Re: Noah's Flood: when did it occur?
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:18 pm
Perhaps I'm somewhat putting words in Audie's mouth, but if I understand her sentiments, I think it would be wise for many Christians who discuss creation, the flood and the like to pay attention.
First, regarding RTB, they have bible scholars, and have rubbed shoulders with some of the best (e.g., Gleason Archer). Hugh Ross has had a particular ministry that I'd say was blessed and done much good. Equally, blessed are other places suchas BioLogos, and then this re-badging of getting back to an ANE understanding as something new or novel (e.g., Heser, Miller). To be clear, such an understanding is neither new or novel, but the main foundation of the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic which all such Evangelical minisitries embrace and paid close attention to.
Further what we have or see historically with a Biblical creation account, which many find suspicious and repulsive, are new interpretations of Genesis coming onto the scene in accordance with modern ideas or understandings. Such interpretations are often persuasively presented like it is being read from the words of Scripture itself (exegesis), when infact eisegesis (reading ideas into the text) is normally being performed. Only, the drawn into a particular interpretation, often can't see this as being the case.
I think anyone who comes out with a new and novel understanding of Scripture, they're making the same errors as all such creation-based ministries of the past have done. First, they're fixating upon explaining how to make compatible their own modern understanding of the world, and interloping that with an interpretation of Scripture and how it must be read (to the derision of all other interpretations). They themselves are providing a hard and fixed interpretation. In actuality, Scripture isn't so rigid, and when interpreted it isn't necessarily fixed but quite open to all sorts of valid insights and possible understandings.
There is actually much room for different interpretations (even misinterpretation). Instead of fussing about which interpretation is correct, far better in my opinion is it to say which interpretations can be logically understood, are allowable or tolerable. Yet, people become very enamoured and fixated upon getting the "right" answer, which I see feeds into Audie's expressed sentiments here. With Scripture, I believe it is often left open-ended on many issues, just like our understanding of nature. This doesn't mean the greater context is lost of experiencing nature or understanding the central story which carries across all the books of the Bible. This story being one of humanity's relationship with God becoming severed, reading through history entwined with theology to do with Israel who God reveals Himself to and takes as His own people to strive with, though they are recorded by their own scribes as constantly turning away from God over and over. This leads to their prophets talking of Messiah who would come to bring about a new covenant, one that is of the heart rather than adhering to a bunch of rules. (Jer 31:33) We Christians identify the Jewish Messiah as Christ, through whom people from all nations can be reconciled to God.
This fixation people have over getting the correct interpretation is just wrong. It's like asking the correct understanding of physics or the like, what is the theory of everything? We might get more or less close, but unless such be revealed to us in some more objective sense, we'll be either hit or miss due to our own subjective tastes and proclivities. Have your opinion, but I think it better to leave Scripture open to many interpretations rather than arrogantly say there is only one interpretation, this is it, and look it aligns with a modern scientific understanding or evolutionary accounting with this and that verse (often it seems to me a verse where a whole lot is being read into).
Fact is, as I see matter, Scripture doesn't leave it up to us, or allow us, to be decisive over a many great number of things.
And, I see many strength to such, rather than it being weakness. It allows those who are interested to do so, to dig in deep and explore all sorts of possibilities, and while being drawn to this or that explanation/interpretation.
First, regarding RTB, they have bible scholars, and have rubbed shoulders with some of the best (e.g., Gleason Archer). Hugh Ross has had a particular ministry that I'd say was blessed and done much good. Equally, blessed are other places suchas BioLogos, and then this re-badging of getting back to an ANE understanding as something new or novel (e.g., Heser, Miller). To be clear, such an understanding is neither new or novel, but the main foundation of the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic which all such Evangelical minisitries embrace and paid close attention to.
Further what we have or see historically with a Biblical creation account, which many find suspicious and repulsive, are new interpretations of Genesis coming onto the scene in accordance with modern ideas or understandings. Such interpretations are often persuasively presented like it is being read from the words of Scripture itself (exegesis), when infact eisegesis (reading ideas into the text) is normally being performed. Only, the drawn into a particular interpretation, often can't see this as being the case.
I think anyone who comes out with a new and novel understanding of Scripture, they're making the same errors as all such creation-based ministries of the past have done. First, they're fixating upon explaining how to make compatible their own modern understanding of the world, and interloping that with an interpretation of Scripture and how it must be read (to the derision of all other interpretations). They themselves are providing a hard and fixed interpretation. In actuality, Scripture isn't so rigid, and when interpreted it isn't necessarily fixed but quite open to all sorts of valid insights and possible understandings.
There is actually much room for different interpretations (even misinterpretation). Instead of fussing about which interpretation is correct, far better in my opinion is it to say which interpretations can be logically understood, are allowable or tolerable. Yet, people become very enamoured and fixated upon getting the "right" answer, which I see feeds into Audie's expressed sentiments here. With Scripture, I believe it is often left open-ended on many issues, just like our understanding of nature. This doesn't mean the greater context is lost of experiencing nature or understanding the central story which carries across all the books of the Bible. This story being one of humanity's relationship with God becoming severed, reading through history entwined with theology to do with Israel who God reveals Himself to and takes as His own people to strive with, though they are recorded by their own scribes as constantly turning away from God over and over. This leads to their prophets talking of Messiah who would come to bring about a new covenant, one that is of the heart rather than adhering to a bunch of rules. (Jer 31:33) We Christians identify the Jewish Messiah as Christ, through whom people from all nations can be reconciled to God.
This fixation people have over getting the correct interpretation is just wrong. It's like asking the correct understanding of physics or the like, what is the theory of everything? We might get more or less close, but unless such be revealed to us in some more objective sense, we'll be either hit or miss due to our own subjective tastes and proclivities. Have your opinion, but I think it better to leave Scripture open to many interpretations rather than arrogantly say there is only one interpretation, this is it, and look it aligns with a modern scientific understanding or evolutionary accounting with this and that verse (often it seems to me a verse where a whole lot is being read into).
Fact is, as I see matter, Scripture doesn't leave it up to us, or allow us, to be decisive over a many great number of things.
And, I see many strength to such, rather than it being weakness. It allows those who are interested to do so, to dig in deep and explore all sorts of possibilities, and while being drawn to this or that explanation/interpretation.
, in fact many believe in God. Go figure, right? 
