God's Word

[Heidi]

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.

[Allinall]

Ebia,

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

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

Where did He say it wasn't?  It is presumed that the believer believes!  No venom here.  Just making a point.
 
Believes what.  I see nothing in scripture that implies He intends anyone to believe it is all scientifically true.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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?

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.
 
 

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.  
 

The weight of scientific evidence against a scientifically true Genesis is so overwhelming, the chance of it all being wrong "by mistake" is vanishingly small.  The only alternative to Genesis not being scientifically true is that creation is lying, and that make the creator a liar. But, as I've said, I see no reason why I should take Genesis to be scientifically true.

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.

what, exactly, do you mean by "contextually, literally and grammatically relayed"?

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.

so the distinction between what we keep and what we do not isn't clear at all, is it?

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.

In practice, though, we do make a distinction all the time between, say, shouting at someone and murdering them.  Being consistant on this point seems to be impossible for anyone less than God.

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.

[Saved_4ever]

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

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

Mat 18:3  And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

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

[ebia]

"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?

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

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.

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

[ebia]

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?  

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

He doesn't need to give the groundwork of scientific observation to prove that He did what He said

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.

You say that science calls God a liar since it doesn't agree with the creation account.  Who then is wrong?  God?  Or man?  

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

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.

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

what, exactly, do you mean by "contextually, literally and grammatically relayed"?

That God said, in the context of scripture, in a literal fashion with grammatic support that this is what He did.

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

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.

Likewise with Genesis.

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.

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.

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.  

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

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.  

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

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.

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

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.  

This is a parody of my view of things.

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.

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

so the distinction between what we keep and what we do not isn't clear at all, is it?

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.

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.

[Allinall]

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.

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.

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

It isn't?    I jest...

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

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.

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

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?

[ebia]

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.

[Allinall]

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?  

[Saved_4ever]

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.  

[ebia]

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"

[Saved_4ever]

Last I checked science means knowledge:

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

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

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

[ebia]

Last I checked science means knowledge:

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

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

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

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

Are you being obtuse, or trolling?

[Heidi]

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.

[Saved_4ever]

Last I checked science means knowledge:

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

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

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

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

Are you being obtuse, or trolling?

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

[ebia]

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.

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