ChristiansUnite Forums

I've been noticing of late many people who discredit scripture due to what they have observed in the world around them.  There seems to be an overwhelming belief that if it cannot be matched up with our physical universe, be scrutinized by mankind, or be unchallenged as just one's interpretation or opinion, then it must not be literal.  Many who hold to this, will even dogmatically bring up how the literal approach to God's word is faulty, neglecting to realize the contextual, literal, and grammatical criteria that any approach to God's word should entail.

I've noticed in times past how we've argued over the versions we use, but are we willing to argue together over the authority of scripture?  Are we willing to attribute the absolute nature of that word, to that word?  We argue, but do we join behind the very sword we've been given to carry?

Why do I post this?  Because I've come to the conclusion that it is the veracity, the validity of God's very word that is being challenged here of late.  Personally that angers me; partially because I have a similar approach when I see something in it that steps on my proverbial toes, and partially because the fool-hardy wisdom that I see claimed inspite of God's given wisdom in scripture.

What then do the very words of God say about themselves?

1.  It is "God-breathed." (2 Tim. 3:16)
2.  It is profitable for what is right, what is wrong, how to get it right, and how to keep it right.  (2 Tim. 3:16)
3.  It equips us unto good works.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
4.  It has a role in our sanctification.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
5.  It is living and active. (Heb. 4:12)
6.  It is sharper than any 2-edged sword cutting to the heart of every matter. (Heb. 4:12)
7.  It is the discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Heb. 4:12)

It can be our light, our joy, our delight in a world that goes completely opposite of everything that we find within it's pages.  Sadly, many fail to see that opposition clearly.  

Well, I'm onna dem fundy loonies, that takes it literally.  
"God said it, that's it".

You assume that everyone starts from the assumption that scripture is all literally true, and then reject that view because it contradicts reason.  While this is undoubtably true of many, it is also possible to start from the view that scripture is only necessarly literally true in matters of faith, and then see reason and science as offering evidence to support that view.

What?  Why?

I assume this bit doesn't apply to me. :)



All matters of faith, so no problem for me there.   :)

See it in different places, perhaps.

How quaint   ::)

That's where we disagree Ebia.  I do not view scripture as true because I can prove it elsewhere.  I view it as true because God said it is true in His word.  You state that many (and I believe I've heard you claim this for yourself before as well) believe that scripture is literally true in matters of faith, but use reason and science to lend credence to it.  Is that then faith?  What is faith?


Faith is assurance in something we hope for.  It is a conviction of something not seen.  If I have something I can see, do I need faith that it exists?  While I'm sure you will apply this elsewhere, let's just park it here for a minute.  If God said that He has done something as is seen in His word, but the evidence of that act is unseen, is it any less valid or credible without reason or evidence to support it?  


Simply that if you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then creation took place in 6 days at the word of the Lord, for example.  You will deny this passage as allegorical.  If you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then you would see that the law is something that we are not under, but is nontheless condemning.  Practices of worship are different than condemnation of practices of sin.  We are not under the law for worship, but can be guilty of the law in sin.  But I may open a bag of worms with this one that neither of us wants to open for John the Baptist!   ;D  Point being that if it is called sin, without reference to worship, then it is nontheless sin.  A non-literal, contextual, and grammatical approach leaves it up to the reader to determine the necessity of adherence.


Nope!  Think we agreed there!  :D


I think I know what you mean here, but rather than state my viewpoint in ignorance of what you might be saying...please clarify?

Where did He say it is literally, scientifically and historically true?

You misunderstand me.
I didn't mean that reason and science lend credence to the idea that it is true in matters of faith.  I meant that they lend credence to the idea that it is not always accurate in matters of history and science.


I'm assuming this is no longer relevent, given my correction of your misunderstanding above.

So how is wearing mixed fibres a matter of worship?

's nice to have something to agree on  :)


I think I know what you mean here, but rather than state my viewpoint in ignorance of what you might be saying...please clarify?
That our priorities are grossly wrong.   That the sins of two people in a caring, monogomous, homosexual relationship (if it is sin) is nothing compared to the sins of allowing - perpetuating even - the increadible inequity in the world

Where did He say it wasn't?  It is presumed that the believer believes!  No venom here.  Just making a point.


And why?  Because you approach God's word from what history and science have already told you.  And they, after all, could never be wrong right?  Therefore, it must be that God wasn't speaking historically, or scientifically, but rather on a matter of faith.  Let's park on that logic for a minute.  God wasn't speaking historically or scientifically.  He's speaking on a matter of faith!  How then can we have faith in anything He has just said if it is untrue?  You yourself agreed that God is truth.  If He said it, and it is contextually, literally, and grammatically relayed, but is not true, then He lied.  We can deliver it as spiritualized as we want but the implication is not missed by those who do not believe in God to begin with.  Again, do we bend God's word to fit what we believe or bend what we believe to fit God's word.  Is God, afterall, truth?


If you want, I'll go home and break out all of my study material on O.T. Law practices pointing to the worship of the coming Savior...or we can suffice to say that if God says don't engage in homosexual acts in one phrase, and wear mixed fibers in the next, that these are drastically different concepts.


Yup!  :D


Again, we stray from a scriptural understanding of sin.  Earlier you made the point that people shouldn't be rating this sin greater than others, as there actually are others and we actually commit them.  I agree!  However, what you rightly stated then, you backtracked on here.  Homosexuality is no worse than lying as far as God is concerned.  Sin is sin.  Yet there are indications from scripture that cultures seeped in this practice have gone beyond the redemption the believer can provide.  Their concern (some of them that is) isn't with condemning the homosexual, but in showing the condemnation these homosexuals will inevitably bring upon our nation.

Here again, Ebia, you are playing God. Who are any of us to say God's word isn't true? Trying to prove the bible's truth or untruth using fallible scientific methods is ludicrous. Your time would be far better spent in trying to understand the MEANING behind his words rather than to discount what He is telling us. If God says something, then IT'S TRUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND IT. As one then tries to understand His meaning, then what once seemed impossible then seems possible. I again sense a resistance in you to submission to God. What evidence is there that ANYTHING, whether historical or scientific, in the bible is false? And, if there is evidence, it is MAN'S evidence which is by its very nature, fallible. Why do you prefer to hang onto man's evidence?

You are putting words into my mouth.  I haven't said God's word isn't true, I've said that it isn't intended to be taken as scientifically or historically accurate.
Huge difference.
No-one has so far offered any evidence that God intends it to be taken as scientifically or historically accurate.


More straw men.

And more.  You're missing the point entirely.

This has been a good topic.
What I have a real problem with are people who want to believe part of God's Word, but not other parts.
To me, the Word of God is either 100% true and accurate, or else we cannot put our faith in any of it.
We may not understand some of it, but that does not make it not true. And we all may differ in our interpretation of this or that scripture, but we still believe it to be 100% true and accurate.  And time and time again, when science has said this or that was not possible, archeology has proven the Bible true. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.  Amen.

I guess the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Where is it written that the bible isn't intended to be historically or scientifically accurate? If it's the truth then why wouldn't it be historically or scientifically accurate? You're contradicting yourself.

Your repeated assertions that other people are missing the point indicates that the point is pretty obscure. Or maybe you're not sure enough of the point to make it clear.

Do you accept that the bible does not state that it is historically and scientifically accurate then?

If the bible is silent on an issue, then I have to look outside of the bible for the answer.  The bible doesn't tell me what times the trains leave in the morning, so I check the timetable.  The bible doesn't tell me what the readings are going to be in church next sunday, so I check a lectionary.
...

Of course, I could argue that there IS internal evidence that it is not scientifically or historically accurate in the form of the contradictions within it.

or any one or more of:
a.  I'm not explaining it well
b   People are stupid
c   People don't want to hear what I have to say
d   People don't want to have their preconceptions challenged
e   People don't want to have to think.
f   anyone of a number of other possibilities.    

"If the bible is silent on an issue, then I have to look outside of the bible for the answer.  The bible doesn't tell me what times the trains leave in the morning, so I check the timetable.  The bible doesn't tell me what the readings are going to be in church next sunday, so I check a lectionary."

Why is the Bible defined by us as the end all of the Word of God?  Is not the Word of God just that... the Word of God?  

For instance, when you first came to believe in the grace of God, was it the Bible that led you to believe or was it the Word of God?  Why must the two be synonymous when the Bible itself is not a "Biblical" term?

As for the Word of God being both historically and scientifically valid, the evidences of that are quite blatant in parallelled history books that record the life of those in Scripture.  History acknowledges that Israel was enslaved by Egypt and was led through the wilderness by Moses and Aaron.  History acknowledges that Saul of Tarsus was a zealot for the Law of Moses and went through a dramatic HISTORICAL change that altered the remainder of his life and that which he did.  These things are accounted for outside of God's Word, but yet you suggest that it can only be historical when we want it to be historical.  Perhaps I misunderstood you.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

Ebia,God reveals to us ONLY what He wants us to know. It isn't concerned with the "how"s or all it would be is a listing of times, dates, explanations of how things happened, etc. It is concerned with the why's. But, all the things in the bible DID happen. You yourself said the bible is true so you must believe the events stated in the bible did happen. If they did happen, then they are historically and scientifically accurate. If you see contradictions in the bible then you are not understanding it. Why would the people who wrote the bible have to say it's true? Would they write it because they believe it's a lie? Even if it is stated in the bible somewhere that it's all true, would that make it more believable? Why?

I really have not heard any explanations of your points, only challenges of other people's points. So no, you are not explaining yourself at all.

Ebia,

Sorry to take so long and miss this debate!  Anywho...


Let me just ask this question Ebia, which came first?  Science or God?  God, obviously.  It is unique that the bible begins, not with the creation, but with God.  "In the beginning God..."  I believe we often skip to the creation part, negating that God sets His groundwork for all of man's observation, and subsequent faith, or lack thereof, on His preexistence.  He doesn't need to give the groundwork of scientific observation to prove that He did what He said, nor does He need to allegorize the process.  He was before what was made.  And He says He made it in six days.  There is a grammatical assertion found there that leaves no room for gaps, or other assertions called the "waw consecutive."  It implies step by step, immediate acts, not prolonged or set up in any other fashion.  God presets His existence, then states that He made things in a daily consecutive fashion over a 6 day period.  Which came first?  God or science?  You say that science calls God a liar since it doesn't agree with the creation account.  Who then is wrong?  God?  Or man?  I realize that you allegoricalize this passage to ease your mind in accepting it.  Many do.  But again, their presupposition is that we must look to science and history to determine the validity of scripture.  This is a faulty approach to God's Word.


That God said, in the context of scripture, in a literal fashion with grammatic support that this is what He did.  Now, there are times, as you have stated, that He uses a parable or a story to teach us something.  This is contextual in nature.  Did these people literally exist?  Who knows?  The point is the story.  However, when it is not presented in that format, but is presented as a fact (such as creation), to assume that this is meant to be understood in the same fashion as the parable of the Good Samaritan is equally absurd.  When I read in Tolkien's Return of the King, and I see how Pippen is carried to Minas Tirith on the back of Shadowfax along with Gandalf, I don't need to speculate if they rode on the back of a semi to get there.  Why?  Because contextually, it is not presented as such.  I understand the the two pieces are entirely different.  What I don't understand, is how someone can choose to approach on piece in the correct manner of logical, reasonable reading, and another in such a careless fashion.  The only recourse or purpose is to reckon scripture with their preconceived notions.  You brought up that this is what we are doing.  I contend.  We do so from a contextual, literal, and grammatical approach to scripture.  You, do not.  You approach scripture from without, attempting to marry those concepts that are apparently in opposition to scripture, to scripture in a hope of making it fit somehow.  It is either incorrect, or you are.  Again, Who came first?  God?  Or man?  Where do we put our trust?  If the creation points to something opposite of what God has said in His word, then it must be our observations of that creation that are faulty, not the word of God.


Most clear, if you approach it in the fashion I have described.  We are free from the Law, but not to commit the sins condemned therein.  For example, the Law condemns those who commit adultery.  Do we?  No.  And I do believe rightly so by Christ's own example of the woman caught in adultery.  He made the point of everyone of us being as guilty of sin as that poor woman.  But He never said that it wasn't a sin, or that she could freely practice that sin in her christian liberty.  Rather, He told her to "sin no more," contextually, in that fashion.


You make an excellent point!  It is much easier to point out the speck in another's eye while missing the telephone pole in your own!  We all do this.  Many who post on this topic do this.  Many more see, as I have said, the dangers of such a society.  When it is acceptable in the governing body of a society, historically - according to scripture - that society fell into judgment.  Did they fall into judgment just because of that?  Doubtful.  It's interesting how most sins don't sit by themselves, isn't it?  There are always more lying in wait, that become inevitably easier to commit the harder our hearts get.  When a society is so hardened as to call this wrong right, then how far have the strayed?  And how close to judgment should they be?  It's more of a barometer as it were.

But again it ALWAYS comes down to something much more simple that many refuse to believe.


Children faithfully trust their parents.  How much more then should one Trust their Father, the LORD Jesus Christ?

They're not.  The Word of God is Christ.

I never said all of the bible is historically and scientifically wrong in all places, did I?

Phew.  For some reason that reads as though you're dictating it really quickly.

Anyway, it's all based on the assumption that it has to be taken literally.  You can't prove that it does based on the assumption that it does - that's circular reasoning.

Steping back a bit
No He doesn't need to do anything. But He has left us evidence of how he created everything, and how His creation works, and that evidence is incompatible with a 6 day creation.  Either He is lying through creation, or Genesis is myth.


Neither.  You are.  Well, I guess that's man, but not the men you meant.

Assuming scripture is meant to be science is the faulty approach.


Ok, that's what I thought, but I wanted to check.


Likewise with Genesis.



Who decides which bits are presented as fact, and which as parable.  The culture who wrote Genesis/for whom Genesis was originally written would not have distinguished between historical fact and myth, as is evident by looking at the myth and history of similar cultures.


You don't assume it is a true story though.

I'm a bit lost with your external references here.  Ie, what of the above are you refering to?

 
If I've understood what you mean by that, then it seem like a passable summary.


This is a parody of my view of things.

The bible isn't faulty; you're reading it in a way that it was never meant to be read.

That wasn't the point I wasn't the point I was making here, but lets leave this bit for now rather than get bogged down.

I'm assuming that the first part of this statement is a question and will answer accordingly.  Who?  God!  How can we know?  By reading it with a certain amount of logic.  If the passage says such and such, and that has not been presented as a story for our benefit, then it must be such and such.

As for the culture that wrote Genesis...it wasn't a culture that wrote Genesis - it was Moses.  The culture from which Moses came was most unique in the world of that day.  Yes they borrowed social practices, but their faith was an entirely different matter.

The cultures of the day were polytheistic.  Israel was monotheistic.  The cultures of the day supposed much concerning the origins of man, earth, etc., and presented their suppositions in myth form.  Israel had a written record, not presented as a "maybe," but as fact.  When a Jew of the day read this passage, they saw One God, Who made heaven and earth.  They did not theorize as to the method of that creation, but took the words for what they say - a normal method of reading any material.  Taking other cultures approaches to myth and fable cannot be evidence for the Jewish mindset.  I'm American.  Therefore I must hate Jews because the Germans in the past hated the Jews.  Faulty logic.


It isn't?  ;D  I jest...


I'm simply saying that when people read a biography, or a book of fiction, they don't sit there looking for the allegorical representation of the story - true or fictional.  When it says that so-and-so was born on July 15, 1898, then I don't need to presuppose that this could actually mean that they were born on December 2, 1003.  Such an approach would be considered ludicrous.  Yet such is the approach many take to the bible.  If it cannot be explained, then it is explained away as allegory - a story for our benefit.  What benefit is there?  God expresses to us throughout the scriptures of our need for His redemptive work.  But according to those who hold to your opinion of the scripture, that need is based upon a story.  There is no truth.  There is fiction.  You then must put your faith in fiction.


Upon what authority can you make this claim?  It isn't something found in scripture, so then it must be your own, logical suppositions.  Your authority.  Do you see anything wrong with this?

This is just going in circles.

So unless someone has anything different to add that I feel I should comment on, I've said my piece.

Funny isn't it, how God will continue to take you over the same ground until you get what He's trying to tell you?  :)

ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works.

I suppose this one here goes right out the window for some people.   :-[

"...instruction in righteousness."   not "... in science"

Last I checked science means knowledge:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding


Oh so that means we leave out the rest of the "for's" eh?   ::)

That's not the definition in any of my dictionaries, except as an archaic meaning.


Are you being obtuse, or trolling?

The word "science" comes from the latin verb "scire" meaning "to know". People equate the word "science" with knowledge. Otherwise, why do they think that science proves anything? If people didn't think it was knowledge, then they wouldn't even use it to try to prove the bible is factual.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Trolling?  Trolling, you're asking me if I'm trolling, while you ignore most of a verse of scripture.  please

The word has changed to mean a particular subset of knowledge, and the methodology behind that knowledge.

So why do we continue to seek scientific proof of things when science isn't considered factual?

Quite frankly, if what I meant there isn't obvious, I can't see the point in explaining it further, suffice to say that I'm not throwing away anything.

On the other point, buy a decent dictionary?

Did you read what I just wrote, or did you just make something up?  ::)

Frankly, Ebia, you opinions just contradict themselves anyway.

Do you guys realize that you throw so many pot shots at each other that eventually, anyone who happens to come along to read the topic hasn't the slightest idea what is being said?  

Take the last two comments for instance:

"Did you read what I just wrote, or did you just make something up?"  (Irritation)

Followed up by:

"Frankly, Ebia, your opinions just contradict themselves anyway."  

Wow.  You guys really help to make a conversation productive, don't you?  The topic begins on the concept of God's Word and it somehow wanders into "You don't make sense anyways, so why do you even bother talking?"

Now, to be honest, I really get a kick out of Ebia for one reason and one reason only.  He pushes the boundaries of what people believe.  But unfortunately, the degredation that he seems to face day in and day out for his alleged ungodliness is the same ungodliness that is slammed back in his face.  "You don't listen.  You don't this.  You don't that."  What kind of obligations do you expect of people in a discussion?  

Thus far, at least as I've scanned the introducing posts in each thread, I notice that Ebia seems to at least provide his point of view (however you may agree or disagree) and then get barraged with the most illogical backlash of conversation.  Perhaps all of you have seen him (or her) around other conversations are just plain sick of seeing his name in each dialogue, but for those of us who happen to just enjoy seeing productive dialogue, the constant badgering of one specific individual seems quite the waste of a forum entitled, "Christians Unite."

Truly, when I open up a conversation, I hope to see something that either makes me think or gives me reason to hopefully offer limited insight... anything else... such as the bogus that seems to show up in nearly EVERY thread around these forums... well, it really leaves me little to offer or profit.  

Imagine being in a room where two parents are supposedly discussing the pros and cons of the youngest child moving out at age 17.  You, as an adult, walk into the room and hear this...

"You never listen to me!"

"Well you don't listen to me!"

"Shut up!"

"He can leave if he wants to!"

"Fine!  I never said that he couldn't!"

"Yes you did!  You said you don't care!"

"That's not what I said, I said..."

Do you see it?  Lack of productivity.  Wasted words.  Not to mention, when its literally face to face... its a waste of breath and energy. ;)

I love to see productive and cordial debate, but constant badgering of opposition really feeds no progress toward the goal of developing communication.

There.  I said my peace. :)

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

I have just received so many snide remarks from Ebia, that after awhile i lose my patience. I probably shouldn't even resond to him/her any more. I have been accused of being bigoted and hateful at homosexuals even though I have told her that they are just as forgiven as I or the rest of us. I have never received even a hint of a loving response from Ebia. Ebia is the only person on this forum who has not responded kindly. It takes a saint to always reply kindly back. Even when i do respond kindly, it's rebutted. Jesus said not to throw pearls where they will be trampled on. That's  probably my only option in dealing with Ebia.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The Israelites of Moses'  day were henotheistic. They believed in the existence of other gods, but that Yahweh was the most powerful God.

If you check, I did not say that science was not factual, what I said was that science is a sub-set of knowledge.  Ie not all knowledge is science.

No.  That is not incorrect.  I wasn't stating the failures of the Israelites, when they did worship such gods as Baal and Ashteroth.  I was stating the faithful times.  The worship of Yahweh was monotheistic, which stood out in a world of polytheism.  At their best, they were monotheistic.  One God.