tbwp10

Nov 17, 2020

0

#41

@Kjvav

Scripture includes a simplicity even a child can understand ("For God so loved the world") and a depth we can never fully explore. There is no special knowledge, training, or skill needed to understand and receive the gospel. In the end, it is ultimately not about how much we know, but Who we know.

There are different gifts in the Body. Not everyone is called to be a Bible teacher or Bible scholar or apolologist for the faith. Not everyone needs to be. But for those of us who do have a passion and calling for such things, it is our duty to provide accurate teaching that is faithful to the original meaning of Scripture in the same way we have to provide the accurate text itself to edify and build up the Church. Fortunately, not everything is as difficult as Revelation. Better still, we have so many great resources today from scholars who have already labored to do the hard work you mention so that we don't have to. We can be good stewards of those resources to bless others.

If we are blessed with an abundance of knowledge and resources that other Christians don't have, then can give to others out of that abundance for the edification of the Church in the same way that we can give out of our abundance if we have an abundance of finances, or an abundance of faith, or an abundance of wisdom, or whatever gift it may be.

Amen?

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#42

tbwp10 wrote:

Kjvav wrote:

tbwp10 wrote:

@Kjvav Btw, I actually completely agree with you that when science and Scripture conflict that we shoud not alter Scripture to accommodate science. To do so is to wrongly and erroneously change the original meaning of Scripture to say something it never said or intended. The only difference is that I reject ALL attempts to do this, including when YECs change the meaning of Scripture to mean something different in order to accommodate science.

Examples?

To reiterate, my approach is very simple and straightforward: the correct interpretation of the Bible is the one that matches/reflects the original meaning/understanding of the text.

This requires that we know about the Bible and Bible times. But sometimes it's a no-brainer and we don't need much background knowledge about Bible times at all. For example, it's pretty obvious that "day" must refer to a normal day and couldn't possibly mean millions of years because no one in ancient times would have ever thought that.

Another no-brainer example I can give you (that will also answer your question) is in Genesis 1:6 when God creates a "divider" (i.e., expanse, firmament) to separate the waters above from the waters below. Now we could go through the formalities of a rigorous exegetical proof, but we hardly need to, because I think we'll both be in agreement on this.

It's pretty obvious that people living in Bible times would have understood the "waters above" to be rain, and the "waters below" to be the rivers and seas, and the "expanse/firmament" "divider" to be the sky that separated the two.

In fact, if the "waters above" is not a reference to rain, then it's hard to imagine what else it could possibly be a reference to. People in Bible times would certainly have understood it to be rain. They would have further recognized it as God's provision in preparation for Day 3, when plants are created (since the plants will then need rain to grow).

*By contrast, there are a lot of YECs today who say the "waters above" is a reference to water that is way out in space, out past the furthest galaxies at the edge of the universe. But there is simply NO possible way that this was the original meaning of the text. No one in Bible times would have ever understood the "waters above" to mean this, so we can reject this as an incorrect and erroneous interpretation that is not faithful to the original meaning (and correct understanding) of Scripture.

*Ironically, the YECs who believe this do so to accommodate science, which imho is a tad bit hypocritical, because they usually say when science and Scripture conflict that science must be wrong.

@Kjvav Don't know if you saw or missed this, but I did provide a response to your question

Kjvav

Nov 19, 2020

0

#43

Yes, I saw it. A few issues....

1) I don’t see where you gave an example of YEC’s changing Scripture to match their views.

2) I’ve never heard any YEC claim that the waters above the firmament were way out past the stars. The only case I’ve seen for this is for a canopy at the outer atmosphere.

3) I still think you are putting to much emphasis on what people would have understood at the time of writing. If Scripture is God breathed as the Holy Spirit moved then I don’t see even the requirement for the writer to understand what he wrote.

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#44

Kjvav wrote:

Yes, I saw it. A few issues....

1) I don’t see where you gave an example of YEC’s changing Scripture to match their views.

2) I’ve never heard any YEC claim that the waters above the firmament were way out past the stars. The only case I’ve seen for this is for a canopy at the outer atmosphere.

3) I still think you are putting to much emphasis on what people would have understood at the time of writing. If Scripture is God breathed as the Holy Spirit moved then I don’t see even the requirement for the writer to understand what he wrote.

Regarding #2 , the water vapor canopy theory has fallen in disfavor among most YECs. I will return and post some of the links/articles that back this up as well as links/articles on the more current view being promoted about the waters above being water out past the furthest galaxies at the edge of the universe.

As far as #3, I certainly agree there are times the original audience doesn't fully grasp everything, such as no one understanding the Messiah was to suffer and die. I also fully agree w/you that divine revelation is for everyone, not just the original audience. But you seem to be suggesting there are some things in the Bible only written for us living today, but that can't be right because then that would limit divine revelation to us. So, I must be misunderstanding. Can you please clarify and include some specific examples to illustrate what you mean?

As far as #1, I'm referring to changing the correct meaning/understanding of Scripture to say something else. For example, we both agree that a regular, 24-hour day is the original meaning of "yom" in Genesis. In fact, here's an example of why it's so important to stick the original meaning, because if we don't an OEC can come in and say the original audience didn't understand "yom" meant long ages. Now you and I both reject this argument, but I'm just trying to illustrate the can of worms that can be opened up if we adopt the revisionist approach that you seem to be suggesting that rejects the original meaning.

Such has led to countless errors from the Christmas tree example to changing "the kingdom of God is in you" from it's original meaning to a New Age meaning to the Latter Day Saints (*Mormons*) changing "there are many gods and lords" from its original meaning--a derogatory reference to the Greek/Roman false gods--to say there are really, truly are many gods and lords (and, indeed, this is what the "clear" meaning of Scripture would seem to say if we don't take into account the proper historical context)--and then there's the *in vogue* popular approach today that takes the "plain meaning" of Paul's "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15 to mean Paul never believed in a bodily resurrection, only a "spiritual" one---an erroneous anachronism based on our modern understanding of "spiritual" and a misunderstanding of the Greek.

So again, this is why it's very important to the understand the original meaning, so we don't impose our own ideas on Scripture that were never there to begin with.

•OECs do this with "day"--changing it to long ages when that's not the original meaning

•Similarly, YECs who teach that "waters above" is NOT a reference to rain, but waters way out in space past the furthest galaxies at the edge of the universe--YECs who teach this are doing the same thing that OECs do with "day"--they're changing the original and correct meaning of Scripture to say something else that it doesn't actually say.

*You may disagree with the overall principle, but surely you would agree at least in this case that the "waters above" is a reference to rain (or if you want to call it a water vapor canopy that provided rain, fine, though the original readers would have simply understood it as rain)--but surely you would agree that it's NOT water at the edge of the universe, yes? (No one would have thought that. Plus, what would even be the purpose of telling us that?)

Kjvav

Nov 19, 2020

0

#45

It appears to me that you are confusing meaning with understanding. There is no such thing as “original meaning” in this context. The meaning is the meaning, (is, was and will be) and that does not depend on anyone’s understanding of the meaning, neither does it change over time. So my point to you is that the scientific understanding of the people alive when God gave the revelation is irrelevant, which you seem to disagree with seeing that you have brought it up on more than one occasion to add weight to your argument.

And I do agree that the waters above the firmament is not at the outer reaches of space, but my only reason is that I don’t see any cause to believe that theory. My belief is that there was a pre flood canopy of water in the outer atmosphere that was broken at the flood (windows of heaven). I can’t prove it, it doesn’t cause me sleepless nights, I don’t care to spend multiple hours of study to solidify my opinion on something that effects me so little, and I may be wrong. The “rain” theory doesn’t seem so strong to me, simply based on the wording of the passage.

As a side note, in case you haven’t noticed so far I am not very concerned with studies of ancient languages because I don’t have faith in the people doing it not the resources they use and therefore not in the results they offer. I have a Bible translated into English that I’ve trusted all my life, has been trusted by English speaking people for centuries and I don’t see any errors in. It is clear you don’t believe that, but then you don’t have to.

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#46

@Kjvav

No, I completely respect and admire what you are saying. And yes, it would be nice if we could come to the Bible with pure objective, open-mindedness that depends solely on just the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. But that is impossible for anyone to do, and I have yet to meet someone who claims to do this, who actually does, in fact, do this.

For example, you say you're not concerned with ancient languages and don't have faith in scholars who deal in such or the non-biblical resources they use, and that you only have trust and faith in the KJV translation of the Bible that you have. But where do you think that translation of the Bible came from? The Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scholars of the day back in 1611. You say you don't trust these ancient languages or scholars with their non-biblical resources, and yet I see you cite and reference concordances in some of your posts. But where do you think such resources come from? The Bible scholars and experts in the ancient languages. You say you only trust the Bible and not outside sources, and yet you didn't get the water vapor canopy idea from reading the Bible, that's a human idea that came from YECs that traces back to a Quaker school teacher in 1912. Is his interpretation somehow more accurate than an actual Bible scholar?

Again, I admire the ideal. I wish we could attain it. But none of us can. No one relies completely and solely on just the Bible. We rely on concordances written by Bible scholars. We greatly rely on pastors who teach us the Bible--pastor's who went to seminary and who were trained by Bible scholars!

It's also not the translation that is divinely inspired, it's the original Scriptures in their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that they were written in that are divinely inspired. The translation requires faith in the translation abilities of the very imperfect, human Bible scholars who do the translating work for us, and the scholars who translated and gave us the KJV were just as human as us back in 1611. If you've ever done any kind of translation work with anything at all whether the Bible or translating something from Spanish or German or French, then you also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever have a perfect translation of one language into another. It simply can't be done. There are Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible that we have no good words for in english that we can never perfectly translate and have to pick the closest, imperfect approximation that we can. We always lose something in the process of translation. The Bible may be perfect but our translations of it certainly aren't, and anyone who just goes on believing otherwise is simply fooling themselves.

*Again, I would very much love to be able to say that I only rely on the Bible, but I'd be lying, and so would you, and so would anyone who makes such a claim (or they'd be utterly blinded by self-deception). So, while I recognize and respect your attempt to distinguish between me--a supposed weak-in-faith believer who relies on additional resources vs. you--an apparent righteous, wholly devoted sold out believer who only trusts and relies on the Bible....Well, that's not really fair to me....or to you...None of us can attain that ideal, nor can any of us truly practice it.

*With regard to the one true meaning of Scripture that doesn't change, I concur. The original meaning IS that one, true meaning. This is CMI's position. This is every trained pastor, Bible teacher, and Bible scholar's position. And, quite frankly, it's your position too, because I've seen you argue this way and against revisionists who try to say the text means something else (*so it's not the basic principle of interpretation you object to, it must be me or something you think I'm trying to do or set you up for; I have no ill intent or motives I assure you). I also completely agree with you that the scientific understanding of the people in Bible times is completely irrelevant. Absolutely correct. They didn't even have anything that we would call a scientific understanding.

*You know we might be talking in circles. Can we try a different tack and try to see what we agree on?

(1) We both agree that there is one, true meaning of Scripture, right?

(2) We both agree that that one, true meaning doesn't change to something else over time but stays the same, right?

(3) Now what I'm hearing you say is that there are times when the original audience had an incorrect and false understanding of a given passage of Scripture while we today have the one, true correct understanding. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then can you please give some examples of this?

Kjvav

Nov 19, 2020

0

#47

tbwp10 wrote:

@Kjvav

No, I completely respect and admire what you are saying. And yes, it would be nice if we could come to the Bible with pure objective, open-mindedness that depends solely on just the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. But that is impossible for anyone to do, and I have yet to meet someone who claims to do this, who actually does, in fact, do this.

For example, you say you're not concerned with ancient languages and don't have faith in scholars who deal in such or the non-biblical resources they use, and that you only have trust and faith in the KJV translation of the Bible that you have. But where do you think that translation of the Bible came from? I believe from better scholars than are employed in translations today. Have you read their biographies?. The Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scholars of the day back in 1611. You say you don't trust these ancient languages or scholars with their non-biblical resources, and yet I see you cite and reference concordances in some of your posts. I don’t actually think you have seen me cite any concordance. I have a Strong’s Concordance, but I seldom use the dictionary aspect of it. I use it to find a verse that I don’t remember the reference for, or to see what English word the KJB translators also used for a particular Hebrew or Greek word. I don’t call the men who have made such study aids stupid by any means, nor pretend that I am their intellectual equal, but I have found what I very much consider to be errors with Strongs and even Noah Webster. But where do you think such resources come from? The Bible scholars and experts in the ancient languages. You say you only trust the Bible and not outside sources, to be clear, I put unquestioning faith in the Scriptures, everybody else is subject to questioning. and yet you didn't get the water vapor canopy idea from reading the Bible, that's a human idea that came from YECs that traces back to a Quaker school teacher in 1912. I also believe I said that I’m not married to that theory, I believe my exact words were “I could be wrong”.Is his interpretation somehow more accurate than an actual Bible scholar? Some of the steamiest piles of crap I’ve seen have been the writings of Bible “scholars”, so I’ll answer that question with a hard maybe.

Again, I admire the ideal. I wish we could attain it. But none of us can. No one relies completely and solely on just the Bible. We rely on concordances written by Bible scholars. Your concordance example is flawed in this discussion, to me it is an intellectually mechanical tool, solely a reference book of which verses contain certain words and what other English words were original words translated into. Not really a scholarly work, a simple computer program could have produced it. Again I consider the dictionary aspect to it to be flawed, likely not as accurate as a modern dictionary because we are working off ancient writings that have been found, which is obviously not very complete, especially when it comes to nuances of the language. For instance, in modern American English, “fat chance” and “slim chance” mean exactly the same thing. Do you believe if the English language were to die out and people were to try to resurrect it 2000 years later that that would be picked up on with just the writings they could find? We greatly rely on pastors who teach us the Bible--pastor's who went to seminary and who were trained by Bible scholars! I’ve had college trained pastors and one who was training like Timothy, by a Paul. That one was the one I profited from the most. I subscribe to the belief that the Word of God is the best commentary on itself and that the very best way to understand the Bible is to start in Genesis and read through to the end of the Revelation and to do it again and again and again. That is what I do. When I study topics in Scripture it is for the purpose of preaching. I believe Genesis 1 & 2 and John 1 and Hebrews 1 and a number of other passages offer more light on the creation of the world than all the commentaries put together.

It's also not the translation that is divinely inspired, it's the original Scriptures in their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that they were written in that are divinely inspired. It’s not just the originals, the Word of God has been promised to be preserved to every generation. Inspiration and preservation are sister doctrines that cannot be separated. To deny either one is to render the other meaningless. The translation requires faith in the translation abilities of the very imperfect, human Bible scholars who do the translating work for us, and the scholars who translated and gave us the KJV were just as human as us back in 1611. If you've ever done any kind of translation work with anything at all whether the Bible or translating something from Spanish or German or French, then you also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever have a perfect translation of one language into another. It simply can't be done. I haven’t claim the KJB to be infallible, just superior to modern translations.There are Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible that we have no good words for in english that we can never perfectly translate and have to pick the closest, imperfect approximation that we can. We always lose something in the process of translation. The Bible may be perfect but our translations of it certainly aren't, and anyone who just goes on believing otherwise is simply fooling themselves.

*Again, I would very much love to be able to say that I only rely on the Bible, but I'd be lying, and so would you, and so would anyone who makes such a claim (or they'd be utterly blinded by self-deception). So, while I recognize and respect your attempt to distinguish between me--a supposed weak-in-faith believer who relies on additional resources vs. you--an apparent righteous, wholly devoted sold out believer who only trusts and relies on the Bible....Well, that's not really fair to me....or to you...None of us can attain that ideal, nor can any of us truly practice it. I consider that to be a very condescending comment.

*With regard to the one true meaning of Scripture that doesn't change, I concur. The original meaning IS that one, true meaning. This is CMI's position. This is every trained pastor, Bible teacher, and Bible scholar's position. And, quite frankly, it's your position too, because I've seen you argue this way and against revisionists who try to say the text means something else (*so it's not the basic principle of interpretation you object to, it must be me or something you think I'm trying to do or set you up for; I have no ill intent or motives I assure you). I also completely agree with you that the scientific understanding of the people in Bible times is completely irrelevant. Absolutely correct. They didn't even have anything that we would call a scientific understanding.

*You know we might be talking in circles. Can we try a different tack and try to see what we agree on?

(1) We both agree that there is one, true meaning of Scripture, right?

(2) We both agree that that one, true meaning doesn't change to something else over time but stays the same, right?

(3) Now what I'm hearing you say is that there are times when the original audience had an incorrect and false understanding of a given passage of Scripture while we today have the one, true correct understanding. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then can you please give some examples of this? Close, I’m simply saying that it is possible that the population of the time may not understand what was written, possibly we see it better today, possibly we don’t and a future generation will. The book of Job has a fair amount of scientific information that I don’t think was common knowledge at the time of its writing, if known at all, water cycles, suns influence on wind, fountains of the deep, etc. forgive me for not having specific examples, I’m at work.

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#48

Kjvav

Nov 19, 2020

0

#49

That’s really what you’ve already been saying. Most topics have plenty of people on both sides, I’m sure you could cite many sources.I didn’t say you were the one who invented this idea, just that I disagree with it.

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#50

• No condescension intended. I thought you were maybe being condescending to me. If I was wrong, then my mistake. No harm no foul.

• My point was simply that despite our well-intended best efforts to objectively read the Bible, it is not possible for any of us to do so.

• Bible scholars and commentaries are not perfect and make mistakes just like doctors do, and we should certainly be discerning just like when we get a second opinion from a different doctor. BUT we would be very unwise to just reject them, NOT because they carry divine authority--they don't--but because just like doctors they're more often right than wrong and certainly more often right than we are as non-experts.

• You see, all of us--every single one of us---is plagued by blindness and self-deception where we acknowledge we're not perfect but still subtlely without even being aware we're doing it we still tend to trust our own judgment more than anyone else and as a result unintentionally confuse our own interpretations as God's infallible Word. In other words, we will often reject the fallible word of scholars for being "clearly" in error and going against God's Word without even realizing that what we're really doing is accepting our own interpretation over an expert's and placing our own fallible interpretation on a level equal to God's divine authority without even realizing we're doing it.

• It's very difficult for us to see our blind spots. So, I'm just saying it's unwise for us to just reject the experts outright, because we're more often wrong than they are and often deceive ourselves into thinking we're rejecting their fallible interpretations and accepting God's infallible Word, when we don't realize we're more often just accepting our fallible interpretation over theirs.

• Regarding the rest, it seems we will just have to agree to disagree, but for what it's worth I have never seen anything good come from NOT following the standard principle of original meaning first--and then--application to us second. I have yet to see a case of the opposite that doesn't result in error. And I'm afraid the examples you give about Job are simply yet another example of the error of anachronism by erroneously reading our modern scientific understanding back into the Bible. CMI lists this as one of the arguments we should no longer use for that very reason. Job does not contain any special advanced knowledge beyond what people in Bible times knew and simply describes commonly observed weather patterns. This is a view that was popularized by Henry Morris (who was not a Bible scholar of any sort) that is not based on any sound exegesis to know the true meaning of Scripture but merely to make the Bible more palatable and appealing to our modern scientific culture. It's really no different from OEC desires to make "day" long ages to appeal to modern society. I know you will likely disagree so we will have to leave it at that. But if not mine, then perhaps you will at least consider CMI's position on this too.

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#51

With no sign of agreement on the horizon I might as well skip to the conclusion and bring this to a close.

(1) We live in a modern world that values scientific validation. Both OECs and YECs feel the need to find scientific validation for the Bible, and as a result change what the Bible says and means to accommodate modern science.

(2) YECs say they uphold the Bible and reject science when it conflicts, and frequently criticize science as a fallible human enterprise. But their actions show that like OECs, they too, value modern science a great deal and spend millions on scientific research for a singular goal: to find scientific validation for the Bible.

(3) Thus, both OECs and YECs seek to validate the Bible by the fallible, human method of science.

(4) Answers in Genesis is one of the YEC organizations that rejects the water vapor canopy theory and teaches that the "waters above" in Day 2 are waters way out in space beyond the furthest galaxies at the edge of the universe.

(5) AIG does this to accommodate modern scientific understanding instead of teaching what the Bible actually says. AIG realizes that Day 4 puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament expanse sky (i.e., in earth's atmosphere) that separates the "waters above" (rain) from the "waters below" (rivers, seas). This is why AIG now rejects the canopy theory.

(6) Instead of saying "science must be wrong," AIG accepts the modern scientific consensus that the sun, moon, and stars are in space and not the earth's atmosphere, in the same way that OECs accept the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth.

(7) Both OECs and YECs place a premium on having science and the Bible accord with each other in order to meet modern society's expectations. In the process, both change what the Bible actually says.

(8) It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Genesis puts the sun, moon, and stars in the earth's atmosphere below the rain waters "above." Even today, rain is the only water we know that comes from "above." This also happens to be what people in OT times believed. They did not know about space and believed the sun, moon, and stars were objects that were much smaller than the earth and that rain came from a source above that.

(9) The ONLY motivation for rejecting this is the same thing that motivates OECs to reject literal, 24-hour days: a desire for the Bible to accord with modern science, which both OECs and YECs place a premium on, because of the high esteem given to science by modern society.

(10) This immediately creates a crisis, because Genesis teaches a view of the world that we know to be incorrect, and the only way to escape this is to force Genesis to say something different than what it actually teaches for the sole motivation of accommodating fallible human science.

*It would seem then that the only possible solution that rightly acknowledges the Bible as God's Word while also being faithful to what God's Word actually teaches, is to recognize that God is more interested in communicating divine revelation about Himself than He is in correcting our faulty human understandings about the world (which we will always have!), and therefore, used the primitive beliefs of the time, erroneous as they were, which everyone believed in, in order to communicate divinely inspired, infallible revelation about Himself.

Kjvav

Nov 19, 2020

0

#52

So you’re saying that the Bible has errors. I had assumed that this was where you were headed. I kind of feel that this was a set up.

In paragraph 8, can you specify what in Scripture (please just the English Bible, I don’t want to get into Hebrew arguments) you believe puts the Sun, moon and stars in the Earths atmosphere?

tbwp10

Nov 19, 2020

0

#53

No, I am not saying that the Bible has errors at all, and to claim I am saying that is to distort and misrepresent my words. It's important that we are very clear about this. You are the one saying that this makes the Bible have errors, based on your assumption that Genesis is meant to be a scientific account. And IF Genesis actually was a scientific account, then you would be correct that this would make it have errors. But it is quite obvious to everyone (except those who want to turn it into a scientific account) that Genesis is not, in fact, a scientific account, nor was it ever intended to be one. Science didn't even exist in OT times. Genesis is not meant to teach us about natural history, but to teach us truths about our Creator. Genesis communicates majestic truths about the only one true God and His exalted, transcendent, all-powerful attributes as well as His deep love and care and concern for us as His image bearers, while at the same time presenting a powerful polemic that repudiates and discredits the many false gods that people believed in in ancient times.

All the focus that Christians today put on trying to make the Bible and science fit with each other--the honest truth is that all that misplaced focus has actually unwittingly weakened and minimized and clouded and kept us from knowing the true meaning of Genesis and what it teaches. Genesis is so much more powerful and epic and mind-blowing (and heart transforming) than we ever imagined, but we've unintentionally limited and put it in a tiny box by focusing entirely on the wrong thing causing us to miss the wonderful, beautiful truths that it teaches. Today's OEC/YEC debates don't even miss the forest through the trees. They're in the wrong forest altogether.

stevetuck

Nov 20, 2020

0

#54

I have never read the Genesis creation accounts as saying that the Sun, moon and stars are in the Earth's atmosphere. Where did that idea come from?

Kjvav

Nov 20, 2020

0

#55

10) This immediately creates a crisis, because Genesis teaches a view of the world that we know to be incorrect, and the only way to escape this is to force Genesis to say something different than what it actually teaches for the sole motivation of accommodating fallible human science.

Is this not you saying the Bible has errors? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, what am I misunderstanding?

Kjvav

Nov 20, 2020

0

#56

tbwp10 wrote:

No, I am not saying that the Bible has errors at all, and to claim I am saying that is to distort and misrepresent my words. It's important that we are very clear about this. You are the one saying that this makes the Bible have errors, based on your assumption that Genesis is meant to be a scientific account. And IF Genesis actually was a scientific account, then you would be correct that this would make it have errors. But it is quite obvious to everyone (except those who want to turn it into a scientific account) that Genesis is not, in fact, a scientific account, nor was it ever intended to be one. Science didn't even exist in OT times. Please, the Pyramids were built during this time, they made glass from sand and charted the seas and travelled them, and had advanced understanding of mathematics. Genesis is not meant to teach us about natural history, but to teach us truths about our Creator. this really does seem to be you saying that the Bible has errors, but it’s “ok because it’s not a science book”. Genesis communicates majestic truths about the only one true God and His exalted, transcendent, all-powerful attributes as well as His deep love and care and concern for us as His image bearers, while at the same time presenting a powerful polemic that repudiates and discredits the many false gods that people believed in in ancient times.

All the focus that Christians today put on trying to make the Bible and science fit with each other--the honest truth is that all that misplaced focus has actually unwittingly weakened and minimized and clouded and kept us from knowing the true meaning of Genesis and what it teaches. Genesis is so much more powerful and epic and mind-blowing (and heart transforming) than we ever imagined, but we've unintentionally limited and put it in a tiny box by focusing entirely on the wrong thing causing us to miss the wonderful, beautiful truths that it teaches. Today's OEC/YEC debates don't even miss the forest through the trees. They're in the wrong forest altogether.

stevetuck

Nov 20, 2020

0

#57

"The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence."---John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Apparently John Walton is a leading proponent of Theistic Evolution so with that as his framework we can’t really expect him to come up with the right conclusions about Genesis.

Kjvav

Nov 20, 2020

0

#58

tbwp10

Nov 20, 2020

0

#59

stevetuck wrote:

"The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence."---John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Apparently John Walton is a leading proponent of Theistic Evolution so with that as his framework we can’t really expect him to come up with the right conclusions about Genesis.

I'm afraid this is an entirely false, inaccurate statement. John Walton is not a leading proponent of theistic evolution, nor does he use it as his framework to interpret Genesis. John Walton is not a scientist, he is a well-known respected OT scholar and Ancient Near East expert who is also an evangelical Christian who believes in the divinely inspired, infallible word of God. I do not agree with everything he says, but I can guarantee you that his knowledge, understanding, exegesis and interpretation of Scripture, including on Genesis is far more accurate and faithful to the true meaning of Scripture than any of us here and certainly far more trustworthy than anything OEC and YEC organizations say with regard to Genesis. And the teaching resources he has made available have been invaluable to the Body of Christ and helped inform and correct countless errors in understanding people have about the OT. His exegesis is light years ahead of anything OECs and YECs have to offer and far more faithful and true to God's word, guaranteed. People mistakenly say he's a TE proponent because he doesn't object to it and does not see science and Scripture as being in conflict, because he correctly says that science and Genesis are apples and oranges, don't speak to each other, and that Genesis is not a modern scienific account nor is it meant to communicate scientific knowledge--which is true---it's meant to communicate divine revelation. Walton is not a proponent of theistic evolution, he's a proponent of God's word. If Walton were a proponent of TE and used TE as a framework to interpret Genesis, then he would argue that "day" means long ages, and yet he rejects any attempts to interpret "day" as meaning anything other than regular, normal days. It is truly sad the way that some YEC organizations have misrepresented and slandered Walton.

Kjvav

Nov 20, 2020

0

#60

Now I see where you’ve been getting all this stuff at, including the arguing against the Biblical narrative while claiming to support it

Wheaton College and False Teaching in Tennessee

by Ken Ham on February 18, 2011

Tomorrow, John Walton, the professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in Illinois, will speak in the same church in Johnson City where I spoke last weekend. He is basically speaking on a topic that is related to his book—The Lost World of Genesis One.

https://journity-images.s3.amazonaws.com/answersingenesis.org/umD8pj6iadJoTurtn-2005_BoardingPass_Webbanners_05-20-BoardingPass-JournityAd_500x500.jpg");background-position:50% 50%;">

Lifetime Boarding Pass

Get lifetime admission to the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum plus exclusive benefits. Available for a limited time!

LEARN MORE

I have read the book, and it saddens me to think of the false teaching that is rife in this publication. This teaching is obviously also being taught to his students at Wheaton and will be taught to those who turn up tomorrow to hear the professor speak. However, I believe the detailed teaching Dr. Jason and I—and the ICR speakers—gave this past week in Tennessee will help people to be able to be Bereans like those in Acts 17. They searched the Scriptures to see “if these things were so.” When people compare John Walton’s teaching with the plain reading of Scripture, they will find he is undermining biblical authority and using a form of academia to give an elitist view of how one is supposed to approach God’s Word.

A summary of what Walton teaches includes the following:

Genesis 1 is not history in regard to the material world; it has to do with what he calls God’s ”Cosmic Temple.” He basically insists that a person can only understand Genesis if that person has a understanding of the ancient Near Eastern thinking. And surprise, surprise, this thinking has been lost for thousands of years, and now a few academics like Walton have unearthed this way of thinking so now they can tell us what the writer of Genesis chapter 1 really meant! It is what I would call academic elitism.

Walton tries (unsuccessfully) to insist that he is not coming up with this new idea of his because of the influence of evolution/millions of years. But it’s clear that he is doing just that! He knows that students today often have a conflict between the secular view of origins and the Bible, so his solution is to relegate Genesis 1 as having nothing to do with material origins and thus people are free to believe whatever they want. Though, he is obviously convinced that evolution and millions of years should be believed.

Bottom line, it is just another way of trying to come up with a “solution” to fitting millions of years and evolution into the Bible. Because Walton knows (and admits) that the days of creation are ordinary days in Genesis 1 according to the Hebrew language, he had to come up with a way to allow for millions of years and evolution yet agree that the days of creation are ordinary days. So what is his solution? Relegate Genesis 1 to mean it is the creation of God’s “Cosmic Temple,” and not allow it to have anything to do with material origins. Then he can say that students will have no conflict, and they can believe in millions of years, evolution, or whatever—it doesn’t matter!

And of course, the reason the great church leaders of the past (whether Luther, Calvin, Gill, or whoever) never thought of this is because they did not discover how ancient Near Eastern cultures were thinking! This has now been discovered by an elite few who can now tell us for the first time in thousands of years what Genesis 1 really means. Sound bizarre? I encourage you to read the book for yourself!

Here are just a few quotes from the book:

Were Adam and Eve two real people? Walton says the following:

This archetypal understanding applies also to Genesis 2. An individual named Adam is not the only human being made of the dust of the earth, for as Genesis 3:19 indicates, “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” This is true of all humans, men and women. It is an archetypal feature that describes us all. It is not a statement of chemical composition nor is it describing a material process by which each and every human being is made. The dust is an archetypal feature and therefore cannot be viewed as a material ingredient. It is indicative of human destiny and mortality, and therefore is a functional comment, not a material one. (Location 657–664, Kindle)

Is Genesis 1 an account of material origins? Walton declares the following:

When we thought of Genesis 1 as an account of material origins, creation became an action in the past that is over and done with. God made objects and now the cosmos exists (materially). Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins offers more opportunity for understanding that God’s creative work continues . . . (Location 723–730, Kindle)

Genesis 1 would be viewed as a temple text-we gain a different perspective on the nature of the Genesis creation account. Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. (Location 795–801, Kindle)

Was the Garden of Eden a real garden? Walton makes this statement:

The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary. (Location 775–781, Kindle)

Does John Walton believe in millions of years? Walton says the following:

The day-age theory and others that attempt to mitigate the force of the seven days do so because they see no way to reconcile seven twenty-four-hour days of material creation with the evidence from science that the earth and the universe are very old. They seek a solution in trying to stretch the meaning of yôm, whereas we propose that once we understand the nature of the creation account, there is no longer any need to stretch yôm. (Location 867–874, Kindle)

Some variation exists as to whether the cosmic origins go back 10,000-20,000 years as some would allow, or only go back about 6,000 years from the present (as promoted at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky). The challenge they face is to account for all of the evidences of great age of the earth and of the universe. (Location 1023–1031, Kindle)

Of course he believes in millions of years, and despite his insistence to the contrary, this is part of his ultimate motivation to relegate Genesis 1 to something other than material history.

So what does Walton say Genesis 1 means? Walton summarizes his thoughts here about Genesis 1:

In summary, we have suggested that the seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment. It is not the material phase of temple construction that represents the creation of the temple; it is the inauguration of the functions and the entrance of the presence of God to take up his rest that creates the temple. Genesis 1focuses on the creation of the (cosmic) temple, not the material phase of preparation. IN the next chapter we will track the implications of the idea that the seven days are not related to the material phase of creation. (Locations 867–874 and 874–877, Kindle)

There is so much more. He does not, for example, believe in a global Flood. He believes there was death of animals millions of years before man (however man came into existence).

There is a very telling statement I want to leave you with from Prof. Walton:

This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science-it was drawn from an analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its ancient environment. The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is not biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a young-earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion. (Location 896–904, Kindle)

Well, he is correct here in one sentence: biblical creationists do insist on a young earth because we “believe the Bible obligates” us “to such a defense.” Of course! But notice he is trying to see his conclusion is not “designed to accommodate science, ” yet as you read the book, you find that is exactly what it is all about.

Why are we seeing more and more bizarre and elitist ideas (e.g., William Dembski—see previous blog postfor details) coming out of Christian academia? I believe it is a form of academic pride, largely from academic peer pressure, because these people ultimately “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God“ (John 12:43).

And why do I bother to bring such matters to the church’s attention? I believe we need to be watchmen as described in Ezekiel and warn people about those who are on the attack. And in our day, many Christian academics are attacking God’s Word by such false teaching as that above.