A Different Look at Genesis

[junobet]

I completely understood your post and I directly addressed your fallacious assertion. That's why I posted the link I did to show that your assertion about the ECFs was wrong. You made another fallacious assertion above when you state; "Like most Christians living in the 21th century I subscribe to Theistic Evolution."
I know what you subscribe to but it is not like most Christians.
I've attached a picture of a Gallup poll done a little over two years ago.

yvoivdxwhusms4bzco2nnq.png

Stan,
Surely you are aware that Christianity is a world-religion. Your poll is only for the US, which happens to be the heartland of modern-day creationism. On a worldwide level there are 2.4 billion Christians, 1.2 billion of which are Catholic. The Catholic Church supports theistic evolution. As do mainline Protestants in the US, and all the main Protestant Churches in Europe … So:
“As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth. The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[95]
Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[96] such as Anglicans[97] and Lutherans,[98] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[99]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

 

[OzSpen]

There is no oxymoron, OzPen. There’s are difference between knowing and being very certain. I just wish those “Bible-believing” Christians had the humility to see that difference. Maybe then they’d approach the Bible with more questions than pre-conceived answers.
If there was compelling evidence for the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Biblical Scholarship would change its mind. As it is the documentary hypothesis (first formulated by Wellhausen, but further discussed and developed since) is still taught in every accredited OT-Studies seminary from Princeton over Cambridge to Tübingen. It is part of the Church-approved curriculum for Religion in German Schools, which Genesis 1-2 being the text by which it is explained, because you don’t even need to know Hebrew to see the differences between Gen 1 and 2 in style and content. Please note that none of the verses from the Pentateuch you quoted say that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch. Of course the authors of the NT were still engulfed in the Jewish tradition that held that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. That does no more mean it was than most Protestants believing that Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenberg Church door means he actually did. And even people who are aware that he probably did not “nail them on the door”, still often use that phrase as a figure of speech.
The reason that “Bible-believing” Christians will never change their mind about the documentary hypothesis , whatever the evidence, is that they somehow seem to think that it would make the Pentateuch less inspired if it hadn’t been written by Moses. IMHO that is not so: academic tectual research just shows that the way these inspired texts came to us are more complicated than tradition thought them to be and that the Judaeo-Christian faith developed over a long long time.

junobet,

You stated: 'I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch'. The Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of oxymoron is: 'a combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings'. Therefore, what you wrote was an oxymoron.

Also, you state, 'If there was compelling evidence for the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Biblical Scholarship would change its mind'. There is no such generic group as 'Biblical Scholarship'. There are scholars of Scripture, some liberal and others conservative evangelical, who have come to different conclusions concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch. Many theological liberals have endorsed JEPD (starting with Graf-Wellhausen) but other biblical scholars have refuted this view (e.g. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 51-54).

You wrote: 'The reason that “Bible-believing” Christians will never change their mind about the documentary hypothesis , whatever the evidence, is that they somehow seem to think that it would make the Pentateuch less inspired if it hadn’t been written by Moses'. This is nothing more than your personal opinion, your assertion. You provided ZERO evidence to support your statement. I don't fall for such a poor example of scholarship.

Oz

 

[Trekson]

Hi Junobet, Your words: "how would you like it if somebody accused you of lacking the Holy Spirit because you happen to have “a different look on Genesis”?"

How did you get that out of my reply to you? This whole OP is "a different look at Genesis"!!! All I said is that academia and intellect ALONE are not sufficient! I certainly wasn't pointing any personal fingers at you!

Now I'd like to make a brief comment on your responses to Ozpen and StanJ. I'm not sure you realize this or not but just because an organization labels itself as christian, doesn't mean they are. Let's face it, in most cases the mainline denominations in Europe are dead! They left their "first love" a long time ago. The same can be said here in the USA. And bye the bye, most fundamentalists don't consider Catholicism to be a "christian" religion. They are only christian in the regards that they are not atheists or Moslems. I say this because quoting the beliefs of "dead" churches won't get you far when discussing these topics with the parts of the Body of Christ that are still alive. I mean they are even offering tours now of all the beautiful EMPTY and UNUSED churches in Europe, for pity's sake!

 

[junobet]

junobet,

You stated: 'I know that I know nothing, but I am very much certain that Moses did not write the Pentateuch'. The Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of oxymoron is: 'a combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings'. Therefore, what you wrote was an oxymoron.

Also, you state, 'If there was compelling evidence for the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Biblical Scholarship would change its mind'. There is no such generic group as 'Biblical Scholarship'. There are scholars of Scripture, some liberal and others conservative evangelical, who have come to different conclusions concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch. Many theological liberals have endorsed JEPD (starting with Graf-Wellhausen) but other biblical scholars have refuted this view (e.g. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 51-54).

You wrote: 'The reason that “Bible-believing” Christians will never change their mind about the documentary hypothesis , whatever the evidence, is that they somehow seem to think that it would make the Pentateuch less inspired if it hadn’t been written by Moses'. This is nothing more than your personal opinion, your assertion. You provided ZERO evidence to support your statement. I don't fall for such a poor example of scholarship.

Oz

I’m afraid you’ve fallen for poor scholarship well and proper if you seriously think Moses wrote the Pentateuch. In the dry world of academic Biblical studies that is a view that’s well beyond theological conservatism: it’s stone age. Of course you can come up with scholars in support of any outlandish hypothesis: Richard Dawkins likes to bang on about scholars who deny that Jesus was a historical figure, without bothering to point out that the vast majority of their peers regard them as bonkers. The broad consensus among OT-scholars, conservative and liberal alike, is that Moses did most definitely not write the Pentateuch. Personally I deem it reasonable to follow the broad academic/scientific consensus in questions that are not within my own field of expertise, be it geology, zoology, astrophysics or OT-studies.
As for those ‘Evangelical conservatives’ you are talking about: they found what they desperately wanted to find, what a surprise! Do the ones you refer to state that Moses wrote everything except the end or do they go as far as saying that Moses prophesized his own death and how the Israelites would mourn him? What fancy explanation do they come up with for the many double accounts differing in detail such as Gen 7:2-3 vs Gen 7:15? Did Moses suffer from forgetfulness or do your scholars allow for a teeny weeny bit of redaction? And how is it humble to describe yourself as more humble “than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3) … ?
Now, one of the last people on the face of the earth that I’d describe as a theological liberal is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Being Protestant myself I happen to dislike many of his views, but what he wrote about the creation stories in Genesis both reflects his grounding in sound Biblical scholarship and conservative/traditional Christian theology of “creatio continua” and it reasons why the Bible and evolution are utterly compatible. You may enjoy reading his commentary– especially seeing that (if I remember correctly) you are on the look-out for arguments against atheists of the Dawkin’s kind, to whose objections it answers: http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

 

[junobet]

Hi Junobet, Your words: "how would you like it if somebody accused you of lacking the Holy Spirit because you happen to have “a different look on Genesis”?"

How did you get that out of my reply to you? This whole OP is "a different look at Genesis"!!! All I said is that academia and intellect ALONE are not sufficient! I certainly wasn't pointing any personal fingers at you!

Now I'd like to make a brief comment on your responses to Ozpen and StanJ. I'm not sure you realize this or not but just because an organization labels itself as christian, doesn't mean they are. Let's face it, in most cases the mainline denominations in Europe are dead! They left their "first love" a long time ago. The same can be said here in the USA. And bye the bye, most fundamentalists don't consider Catholicism to be a "christian" religion. They are only christian in the regards that they are not atheists or Moslems. I say this because quoting the beliefs of "dead" churches won't get you far when discussing these topics with the parts of the Body of Christ that are still alive. I mean they are even offering tours now of all the beautiful EMPTY and UNUSED churches in Europe, for pity's sake!

Trekson,
when I tried to remind you of Luke 6:31, I did not do it so much because I myself felt offended, but in view of the very many eminent Biblical scholars who teach in my home-town’s university and take a very active and enriching role in the local church-life. You reject their part in the body of Christ at your own spiritual peril.
That said I now also feel obliged to remind you of this forum rule “Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians.”
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/11410-christianity-board-forum-rules/
Blessings,
junobet

 

[StanJ]

Stan,
Surely you are aware that Christianity is a world-religion. Your poll is only for the US, which happens to be the heartland of modern-day creationism. On a worldwide level there are 2.4 billion Christians, 1.2 billion of which are Catholic. The Catholic Church supports theistic evolution. As do mainline Protestants in the US, and all the main Protestant Churches in Europe … So:
“As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth. The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[95]
Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[96] such as Anglicans[97] and Lutherans,[98] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[99]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

That's right, it is, but as you still haven't provided any factual support to corroborate your assertion then it really doesn't matter does it? You quote from Wiki but fail to realize that the important part that you quoted above, that states; "As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth.", has not citation of corroboration.
The fact is the majority of Catholics from South America and Africa that claim to be Catholics are not necessarily Christian. And I would have to say that the majority of Catholics from Eastern Europe may be orthodox but are not necessarily Christian. So I'm not really sure who the contributor of the assertion you provided from Wikipedia is and where they got their information but it sounds more like an opinion than it is a fact. That some learned Scholars of the so-called Mainline Protestant groups in Europe admit or agree to thestic evolution doesn't make it a fact, it's just their opinion. Their liberal theology has been well noted for hundreds of years.
The following website will give you and others a much more accurate perspective on the Christian population in the world. It involves many factors, and it's not just a matter of claiming to be a Christian.
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

 

[Trekson]

Hi Junobet, Your words: "That said I now also feel obliged to remind you of this forum rule “Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians."

As I was speaking of a truthful general observation about a denomination and not specific "members" or a "group of members" I don't think that reminder was necessary. However, as I was looking at the rules you so graciously provided I did find one you might be interested in. It states under the blasphemy section: "Do not hold the Bible to be the Word of God? We are not interested, then" As a moderator, I think you have shown an amazing disregard for the authenticity and validity of the scriptures referring to the creation account in Genesis as a "Mesopotamian myth" I think it was. While everyone is entitled to personal opinions, when one is in the position to be an influence to new Christians than extra care should be taken to not undermine there faith in the truth that is in the Word of God. One needs to interpret scripture by scripture and not in books or essays "about" scripture. Biblical "scholars or academics" who dispute the truth of scripture are no more than 'wolves in sheep's clothing" seeking only to destroy the faith of others

 

[OzSpen]

I’m afraid you’ve fallen for poor scholarship well and proper if you seriously think Moses wrote the Pentateuch. In the dry world of academic Biblical studies that is a view that’s well beyond theological conservatism: it’s stone age. Of course you can come up with scholars in support of any outlandish hypothesis: Richard Dawkins likes to bang on about scholars who deny that Jesus was a historical figure, without bothering to point out that the vast majority of their peers regard them as bonkers. The broad consensus among OT-scholars, conservative and liberal alike, is that Moses did most definitely not write the Pentateuch. Personally I deem it reasonable to follow the broad academic/scientific consensus in questions that are not within my own field of expertise, be it geology, zoology, astrophysics or OT-studies.
As for those ‘Evangelical conservatives’ you are talking about: they found what they desperately wanted to find, what a surprise! Do the ones you refer to state that Moses wrote everything except the end or do they go as far as saying that Moses prophesized his own death and how the Israelites would mourn him? What fancy explanation do they come up with for the many double accounts differing in detail such as Gen 7:2-3 vs Gen 7:15? Did Moses suffer from forgetfulness or do your scholars allow for a teeny weeny bit of redaction? And how is it humble to describe yourself as more humble “than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3) … ?
Now, one of the last people on the face of the earth that I’d describe as a theological liberal is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Being Protestant myself I happen to dislike many of his views, but what he wrote about the creation stories in Genesis both reflects his grounding in sound Biblical scholarship and conservative/traditional Christian theology of “creatio continua” and it reasons why the Bible and evolution are utterly compatible. You may enjoy reading his commentary– especially seeing that (if I remember correctly) you are on the look-out for arguments against atheists of the Dawkin’s kind, to whose objections it answers: http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

This is another red herring fallacy. You did not answer the content of what I wrote at #22 but were off and running with writing about what you want.

 

[junobet]

This is another red herring fallacy. You did not answer the content of what I wrote at #22 but were off and running with writing about what you want.

Sorry OzPen, but the only red herring I see is you accusing me of using a red herring. Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed that you did not bother to answer my questions concerning Mosaic authorship, but never mind. If there is anything you want me to comment on in your post that I have not yet commented on, please elaborate your questions.

 

[junobet]

Hi Junobet, Your words: "That said I now also feel obliged to remind you of this forum rule “Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians."

As I was speaking of a truthful general observation about a denomination and not specific "members" or a "group of members" I don't think that reminder was necessary. However, as I was looking at the rules you so graciously provided I did find one you might be interested in. It states under the blasphemy section: "Do not hold the Bible to be the Word of God? We are not interested, then" As a moderator, I think you have shown an amazing disregard for the authenticity and validity of the scriptures referring to the creation account in Genesis as a "Mesopotamian myth" I think it was. While everyone is entitled to personal opinions, when one is in the position to be an influence to new Christians than extra care should be taken to not undermine there faith in the truth that is in the Word of God. One needs to interpret scripture by scripture and not in books or essays "about" scripture. Biblical "scholars or academics" who dispute the truth of scripture are no more than 'wolves in sheep's clothing" seeking only to destroy the faith of others

Trekson,
are you sure you are conducting this conversation in the gracious manner Scripture demands? Because I don’t think you are. Of course that may just be another case of two people interpreting the same texts in very different ways.
Please note that, even though I was asked to be moderator, just like any other member of this board I solely represent my personal views, not those of this board. As I see it, my job as a moderator is limited to assuring that people remain civil when exchanging their respective views here.
To remain civil it would be nice if for a start we could be good-willed enough to assume that each of us - you, I and Biblical scholars of all sorts - are in honest search for truth, rather than shower the other with wild accusations.
As for how I hold the Bible to be the word of God, see my statements here: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/23020-is-our-bible-of-66-books-the-inerrant-word-of-god/#entry282337
I did not say the creation accounts in Genesis are a "Mesopotamian myth". I said they use the imagery of “Mesopotamian myths”, that the original audiences were well aquainted with, and rearranged these themes to bring across some very unique theological points which challenge and reject Mesopotamian religious views. As far as I’m aware of even fundamentalist evangelicals agree that to properly interpret scripture one must understand the historical and cultural context in which a particular passage of Scripture was originally written. Of course that can’t be done, if you reject any scholarly work on that historical and cultural context.
So IMHO you thoroughly misunderstand both the hermeneutic principle of interpreting scripture by scripture and the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, if you think it means that you never ever must read anything but Scripture. (Please remember that even Paul himself used literature other than the Tanakh when trying to explain Christian faith to Gentiles (Acts 17:16-34).)
Also you thoroughly misunderstand the purposes for which Gen. 1 and 2 were written, if you hold these texts to be essays on natural history. If you read them as such you may as well not just reject evolution but claim that there isn’t space but water behind that blue sky of ours. But as Galileo famously stated: “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. Reverberating Calvin’s theory of “Accomodation”, John Paul II put it this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer" https://ncse.com/cej/3/1/pope-john-paul-ii-creationism
So if you want to find out how to go to heaven, read the Bible. If you want to find out how the heavens go or how exactly it is that God created this world's species, you’ll have to turn to that other book in which God reveals Himself: the book of nature. IMHO these two books aren’t in conflict. Whenever you perceive such a conflict between the Bible and observable nature it doesn’t mean that the Bible is wrong, but that your take on it is wrong.
Respectfully,
junobet

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry OzPen, but the only red herring I see is you accusing me of using a red herring. Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed that you did not bother to answer my questions concerning Mosaic authorship, but never mind. If there is anything you want me to comment on in your post that I have not yet commented on, please elaborate your questions.

I've explained to you the nature of how you commit red herring fallacies. Your comment here is related to the fact that you do not understand the nature of a red herring logical fallacy and how you commit it.

Please quit your use of red herring fallacies and then we'll have something to work on.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Junobet, After reviewing several articles on this topic I feel this link offers the best understanding of how I feel we should approach scripture.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

 

[junobet]

Hi Junobet, After reviewing several articles on this topic I feel this link offers the best understanding of how I feel we should approach scripture.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

Sorry, Trekson, but I found this article utterly unconvincing.
It starts off with nonsensical assertions about 2 Tim. 3:16 and doesn’t take note of the fact that there was no Biblical canon yet when this Epistle was written. (This Epistle’s intent in the discussions of its time was to assert that the Christian God was the same as the God of Israel in the Jewish Tanakh and that the Jewish Tanakh prophesized about Christ.) Then your article goes on with even worse conjecture about other supposed ‘prooftexts’ for verbal inspiration. As I see it, the notion of verbal inspiration is utterly unbiblical, in fact it contradicts scripture as it presents itself. For example I deem it extremely unlikely that God dictated eloquent Greek on one day to Luke and broken Greek on another to Mark.
Also the article very much misrepresents the churchfathers’ views on inspiration: They surely believed in divine inspiration and Biblical inerrancy, but their views were nothing like the views some Protestants developed on verbal inspiration from the 17th century onwards, let alone like those that got promulgated in the “five fundamentals” in 20th century America. These Protestants prefer a literal reading of Scripture. But – and here we are again at the point at which I entered this thread - Augustine thought Biblical Scripture was utterly daft until Ambrose taught him not to read it literally but allegorically. Also it’s not as if Augustine totally denied Scripture’s human limitations:
“Michael Cameron, a specialist on Augustine’s reception of Scripture, contends that, while Augustine recognized Scripture as divinely inspired, he did not believe Scripture to be a simple transcription of God’s words. Thus, Cameron not only contends that Augustine revered Scripture as divinely inspired, but also writes that, “For Augustine, God’s majesty surpasses the Scriptures…Scripture uses human authors and words, and it features the same rhetorical devices that are found in all discourse: figures of speech, staged dialogues, and shifting verb tenses.”3 Augustine certainly presented the Bible as God’s Word, both to his congregation and in his bitter polemical struggles with those he deemed heterodox. Yet, Augustine nuanced his perspective by recognizing that Scripture’s human authors acted under divine inspiration, but their writings, expressed in mere human words, could not fully encapsulate God’s infinite nature.” (Robert A, Ziegler: Augustine of Hippo’s Doctrine of Scripture: Christian Exegesis in Late Antiquity)
I can imagine how the modern Evangelical belief in verbal inspiration can provide comfort in this world’s uncertainties. However even if one – against all biblical evidence to the contrary – believes in Biblical inerrancy, one is still left with the problem that none of us is inerrant when trying to make sense of the Bible. Sorry to the Catholics out there: but not even the Pope. So please at least consider the possibility that you might just be terribly wrong when interpreting the Bible, and cut yourself off from 21th century science and what it tells us about God’s amazing creation for no good reason at all.
And in the interest of all those well-educated sceptics out there, to whom views such as yours are a stumbling block, I (again) ask modern-day creationists to heed the ancient warnings that Augustine gave in his commentary on Genesis:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

 

[StanJ]

Sorry, Trekson, but I found this article utterly unconvincing.
It starts off with nonsensical assertions about 2 Tim. 3:16 and doesn’t take note of the fact that there was no Biblical canon yet when this Epistle was written.

Well I did, but given your disposition I really am not surprised you didn't accept it. FYI, 2 Timothy 3:16 was written by a Pharisee who had studied scripture all his life. He knew that scripture was inspired and he knew that what he and his contemporaries were writing was inspired and considerate scripture. I'm really surprised that you don't understand that Paul was referring to the Old Testament here and Peter confirmed that both himself and Paul were writing scripture. Maybe you should actually do some research yourself into the subject instead of taking other people's opinions on face value without knowing the issue?

 

[Trekson]

Hi Junobet, Here is a quote from the article: “Inerrancy doesn’t mean every extant copy is inerrant. It is important to understand that the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts.” That means no one is saying the KJV, for example, is inerrant. There could be translational errors, punctuation errors. The original manuscripts had no verses or chapters, so their later placement could be wrong which can lead to an inaccurate understanding when things are taken out of their full context. That is why we need to depend upon the HS over our intelligence to get a thorough understanding of what God wants us to know.

That is what the article is implying but I don’t necessarily agree with verbal inspiration to the point that God “dictated” what He wanted written. I believe the bible to be a factual, truthful and historically accurate account of what God wants us to know especially in regard to the accepted essential doctrines that need to be understood and the history of the world and how we got to where we are today. Imo, to be divinely inspired simply means that God revealed to men via the HS what truths He wanted us to know and they used their own style and words to get that truth across.

So to sum up, I choose to believe the bible to be God’s word to us and I have faith in the God AND in the WORD which is the way He decided to reveal His plan to us. Rom. 3:4 says, “Let God be true and every man a liar…” To have faith in God and in His word means that regardless of circumstances, scientific “evidence”, academia, etc. even our very own eyes, we believe the bible over all or any of that. What greater weapon could the devil use then to create doubt about the word of God?

You apparently decide to look at the Word with skepticism and I choose to look at the Word with faith. One leads us closer to truth and the other doesn’t. The bible overwhelmingly teaches us to choose faith even when it doesn’t make any apparent sense. That is what faith means. Are we to assume you declare yourself a Christian? If so, what part of your faith are you willing to die for? We know there is a great “apostasy” coming, so what would it take to put you over the edge into full fledge denial of Christ and His word? Perhaps, they’ll find a body some day and “prove” through DNA that it was Christ or maybe aliens will stop by and say they’ve traveled the universe and found no evidence of God, would either of those do it? Maybe, if you passed those tests, are you willing to risk watching your loved ones die from starvation over accepting a “mark” that would allow you to buy food? If you are ready to pass all those tests how much farther is it to accept that scientific evidence might be wrong? That our limited human understanding is being manipulated by satanic beings bent on proving everything we know and accept about God is wrong!

You also seem to put great store in what the ECF think. Why? We have that same HS to reveal the truths of God. Just because they are considered an ECF doesn’t mean they were right about everything or had more knowledge than we do. They were just as capable to being “way off base” as we are. Personally, I prefer present day truths as revealed by the HS over historical opinions unless they are actually part of scripture.

 

[junobet]

Well I did, but given your disposition I really am not surprised you didn't accept it. FYI, 2 Timothy 3:16 was written by a Pharisee who had studied scripture all his life. He knew that scripture was inspired and he knew that what he and his contemporaries were writing was inspired and considerate scripture. I'm really surprised that you don't understand that Paul was referring to the Old Testament here and Peter confirmed that both himself and Paul were writing scripture. Maybe you should actually do some research yourself into the subject instead of taking other people's opinions on face value without knowing the issue?

??? What on earth are you on about, Stan?

Do you even realize that you basically agree with the very point I was making here? 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the Old Testament. It can’t possibly refer to the NewTestament, because there was no canonized New Testament yet, when this Epistle was written.
Did Paul predict that there would be a New Testament and that some of his own occasional letters would become part of this Sacred Scripture? Very unlikely. He thought that the end was nigh.

If you want to talk about the authorship of the Pastoral Letters, that are widely considered to be pseudoepigraphs: Even though I do have the “Graecum” (a certificate for proficiency in ancient Greek) and even though I am acquainted with the basic methodologies of textual criticism and can at least understand the given arguments, I’m certainly not versed enough in this field to make any meaningful contribution to this discussion myself. And – no offense meant – I’m pretty sure you are even less of an expert than I am. A letter, whose Pauline authorship is utterly uncontested, gives very good advice for us both, Stan: “Do not think that you are wiser than you really are.” (Rom. 12:16b)

 

[junobet]

Hi Junobet, Here is a quote from the article: “Inerrancy doesn’t mean every extant copy is inerrant. It is important to understand that the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts.” That means no one is saying the KJV, for example, is inerrant. There could be translational errors, punctuation errors. The original manuscripts had no verses or chapters, so their later placement could be wrong which can lead to an inaccurate understanding when things are taken out of their full context.

You may be glad to hear that all evidence points to it that all in all the Biblical texts have been passed on to us with remarkable accuracy. Most differences between the available manuscripts are minor and utterly irrelevant to the texts' meaning. None of the differences touches any basic doctrine.

That is why we need to depend upon the HS over our intelligence to get a thorough understanding of what God wants us to know.

That is what the article is implying but I don’t necessarily agree with verbal inspiration to the point that God “dictated” what He wanted written. I believe the bible to be a factual, truthful and historically accurate account of what God wants us to know especially in regard to the accepted essential doctrines that need to be understood and the history of the world and how we got to where we are today. Imo, to be divinely inspired simply means that God revealed to men via the HS what truths He wanted us to know and they used their own style and words to get that truth across.

So to sum up, I choose to believe the bible to be God’s word to us and I have faith in the God AND in the WORD which is the way He decided to reveal His plan to us. Rom. 3:4 says, “Let God be true and every man a liar…” To have faith in God and in His word means that regardless of circumstances, scientific “evidence”, academia, etc. even our very own eyes, we believe the bible over all or any of that. What greater weapon could the devil use then to create doubt about the word of God?

You apparently decide to look at the Word with skepticism and I choose to look at the Word with faith. One leads us closer to truth and the other doesn’t. The bible overwhelmingly teaches us to choose faith even when it doesn’t make any apparent sense. That is what faith means. Are we to assume you declare yourself a Christian? If so, what part of your faith are you willing to die for? We know there is a great “apostasy” coming, so what would it take to put you over the edge into full fledge denial of Christ and His word? Perhaps, they’ll find a body some day and “prove” through DNA that it was Christ or maybe aliens will stop by and say they’ve traveled the universe and found no evidence of God, would either of those do it? Maybe, if you passed those tests, are you willing to risk watching your loved ones die from starvation over accepting a “mark” that would allow you to buy food? If you are ready to pass all those tests how much farther is it to accept that scientific evidence might be wrong? That our limited human understanding is being manipulated by satanic beings bent on proving everything we know and accept about God is wrong!

You also seem to put great store in what the ECF think. Why? We have that same HS to reveal the truths of God. Just because they are considered an ECF doesn’t mean they were right about everything or had more knowledge than we do. They were just as capable to being “way off base” as we are. Personally, I prefer present day truths as revealed by the HS over historical opinions unless they are actually part of scripture.

Trekson, Jesus Christ is the Word = logos = reason of God. Faith is not just for stupid people, but ought to be utterly compatible with our God-given reason.

And as much as I’m glad to hear that you don’t really believe God dictated the Bible, I wonder why you speak of “verbal inspiration” then. Is it possible you never ever bothered to think your beliefs through? It all sounds very inconsistent to me.

Now, believe it or not, but while it is far from me to mutate it into a fourth person in the Trinity, I love the Bible. That’s why I want to get an ever better understanding. And rather than weakening my faith in Christ academic Bible study has strengthened it.

I’ve got so much love for these ancient writings that it pains me when people make an utter travesty of them just to make them fit their 20th century fundamentalist doctrine. It’s not faith that makes one burying one’s head in the sand, it’s fear.

The Bible itself points us to it that it is not inerrant. And IMHO that’s great: I’d never believe in the resurrection, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Gospels give differing witness accounts about it. Otherwise any criminologist would think the story was fixed. Does it matter to us whether the stone was still in front of the grave or already rolled away when the woman/the women arrived? Not at all.
Should you ever put your own creationist doctrine’s goggles off for a moment and open your eyes to Genesis 1-2, considering genre and historical setting, you’ll find powerful poetry followed by insightful prose: Two different texts giving very different orders of creation, certainly not being bothered with scientific explanations whatsoever, but both conveying deep spiritual truths about the one God, this world’s relationship with him, our need for relationship with each other and creation as a whole.

You apparently decide to look at the Word with skepticism and I choose to look at the Word with faith. One leads us closer to truth and the other doesn’t. The bible overwhelmingly teaches us to choose faith even when it doesn’t make any apparent sense. That is what faith means. Are we to assume you declare yourself a Christian? If so, what part of your faith are you willing to die for? We know there is a great “apostasy” coming, so what would it take to put you over the edge into full fledge denial of Christ and His word? Perhaps, they’ll find a body some day and “prove” through DNA that it was Christ or maybe aliens will stop by and say they’ve traveled the universe and found no evidence of God, would either of those do it? Maybe, if you passed those tests, are you willing to risk watching your loved ones die from starvation over accepting a “mark” that would allow you to buy food? If you are ready to pass all those tests how much farther is it to accept that scientific evidence might be wrong? That our limited human understanding is being manipulated by satanic beings bent on proving everything we know and accept about God is wrong!

You also seem to put great store in what the ECF think. Why? We have that same HS to reveal the truths of God. Just because they are considered an ECF doesn’t mean they were right about everything or had more knowledge than we do. They were just as capable to being “way off base” as we are. Personally, I prefer present day truths as revealed by the HS over historical opinions unless they are actually part of scripture.

Oh please, Trekson! Again you are mistaking insult for argument. And again I don’t feel insulted on my own behalf (God knows whether I’d be braver than Peter or not), but on behalf of those in my Church who did indeed die for their discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer – also an admirer of Karl Barth’s theology - is just one that you may have heard of.
Face it: you haven’t got a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

You also seem to put great store in what the ECF think. Why? We have that same HS to reveal the truths of God. Just because they are considered an ECF doesn’t mean they were right about everything or had more knowledge than we do. They were just as capable to being “way off base” as we are. Personally, I prefer present day truths as revealed by the HS over historical opinions unless they are actually part of scripture.

This time I mentioned the Churchfathers because the very article you quoted misleadingly cited them as support for its doctrine of verbal inspiration.

While I have a lot of respect for them, I thoroughly agree with you that they weren’t right about everything. But if you don’t even know what they believed, you’ll never realize how many of your own beliefs you just hold because of the churchfather’s long-lasting influence on Christianity: the Trinity, original sin, free will, the already mentioned creatio ex nihilo … one would not necessarily see those things in the Bible, had Augustine and co. not taught Christianity how to read them into it. Pray the Nicene Creed as wholeheartedly as I do? That was formulated by the Church fathers in 325 AD. And – last but not least - where did you get the Bible from in the first place? It was the Churchfathers who eventually agreed on the first New Testament Canons, and who decided which texts should be in the Bible and which texts should not be in there. So, while we may question the Churchfathers in many issues, we should not underestimate these old fellows’ inspiration out of mere vanity concerning our own unreflected ‘present day truths’..

 

[OzSpen]

junobet,

You wrote to Trekson,

It seems to me that you are ignorant of a fundamental of systematic theology in this statement.

And as much as I’m glad to hear that you don’t really believe God dictated the Bible, I wonder why you speak of “verbal inspiration” then. Is it possible you never ever bothered to think your beliefs through? It all sounds very inconsistent to me.

Verbal, plenary inspiration is common language in systematic theology to demonstrate that the Bible is inspired. Verbal means that every word is inspired and plenary refers to all of the Bible being fully authoritative.

• Irenaeus wrote: 'The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [i.e. Christ] and His Spirit' (Against Heresies, 2.28.2).

• Jerome supported the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible with his statement that 'the individual sayings, syllables, phonetic markings, and punctuations in divine Scripture are filled with meanings' - which I think is using hyperbole (Patrologia Latina, ed. J P Migne, vol 26, p. 481, cited in Gordon D. Lewis & Bruce A Demarest 1987. Integrative Theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, p. 136).

• The defense of the verbal inspiration of the canonical Scriptures was promoted by Augustine of Hippo. He supported the position that the biblical authors write using their own mind and initiative at the command of Christ, but 'For I confess to your charity that I have learned to defer this respect and honor to those Scriptural Books only which are now called canonical, that I believe most firmly that not one of these authors has erred in any respect in writing' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82.3).

• Augustine claimed that the authority of Scripture extended to discussions on natural science and history and by virtue of divine inspiration, Scripture is endowed with indisputable authority. His language was that 'Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold' (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.37.1).

I suggest to you that it is not Trekson who is in error about the nature of verbal inspiration but that junobet needs to be brought up to speed about the nature of the Bible's verbal, plenary inspiration as articulated in systematic theology. Trekson is spot on in support of the Bible's verbal inspiration.

See Wayne Jackson, 'Are the Scriptures "verbally" inspired?'

Oz

 

[ezekiel]

I would think that creations of God are not only as the Spirit says, but also prophecy. I would think that not only ever lasting ago creation became from Gods word but also prophecy of earth for the Spirit is prophecy. For He is speaking of what was done, and what will be done in earth as in heaven. For in six days all was created.

John 1:12
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:




Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

So we see that the Christ has made us in His likeness that we were made to be called the sons of God. We also see that others also were called the same. Even as I read the book of Ezekiel I see two Israels, the ones of old, ancient, even the one of this world. Even the things God created that they changed as Ezekiel 8 speaks of.

10 So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about.

Moreover the Lord has created a possible thousands of worlds that He has placed man on. For God change not He is the same now as then.

 

[kerwin]

Whoever is concerned,

Young Earthers assume that the Night and Day spoken of in Genesis is a earth Night and Day even though earth did not have a night and day until the Forth Night and Day. That is a false assumption as that idea breaks Scripture unless you also assume Genesis 1 is not a literal account. The later assumption is itself contrary to the Young Earther's doctrine.

I favor the idea that Genesis is God laying out his plans and Genesis 2 is more of account of how things occurred.

I primary evidence support this conclusion is that even though God saw the vegetation grow and fill the earth in Genesis 1 it did not actually come up until after it rained in Genesis 2.

If I remember correctly, Philo of Alexander had a similar view 2000 or so years ago.