Serious question for all creationists and Bible believers

An absolutely bizarre doctrine that you'll have a *really* hard time convincing me I should accept. Shedding the blood of an animal makes up for the sin of a human being? Come on--you can't seriously think that makes sense.

An absolutely bizarre doctrine that you'll have a *really* hard time convincing me I should accept. Shedding the blood of an animal makes up for the sin of a human being? Come on--you can't seriously think that makes sense.

In post 66, Kjvav spoke of the Bible as "the perfect, preserved Word of God." Let's think about that a little.

First, if God wanted to communicate a message to all of us, I would think he would simply directly put that message into our minds, without having to write a book to do it. But, second, if he used a book to do it, I would expect its meaning to literally, not metaphorically, leap off the page into the reader's mind, so that each of us would understand the message the same way everyone else did. Mindwalk, I’m sure you’ve read Genesis 1 and 2. Did  it’s meaning not leap off the page to you? Is it not true that you not only doubt what it says (I don’t mean doubt as in “not believe”, but doubt as in “not sure of what it says”) because of people like Tbwp telling you they are experts and that you are reading it wrong?Third, if he used a book whose meaning did *not* literally leap off the page into the reader's mind, then each reader would have to do his best to interpret the text as intended, and in order to avoid misunderstanding, I would expect his text to *change* for each reader, so that it would be exactly right for communicating his message to you, exactly right for communicating his message to me, and so on. Fourth, if he just used an ordinary book, one whose meaning did *not* literally leap from the page and whose text did not change to fit the individual reader, then each reader would have to do his best to interpret what was written as God intended it. But not everyone would do that equally well. Some people would misunderstand. In order to get God's message right, we'd have to understand his words just as he intended them. So, suppose he wrote the book in Shakespeare's time and used Shakespearean English, so as to communicate with readers in the Shakespearean era. Well, OK. Now I come along, a few centuries later, and I try to read it--and I need footnotes from someone who is proficient both in the version of English I'm familiar with and also in Shakespearean English. Or else I need it to be translated by such a person into the version of Engish I'm familiar with. Then I can understand it. Oh, but suppose it was first written in Old French, translated into Shakespearean English, and then translated into the version of English I'm familiar with. I'm going to have to place my faith in the proficiency of the translators. But what if the translations differ? Then how am I to understand God's word? What if the Old French version was written in a region where a particular word had a meaning that it had nowhere else--but the translators don't know that? Then I'm going to misunderstand God's word.

As it is, we have text written in Hebrew and Greek (am I missing any?), translated into Latin, translated into King James's version of English, translated into twentieth- or twenty-first century English. Now, it might be convenient to say that God inspired not only the writers of the text but also the translators--but the translations clearly differ, making that unlikely. How do we tell what was intended by the Hebrew/Greek text? You'd have to understand the meanings and uses of words not only in Hebrew, but in the Hebrew of the time the text was written and in the region in which the text was written, and similarly for the Greek. Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are not lost languages. They are the most studied languages in the history of the world precisely because they are the languages of Scripture. People like Tbwp introduce the false idea that ancient people didn’t believe the plain teaching of Scripture because they were so different in their thinking and the Bible was to them, and not us (ignoring that the Bible claims to be for every generation).

   You’ve read Genesis 1 & 2, did you not think it said God created everything in six literal 24 hour days? Then why do you stand here now doubting that it says that? You know it says that, I even think I’ve seen you say it says that.

Now, I only read English. I have to depend on the various translators to have done sufficiently good jobs translating as to convey the intended meaning to me. But then what am I to think when I run across parts that strike me as false, or as ambiguous, or as nonsensical? Am I simply to forever go without understanding God's word? Or am I to rely on those who really dig into the historical and regional understandings of the earlier text to get me as close as possible to God's intended meaning? Worse: am I to forever imagine that I'm really looking at God's word, even the parts that strike me as false, or as ambiguous, or as nonsensical, and then go through all sorts of mental contortions to try to make the false seem true or to make the ambiguous seem unambiguous or to make the nonsensical seem as though it makes sense? 

There are reasons for tbwp10's approach. Oh, yes, there’s a reason.

(Emphasis MindWalk's.) So, God could create the Sun and the Moon and the Earth, and whole species of animals, herds and herds of them--but to make skins for Adam and Eve, he had to kill animals instead of just making them himself? What happened to his creative power?

Well Mindwalk, if you’re doing what Tbwp is doing and trying to convince me it doesn’t say what anyone can see it says, and that the true meaning is hidden to all but 3,500 year old cultures and archeologists, then yes, there’s no point in trying to reason with me.

   Well, you are not the first to voice objections to substitutionary atonement. It is God’s decreed plan, and that he is the owner of and giver of all life, it is in his hands.

About that "what anyone can see it says".....

I think I read English pretty well. But when I read the start of the Book of John, I sure don't see what you see. Heck, when I read Genesis, I see a lot of what you see, but not everything. I think it's debatable that death is the punishment for Adam's and Eve's sin. It looks to me as though a *hard life* is the penalty. And banishment from the Garden of Eden--with the entrance guarded--seems to be done so as to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Life and becoming immortal, which suggests that they're already mortal. Or look at Genesis 17: 

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Yet, when God finds out that they have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, does God make them die that day? No, he doesn't. Either (1) God lied or (2) God exaggerated the penalty for the sake of striking fear into Adam. That's what I see the text as plainly saying--but I'm sure it's not what you see.

Or, look at the two creation accounts.  I know that was/is a popular idea under the old version of the Documentary Hypothesis, but I think current scholarship has moved away from that (i.e., that Gen 1 and 2 are no longer seen as two different creation accounts).  I'll have to double check the second one, man is formed the same day as plants and trees; but in the first one, plants and trees are created on the third day (before the Sun, on which plants and trees depend, has been created), but man is formed on the sixth day. (This is perfectly understandable if you simply view the two accounts as splicing together two different, very human accounts, but not if you see the text as the infallible word of God.) I find that simply understanding and establishing the text and its intended meaning is time intensive enough (and heck, even if we do that and show the text is without contradiction that in itself still does not prove divine inspiration.  Again, that is also why I see much of that debate fruitless.  Inerrancy of the Bible is not a core, essential doctrine of Christianity, nor a soteriological issue.).  But in the present case there is no contradiction (but it's still yet another good example of the utility of proper biblical exegesis or consulting the expert exegetes when we lack the skill, as I certainly do).  The Hebrew words are different and most modern translations bring out this nuance in the english by plants sprouting in the "earth" in chapter 1 vs. the "land" in chapter 2.  The construction, context as well as ANE parallels further indicate that in chapter 2 the reference is to a particular type of land; namely, uncultivated/untilled agricultural land.

I am pretty sure that what you see it as saying isn't what I see it as saying. There is no meaning that "anyone can see it says." 

As a scientist (who is also a Christian), one of my greatest concerns about young earth creationism and those who hold to strict biblical inerrancy (absolutely no errors of any kind in the Bible) is that I think they are needlessly setting themselves up for a fall by placing so much value on these issues to a level of importance almost equal (or somewhat less) than the gospel itself.  Of course, that depends on whether or not the Bible really is the inerrant word of God. If it is, then there will be no problems to solve, and they won't be setting themselves up for a fall. Their problem comes if it's not inerrant, and then the "fall" they're setting themselves up for is simply having to admit, if they're honest with themselves, that it's not inerrant, and having to amend their religious beliefs...to a greater or lesser degree, depending on what they decide cannot be trusted. (Unfortunately, there remains a third option, that of simply denying even the most obvious problems with the text. Unfortunately, people do that all the time--whether with respect to religious belief or otherwise.) You have turned these into all-or-nothing, do-or-die positions.  You reason, if the Bible is wrong on one point, then how can it be trusted on anything.  Yet, you would not write-off an entire history book as untrustworthy for having a single error.  Here it's important to distinguish among (1) absolute reliability, (2) general reliability, and (3) reliability at certain key points. All that is needed to maintain the Christian belief system in its broad outlines is (3). (1) makes a text completely trustworthy; (2) makes the text mostly trustworthy; (3) makes the text trustworthy on key points. We do not expect a history book to satisfy (1)--we expect human authors (and publishers) to make human errors. We expect only (2), although some history books will come closer to satisfying (1) than others. But if you're convinced that the Bible is the word of God, transmitted without error to human authors, then (2) isn't good enough. You need (1).  This puts great pressure on you.  EVERYTHING MUST be true and accurate.  NOT A SINGLE ERROR can exist.  But what if one does?  It still would not change existing evidence pertaining to the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus and the early first century church.  It would, however, introduce doubt about stories of miracles and of miraculous occurrences, including resurrections. That's bad enough (my impression is that some people hold beliefs in an absolute way, whether they're religious or not, partly because they do not deal well with uncertainty, so for them, any doubt would be a serious matter). But it would also introduce grave doubt about them, precisely because they are (a) accounts of *extraordinary* events and (b) accounts of events *violating physical law*. They are stories that in any other book would be markers of fiction. That would be a serious problem for the believer. So, here is my question to you:

Hypothetically, IF you found out that the earth truly is billions and not thousands of years old, and that there have been mega floods but no global flood, and that evolution and the Big Bang are true, and humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and/or IF you discovered that there truly are mistakes and errors in the Bible, then how would that affect your Christian faith/beliefs?  Would you renounce it? I think it should make them re-examine the reasons to think that their beliefs were true. If they found the reasons remaining after their discovery of Biblical errancy still to be compelling, then their beliefs would stand; if they found the reasons remaining after their discovery of Biblical errancy no longer to be sufficient as to justify rational belief, then they would have to stop believing (without necessarily concluding that what had been their beliefs were false).