Authority of Scripture

[OneLight]

Hi Conner,
 
You can reject anything and everything people have to say, including my words above.  Our actions also show what fruit we bear.  What I presented to you in my first post is derived through observing your posts over a long period of time, how you have been posting and what you have been posting.  My words are not a knee jerk reaction.  People only have your own words to go by.  If your words do not reflect your heart, I suggest you change how you present what you are trying to say.  Scripture tells us "For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."  If your words do not echo your heart, it is your responsibility to ensure they do.
 
Examine your own words in the rejection to warnings people have given you and you will see what I mean.  Instead of seeking out why people would confront you in how you view scripture, your defensive walls are so high and thick you label the love people show you as "chimerical, illusory, more like a phobia".  Take into consideration that the vast majority of those replying to you are long standing members who are trying to help you, not pretending they know your heart, while only trying to show you that scripture, when looked at through the correct lens, can be understood.
 
Trying to give you scriptural references as to why people view you as they do seems to carry no weight, so perhaps a worldly parallel may.
 

If one person tells you that you look like a horse, ignore them.
If two people tell you that you look like a horse, take a look in the mirror.
If three or more people tell you that you look like a horse, you either change your appearance or buy a saddle.

 
I will try to explain what people are trying to do and way with scripture..
 
James 5:19-20

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Instead of trying to defend yourself, try to see what others are seeing. By stepping back and reviewing what and how you post, you will get a better idea of what others see. This, of course, has to be done with no preconceptions of what you are reading, do it with a clear mind.

 

You can either grow or dig your heals in.  The choice is yours.  Keep in mind that you are seeking to find an answer as to why you see contradiction is scripture.  Others did not start this thread to corner you in confrontation.

[Guest Butero]

First of all Connor, when I said you were starting out from unbelief, I meant unbelief in the inerrancy of scripture, and that I am starting out with belief in the inerrancy of scripture.  I thought that was obvious.  You are saying that you believe that much of Genesis is a myth, simply because it doesn't come out and say that the things going on have a supernatural element?  I think the reader can see that without the author pointing out the obvious.  It is not necessary, and I don't see that as the least bit persuasive in making your argument that this adds up to it being a myth.  The ancients were not idiots, so nobody had to come out and say a miracle took place when everyone saw an obvious miracle.  You mention things about Noah's ark you say aren't logical.  We are dealing with the same God that stopped the mouth of lions from devouring Daniel, that brought forth water out of a rock, that allowed the 3 Hebrew children to survive a fiery furnace without even having smoke smell on their clothes, turned back the sun as a sign, and did so many miracles, I could keep naming them, and still forget something.  It is not like every time one happened, the Bible says it was a miracle.  It just reports what occurred.  Look at what all God did to deliver Israel from Egypt.  Look at the red sea parting.  Look how God took the chariot wheels off the chariots of the Egyptian army.  It is not like the Bible comes out and states that these are miracles every time we see one.  I don't see you using logic in making this argument. 

 

In the case of Genesis 1 and 2, we are told what took place, but everything isn't in perfect chronological order.  Anyone reading that can see the plain meaning.  That's the point.  I know what is meant, and so does the reader.  Even you know what is meant, but you want to create supposed problems to show the Bible is not inerrant.  I do want to address a couple of things you said.  I either have to conclude that I am dealing with someone extremely stupid that can't see the plain meaning and needs every obvious thing pointed out to them, or I am dealing with someone who sees the plain meaning, but desires to create problems.  I can clearly see you are not stupid or illiterate, so the only thing that makes sense is my second explanation.  You know when a miracle occurred.  Do you really need someone to say, "Miracle taking place," every time it happens?  Neither does anyone else.  Do you really need someone to say, "Every detail in this passage in the account of creation is not in perfect order," or can you see that and understand that as I can?  You have acknowledge you see it and understanding it.  Why would the author need to treat us like morons and point out things that obvious? 

 

The other thing I want to address is this notion you are being called an unbeliever.  I am only saying that in reference to your unbelief in inerrancy of scripture.  I haven't made any accusations about whether or not you are saved or lost.  From what I have read in this thread, it appears you believe in Jesus and part of the Bible, but you have this need to discredit part of the Bible.  Talk about illogical!  If I applied your standard for the first chapters of the Bible to the entire OT, I would have to conclude the whole OT is a myth.  If I doubted part of the Bible, why would I believe any of it?  Why would I believe in Jesus?  It is not that I can't accept you believe in Jesus, but doubt part of his Word.  That just doesn't make logical sense to me when I am dealing with an intelligent person, and you clearly are not stupid.  That seems to be the point others have made.  Why do you believe part of the Bible while rejecting other parts of the Bible?  I tend to think you start out with a conflict created by science verses the Bible, and you are trying to hold to what you have been taught by science while continuing to believe in God.  That may work for you, but it doesn't work for me. 

[a-seeker]

Hi OneLight

 

I do not think I have ever received one unkind word from you, so not everything said above was universal.

 

As to this...

 

defensive walls are so high and thick you label the love people show you as "chimerical, illusory, more like a phobia". 

 

 

 

Yes and No.  I highly doubt all posters here care one bit about me (Go back and read some of their posts....a long history of posts...and tell me how they sound).  But over all, it was not the love people show me I think chimerical, but the "slippery slope" they think my views constitute.  I simply say I have walked to the edge, and found the terrain quite solid and the line easily maintained.  That is all.  I am not a young Christian or a young thinker.  My heart is for those people who have also walked to the line, suffered intellectual vertigo, and fell. 

 

I don't mind being in a corner, not at all.  It's fun, so long as the attacks are at my mind. It sharpens me. But to say that I am clouded and only Jesus can unveil my mind; or to say that I am defensive...well, that's just exasperating.  I suppose what I dislike the most are debates which amount to little more than "No youre wrong; no youre wrong" ad infinitum.

 

Now, I have a terse writing style; it may come off as defensive.  But I am rarely upset in any of these posts--exasperated sometimes, but not upset.  However, if i am actually upsetting people here, then I can certainly move on to another topic, and perhaps closing this one is a good idea.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

First of all Connor, when I said you were starting out from unbelief, I meant unbelief in the inerrancy of scripture, and that I am starting out with belief in the inerrancy of scripture.  I thought that was obvious.  You are saying that you believe that much of Genesis is a myth, simply because it doesn't come out and say that the things going on have a supernatural element?  I think the reader can see that without the author pointing out the obvious.  It is not necessary, and I don't see that as the least bit persuasive in making your argument that this adds up to it being a myth.  The ancients were not idiots, so nobody had to come out and say a miracle took place when everyone saw an obvious miracle.  You mention things about Noah's ark you say aren't logical.  We are dealing with the same God that stopped the mouth of lions from devouring Daniel, that brought forth water out of a rock, that allowed the 3 Hebrew children to survive a fiery furnace without even having smoke smell on their clothes, turned back the sun as a sign, and did so many miracles, I could keep naming them, and still forget something.  It is not like every time one happened, the Bible says it was a miracle.  It just reports what occurred.  Look at what all God did to deliver Israel from Egypt.  Look at the red sea parting.  Look how God took the chariot wheels off the chariots of the Egyptian army.  It is not like the Bible comes out and states that these are miracles every time we see one.  I don't see you using logic in making this argument. 

 

In the case of Genesis 1 and 2, we are told what took place, but everything isn't in perfect chronological order.  Anyone reading that can see the plain meaning.  That's the point.  I know what is meant, and so does the reader.  Even you know what is meant, but you want to create supposed problems to show the Bible is not inerrant.  I do want to address a couple of things you said.  I either have to conclude that I am dealing with someone extremely stupid that can't see the plain meaning and needs every obvious thing pointed out to them, or I am dealing with someone who sees the plain meaning, but desires to create problems.  I can clearly see you are not stupid or illiterate, so the only thing that makes sense is my second explanation.  You know when a miracle occurred.  Do you really need someone to say, "Miracle taking place," every time it happens?  Neither does anyone else.  Do you really need someone to say, "Every detail in this passage in the account of creation is not in perfect order," or can you see that and understand that as I can?  You have acknowledge you see it and understanding it.  Why would the author need to treat us like morons and point out things that obvious? 

 

The other thing I want to address is this notion you are being called an unbeliever.  I am only saying that in reference to your unbelief in inerrancy of scripture.  I haven't made any accusations about whether or not you are saved or lost.  From what I have read in this thread, it appears you believe in Jesus and part of the Bible, but you have this need to discredit part of the Bible.  Talk about illogical!  If I applied your standard for the first chapters of the Bible to the entire OT, I would have to conclude the whole OT is a myth.  If I doubted part of the Bible, why would I believe any of it?  Why would I believe in Jesus?  It is not that I can't accept you believe in Jesus, but doubt part of his Word.  That just doesn't make logical sense to me when I am dealing with an intelligent person, and you clearly are not stupid.  That seems to be the point others have made.  Why do you believe part of the Bible while rejecting other parts of the Bible?  I tend to think you start out with a conflict created by science verses the Bible, and you are trying to hold to what you have been taught by science while continuing to believe in God.  That may work for you, but it doesn't work for me. 

 

Hi Butero,

 

the miracles you mentioned above were explicitly described as miracles.  That is my point.  It is a literary issue, not an issue of faith.  When the miraculous occurs, we are told about a divine agent.  If Genesis had said, "the serpent spoke to Eve....for the devil had taken control of it."  Then that would be a literary feature indicating history not myth.  Even if it said, "for back then, beasts could talk", that would be closer on the history spectrum than on the myth.  In the Noah case we have a proportional dilemma--all those animals crammed into that space. We have a similar dilemma in the gospels--all those people and only a basket of food.  But in the gospels miracle is clearly occurring; the author is aware that something impossible had occurred, but there is nothing in Noah suggesting miracle--it doesn't say, "for the Lord made them all to fit.'  That too would be a literary feature pointing in the direction of history and away from myth.

 

But more importantly we have this

 

In the case of Genesis 1 and 2, we are told what took place, but everything isn't in perfect chronological order.  Anyone reading that can see the plain meaning.  That's the point.  I know what is meant, and so does the reader.  Even you know what is meant, but you want to create supposed problems to show the Bible is not inerrant.

 

 

 

That is not true; and it was my fault for being unclear here.  I do not think the sequential problem of Genesis 1 and 2 belong to the class of contradictions.  Put another way, if I were an inerrantist, I would still read Genesis the way I do.  The two are not contradictory according to my reading.  It would become a contradiction only if the author intended the two accounts to be sequentially consistent; then we would have an enormous blunder on our hands.  I don't think he did intend that.  I think he knew very well what he was doing and he was framing the creation narrative in two sequentially different ways to make highly nuanced theological points.  Thus it is an error to say I read Genesis the way I do in order to dismiss inerrancy.  I don't.  I have posted elsewhere what appear to me to be real discrepancies.  I hesitate to call them errors.  My view can be hinted at by this: I think that were Paul to find out the Sun was the center of the universe, and that the authors of Scripture thought it was the earth, it would not matter one difference to him or any other canonical author.  My guess is that could include all the discrepancies in the Bible.

 

 

clb

[Guest Butero]

I just don't see the need to come out and call those things miracles.  They are just so obvious to me, there is no need to do so, and even if you think it would be better if they were pointed out as miracles, that hardly proves they were a myth.  I appreciate you explaining things better about Genesis 1 and 2, but I don't get what you are saying at the end of your last paragraph, unless you are speculating that if an error was in scripture, like the planets revolving around the earth, it would be overlooked and explained away.  Since no such error exists, there is no way to answer that, except to say that if such a thing was in the Bible, it could hardly be called inerrant, since we know the planets revolve around the sun. 

[Guest Jesse]

Most chritians still dont understand,after such a long study.

In the beginning was the Word. The beginning is at creation day.

The Word of God created everything.

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The Word of God was made flesh,and dwelleth amongst men.

He created all things. Without Him was not anything made that was made.

The Holy bible is the Word of God,He has purified his Word seven times.(psalms).

No man can come to to God but by Me; the Word,one must read the Word to know God.

The printed Word is living,it has the spirit of Christ. That spirit is the flesh of Christ,

Which we must eat,john 6:48--58. to be filled with the spirit.

 

Now you undestand that the spirit of the printed word is the spirit of Christ. (his flesh).

Reject the bible,you also reject Christ.

 

jesse.

[a-seeker]

I just don't see the need to come out and call those things miracles.  They are just so obvious to me, there is no need to do so, and even if you think it would be better if they were pointed out as miracles, that hardly proves they were a myth.  I appreciate you explaining things better about Genesis 1 and 2, but I don't get what you are saying at the end of your last paragraph, unless you are speculating that if an error was in scripture, like the planets revolving around the earth, it would be overlooked and explained away.  Since no such error exists, there is no way to answer that, except to say that if such a thing was in the Bible, it could hardly be called inerrant, since we know the planets revolve around the sun. 

 

 

No worries Butero,

 

I think it is time we move on to other topics. I posted elsewhere (Defense of Gospels) a number of discrepancies and requested solutions.

 

clb

[OneLight]

OP is done. Thread closed