Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 9605 | ||
Dear Jim, You're welcome! However, JVH0212 has provided an excellent response here with several things to ponder.. And I cannot think of a better response to this than his reponse to the second part of your question. I hope and pray that you can find what you where looking for. Blessings, Nolan! |
||||||
2 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9619 | ||
Thanks to all who replied. As Nolan pointed out, I have much to ponder. The one point made by JVH0212 about witnesses to creation is well made, although it is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.) Just so everyone understands - I'm not questioning the validity of the gospel accounts. I'm simply trying to resolve a fairly pedestrian question that occured to me: "These events happened. The narrator of the events states that they were not witnessed. Yet we have detailed accounts. How did this come to be?" It may be as simple as Jesus relating the events after the fact - if not before the crucifixion, then there was ample time afterward. Thanks again to all. I will continue my research, and see what else I can find. That's what the forum is for, after all! In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
3 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9628 | ||
This is more than just a secondary issue. Jim Dunne: You write: "It is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.)" My attempt to answer your implied question follows. Again, nothing in my answer is meant as a criticism or putdown of you or your question. By no means. I welcome your honest questions. I know the quote that follows is a bit lengthy, but bear with me. I'm sure if I gave only half an answer, I would subsequently need to write the second half to explain and expand on the first half. So I'll just give my complete answer here, though it be a bit lengthy. Why is it necessary that the Genesis account of creation be taken as historical fact? "...understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. "Now there basically are only two options. You can either believe what Genesis says or not. And that is no over- simplification. Frankly, believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny. "Now the divine equation given in the Bible in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I don't know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that. Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition....In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. "Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " (http://www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm) |
||||||
4 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9675 | ||
Thanks for the reply - no criticism taken. And thanks for providing the link to the web site where you got the quote - it looks interesting and informative. Let me be clear on what I was suggesting (or not suggesting, perhaps.) I am NOT suggesting at all that Genesis 1:1 is not true - I believe that with all my heart. But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know. Creation exists in all its' glory - bite it, taste it, it's real. If you believe (and I do) that God is the responsible Fact behind creation, do you also have to believe that on the third day of creation, God created plants? I really don't think so. There are a couple of quotes by Dr. Gregory Boyd from Letters from a Skeptic that are appropriate, I think: "I see no reason why God would have to limit Himself to the genre of literal istory in revealing Himself to us. There is no reason why certain sections of Scripture could not contain some symbolic elements. If using teh literary genres of myth or allegory would better express the point God is trying to make, then what would prevent Him from using them? Nothing." "The idea that the Bible must be 100 percent literal if it is 100 percent inspired is a very recent, and quite misguided notion." These sum up what I was trying to express very well. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
5 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 9698 | ||
"But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know" Hi Jim, If Genesis is not a COMPLETELY FACTUAL recounting of creation, then you DO know at least what is not. It not a completely factual recounting of creation. If it is not factual, then what are our non-factual options, myth, allegory, fable? |
||||||
6 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 9706 | ||
. | ||||||