Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32115 | ||
Hi, Curt; Let me offer partial support for your view of the Bible. I would suggest that it is not man's record of God's interaction with humanity, it is God's record communicated through inspired human writers. There were no eyewitnesses to the creation. If we don't assume that God inspired the writing of Genesis, then we don't know whether or not God created the universe. If we don't know that, we know nothing. Like you, I question the lieteralness of the creation story. But first a disclaimer: There is a great deal of wisdom and discernment on this forum. I have been truly blessed by both participating and lurking in many of the threads. And I have found that those who have hammered me hardest on Creation issues have often enlightened me the most on other questions. Now into the fray.... As you've begun to discover, the only unpardonable sin is to question the historicity of the creation story. It is not enough to know that God predated the universe and personally created it out of nothing. Nor is it enough to know that God's Creation was perfect or to know that sin entered this perfect world through the lies of Satan and the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Nor is it sufficient to know that Jesus' ultimate defeat of Satan was foretold at the moment of his greatest victory. No; for many there is a further requirement that one must know the exact mechanism and timing of certain events during the process. The prevailing wisdom on the forum is that if one questions the literal interpretation that it took God precisely 144 hours - no more, no less - then one automatically rejects the rest of the Bible or arbitrarily picks and chooses what one wishes to believe. Few here seem to be bothered by the fact that the Bible itself does not claim to be a source of scientific knowledge. Yet in this and the surrounding verses, Paul has summarized the only purpose that the Bible claims for itself. The assertion of scientific accuracy is of man, not Scripture. Over the years, I have developed a simple test of whether the historicity of any Genesis passage is really important: If the story as related in Genesis were different or inaccurate, would it contradict what the whole of the Bible teaches us about God? For example, if God had actually just grounded Satan for a week, or given Adam and Eve a second chance, or killed Satan on the spot, it would change what the rest of the Bible teaches about God. If God took two weeks or two centuries or two billion years to create the universe, it would still be his creation and would contracdict nothing elsewhere in the Bible. A different period of time would still be consistent with everything else the Bible teaches and would still fall within this passage's definition of what the Bible is meant to do - lead us to Jesus. As long as God did it, it does not matter to me how he went about it or how long he took. In this way, I have come to understand that Adam and Eve were indeed historical people and that the events in the Garden must have taken place. Much of the Bible would have to be ignored if Adam and Eve were not real people. Not so with 6 24-hour days. And, no, I am not making God out to be a liar. I am making God out to be a loving father who is more interested in conveying spiritual truths - on which hang our salvation - than giving lectures in physics or cosmology. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
2 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32125 | ||
Greetings Steve! I understand where you are coming from, but your post illustrates one of my problems with accepting the historical reliability of one part of Genesis, but not the rest. How do you reconcile a real Adam and Eve with evolution? He could not have been the first man. He would simply be the most evolved man up to that point. Yet, Genesis specifically says that God created Adam directly and that he was the first man. How do you reconcile evolution with the fall of man? Were there people before Adam and Eve who did not fall? If there were others besides Adam and Eve, then are we all descended from Adam and Eve, or someone else who was alive at the time? I think you get my drift! :-) There are all sorts of problems created by the simple decision to take the creation account as non-literal. It literally impacts many other doctrines. Worse, it is based entirely upon a "scientific world-view" which has been shown over history to be inconsistent and falliable. Remember when we thought the earth was the center of the universe! In closing, perhaps the creation account is such a hot bed of conflict precisely because it is so important! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran aka Indiana Tim! :-) |
||||||
3 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32133 | ||
Greetings, Tim the other Indy; Reasoning backwards from what the Bible as a whole says, one has little choice but to accept that Adam and Eve were historical persons with the special roles and characteristics the Bible describes. The most obvious instance, of course, was Jesus' reference to them in Matthew 19:4-5. As I said, I see the Bible as God's record of his interactions with humanity. From Adam and Eve forward, historicity matters because God chose to reveal himself in the lives of real people. But if Adam had thrown on a three-piece suit instead of fig leaves, it wouldn't matter. The creation of the universe, however, took place before there was any history for God to intervene in and before there were any human lives to touch. Like the difference between a suit and a fig-leaf, the difference between 144 hours and 14 billion years is irrelevant to understanding the attributes of God or the work of Jesus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
4 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32169 | ||
Greetings Steve! I agree that the lenght of time of creation is not all that significant. Other than the fact Genesis says that the "evening and the morning were the first day, ect...." So, a natural reading would be 7 days. However, the usual approach is to first deny that Genesis is real history, then to deny that Adam and Eve were real people, then to promote evolution. Evolution simply isn't compatible with the doctrines of the Bible. Obviously, Genesis doesn't tell us every detail of creation. I mean, which cell did God cause to split first! :-) But, it is a huge jump to go from that fact to saying that nothing in the creation account is historical. No history or biography gives us every detail. I sat under a philosophy professor in college who believed in Theistic evolution. We had a great debate one day, but when it came right down to it, he was forced to admit that he did not believe that Adam and Eve were real people. He believed that they were simply symbols of God's creative act, which was accomplished through evolution. It is interesting to note that this same professor is part of the openness of God movement and denies just about everything the Bible says about God. Well, I've got to get back to bed so I can go to work! I'll chat with you later Steve! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32178 | ||
Hi, Tim; Hope you got your beauty rest. ;-) Sunday's a busy day, I know. I think the difference is in the method, the reasoning backwards. If one built one's entire worldview and theology on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and worked forward to belief in Jesus, any doubts about that interpretation could bring the whole edifice down. But I've said before that I believe in the Bible because I believe in Jesus, not the other way around. As I work my way back in time from Jesus' earthly ministry, I eventually encounter the historical Adam and Eve. With them I also encounter the beginning of human history, the first eyewitnesses to God's actions, the introduction of sin into a perfect world, the first foreshadowing of Jesus, the introduction of Satan, and the first pronouncement of his ultimate fate. These things cannot be denied. As I continue backwards from there, the next significant thing I encounter is "In the begining, God". I can't find any theological importance in the duration or manner of creation, so I don't see any reason to assume scientific rigor in the Bible's description. You may be interested to know that for most of my Christian life, I doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve. I was perfectly content with the notion that Jesus simply built on his Father's parable when he referred to them in his discussion of marriage. But I evenrually realized that I could not get around Paul's contrasting of Jesus to Adam. If Adam didn't really exist, that part of Paul's theology would simply be wrong. Since I believe beyond doubt that God inspired Paul's theology, it couldn't be wrong. So Adam must have existed. This proves I am teachable. ;-) And plaase note that I am not insisting on my reading of Genesis 1. As in the recent "Judas in hell" debate, I think there is room for differing views without doing harm to any aspect of Christian theology or the authority of Scripture. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who fervently hopes God agrees that the renewing and restorative power of the Sabbath can be accomplished through watching football playoff games. |
||||||
6 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32243 | ||
Greetings Steve! Well, we've got you back to Gen. 2, sometime in the future you might get to Gen. 1! :-) Football! Amen! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||