Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | RElderCascade | 35441 | ||
Please allow me to quote from a source I found about twenty years ago and I wrote it in the margin of the introduction of Genesis in my Bible. From Feinberg’s “Fundamentals for Today” Fair Propositions to Postulate: 1. The book of Genesis has no doctrinal value if it is not authoritative. 2. The book of Genesis is not authoritative if it is not true. For if it is not history, it is not reliable; and if it is not revelation it is not final. 3. Genesis is not true if not from God. For if it is not from God, it is not inspired; and if it is not inspired, it possesses to us no doctrinal value whatever. 4. The book of Genesis is not direct from God if it is a heterogeneous compilation of mythological folklore by unknowable writers. 5. If the book of Genesis is a legendary narrative, anonymous, indefinitely erroneous, and the persons it described the mere mythical personifications of tribal genius, it is of course not only non-authenticated, but an insufficient basis for doctrine. The residuum of dubious truth, which might with varying degrees of consent be extracted therefrom, could never be accepted as a foundation for the superstructure of eternally trustworthy doctrine, for it is an axiom that that is only of doctrinal value which is God’s word. Mythical and legendary fiction are incompatible not only with the character of the God of all truth, but with the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and absolute authority of the Word of God. We have not taken for credentials cleverly invented myths. The primary documents (if were such) were collated and revised and rewritten by Moses under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Doctrinal roots found in the first few chapters of Genesis: subsequent developments of the Kingdom of God: root germ of all anthropology, soteriology (salvation), Christology, Satanology, to say nothing of the ancient and modern problems of mystery and culpability of sin, the unity of the race, and matrimony and family life. |
||||||
2 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35571 | ||
Why can't God in his sovereignty select any literary method he wants to convey his profound truths . Gee, even humans have that choice. Shakespere says more about the human character, heart, motives than any author of historical facts!!! Why can't God do the same to explain his heart, character and motives ??? I think God, his Word and his Truths (doctrine???) are bigger than science, and bigger than literal history. Maybe the literal explanation of creation is "bigger" than the human mind, beyond our comprehension... so God gave us the essence... what we need to know. Why not? |
||||||
3 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | RElderCascade | 35604 | ||
I can't imagine how much more personal God could have made it by documenting His interactions with human beings. His heart, character and motives are immensely clear in the Bible, or if they aren't to you, what is unclear about the person of God? What exactly do you really want to know that is not in the Bible? | ||||||
4 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35631 | ||
My point is that Feinberg's and your postulate below can be questioned; " The book of Genesis is not authoritative if it is not true. For if it is not history, it is not reliable" Essentially, I'm saying that God can select what is reliable. He does not have to limit himself to literal history to express his profound truths, just like humans don't limit themselves to history to explain profound truths. Didn't God create literature and art? Who are we to say he can't use them? It's almost like you're forcing God to be bound by a recitation of literal history in genesis in order for his Word to express truth. Otherwise, his truths are not true and the Bible is not "reliable". Sounds dangerous to me. |
||||||
5 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | RElderCascade | 35650 | ||
What part of truth is dangerous? Or should I re-phrase the question..Why must we see a tension between truth (reliable history) and literature and art? Again I want to know what you do you feel is not complete about the picture of God we are given from His self revelation? A careful consideration of what God has really done in history by contrasting it with what God has not done in history should show us that we can only rely on truth not myth or folklore or unknowable writers. God can select what is reliable but He does not choose to use error and parade that to us as worthy of His self disclosure to us. Isn't that great? In fact wouldn't it be fair to say He has chosen to select truth as reliable? He surely doesn't select untruth as reliable! Genesis isn't written in a phenomonological style. It purports to be a real picture of what happened. It forces God in no way differently from what God is. Please give specifics as to what limiting factor Genesis binds on God. And please answer the earlier question what do you wish you could know about God that is not in the Bible? |
||||||
6 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35678 | ||
Sorry I didn't answer your questions from your first post. But I didn't say a SINGLE word about " wishing what I could know about God that is not in the Bible". Your questions in your second post are EVEN more confusing, examples:: Q)"What part of truth is dangerous"? A)I didn't say the truth was dangerous. I said YOUR postulate " strikes me has dangerous". Big big difference. Did you intend to be that presumptuous to say that YOUR postulate was truth ? (rhetorical) Q "Please give specifics as to what limiting factor Genesis binds on God". A)Please, please tell me where I said Genesis limits or binds God??? I said virtually the opposite. Why are you putting words in my mouth and then creating questions from them. Is that a not-so subtle debate technique??? Sorry I don't have time to debate for debate sake. PS: Actually , now, I do see a single question (0f six) that honestly reflects something I said. Wow Q:"In fact wouldn't it be fair to say He has chosen to select truth as reliable? He surely doesn't select untruth" A: I'm saying he MAY have selected literal historical truth or he may have used other means to express his Truths.... because it's not verbatim history does not mean it's "untruth". Historical truth is only a tiny fraction of Truth( and it's expression!). If Genesis is verbatim dictated history, great. If not, that great too (He's God!). Just as long as we understand his message. I go back to your postulate that; the Bible is not reliable, if Genesisis 1-4 is not literally, historically true. I challenge that. Let me know if I summarized your postulate incorrectly or if your other 5 questions pertain to what I actually said. Please use quotation marks. Thanks |
||||||
7 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | RElderCascade | 35683 | ||
So, what are you asking? It appeared to me that you didn't like (to limit ourselves to) the Bible as the only self-revelation of God. You can easily surmize from what I postulated that Genesis must be true to have value and that really the Bible stands or falls on the "Thy Word is truth" concept. Don't be so thin skinned about mere question-asking, you are the one who has taken honest questions and turned them around into intentions that were not there. I have just now clearly illustrated that you, not me have turned things around. I was merely asking questions. As I recall, you indicated that you were not to keen on the idea that God should limit Himself in ways we humans don't even limit ourselves. The idea that God MAY have done something one way or another is a line of defense you have available to you only because of the historical record of God at your disposal. You must be more consistent than that. You see, you would have no authority of God or who God is if you don't rely on the Bible for that authority. Your test for truth claims must be based on something greater than accepting God and submitting to Him without knowing who He is and what He expects of man and what He has done for man. Why do you find the word choice 'verbatim history' so compelling? |
||||||