I like the basic sentiment of your post. One thing I’ve used, just to get people thinking, is the question of how God created animals. Typical response: “God spoke them into being.”
This actually contradicts an obvious, literal reading of the text: “Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.” (Genesis 1:24, NASB).
It’s neat to see the eyes either glaze over or light up because they’ve never actually read that before.
Yes this is what I’m talking about. Show them from the text.
Another thing to consider, and an important one, is that sometimes the text in question is not clear. In that case, we have a rule: Interpret an unclear text in light of a clear text.
So, in your example above, if the person says “maybe the earth brought it forth immediately” then you would say "the passage does not SAY it was brought forth immediately, is it possible that it COULD have been brought forth immediately, or it COULD have been brought forth over time. Look at other scripture that shows that God can “bring forth” something immediately OR he can use that same language to describe bringing forth something over a longer period of time.
Exodus 29:46
46 And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.
2 Chronicles 6:10
10 The LORD therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and am set on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.
This also reminds me of how in Genesis 2:8 it says, " The Lord planted a garden" implying that he put it forth in an immature form and it grew, rather than “poofing” it into existance, which supports the ongoing nurturing nature of God.
I don’t have my Hebrew Bible at hand. But it sounds like you did check to make sure all the passages used the same wording in the original text? (Just wanted to double check that I’m understanding you correctly.)
In any case, I really like where you’ve taken this. My only concern is whether the Hebrew construction truly makes “the earth” the agent of bringing forth, or whether it is just how it looks to the observer and, thus, it leads to this idiomatic result. Honestly, I don’t recall.
To nobodyyouknow’s point, that rarely matters to the target audience. What matters is “the text I have.” Appealing to original languages and “better translations” is academic smokescreening.
Yes, it’s hard to win a person if you’re speaking in a foreign language.
But @Socratic.Fanatic probably is and should be concerned less about the persuasive aspect of the argument, and more concerned about whether the argument itself is valid.
I don’t want anyone to think that I’m saying you should spout something that is wrong in order to get someone to believe something that is right. What I AM saying is that you can find what is correct within the framework of conservative hermeneutics.
And I REALLY don’t want to open the “original languages” can of worms on this board, and definitely it is not in the scope of this thread.
Appealing to the original languages is what various Statements of Faith are talking about when they claim that inerrancy applies to the original autographs, not the translations. I’m not trying to start a discussion of the meaning and scope of “inerrancy” but to claim that caring about the original languages is “academic smokescreening” is not just ridiculous and childish, it is contrary to all common sense. @fmiddel, everyone who cares about the Bible should care what the original language texts of the scriptures state and don’t state—unless one considers an appeal to the Bible itself as “academic smokescreening.”
@fmiddel, it is not a matter of my being offended at your insult of my post. I’m certainly hoping that you were just trying to articulate an opinion of the Kruger-Dunning faction within the Christian community and not stating your own position. It sounds like you are dismissing the entire realm of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek exegesis and the importance of sound hermeneutics. Obviously, it is very hard to take seriously anyone who would do that so I shall continue to hope that you were merely quoting the view of the uninformed.
Absolutely that’s not my own opinion or position. I’m saying that some people don’t care and for those people bringing it up not only doesn’t help, it’s detrimental. It only reinforces confirmation biases (specifically in the case of the perceived illegitimacy of academics of “simple faith” and “what the Bible says plainly”).
Sure. It’s not a question of “I’m introducing this concept because it’s true” as much as it’s “I’m introducing this because it should be true within your framework of understanding, but it undermines your framework of understanding.”