Evidence for God from Science

Mallz wrote:

ELDER POSTERS SMACK DOWN!!!!

get yer popcorn folks, this could get messy

Who are you calling "elder", young whippersnapper?

Just to clear up, I agree with Jac and others that state that the whole "6 literal days" thing is not very important, at least not from a salvation perspective.
I think the issue is basically one of biblical authority and accuracy.
In short, for some (not me), if science has proven that the world/universe was NOT "created" in 6 days but over billions of years, then the bible, IF it was written to MEAN that ( 6 day creation) is wrong and IF it is wrong there, then were else is it wrong?

K, neo, as I was saying . . .

neo-x wrote:Drawing up a Reductio ad absurdum does not help here. That is rather presumptuous of you, since I don't think I have implied such.

With all due respect, everyone thinks that reductios are presumptuous and that they haven't implied the conclusions suggested. That's what makes them what they are--the goal is to show the absurdity of a position when taken to its logical conclusion. The proper response from you isn't to complain about presumptuousness or that you don't hold the conclusions I've suggested. Of course you don't hold those conclusions! But the point of the argument is that your position entails those conclusions, and if you don't hold them, it's just because you aren't being consistent with your stated beliefs.

I don't think my point has been cleared to you. I do think Genesis 1 is inspired, I just don't think its inspired from factual reality. The fact that the author was unaware of the error he was committing, is a minor point. And I am more than certain that moses actually thought of a literal 6 day creation, while also realizing that he was jotting down oral history, sung and learnt by heart from the very ancestors, perhaps one of whom was called Adam.

I was being charitable in my interpretation of your position. You cannot hold that an author was in error and hold to any traditional view of inspiration and inerrancy as those two statements are in direct conflict. All you can do (which you seem to have implied already) is hold a view of inspiration along the lines of holy dictation. But that's not at all what conservative scholars mean when they say that the text is inspired.

Beyond the issue of inspiration, I would also be very, very cautious here about what you are implying (getting to another reductio). The moment you separate authorial intent from the meaning of the text, you are on a one way road to absolute relativism and a postmodern reader-response hermeneutic. A bedrock principle we must adhere to is that the text means what the author intended it to mean, and we cannot try to divide the divine from the human author, either. If the author intended a meaning and it was wrong, then the text is wrong.

And my rejection of 6 day creation is not based on "oh I don't like this part so lets reject it". So far I have not rejected any biblical part on my liking, I only have questioned its divine inspiration in the literal sense. And I have never said its incorrect, only that it is incorrect if you take it factually. I understand the need for a simple story, and some lessons, and perhaps basic tenets of faith being laid down in those words that make up genesis 1.

There is no such thing as a non-literal sense of inspiration. Either the text is inspired or it is not. You can argue that the text was intended by the author to be a myth, that is, that it was not intended to be historical. But if Moses intended to write a historical account of what happened, you can't say that he was in error but that the text is still inspired. Again, those two points are mutually exclusive.

If you are going to be a conservative theistic evolutionist (in the vein of Biologos), you should adopt the position that Moses used the mythology of the day to teach a lesson about the one true God, and that both he and his readers understood that what was being said was not actually historical, but mythical.

Perhaps Jac, I'm looking into it. But I don't remember using the word "million times". It is highly unlike of you but you are misreading me mostly, using terms I haven't used. Perhaps you posted in haste?...anyway.

"million times" is just an American-English catch phrase that means "a lot." You did say that the Bible has been translated and edited a lot, and thus, my phrasing.

We both know that the original manuscripts have been lost, what we have are copies and translations, you are aware that out of the thousands of manuscripts that we have, no two are identical and while this bit is a bit important its not a big problem. I understand that textual criticism helps the process of how we sample out the best reading to put down, but my point earlier was to show exactly that - human intervention is logical, necessary, factually happened and could not possibly be, always divinely inspired. There was no need for it all the time and there is no need today to pull it asa cover over the entire bible. What we have in tact is doctrine, which of course was inspired.

You aren't giving TC its appropriate weight. It is more than a "help" in "the process." When I said we are 99.8% sure that we have the texts as they were originally written, I meant that. The remaining .2% has no doctrinal significance. You would do well to read Daniel Wallace on the value of TC here.

More to your point, appealing to the fact that the autographs have been miscopied and edited does not help your case. There is no doubt that we have the text of Genesis 1 much as, if not exactly as, Moses originally wrote it. So, again, either he said, and meant, that the universe came into existence in six yomim or he didn't. If he did (and yes, he did), then either he was wrong or he wasn't. If he was, then either that part of the text is not inspired or the Bible is not inerrant. If that part of the text is not inspired, then the previous reductio you initially objected to still stands.

Or, you can just argue that Moses was not wrong because he intended to write myth, not historical narrative.

My point is not to say the bible is corrupt, my point was that "inspired by God" bit is being used in the wrong way. There is no need to apply such a term to places where later scribes possibly did patchwork, edited, perhaps simplified, added emphasis, omitted a certain reading to comply to what made best sense to them, there is no need for that to happen by divine inspiration alone. The problem is if we are going to argue "divine inspiration", as being " dictated-perfection, literal to the dot" as some here are arguing, then its an impossible thing to do. Its an illusion to relish, nothing else. And from that position as some argued here (not from mine) the problem is then either the bible is wholly inspired and dictated, or its not dictated at all. Anything else and you fall in my camp; don't agree with me, you have an impossible position to defend.

As noted above, you are exaggerating the impact of this so-called patchwork on the biblical text, and this is all a red herring anyway, because there is absolutely no evidence of any such patchwork of the Genesis creation account. And further, no one argues that divine inspiration is "dictated-perfection." That's a deficient view of inspiration. You are correct about one point, though: if one part of the Bible is incorrect, then we cannot assert that any of it is inspired. That's another reductio that you need to take more seriously.

I am not picking choosing parts to my liking, i think the terms inspiration can not be used to mean factual always in the bible, at least not to places where we have evidence to the contrary, as in the case of Adam and eve, while the pair could have existed, its impossible to for them to be the first human couple.

And as I have said repeatedly, which you have not seemed to appreciate, factuality has nothing to do with inspiration. Refer to my example from Job. What does matter is authorial intent. If the author intended to write factual history, then we must judge it by that standard. It absolutely appears that Moses intended to write a factual history of the beginning of creation. You cannot say that he was wrong about that, but that the text is still inspired. You may as well say he drew a square circle. You CAN say that he intended to write myth, and that they myth does not accurately portray physical history, but that's neither here nor there, and therefore, defend the text's inspiration.

Good luck, though, arguing that Genesis 1-2 is a myth.

If you read my post carefully, you will find that I never said that genealogies have no function. I said, I don't see why the writing of a genealogy should be divinely inspired in the first place, it does not serve any DIVINE purpose, nor a spiritual task. Other than that of course genealogies have purposes, in writing, history etc. Their importance has not gone vain on me.

Function = divine purpose in my comments.

I also think you are drawing another false distinction here. It seems for you that "divine purpose" has something to do with applicability to the spiritual life. But that's not how exegesis and application works. It is, in short, bad hermeneutics. Applicability is drawn directly from the exegetical point of the text, which is determined by the author's intended meaning. He gives that meaning through a variety of tools: words, sentences, paragraphs; genres, literary form, etc. One literary form the OT authors were fond of is the genre of genealogy. Read in isolation from the rest of the book, of course, those genealogies have no "spiritual value." But, then again, NO verse in ANY part of Scripture has ANY "spiritual value" apart from its context. Every word and every verse only has value insofar as it relates to, supports, and communicates the author's intended point.

The same is true of the genealogies. Thus, they have both a literary purpose and a "divine purpose" (if the two could be separated, which they cannot). They are just as inspired as any other part of Scripture.

On a side note, I am reading "The first historians" but thank you for recommending that.

Very good! It's an excellent book. The discussion on Ehud is one I find particularly fascinating.

Who are you calling "elder", young whippersnapper?

Aha! By calling me young, you admit to being old! Which through my perspective, is anyone 1.3 seconds older than my birth time

@JAC

Whats your perspective on our observations of expanding matter in the universe? -->evidence for big bang.

Or carbon dating?

Any of our observational sciences that 'show' us the Earth is old?

You cannot hold that an author was in error and hold to any traditional view of inspiration and inerrancy as those two statements are in direct conflict.

I understand what you are saying Jac and I do appreciate the importance of what you are saying. In the face of evidence however I can not choose to pick the one that seems apparently wrong.

A bedrock principle we must adhere to is that the text means what the author intended it to mean, and we cannot try to divide the divine from the human author, either. If the author intended a meaning and it was wrong, then the text is wrong.

Well, Jac, ofcourse it would be wrong then, if you mean to take it as "it happened".

If the author intended it to be real, and then we find its not real. How do you solve that?

There is no such thing as a non-literal sense of inspiration. Either the text is inspired or it is not. You can argue that the text was intended by the author to be a myth, that is, that it was not intended to be historical. But if Moses intended to write a historical account of what happened, you can't say that he was in error but that the text is still inspired. Again, those two points are mutually exclusive.

Why not Jac? You are saying inspiration = factual...I am not using this definition.

And as I have said repeatedly, which you have not seemed to appreciate, factuality has nothing to do with inspiration. Refer to my example from Job. What does matter is authorial intent. If the author intended to write factual history, then we must judge it by that standard. It absolutely appears that Moses intended to write a factual history of the beginning of creation. You cannot say that he was wrong about that, but that the text is still inspired. You may as well say he drew a square circle. You CAN say that he intended to write myth, and that they myth does not accurately portray physical history, but that's neither here nor there, and therefore, defend the text's inspiration.

Jac, I do not want to argue or defend inspiration either, I don't think anythings at stake here. Since I really see no trouble with the word to be honest. I don't think the word inspiration means, dictated-perfect, inerrant word. And I don't think God dictated it. Inspiration to me is only a word with as much meaning as people think today that God inspired them to write a book about their experience.

I can not say that Moses intended to write myth because it does not make sense. Either God told him what to write - which is unlikely, or he wrote what he knew which is likely. If its the former then all is lost because God is wrong. If the latter than I see where the problem occurs. Your argument is valid in one way, I can't use inspiration the way you use it. And I can't take author's intent the same way, because its factually wrong.

I do however think that the text, inspired or not, fulfilled a divine purpose and a more social purpose, to instill the truth about hebrew God and some important lessons and make some sense of what people saw around. Perhaps that is the only way if I bother to add inspiration to it, would make sense.

Or, you can just argue that Moses was not wrong because he intended to write myth, not historical narrative.

The only way moses knew the story of genesis was oral history. If you want to argue, that the source was divinely inspired all the way, you can, but good luck with that.

If you want to argue about author's intent, as you seem to be doing, I disagree with good reason and I think you are wrong in following it. The author intent was literal, we both agree on that, and he was factually wrong too 100%. Call it whatever you like, we you cannot escape this fact.

I also think you are drawing another false distinction here. It seems for you that "divine purpose" has something to do with applicability to the spiritual life. But that's not how exegesis and application works. It is, in short, bad hermeneutics.

In light of evidence, I don't think hermeneutics matter here.

The same is true of the genealogies. Thus, they have both a literary purpose and a "divine purpose" (if the two could be separated, which they cannot). They are just as inspired as any other part of Scripture.

That right there is where I have a problem...what is your definition of inspiration Jac with regards to scripture?

Applicability is drawn directly from the exegetical point of the text, which is determined by the author's intended meaning. He gives that meaning through a variety of tools: words, sentences, paragraphs; genres, literary form, etc. One literary form the OT authors were fond of is the genre of genealogy. Read in isolation from the rest of the book, of course, those genealogies have no "spiritual value." But, then again, NO verse in ANY part of Scripture has ANY "spiritual value" apart from its context. Every word and every verse only has value insofar as it relates to, supports, and communicates the author's intended point.

Jac, the text wasn't written down as a whole in many cases. I think its a vague use of the word context to ascribe spiritual relevance to something which is of course not inspired. How many writers finished a book, we are not even certain on that on many books.

On a side note, I am reading "The first historians" but thank you for recommending that.

Very good! It's an excellent book. The discussion on Ehud is one I find particularly fascinating.

I'll see if we can discuss something out of the book, if time and opportunity permits.

What does matter is authorial intent. If the author intended to write factual history, then we must judge it by that standard. It absolutely appears that Moses intended to write a factual history of the beginning of creation. You cannot say that he was wrong about that, but that the text is still inspired. You may as well say he drew a square circle.

Absolutely!

If we take the view that much of the Bible is fictional/non-factual/uninspired by God, and that it is merely a blended mixture of just some inspiration, some actual thoughts of God, but yet also much just thoughts of men, then this would mean the following has to be true about the Bible:

- It is virtually worthless for discerning actual truth, as we would have no idea which parts were which (God-given or man-created/originated/man's ideas).

- God had no control over or either didn't exercise any great degree of control over what happened to His word given to men, and thus allowed it to be diluted/currupted beyond use or and any discernible/understandable comprehensive truths.

- That God didn't see His word as being important enough to protect from corruption and being mixed with total fiction.

- That Jesus HAD to come and die to save us from sin becomes up for debate; That we have to repent and submit to God is questionable.

- That Jesus and other New Testament figures/ The Apostles, etc. failed to EVER mention that many parts of what they considered God's Word (The Law, the OT) were a mixture of God-given truths and man-made nonsense/fairytales.

- That Jesus and the Apostles didn't think it important that we shouldn't take large portions of Scripture as being God-given/inspired and factual - that many parts of it were merely the creative efforts and from the imaginations of men.

- That by not making it clear that much of the OT was purely allegorical or untrue, and as especially Jesus would have known that millions of Christians for centuries would be following the Bible and believing it to ALL be true, all "God-inspired," that this would produce much false belief and sinful/wrongful practices.

- And what does all of the above say about God's Holy character, His trustworthiness and zealous protection of His word - of Jesus DYING for His word, to fulfill it?

- If we can't know the truth of what is right and wrong in God's eyes, if we don't know what are the words of men and what are the inspired words of God, then are we not going to be misled into many bad places and practices? Are we not much more susceptible to following what we want or just feel is right? Are we not left with US deciding right and wrong, what is true and what is not, what is necessary and what is harmful - all based upon our perceptions, feelings and carnal desires? And what would this say about God caring about us and His desire to guide us into all truth? What does this say about God caring whether we perceive false things as being true or of and from Him?

PaulSacramento wrote:I see your points Jac but I wonder If you are taking into account the literary genre of Genesis and if you, WHAT genre do you think it is?

The literary genre is historical narrative as far as I'm concerned. Part of my argument for neo is that he isn't taking genre seriously. You can't say that Moses intended to write historical narrative, say he was wrong, and still affirm inspiration and inerrancy. After all, what keeps a person then from affirming that Matthew intended to write a historical narrative but that he was wrong that Jesus really rose from the dead? He's just being inconsistent with his interpretive principles.

PaulSacramento wrote:Just to clear up, I agree with Jac and others that state that the whole "6 literal days" thing is not very important, at least not from a salvation perspective.
I think the issue is basically one of biblical authority and accuracy.
In short, for some (not me), if science has proven that the world/universe was NOT "created" in 6 days but over billions of years, then the bible, IF it was written to MEAN that ( 6 day creation) is wrong and IF it is wrong there, then were else is it wrong?

This is precisely the issue. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are inspired and which ones are not based on which parts we think are right. We don't get to say that a part we think is wrong (as written) is still inspired in some way by arguing that, even though the text is wrong, it can still be redeemed on some mythic, figurative, or spiritual level. That's the problem with the claim to inspiration and inerrancy. It's an all or nothing proposition. Either all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant or none of it is. The only caveats we can allow are for TC--we can argue that there may be passages in our Bibles that were not part of the original text and therefore that those parts are not inspired and could therefore be wrong. But the point still remains as it applies to the autographs: either they are, in toto, inspired and inerrant as written and as the author intended them to be read or they are not. Anything less is just dishonest and, frankly, a completely empty position to hold.

EDIT:

Mallz wrote:Whats your perspective on our observations of expanding matter in the universe? -->evidence for big bang.

Or carbon dating?

Any of our observational sciences that 'show' us the Earth is old?

Pretty much the same thing about observational sciences that 'show' us that we evolved from single celled organisms. I'm not terribly impressed with origins research, because it is fundamentally not a hard science. As much as we are told to believe otherwise, it is a forensic science. So I don't believe in evolution because 1) it runs counter to what Scripture says, and 2) it has holes that I have no idea how they could be plugged (i.e., irreducible complexity). Of course, I recognize that future science could argue that those holes could get plugged, but, again, it's all just a matter of preserving the story, and, to be frank, I don't have the background to have a real appreciation for the nuances of the argument. But, to the best of my abilities, I've not been impressed with what I've seen.

And so it is with much of the evidence I've seen for an old earth/old universe. I don't think any of the radiometric dating systems are terribly accurate sense I think the Flood was global. The starlight issue doesn't impress me because classical cosmology has its own starlight problem. I don't insist on a 6,000 year old earth because I think it's obvious that Moses intended his genealogies to have gaps in them, but I also don't think it's millions of years old, so I have no problem with seeing some civilizations as being, say, 30,000 years old.

There are PhDs in every field of science who believe in a young earth. There are PhDs in every field of science who believe in an old earth. If I sit down with a YEC scientist, he can show me scientific proof that the earth is young and I won't be able to disprove him. If I sit down with an OEC scientist, he can show me scientific proof that the earth is old and I won't be able to disprove him. I can listen to them argue with each other and I won't be able to moderate that debate any more than the two of them would likely be able to moderate a debate between me and some other theologian analyzing a particular Greek construction.

Bottom line: I have a certain set of specialties that I know a lot about. Then I have a lot of areas I'm rather ignorant on. Matters of hard science fall in the latter. What I know and believe is that the Bible depicts the earth as relatively young and that it suffered a major global catastrophe that PhDs in every field tell me has a massive impact on the interpretation of scientific observation. And, frankly, that's quite enough for me.

I hope that answers your questions.

neo-x wrote:I understand what you are saying Jac and I do appreciate the importance of what you are saying. In the face of evidence however I can not choose to pick the one that seems apparently wrong.

I'm not asking you to "pick" anything, neo. My words must be unclear. I am telling you something--giving you some facts, if you will. The first and most fundamental thing you have to do is read Genesis 1 and ask yourself whether or not Moses thought he was writing real history or was he writing mythology. I'm not asking you to pick one based on modern science (that would be bad exegesis--eisogesis, actually). I'm asking you to tell me which genre you think Genesis 1 falls into.

I am then telling you what inspiration means relative to those two genres. If it's historical narrative, then if what is described did not happen in history as it is described (taking into account figurative language), then it the passage is in error. If it's myth, then if what is described did not happen in history as it is described (taking into account figurative language), then the passage is NOT necessarily in error. These are not special rules when interpreting the Bible. This is just how we interpret literature.

Of course, you can argue that Moses did indeed write a historical narrative and that he was just wrong--that is, you can affirm that there are errors in the Bible. In that case, you are giving up inerrancy. I would then argue that you have given up inspiration, although you can, of course, defend a modified view of inspiration that does not include (or better, entail) inerrancy.

So, again, I'm not asking you to pick anything. I'm setting out the parameters of the debate.

Well, Jac, ofcourse it would be wrong then, if you mean to take it as "it happened".

If the author intended it to be real, and then we find its not real. How do you solve that?

I would solve it by saying that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. The same thing would be true if the Exodus never happened or if David never existed or if Elijah never performed miracles or if Jesus never fed the 5,000.

Of course, none of this matters all that much to me, because I think modern, atheistic interpretation of scientific evidence is wrong, not the Bible.

Why not Jac? You are saying inspiration = factual...I am not using this definition.

Jac3150 wrote:And as I have said repeatedly, which you have not seemed to appreciate, factuality has nothing to do with inspiration. Refer to my example from Job. What does matter is authorial intent. If the author intended to write factual history, then we must judge it by that standard. It absolutely appears that Moses intended to write a factual history of the beginning of creation. You cannot say that he was wrong about that, but that the text is still inspired. You may as well say he drew a square circle. You CAN say that he intended to write myth, and that they myth does not accurately portray physical history, but that's neither here nor there, and therefore, defend the text's inspiration.

Jac, I do not want to argue or defend inspiration either, I don't think anythings at stake here. Since I really see no trouble with the word to be honest. I don't think the word inspiration means, dictated-perfect, inerrant word. And I don't think God dictated it. Inspiration to me is only a word with as much meaning as people think today that God inspired them to write a book about their experience.

I can not say that Moses intended to write myth because it does not make sense. Either God told him what to write - which is unlikely, or he wrote what he knew which is likely. If its the former then all is lost because God is wrong. If the latter than I see where the problem occurs. Your argument is valid in one way, I can't use inspiration the way you use it. And I can't take author's intent the same way, because its factually wrong.

I do however think that the text, inspired or not, fulfilled a divine purpose and a more social purpose, to instill the truth about hebrew God and some important lessons and make some sense of what people saw around. Perhaps that is the only way if I bother to add inspiration to it, would make sense.

I quoted all this together for a reason. Look at the part I bolded and underlined. You literally just said that I am saying what I explicitly denied. I said that inspiration is NOT about factuality and you just said that I am saying that inspiration IS about factuality.

I think you are confused about the doctrine of inspiration. Read this article as it's a good place to start. I affirm, as do pretty much all conservative evangelicals, the verbal-plenary view of inspiration. So you tell me, which version to you affirm?

http://www.gotquestions.org/inspiration-theories.html

The only way moses knew the story of genesis was oral history. If you want to argue, that the source was divinely inspired all the way, you can, but good luck with that.

That's an assumption that may or may not be true. And neo, please hear this with all due respect--even if it is a correct assumption, it seems to be built on a naive notion of inspiration. Inspiration does NOT belong to sources. It belongs to the authors and, more specifically, their books. There are many places in Scripture where the Bible quotes non-inspired texts. That does not make those non-inspired texts inspired! But that doesn't mean that that part of Scripture is not inspired, either. It means that God inspired the author to quote a particular non-inspired text.

Thus, even if Moses got the creation account from oral history, it doesn't matter, because the oral account isn't inspired. The moment, however, that Moses wrote it down as his introduction to the book of Genesis, it became a part of inspired Scripture. And if Moses took and wrote the account to be literal history, then he did so under divine inspiration.

If you want to argue about author's intent, as you seem to be doing, I disagree with good reason and I think you are wrong in following it. The author intent was literal, we both agree on that, and he was factually wrong too 100%. Call it whatever you like, we you cannot escape this fact.

Then you just don't believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. That's your prerogative, of course, but you'll forgive those of us who DO believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture who are not impressed by your argument.

In light of evidence, I don't think hermeneutics matter here.

On the contrary, hermeneutics are ALL that matter here. That's what we are talking about. Nothing else.

That right there is where I have a problem...what is your definition of inspiration Jac with regards to scripture?

You have two questions here: what is inspiration, and what Scriptures are inspired. I've already answered both of these. I hold to the verbal-plenary view of Scripture (as to pretty much all conservative, evangelical scholars) and its entailed doctrine of inerrancy (which, by the way, means that if I reject inerrancy I am required to reject the theory of verbal-plenary inspiration). And as far as what Scripture is inspired, I say ALL of it. With the exception to those passages or words or verses that TC scholars argue are probably not original, of course. But none of that, as you should well know, has anything to do with Genesis 1-2.

Again, all this tells me is that you don't believe that Scripture is inspired in the verbal-plenary sense, and as I think that's the only meaningful notion of inspiration, then I simply charge that you don't believe the Bible is inspired at all, nor do you believe it is inerrant. I'm not trying to be judgmental or harsh or anything like that. I'm just stating a simple fact. There is no reason for anyone here to bother getting upset or disagreeing with your view of Genesis 1 or your view of evolution. Those of us who hold to divine inspiration and inerrancy just have a different set of assumptions than you do. Put bluntly, on this matter, we think the Bible is right and you think it's wrong. And that's fine. We just have to be honest about it so that we can agree to disagree.

Jac, the text wasn't written down as a whole in many cases. I think its a vague use of the word context to ascribe spiritual relevance to something which is of course not inspired. How many writers finished a book, we are not even certain on that on many books.

The emphasized part begs the question. You don't just get to say "of course not inspired." That's the very issue under discussion. Beyond that, however, you are still factually incorrect as well as misguided in your understanding of the redaction process that the biblical texts went through. There is, for instance, no doubt that later editors added lines to the Torah after Moses death (for instance, the parts about Moses' death). It does not follow, however, that those parts are therefore not inspired, for it could, and is, simply the case that those editors worked under divine inspiration themselves. You would do well to look up what Brevards Childs called canon criticism, for while he was no conservative scholar, at least he cut to the heart of the matter and got passed all the idiotic atomization of the text that so-called higher-critics have been pushing for almost three centuries.

Beyond that, though, you're just giving too much weight to idiotic higher-critical arguments (and not enough weight to conservative rebuttals). Though dated, I would strongly recommend you get a copy of Gleason Archer's An Introduction to Old Testament Survey, as he does a good job of showing why your assumption about OT authorship/editing is just incorrect.

No hard feelings, I hope, and all the best to you!

Ofcourse jac, no hard feelings at all. I appreciate your reply and the time you took to explain your points. FWIW My position is not concrete. I am willing to change, if I see good reason.

Of course, you can argue that Moses did indeed write a historical narrative and that he was just wrong--that is, you can affirm that there are errors in the Bible. In that case, you are giving up inerrancy. I would then argue that you have given up inspiration, although you can, of course, defend a modified view of inspiration that does not include (or better, entail) inerrancy.

Yes, I am aware that I have to give up inerrancy, that is a what this position entails.

I'm not asking you to "pick" anything, neo. My words must be unclear. I am telling you something--giving you some facts, if you will. The first and most fundamental thing you have to do is read Genesis 1 and ask yourself whether or not Moses thought he was writing real history or was he writing mythology. I'm not asking you to pick one based on modern science (that would be bad exegesis--eisogesis, actually). I'm asking you to tell me which genre you think Genesis 1 falls into.

I am then telling you what inspiration means relative to those two genres. If it's historical narrative, then if what is described did not happen in history as it is described (taking into account figurative language), then it the passage is in error. If it's myth, then if what is described did not happen in history as it is described (taking into account figurative language), then the passage is NOT necessarily in error. These are not special rules when interpreting the Bible. This is just how we interpret literature.
...
I would solve it by saying that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. The same thing would be true if the Exodus never happened or if David never existed or if Elijah never performed miracles or if Jesus never fed the 5,000.

jac, let me be clarify a bit, incase I haven't mentioned it before. My personal opinion is that with the passage of time, the stories became more realistic. For example, genesis one could be myth, luke could not be a myth. Even after abraham, its hard to say its myth, because the overall narrative starts making more sense compared to God making women out of a rib and Adam naming all animals in one day.

I don't hold the bible as a whole, and I don't hold it together when it comes to inspiration and inerrancy. To me inspiration is not a matter of the whole bible. These books were not written together why should they be analyzed together?
I suppose if I did do it as you did, then I am not left with much choice, either the bible is inspired, inerrant word of God or its not. All or nothing. But to me, that is not the case.

I think you are confused about the doctrine of inspiration. Read this article as it's a good place to start. I affirm, as do pretty much all conservative evangelicals, the verbal-plenary view of inspiration. So you tell me, which version to you affirm?

No. I don't hold to any of these views, I have reservations to all of them because they all treat the bible as one book, where it isn't. I certainly think there are plenty of inspired, inerrant passages within these books, prophecies for example. I don't have a set formula or a way to know what is inspired or what is not. But its not rocket science either. Genesis 1 is simply too irrational and better explanations exist. In other words my objections stand to older writings (being old is not the problem), not newer ones. Writing that made more sense to make things simple and understandable.

I mean what better story would there be to show how sin entered the world. Disobedience, making man responsible for his own actions, highlighting the importance of God and his will, his purity. Giving a reason for sacrifices. The concept of pleasing God with the fruit of your labor. Snake, is a deadly creature, highlighting evil, perfect candidate for the dramatical conversation between eve and serpent.

And I would say the same for balaam's donkey speaking too, that's just too irrational. But the handwriting on the wall in the book of daniel seems much more plausible to me.

The only way moses knew the story of genesis was oral history. If you want to argue, that the source was divinely inspired all the way, you can, but good luck with that.

That's an assumption that may or may not be true. And neo, please hear this with all due respect--even if it is a correct assumption, it seems to be built on a naive notion of inspiration. Inspiration does NOT belong to sources. It belongs to the authors and, more specifically, their books. There are many places in Scripture where the Bible quotes non-inspired texts. That does not make those non-inspired texts inspired! But that doesn't mean that that part of Scripture is not inspired, either. It means that God inspired the author to quote a particular non-inspired text.

Point noted Jac. Lets agree that the source is not inspired. In my case, if the source is not inspired and the author is inspired to use it, how much do you think it matters later on, hypothetically, as we are discussing today?

Don't get me wrong Jac, your points are okay and make sense but I still find some problems. What if the author is inspired, and like i am saying his source isn't, lets say his source is not 100% history, its part history/part myth, if a writer is inspired to use such a source, and use to write a historical biblical account, then does it not call into question a few things? If any what would your objections be to such a problem?

If you want to argue about author's intent, as you seem to be doing, I disagree with good reason and I think you are wrong in following it. The author intent was literal, we both agree on that, and he was factually wrong too 100%. Call it whatever you like, we you cannot escape this fact.

Then you just don't believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. That's your prerogative, of course, but you'll forgive those of us who DO believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture who are not impressed by your argument.

Yes I don't. And I understand Jac.

In light of evidence, I don't think hermeneutics matter here.

On the contrary, hermeneutics are ALL that matter here. That's what we are talking about. Nothing else.

I was talking about more than hermeneutics, the evidence shows old earth and different than what genesis 1 states. It becomes more problematic for me to accept it as literal then because even if hermeneutics are sorted out and everything falls into place, as you hold in regard in your view, then to me it seems I am going against evidence.

Again, all this tells me is that you don't believe that Scripture is inspired in the verbal-plenary sense, and as I think that's the only meaningful notion of inspiration, then I simply charge that you don't believe the Bible is inspired at all, nor do you believe it is inerrant. I'm not trying to be judgmental or harsh or anything like that. I'm just stating a simple fact. There is no reason for anyone here to bother getting upset or disagreeing with your view of Genesis 1 or your view of evolution. Those of us who hold to divine inspiration and inerrancy just have a different set of assumptions than you do. Put bluntly, on this matter, we think the Bible is right and you think it's wrong. And that's fine. We just have to be honest about it so that we can agree to disagree.

I think there are serious problems still present if I go with your view and its not as strong as you think. And I don't think my position is that black and white either though it has its shares of problem, but I would understand if that is what it seems from where you're standing.

I would try to look up the books you mentioned.

Either all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant or none of it is.

See, I don't know if that is the case.
I can see those letters/books that claim inspiration, such as Revelation, Isaiah, Elijah and so forth, those that speak of actual divine revelation in them.
But Luke, for example, makes it clear that he is writing History, based on what He has been told by his human sources:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

There is no reason to view the Gospel of Luke ( just as an example) as divinely inspired since the writer makes it clear that His sources are human.

My point is that there is no reason to see ALL of the bible books and letters as being "divinely inspired" NOR is that "fact" that they are not a reason to value them any LESS than those that openly admit they are based on "divine inspiration" ( such as Revelation).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Either all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant or none of it is.

See, I don't know if that is the case.
I can see those letters/books that claim inspiration, such as Revelation, Isaiah, Elijah and so forth, those that speak of actual divine revelation in them.
But Luke, for example, makes it clear that he is writing History, based on what He has been told by his human sources:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

There is no reason to view the Gospel of Luke ( just as an example) as divinely inspired since the writer makes it clear that His sources are human.

My point is that there is no reason to see ALL of the bible books and letters as being "divinely inspired" NOR is that "fact" that they are not a reason to value them any LESS than those that openly admit they are based on "divine inspiration" ( such as Revelation).

Yes, I agree, thats whats have been the premise for my earlier statements too.

Jac3510 wrote:
Other than that, I do, of course, think you are right about yom. Ross et al are simply wrong about the history of its interpretation. The word was NEVER interpreted to mean "age" until after the arrival of modern science. OEC is, to put it bluntly, a recent attempt to read current scientific theory back into the original text. There's never been a more obvious example of eisogesis.

I agree Jac. But isn't that a double edged sword? I would also state that I see this same thing occurring today with YEC. Many of us (on both sides of the argument) are starting with the presupposition that the Bible is making a statement as to the age of the earth. Was/is that the original intent of the author??

That's an assumption that may or may not be true. And neo, please hear this with all due respect--even if it is a correct assumption, it seems to be built on a naive notion of inspiration. Inspiration does NOT belong to sources. It belongs to the authors and, more specifically, their books. There are many places in Scripture where the Bible quotes non-inspired texts. That does not make those non-inspired texts inspired! But that doesn't mean that that part of Scripture is not inspired, either. It means that God inspired the author to quote a particular non-inspired text.

Great point. There are places where the Bible quotes Satan, or pagan kings. It doesn't mean God inspired their particular words.

neo-x wrote:jac, let me be clarify a bit, incase I haven't mentioned it before. My personal opinion is that with the passage of time, the stories became more realistic. For example, genesis one could be myth, luke could not be a myth. Even after abraham, its hard to say its myth, because the overall narrative starts making more sense compared to God making women out of a rib and Adam naming all animals in one day.

I don't hold the bible as a whole, and I don't hold it together when it comes to inspiration and inerrancy. To me inspiration is not a matter of the whole bible. These books were not written together why should they be analyzed together?
I suppose if I did do it as you did, then I am not left with much choice, either the bible is inspired, inerrant word of God or its not. All or nothing. But to me, that is not the case.

Just from my perspective, there are two reasons I can't buy your line of reasoning here.

1. I don't see why it is harder to believe that God made a woman out of a rib than to believe that He turned the Nile into blood, that He covered Egypt with darkness for days on end, that He caused an iron axe head to float, that He caused the sun to move back in the sky a few degrees, that He would cause a small bit of oil to last for months on end, that He would bring dead children back to life, that He would bring His own Son back to life, that He would feed five thousand with a child's meal, that He would heal people of their sicknesses when they merely touched a napkin an apostle had once used, or myriads of other miracles.

Miracles are just that: miracles. We either accept that God can perform them or we do not, and if we accept that, then what makes one miracles so believable and another not? We can't just pick and choose which ones we want to accept. Our entire faith is one grounded in miracle, not only the Resurrection of Christ (but chiefly that!), but creation itself. Even on theistic evolution, consider the fantastic miracle of the singularity behind the Big Bang being so configured. That is nothing shy of a miracle. If God can do that, then why can't He make a woman out of a rib?

You'll doubtlessly say that He can, but you just don't see a reason to believe that He did. Of course, my reason is that Scripture says so, and I point out that is the same reason I accept the reality of all the other miracles I just mentioned. There is just no objective way to affirm one but not the other. The moment we reject one miracle as just being to "out there," we have no logical basis to keep us from rejecting all of them on the same grounds. In short, you're just being inconsistent, which is a mark of irrationality, not the rationality you are trying to embrace.

2. Second, I just don't think you appreciate the depth of research on how the Bible was put together. You've suggested (wrongly) that inspiration means mere dictation. You've suggested (wrongly) that if Moses uses other sources, then that would imply those sources were inspired. Now you are suggesting (wrongly) that because all of the Bible was not written in one sitting (or even various books of the Bible were not written in one sitting) that some parts have a more fundamental claim to inspiration than others, as if inspiration had something to do with the first time the pen touched the paper.

In fact, we do have to take the whole Bible together. There is no logical, no rational basis, on which you can declare some parts inspired and other parts not inspired. That's why Paul says, "ALL Scripture is inspired by God." Was Paul wrong when he wrote those words? Of course not. So we must affirm that which is Scripture is that which is inspired, and since all of Geneis is Scripture, all of Genesis is inspired.

What you are doing, then, is not actually dividing Scripture up and saying this part is inspired and that is not. What you are actually doing is just denying inspiration all the way around--you're just saying that there is no such thing as God-breathed Scripture. There are just the theological musings of men we choose to believe if we think they were right. And that goes back to my first point: you accept the parts you like and reject what you don't. And if that is our standard, then there is really no standard at all, because if I don't like ANYTHING the Bible says, I can just declare it wrong, not inspired, or whatever term you want to use.

I'm sorry, but all of that is completely unacceptable to me.

No. I don't hold to any of these views, I have reservations to all of them because they all treat the bible as one book, where it isn't. I certainly think there are plenty of inspired, inerrant passages within these books, prophecies for example. I don't have a set formula or a way to know what is inspired or what is not. But its not rocket science either. Genesis 1 is simply too irrational and better explanations exist. In other words my objections stand to older writings (being old is not the problem), not newer ones. Writing that made more sense to make things simple and understandable.

I mean what better story would there be to show how sin entered the world. Disobedience, making man responsible for his own actions, highlighting the importance of God and his will, his purity. Giving a reason for sacrifices. The concept of pleasing God with the fruit of your labor. Snake, is a deadly creature, highlighting evil, perfect candidate for the dramatical conversation between eve and serpent.

And I would say the same for balaam's donkey speaking too, that's just too irrational. But the handwriting on the wall in the book of daniel seems much more plausible to me.

Much of this is covered above. You can't have it both ways. Again, you're just asking for a square circle.

Let's just take your example of Balaam's donkey to show why this doesn't work. First of all, just in the original context, why is it so unbelievable that God could give the animal a chance to speak (that's what the text says God did)? And further, if God can't do that--or if we are to reject that part of the story--why not reject the rest of it, where Balaam goes on to try to curse Israel but cannot do it, even though he is being paid for it? What about the personal conversations between Yahweh and Balaam? Are we to reject they happend? And then, if you resolve the conflicts in the original story, what do you make of 2 Peter 2:15-16, which says:

• They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

So Peter affirms that the donkey actually spoke. Was Peter wrong? And if Peter was wrong and that never happened, how do you know he wasn't wrong about the rest of what he wrote?

This is why I said that you can't have an errant Bible with any authority. If you choose to accept some portions and reject others just because you don't believe some part of it, then you aren't believing God. You are believing yourself. In fact, when God speaks, you are actually calling Him a liar. He says, "This happened," and you say, "No, God, that did not happen." I know you don't mean it that way, but that is exactly what you are saying.

It's not enough to see these events as nice stories. Why not see the resurrection of Jesus as a nice story? Why not see the crucifixion as a nice story? Why not see the Exodus as a nice story? Why not see Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac as a nice story? After all, if we don't need the historical reality, if all we need is the moral, then what's the point of believing any of it?

Square circles, neo. You're trying to be rational, I know. But in truth, you're just contradiction your own beliefs, which is the height of irrationality.

Point noted Jac. Lets agree that the source is not inspired. In my case, if the source is not inspired and the author is inspired to use it, how much do you think it matters later on, hypothetically, as we are discussing today?

It matters a great deal, because you are saying that the inspired author was wrong. That matters a lot, neo.

Don't get me wrong Jac, your points are okay and make sense but I still find some problems. What if the author is inspired, and like i am saying his source isn't, lets say his source is not 100% history, its part history/part myth, if a writer is inspired to use such a source, and use to write a historical biblical account, then does it not call into question a few things? If any what would your objections be to such a problem?

If I were to argue that the writer were inspired to use fiction as if it were history, then yes, it would cause problems. It would prove that inspiration is false--that I was wrong about inspiration. That's why I said you can't have it both ways. Either the writer KNEW he was writing myth and therefore intended his audience to take it as myth (in which case, we cannot accuse the writer of being wrong), or else the writer is wrong and therefore uninspired. There is no middle ground on this. Remember, inspiration is from God. It is God who inspires, and what He inspired are the very words we have today. Therefore, if those words are wrong, it is not merely the human author who was wrong, but the Divine Author who inspired them who was wrong. That's impossible.

So, again, either all of the text is inspired and inerrant or none of it is. There is absolutely no middle ground on this, and any attempt to affirm taht there is, is (respectfully) nothing more than nonsense--well intended nonsense, for sure, but nonsense all the same.

I was talking about more than hermeneutics, the evidence shows old earth and different than what genesis 1 states. It becomes more problematic for me to accept it as literal then because even if hermeneutics are sorted out and everything falls into place, as you hold in regard in your view, then to me it seems I am going against evidence.

No. You are going against Scripture, and that you don't regard it as evidence says a lot about the nature of the problem. You've got your faith in the wrong place.

----------------------------------------

jlay wrote:I agree Jac. But isn't that a double edged sword? I would also state that I see this same thing occurring today with YEC. Many of us (on both sides of the argument) are starting with the presupposition that the Bible is making a statement as to the age of the earth. Was/is that the original intent of the author??

Absolutely, J. It is unfortunate that many on the YEC side have made the age of the earth the central, exegetical issue of the creation account. It is not. It is, at best, a deduction we can draw (necessarily) from the account.

One of my complaints about YEC advocates is that I think that they spend too much time focusing on the wrong issues. I appreciate those scientists who are interested in answering questions modern science poses to the biblical narrative. I'll let them do their work. What we need to do, though, is focus on the point(s) of the passage. I'm not saying that is never done. It is, but unfortunately that often takes a backseat to apologetic issues.

The point of the passage, as I see it, is that God created a world that operated exactly as it was supposed to. There was peace and harmony, and that mankind was made to rule for God over that world. There is disharmony in this world, however, because mankind did not follow God, and therefore both man and his world have been placed under a curse. That curse has lead to the spread of suffering and death throughout God's creation, and God is out to set it right. He began doing so in earnest with the calling of Abram, continued that through the creation of Israel, narrowed it through the calling of David, and brought it to a head through the ministry of David's son, Jesus Christ. God is now graciously giving people a chance to place their faith in Christ so that when He returns and restores the world to its edenic state, as many can be a part of that new creation as possible.

That's the big idea. The only reason I give a hoot about the age of the earth or the length of the days is when a particular view undermines some aspect of the main point as defined above.

So says I, anyway!

Jac,

The point of the passage, as I see it, is that God created a world that operated exactly as it was supposed to. There was peace and harmony, and that mankind was made to rule for God over that world.

Actually it doesn't say that about man ruling over the world. It says that about the garden. "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen. 2:15) Obviuosly there had to be something to distinquish the garden from the rest of the world.In fact, it would only make sense.

This also brings into question the encounter with the serpent. The account never references the serpent as being "inside" the garden. In fact, the serpent references the garden as if it is located somewhere other than where this conversation took place. (Gen 3:1)
The Tree of Life was in the garden. God banished Adam from the Garden because the tree of life was there. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (Gen. 3:22) It seems evident from the text that the key to life was the tree. Not that the earth was created without death.

So, if there was no death in the garden, then how long did Adam live there? A month? A year? 10 million years?

Thus it would seem that the curse of death upon mankind is directly related to being banished from the Garden.

jlay wrote:
Not that the earth was created without death.

Jlay, what are you doing, arguing for death before sin? You and Jac are YECs. You have to stick together, no matter what the text says.