@tokyoguy111, science does not tell us that miracles do not happen, nor that the resurrection is not true. Science tells us specifically and overwhelmingly that things did not happen as young earth creationists argue that it did. Science gives us a positive case of how things did happen (for sure there are lots of gaps in knowledge, but there is also lots of knowledge). Where is the scientific case against miracles? I’m having trouble envisioning how there could be such a case, but if there is such a case then it deserves to be scrutinized.
If we had a case against Christ as overwhelming as the case against young earth creationism, then I am afraid we would all have to abandon Christianity. We have to allow this theoretical possibility, but this is not a problem. We both have faith that nothing will come to light that will shatter Christianity. We have faith that Christ is who he says he is. Why put up philosophical blockades and draw lines about what can and cannot be true about scientific discoveries of our history?
Also, the truth doesn’t have to be “comfortable”. Sometimes it is kind of awkward, in my opinion.
Roger, you are welcome to your opinion. Please forgive me if I do not
agree with what you tell me. Yes, you told me that Genesis is a condensation of what happened, but please forgive me if I do not accept everything you tell me as gospel truth. Of course Genesis is condensed. The whole Bible is as is every history book. How condensed is it? That is the question. The way the word “day” is used in Genesis makes it quite clear that God intended a 24 hour period of time. The reasons for this are very clear and relate to the meaning of the word when used in conjunction with words such as numbers, morning and evening and the waw
consecutive(Hebrew grammar). The first rule of interpretation is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Ex. 20:11 interprets Genesis for us, in case there was any doubt. But of course, I agree that we do not have all the details of creation.
My point here is that if you do not accept miracles in the beginning when the Bible is clear that God is the Creator, why accept miracles anywhere else because science makes it clear that miracles are impossible. It demands a natural explanation for everything that happens. So if you agree with that in Genesis, why do no not agree with that other places? It is very interesting that the number of pastors as well as Christians who reject the virgin birth are growing. They use similar reasons for rejecting this and look for “God’s truth” in the midst of the myth. How can we reply to that? Maybe the virgin birth too is a myth. With your loose method of interpretation, you could claim anything to be a myth and then come up with your own version of what God is trying to tell us through that myth.
[quote=“Relates, post:37, topic:3649”]
You are right, God’s Word is inerrant, but God’s Word is not the Bible as I pointed out to you in John 1, God’s Word is the Logos, Jesus Christ. therefore God’s written word, the Bible, is not perfect.[/quote]
But then, Roger, you do not even believe that because when Jesus, speaking about Adam and Eve, says that God made them male and female “at the beginning of creation”, you reject His claim.
Yes, Jesus is God’s word in the sense that He owns that title from John 1:1 and God does speak to us through Him. But you are attempting to make a false dichotomy by claiming that because Jesus is the logos that the Bible cannot and should not be referred to as God’s Word. The word logos is also used to refer to the written message of God in the NT, so referring to the Bible as the word of God is very biblical. Col. 1:25 and Heb. 4:12 are two examples of that among others.
The word “rhema” is also translated “word of God” and refers both to the spoken and written words of God. In the sense that Scripture is God breathed, it is God’s Word spoken through the authors of the Bible. It is NOT the result of the prophets own interpretation or imagination. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus clearly believes it is trustworthy and will all be fulfilled. In Jn 10:35 He said that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) were Scripture and that the Scriptures cannot be broken–cannot fail.
Here is another point. Jesus called Scripture the word of God. Remember what He said to the disciples in Luke 24:45 “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." What are the Scriptures He is referring to? The previous verse tells us. The Law , the Prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture. Jesus goes on to deal with the religious leaders who would violate these Scriptures which He called “the
word of God.” For instance, look at Matthew 15:6 as just one instance among others: “he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” Roger, Jesus never said that the Scriptures simply CONTAIN the Word of God. He said that they WERE the Word of God.
Roger, here’s a question for you that maybe you never considered. Do you think it is possible that God has more than one type of work that He does in the world? I know, for a believer in myths, it is hard to think outside the box, but let’s give it a shot. Could it be possible that there is a difference between God’s work of creation which ended on the 6th day and the work that God is doing in the world now? It seems you have not even considered that possibility. So what is it in the John 5 passage that makes you think that Jesus is referring to God’s work of creation? This passage has nothing to do with creation, right? In fact, Jesus says that He too is working. Does He mean that He is still creating? How in the world could you read that into the passage? God is at work in the world accomplishing His plan of salvation, changing hearts, guiding history, and doing His will.
Also, I have to ask you this question. What exactly do you believe to be God’s work of creating as a Biologos adherant? I thought you don’t believe that God is involved in creation at all – that He just sits back and watches it all happen. Maybe I’m wrong, so I’m asking. Do you believe in abiogenesis by natural means or supernatural means? Evolution by totally natural means or with direction from God?
So back to the point, Roger. Do you really think that Jesus means here that God is still at work in this world creating things? If that is what you think Jesus means, please explain how God is accomplishing this work and why you think Jesus is referring to the work of creation here.
Roger, if your 21st century interpretation of Genesis is accurate, then mankind has misunderstood the Bible for thousands and thousands of years. That’s why? Your interpretation violates the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. For almost all of time, God’s people understood Genesis as teaching a young creation, as teaching literal Adam and Eve who were the first male and female created at the beginning of creation. The flood was interpreted in a literal sense as was the account of Cain and Abel, Enoch, and even the Tower of Babel. There was never any indication at all that this account was not historical and as I have told you, Jesus, the Creator Himself, took it in a literal historical manner.
The “real message of salvation” – by the way – how do you even know that
that message is real? Or what that message is for that matter? It might be myth too, right? But anyway, thank you for your human opinion about what would or would not have happened. They certainly could have understood that the creation story was not historical, that the flood was a parable/myth, that Babel was not real, that the Garden of Eden was not a historical place, etc. Again, God is a master at telling parables so He could have told this story in such as way that we all understand it as a parable, but He didn’t.
Roger, I’m not telling God how to write the Bible at all, but I am saying He did a really lousy job of communicating His truth if we weren’t able to figure out the real meaning of it until we learned from the atheistic interpretations of the physical data by 20th century scientists that Genesis is nothing more than a myth. Neither do I insist that science is as important as salvation, but if only part of God’s Word is trustworthy, then we have a problem trying to figure out what is and is not trustworthy, what is and is not truth, what God really is trying to say to us. The meanings people could then infer from
Scripture become as numerous as the number of people in existence so
interpretation really becomes hopeless – when we become the judge of God’s Word.
God enables us to understand through His Holy Spirit. Creation itself shows us that God has to exist because we see design, purpose, beauty, etc. in creation. Even a child knows that a Creator is necessary to account for what we see. Romans 1:19 & 20 makes it clear that there is enough evidence in the created things themselves to condemn any atheist so that God can say they are without excuse. I’m not sure how that fits with
Biologos’ ideas of creation since you try to explain these things through totally natural processes.
But, Roger, we can discuss this round and round forever and never come to any sense of agreement because we view the Bible in totally different ways. In the end, that is where the problem lies. Your approach to the Bible is very
different from the approach the Church has taken through the centuries. It is different than Jesus’ approach as the article above showed. It is a modern
re-interpretation of the text based on the claims of scientists who try to
explain the unobserved past without any intervention of God. Not quite sure how they or you can be so sure that God had nothing to do with creation, but I guess you just have to make that assumption in spite of the clear teaching of the Creator in His Word.
Roger, how would you respond to this pastor in Kirk, Ireland?
A KIRK minister has called on Christians to move on from the
“fanciful, fairy tale” Nativity story and “disentangle the truth from
the tinsel”.
The Rev Andrew Frater has said an adherence to the traditional story
of the birth of Jesus had the effect of keeping people with doubts about
their faith away from the church, as the Nativity was too easily
dismissed.
Writing in today’s Herald he said: “This year I’m promising myself to
be more theologically honest. No more going home with fanciful, fairy
tale assumptions destined to make Good News seem incredible.”
He said Christians should “look for the symbolism in the Nativity.”
So Roger, see the problem here? This minister thinks the story of the virgin birth is actually keeping people from coming to church so he wants to be more “theologically honest.”
If we have to figure out what is true and what is myth in the Bible, why is this guy wrong? After all, if the message of a miraculous birth that everyone knows is impossible might keep 21st century minds away from Church, then perhaps we need to begin to see this story as myth just like we have recently begun to do with Genesis - for the very same reason. Holding to the plain meaning of Genesis also drives people away from God, right? After all, it’s the symbolism that is really important, right? Not the historicity of the story itself, surely! This minister is not alone in his view of the virgin birth. The church, mainly traditional mainstay denominations, are moving further and further from the truth of God’s Word. It is why Europe is now post-Christian. It is where the US is headed as well if we keep on denying, changing, re-interpreting God’s Word to fit the modern intellectual climate in an effort to “save” the Church. The Bible does talk about a great apostasy in the end times and we see that happening even now. I personally am not willing to give up the authority of God’s Word and let it up to each individual to try and discern what is and what is not true and trustworthy. God’s Word is meant to sit in judgment on us, not vice versa.
It’s simple. God can see everything even though He doesn’t have physical eye balls. He does not need them to see like we humans do. So, if you mean that to be an eyewitness, God has to have physical eyeballs, then I concede your point, but I think you will have a hard time getting people to believe that God needs to have physical eyeballs to be considered an eyewitness.
How can God see what we do if He does not have eyes? If He can see that, then He could certainly see what He was doing when He created the world. It’s really not that hard!
Clarke, I can take that same verse and say the same thing to you. And sure, we agree that The Genesis account was not given in a scientific manner, but that does not mean God did not create the world as He said. He didn’t give us a scientific breakdown of each day and how He did what He did, but He did tell us that what He did on each day. And, up until the 20th century, people believed it as written.
I do not say that God sees things as we do, but I do say that God wrote the Bible to humans. He certainly did not write the Bible from His viewpoint, but wrote it in a way that we can understand. Otherwise, what good is it? But you would have us believe that He wrote it in a way that He knew would be misunderstood for centuries until finally wise finite human scientists came along - who were not there when the world was created and who assumed that God could not have been involved in the creation even if He does exist - who enlightened us based on their interpretation of the data that things evolved and were not created. Thanks be to Darwin for enlightening us to the true meaning of Scripture? Oh my!
If Darwin could do experiments to show that all his claims are actually possible, that would be one thing, but this is historical science. Most of it is based on their interpretation of the evidence and as I mentioned, they make their interpretation of the data using methodological naturalism. In other words, they simply write off God and the Bible from the start and assume there is a natural explanation for everything. Miracles in the process of creation are not permitted in science. I understand that, but that means that science may never be able to give us an accurate understanding of the history of the universe and life. I can’[t imagine reading the Bible and coming up with the idea that God did not use miracles in creating the world. Creation is one of the three great acts of God in the Bible. The other 2 being the Exodus and the Cross/Resurrection. Both of them involved clear miracles. Why not creation? And if there were no miracles in God’s creative work, then how do we know the other great works of God are not also myth? All three are written as actual history.
Tokyoguy: Are you sure you want to say that? God DID write the Bible from His viewpoint, did He not? I got confused on your point here, but I think I got what you are after.
A couple of comments: (1) Of course God can provide clearer understanding to His people over time. He has already done so! For centuries before the coming of our Lord, many in Israel expected a warrior Messiah, not a crucified Messiah. But that is exactly what God did. It was not that God’s Word in the Old Testament was wrong. Rather, the Jews expecting a warrior Messiah misunderstood God by misinterpreting the Scriptures, not knowing that Jesus would first come as a Suffering Servant before later coming as King of Kings to judge all of the earth. If God can correct our misunderstanding of that, who is to say that God could not also use “general revelation” to correct a misunderstanding of early Genesis over the years? Now, I would not push the analogy too much, as I am not necessarily convinced that God is actually doing this in “natural revelation,” but it would only seem proper to at least be open to that as a legitimate possibility. The point is to let God be God and not insist on a particular traditional interpretation of His Word as the only solution. Unlike those Jews in Jesus’ day who did not understand Him to be the Messiah, we can trust God to provide greater clarity to our understanding of His Word over time.
(2) I agree that that there are those who believe that “evolution” and “creation” are anti-thetical to one another. However, that is not the position of Biologos. For Biologos, “evolutionary creationism” means that God could use the process of biological evolution for His creative purposes. You may not agree with the Biologos perspective on the basis of Scriptural interpretation, but you should not lump the Biologos perspective in with atheistic materialism. They are emphatically not the same!
This leads to a final point: Who said that the acceptance of biological evolution rules out the miracle of Creation? Creation itself is a miracle, according to Scripture. The Biologos view simply says that the process of biological evolution does not require a series of miracles of advancing from one stage of biological speciation to another. But Creation, in and of itself, is still miraculous! So, your concern that biological evolution denies the miraculous appears unfounded.
To sum up, I can understand that you might reject evolutionary creationism because it does not square with your historical “eyewitness” interpretation, but it just seems fair to treat Scripture in a way that allows for another interpretation as a legitimate possibility. No doctrine or article of faith is necessarily at stake here.
I know that there are some in Biologos who insist on giving no room to a Young Earth view of Genesis, but not everyone supportive of Biologos in principle agrees with that.
Hebrews 1:1-4 (NIV2011)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, and through Whom also He made the universe.
3 The Son is the Radiance of God’s glory and the exact Representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the Right Hand of the Majesty in heaven.
4 So He became as much superior to the angels as the Name He has inherited is superior to theirs.
As the author of Hebrews wrote a long time ago, God the Father gave to the Jewish people His book, the Old Testament, but then sent the Son, Jesus Christ, to finish the deal and give to humanity the New Covenant with God through the Body and Blood of Jesus the Messiah.
Jesus Christ is God’s divine Word. The Bible is God’s holy word. They are both true, but we do not worship the Bible, we worship God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The importance of the OT is that it demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah, not that the universe was created on six 24 hour days.
O believe that Jesus was telling the truth when He said that He and His Father had never stopped working, never stopped creating the world and you and me. I am not interested in atheistic evolution, I am interested in theistic evolution like they teach on BioLogos. Not only are the heavens telling of the glory of God, but the forests and fields, skies and waters telling of the glories of God through His creation His creatures over millions of years.
Jesus Christ is True and the Bible is true, but the Bible is subordinate to Jesus. Quoting Bible verses may help us to think, but they do not make something true or false. We need to study and learn through Jesus, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit to determine what is true.
It does look as if you have studied, which is good. I think the first thing you need to study is how Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is not the Truth, because He said He was. He is not the Truth because someone else says He is. Jesus is the Truth because He lived the Truth and that is what we must do the best we can.
Again a Blessed Christmas and an Inspired 2016 to you and yours.
Mervin, I don’t understand those verses well either. God’s plan and purposes can be hard to understand, especially when it comes to His plan of salvation and election. It was God’s plan for Jesus to die for the sins of mankind and so He was working to accomplish that goal through Jesus. But anyway, if you want to understand the thinking behind the doctrine of perspicuity of Scriptures, here is a good article to take a look at. It’s a bit long, but it deals with some of the things you are referring to.
Yes, of course I do feel ganged up on. I can’t keep up with all the comments thrown my way and I’m not sure if it is the wisest use of my time to hang in here, but for now, here I am.
I am really having a hard time understanding how people can honestly think that the Biologos approach to the Bible is the one God intended for us to take all along and that we have been guilty of having too simple a faith and simply taking God at His Word all throughout history. You are trying to make us and all the believers that preceded us into the “bad” guys. The Church has been wrong all along and we’ve been teaching people lies all along. And you think God knew it would happen like this and yet He still made it sound like real history when He really intended for us to read it as a myth all along.
It just doesn’t add up. It’s not who the Bible presents God to be.
Nick, first of all, the term “biblically inerrant theistic evolution” is an oxymoron in terms. The Bible does not teach theistic evolution. To find that in the Bible, you have to read into it from outside. No one simply reading the Bible would ever have any idea that that is how God created the world simply by reading the Bible.
Some biblical writers did receive visions, but I don’t think that is how Genesis was written, at least not chapters 3 and forward. The reason is the Hebrew word “toledoth” and how it is used in Genesis. It seems that various people along the way wrote down their portion of history and the books were passed on to Moses who put them all together and edited them.
At least you do seem to believe that Moses wrote it down. That’s an improvement over many modern day views!
OK, Josh, I take back my wording. I agree. Science cannot tell us that miracles do not happen. What it can do is show that so far science has never been able to document a miracle scientifically speaking.
So what about the Red Sea Crossing? Archeology has not yet validated that, has it? Historians reject it, right? So, since science does not agree with it, do you reject it? Do you reject the miracle at Jericho because we all know that cities do not crumble on themselves for no reason and because archeology has not validated it according to some sources?
Josh, actually, I should backtrack my whole sentence as science per se cannot tell us anything. It gives us a way of trying to make sense out of the data we see, but science, at least 20 and 21st century scientists, makes one HUGE assumption, which forces me to view all their hyotheses and interpretations of the past(historical science) as questionable. That assumption is that creation took place by only naturalistic processes.
The Bible indicates otherwise. So I’m wondering why you feel that the interpretation of modern day scientists, who dismiss God from the start and interpret the data through a materialistic framework, is more trustworthy than the word of the Creator who just might have a more accurate knowledge of what actually took place than these scientists?
You cannot reconstruct the Big Bang. It has a lot of unsolved scientific problems in it. It is not only creationists who question it. Some secular scientists do as well. It cannot adequately explain the universe, yet you still want to believe in the Big Bang over the word of the Creator, even though it cannot be proven and has holes in it?
Abiogenesis is far from being solved as far as pure science goes. Yet you still want to reject the biblical account in favor of an absolute miracle of chance, even though intelligent design makes much more sense of both the “book of nature” and the word of God?
So I guess I want to know why you assume that miracles were not involved at all in the creation of the heavens and the earth - the universe and all that exists?
But there are plenty of things we accept as true even though you can’t read about them in the Bible. And there are plenty of areas where the Bible offers one suggestion, but as modern people we take advantage of scientific advances. When I had issues with my stomach, I didn’t take wine with water like Timothy, I took a prescription medicine developed in a laboratory (maybe even by atheists). I trusted God to keep me safe through childbirth (1 Tim 2:15), but thankfully the hospital provided fetal heartrate monitors and emergency suction delivery equipment, or I would have lost one of my babies and potentially hemorrhaged. I believe the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective and my church calls the elders to anoint the sick with oil, but we also recommend people go through chemo and have heart surgery. I don’t think someone who “trusts” modern science in these cases is rejecting the Bible anymore than someone who “trusts” science in the matters of ancient earth and evolutionary biology.
You don’t have to trust anyone’s naturalistic biases. You can look at the evidence yourself. You can’t chalk this up as some sort of ill-informed interpretation of open-ended data. The “naturalistic assumption” line becomes something of an inoculation against any finding of modern science. It’s a shallow dismissal. I would suggest that sometimes things just aren’t ambiguous (while sometimes they are).
That said, I think/hope I am seeing things from your point of view. I used to argue the same way. I used to be a now-and-then YEC apologist (albeit probably not a good or effective one). I soaked up sites similar to Answers in Genesis or Philip Johnson’s Reason in the Balance as gospel-truth. Not that I couldn’t form my own opinions, but I simply thought that this had the ring of truth against a world that has fallen blindly into uncritical naturalism. I don’t mean “I used to” in a condescending way, just that I think I can see where you are coming from because I at one point agreed. And while I do think the the scientific community abounds with naturalists, I can no longer honestly say that this invalidates their conclusions on non-theological and discoverable truth.
Regarding your questions about what science has not “validated”, science does not have to validate miracles, nor does it have to rubber-stamp all truth. I would not agree that science is the only mechanism of arriving at truth. In some cases, truth is completely outside the realm of science. In others, science can provide truth that replaces prior incorrect beliefs. But it doesn’t validate all beliefs. Science is not the only source of knowledge, but it is absolutely a source of knowledge. Science does not have to validate that Christ rose from the dead (or any other miracle). Science is silent here (in many ways anyway).
I wouldn’t agree with such an assumption. I think the only thing I’ve said is that science is also a reliable mechanism of arriving at truth, and anything that it discovers beyond a reasonable doubt must be reconciled with any other finding. Say what you want about Biblical inerrancy, but nature is God’s and is itself “inerrant”, and science is the study of inerrant nature (not to say that science is inerrant; it’s not inerrant any more than someone’s theology is inerrant).
I don’t have time to follow everything written here either (and I’m not the one being surrounded by challenges like you!), so I completely understand if you don’t answer everything.
I really appreciated the pdf link you give regarding perspicuity and have much more respect now for how that has been hammered out by great minds historically and biblically. I loved the metaphor of a lamb able to get what it needs by merely wading, while the elephant (those who want to/can dig deeper) is obliged to swim with labor.
One of the concluding thoughts would write off all those who deny biblical perspicuity as engaging in “false theology”. While I as an Anabaptist can resonate with the passionate conviction of not letting anyone come between Scriptures and people, I still find this a bit disingenuous in that it becomes too neat a method to write off all those who disagree. And this would catch in its net (as is no doubt not lost on you) many here who do think some/many passages merit the labor of “theological swimming” if you will if we want to reach for fuller understanding. Such thinkers in their own turn can feel just as villainized by you as you do by them. All the same I apologize for tones or words of mine that have contributed in this ad homonym adversity as opposed to more productive wrangling over truths.
I do think you over-flatter Biologos in charging that they have developed something that could be labeled “the Biologos approach” where they would probably claim only to be continuing an approach with much historical pedigree. It mirrors in some ways the charge that YECs often face (and in their own turn deny) that their approach is a modern phenomenon whereas they would claim it really goes back even to Jesus himself. We probably do better to tease such things apart rather than paint with such a broad brush.
I should point out that the story of crossing the Red Sea almost certainly comes from the periodic exposure of a near-shore sand bar …
Napoleon actually ran his OWN army on the revealed path … and then almost drowned when the army took too long to cross over it.
Crossing a portion of the Red Sea is NOT a mystical miracle. It was something that was known to happen in the region when particular circumstances intersected.