20,35,38; 23:3,5,16; 25:18; 30:1,2; 31:16,23; 32:20; 36:6;

 

Deuteronomy . 1:1,14,17,18,22,23,25,32,34; 2:7,26; 3:26; 4:2,9,10,12,13,21,30,32,36; 5:5,22,28; 6:6; 9:5,10; 10:2,4; 11:18; 12:28,32; 13:3,11,14; 15:2,9,10,15; 16:19; 17:1,4,5,8,9,10,11,19; 18:18,19,20,21,22; 19:4,15,20; 22:14,17,20,24,26; 23:4,9,14,19; 24:1,5,18,22; 27:3,8,26; 28:14,58; 29:1,9,19,29; 30:1,14; 31:1,12,24,28,30; 32:44,45,46,47;

 

Those are just references that come from the Torah.  I could provide hundreds more from the rest of the OT.   At no time do they ever refer to a person and certainly are never applied to Jesus.

 

Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God.

  I merely said that Jesus and the bible are not on the same level.  I trust the bible, yes, but I don't worship it as a member of the Trinity.

 

No one is saying that the Bible is a god, nor are they worshiping it.  The Scriptures are the Word of God and they call themselves the Word of God.   You are demonstrating a huge lack of knowledge by contradicting the Scriptures on this matter.  

 

Secondly to say that Jesus and the Scriptures are not on the same level is simply wrong.  Jesus is the personification of Scriptures.  He is the living embodiment of them.  They are on the same level because Jesus is the focus and substance of all law and the prophets.  It is impossible to have a proper relationship with Jesus without a proper understanding of the Scriptures and it is impossible to approach the Scriptures correctly, if you have a skewed theology about what the Scriptures are.

 

...it claims to contain the very words of God.

   I'm not denying this.  But a container is not the same thing as the thing it contains.  Sort of like an image is not the same thing as the object captured in it.  The bible, from Genesis to Revelations, reveals an image of God; who He is, what he's done, and how we can know Him.  It is the testimony of Jesus.

 

I am not saying that the Word of God is the leather cover, paper and ink.  I am saying that the content or substance of the Bible is the Word of God.  The Scriptures MUST be the Word of God.   That Jesus is the living word does not preclude the Scriptures from being the written Word of God.   The Scriptures are also a testimony of themselves  You appear to be separating out what you choose to believe is written from what is actually written. 

 

 

The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error.

  I see a few false assumptions with this statement.  1) I never said that.  I still believe it is "God-breathed".  2) Your definition of "error" seems to indicate that the bible becomes untrustworthy if it contains one.  But "error" can mean a lot of things.  Would a transcription error mean the bible loses all authority?  How about a mistaken fact?  If so, why?  Because "God's Word must be perfect" in order to be trustworthy?  So...do we trust it because it is "error-free" or because it is God-breathed?

 

 

1.  You never said that, but that is the where your logic will, ultimately, lead.  It is theologically incoherent to believe that the Scriptures are God breathed but are NOT the Word of God. You can't have it both ways. It is either the inspired Word of God, or it isn't. 

 

2.  When I refer to "error" I am speaking to error of theological, historical or doctrinal fact/truth.   I don' include "scribal error" or variants like misspelled words.  Scribal errors don't affect the doctrinal or theological truths of the text and given human imperfection, it is quite reasonable to see such in the text.

 

The kind of errors that people claim are in the Bible are as follows:

 

1.  Adam and Eve were not historical people

2.  The earth was not created in six days

3.  The flood was not global

4.  There was no crossing of the Red Sea'

5.  There was no united monarchy under King David and King David is not a historical person.

6.  The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but was written after the Babylonian exile

7.  There was no fall in the Garden

 

Those are examples of errors people claim the Bible possesses.  And my point is that if the Bible isn't the Word of God, it can't be trusted to its facts straight. 

 

3.  We trust the Bible because it is both error free and because it is God breathed.  Our both are biblical doctrines.  One speaks to the Divine origin  of the Scriptures and the other speaks to it's authority and inerrancy.   You keep trying to make this an either/or scenario.   The point is that their are several layers of security that are built into the Bible and all are reasons to trust it.

 

In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life).

  Not really. The opposite is true, actually.  Do I use a dictionary as a recipe book?  It may contain information about the food I'm making, but it isn't an authority on actually making that food item.  Do I look for the meaning of life in a science or history textbook?  No?

  Likewise, I don't look to the bible for science or history lessons.  Or recipes.  It can be accurate in those things (except maybe recipes...), but it isn't what the book was written for.  It's real purpose is far more important.

 

That comparison isn't really valid based on our previous conversations.   We are not talking about using the Bible as a science book or using it in any way that it is not intended to be used.   The claim is not that the Bible is a history book or a science book.  The point is that it does contain historical information and that information is linked in part to man's origins.  And the question is not about the Bible as a science book or not.   The question is whether or not the facts the Bible does present can be trusted. 

 

If God is perfect in knowledge and If the entire Bible is God-breathed then should not science be subsumed under the biblical paradigm?  If God is all-knowing and can be trusted, can He produce Scriptures that are less than trustworthy?  And if so, isn't it wrong to allow science to hi-jack the interpretation of Scripture and force the Bible to be subjugated to  being a servant to the whims of the reader?

 

I see a fundamental error here in that you seem to want to chop up the Bible into pieces regarding what YOU think its real purpose is and that once you determine what the most important or real purpose is, the rest of the Bible is expendable.   It amounts to treating the Bible like a smorgasbord where you just pick what you want and leave the rest behind.

 

Maybe there are more purposes of Scripture. But revealing Jesus is the primary one. I've provided verses to show this is true, but you seem to ignore them...

 

I didn't ignore them at all.  My point is that there is no such thing as a "primary" purpose that you can grab on to at the expense of everything else.   The primary purpose of Scripture is to glorify God.  Revealing Jesus is just a sub-purpose under that supreme heading.  In the end, everything is for God's glory.  You are just picking out what you want and ignoring other aspects of the Scripture that put a crimp in your postmodern approach to the Scripture.

 

Low view?  I just said it's not on the same level as Jesus (aka God).  Maybe that view is lower than yours, but it's still fairly high.  I never denied the authority of the Bible. I still believe it's inspired.

 

It is a low view of Scripture in how you define what is biblical.  That is the point.  Your view of "biblical" appears to lack the ability to show how your views don't contradict biblical doctrine.  I have already demonstrated in this thread that your views don't really match what the Bible says.   I have provided an overwhelming amount of biblical testimony to that end.  You may claim it is inspired, but if we follow your theological reasoning down the path to the destination it will lead to, there is no way you can trust what was inspired because as you have made abundantly, clear, God can't know the future and if so, there is no basis for trusting any of His promises.   So ultimately your position diminishes the authority of Scripture.

[enoob57]

I do appreciate your concern, but by your logic here, I should be an atheist, then?  If I'm using their logic and arguments, then why do I still believe Jesus is God?  Isn't that illogical?   Or is it that you expect my faith to ultimately fail?

The initial response to beginning is first to keep it from anyway being tied to the error we are and have born into...

hence the need to understand why Jesus said this:

John 3:3

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. KJV

 

The why is found in wisdom

Prov 17:16

16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom,

seeing he hath no heart to it?

KJV

and their is an enormous gulf between anti~jesus- and -Jesus know as The Christ! The Jesus that we serve is taught

to us by and obeyed explicitly from 'The Written Word of God' (+) 'The Holy Spirit' AS neither can be separated

and yet arrive at same result-> for that is explained here:

OT showed the inability of all men to fully obey God as summed up in John the baptist

Luke 7:28

28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a

greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom

of God is greater than he.

KJV

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of

God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood,

nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

KJV

As you can see by Scripture the formation of new birth 'A Spiritual Event' where The Holy Spirit enters the heart

that is completely broken by The Truth of The Word of God- resulting in first time ever the sight of what God 'IS'

keeping and what God is not keeping... leaving the only resource to attach our new born hearts to is The Word and

The Holy Spirit of Christ and our sole purpose to bring God The Glory due His Name...

 

 

Low view?  I just said it's not on the same level as Jesus (aka God).  Maybe that view is lower than yours, but it's still fairly high.  I never denied the authority of the Bible. I still believe it's inspired.

There is only 'ONE' view that which 'IS' formed from His Word The Bible... you see I no longer walk on the ground

because it's the ground and always has been, (since my experience began), but now because God's Word wills it to

be so and when He burns it up my feet will still have a place to stand in Spirit with Him for I am formed from His

Word and not the idols of this creation... Love, Steven

[a-seeker]

 

Is this what Christianity has become an opinionated religion? Where we can decide for ourselves what determines our salvation?

Are we now at a point in our Christianity where we degenerate the Miracle of creation to ordinary and Natural providence?

 

...and Jesus wept.

 

If creation out of nothing is not a miracle, then there are no miracles at all in Scripture.

 

Never denied Creation ex-nihilo.  Fully embrace it. Of course, technically, I am not sure if that constitutes a miracle.  A miracle is an interruption or modification of Nature's ordinary course--but of course, the creation of nature itself cannot be part of nature's ordinary course.  But that is a subtlety.

 

clb