Heavens Declaring the Glory of God verses the Bible Describing God

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I’ve quoted another post on a different thread because i believe it offers the opportunity to consider this topic as its one that seems to be hidden in the shadows of science based theological beliefs. I’m regularly finding myself opposed to the statements/beliefs of others on these forums largely because of claims exactly like the one below:

I thought i might just Google the idea and see what the AI library has in response. I got the following:

image
image1289×569 114 KB

My belief is that the Bible is the Word of God.

Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)

Main article: Sola scriptura

Sola Scriptura is upheld by Lutheran and Reformed theologies and asserts that scripture must govern over church traditions and interpretations which are themselves held to be subject to scripture. All church traditions, creeds, and teachings must be in unity with the teachings of scripture as the divinely inspired Word of God.[13]

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura affirms that scripture is the only source of normative, apostolic, infallible revelation and that “all things necessary for salvation and about faith and life are taught in the Bible with sufficient clarity so that the ordinary believer can find it there and understand it.”

From the above i then read Revelation 14:12

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

From Revelation 14:12 )given it was written by the last surviving witness to Christs ministry on earth …the apostle John in A.D 90’s:

Exodus 20:8-11
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I reinforce the Sabbath Doctrine and its statement about creation from the following:

Luke 4:16-21 King James Version (KJV)And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

The support the above with Christs statement when questioned about the law:

Matthew 5:18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away,
not one tiny letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all takes place

Matthew 5 is clearly referring to the completion of the judgement…after the second coming and cleansing of the earth from the corruption of sin (all Christians as far as i understand it know that is what Matthew 5 is talking about)

I find it difficult to reconcile the notion that given the above, beliefs taken directly from a normal reading of the bible (which are also well cross referenced and internally consistent) about our origins, present, and future, are ambiguous, ungodly (ie not what God has told us directly), or misinterpreted such that one individual here has gone so far as to say the Bible isn’t Gods actual words…its just the writings of men. I do not view that as a good argument against literal reading of scripture where a normal understanding of language dictates it should be read that way.

2

Sola Scriptura, right!

Wives be subject to your husbands
Women be quiet in church
Slaves obey your masters

I forget, are men supposed to always keep their heads covered or do they take off their hats in church?

That is just off the top of my head.(That could be almost funny)

Also there are contradictions in the Bible. That would be impossible if the words are drectly from God

113 contradictions in the Bible

You might be abe to wheedle your way out of some of them but not all.

I do not want to “trash” the Bible, but you have made it into God in written form. it is not.

The Bible is what it is. It is a sacred book but it cannot answer every question. It cannot confront modern technology or science. It cannot show you the dangers of the Internet or watching Tv. It cannot tell you which shirt to wear or what church to go to.

We no longer have to make sure two plants are not sewn together. Have you ever heard of buddy planting. Must be falacious or evil then!

Do you wear polyester? Do you use plastic? They are the Devils work. They combine materials!

You have made an idol. The Bible. You have placed it above God Humself., because you claim things about God based on your reading of the bible. Things that are disgusting and unholy, and very human.

You have reached the lowerst of the low in my (not so) humble opinion

Richard

3

I will agree that some of those raise legitimate concerns about certain versions of inerrancy (which, incidentally, are not ones to which I hold). However, this list could be greatly improved upon: most (I think it looked like about 80%) of them are silly (e.g., taxonomy in the lists of unclean animals), completely missing the point of the passages, ignoring idiom or contemporary usage (e.g., the mustard seed size question and broader usage of geneological terms), completely ignore context, or try to impose human limitations on God (like complaining about the Trinity or God being both just and merciful).

Incidentally, Sola Scriptura is supposed to mean “The Bible is the only ultimate authority for faith and practice, greater than (not equal to) ecclesiastical councils or authorities, church tradition, or individual beliefs.” not “The Bible should be our only authority for everything.”

4 Likes
4

That only works if you can identify those truths.which produces the paradox of what is personal opinion and what is truth.

It is not as simple as trrust Sripture over all else. As soon as wat you trust comes into conflict with the percieved nature of God it fails.

So the question remains:

Does God restrict his grace and forgiveness to the favoured few?

Or is that understanding a false view of Scripture.

I will leave that to you to decide for yourself., assumiing I have made it simple enough

Perhaps then we could explore the meaning of Salvation.

Richard

5

Or as the great theologian Gregory (I forget which one at the moment [edit: of Nazianzus]) put it, scripture is the referee – which is how Luther and the Wittenburg Reformers took it, that anything not forbidden is allowed (so long as it is edifying). Sola scriptura is the answer to the question “What is the highest authority?”, not to “What is our only source?”

2 Likes
6

In Mark 10:5, Jesus opens a huge can of worms regarding understanding the law. He states that a particular part was an accommodation to the hardness of the hearts of the ancient Israelites. Of course, dismissing anything one doesn’t like as accommodation is not going to give honest results (I think my professor intended it as a joke, but it seemed pretty true, that his and other text-critical approaches were that the passages that one doesn’t like are assigned to the redactors). Rather, we must carefully examine all of Scripture, and all additional relevant evidence that we can find, to gain the best possible understanding. A reading that seems “clear” from the view of modern Western culture reading a translation is often not at all what was meant in the original. Both Jesus and Paul have quite a lot to say about how the biblical experts of their day had completely missed the point of the law.

One key line of evidence is the fruit brought by following a particular idea. The modern young-earth movement emphasizes Exodus 20:11 while ignoring Exodus 20:16, showing no concern for the truth of its claims about science. Rather than being centered on Christ, it is focused on arguing about genealogies. Claiming that the sabbath day shows a recent one-week creation while ignoring the sabbath year is not a consistent approach to interpretation. The fact that the recap of the law in Deuteronomy makes no mention of creation with regard to the sabbath (5:12-15), instead citing the experience of slavery and exodus, should prompt further thought on the complex relationship of the days of Genesis 1 to other parts of the Bible. Job 26:7-13 uses quite different imagery about creation, for example, drawing partly on imagery from mythology.

4 Likes
7

Sola Scriptura, YES!

It all depends on what you think this means. Does it mean we have to take everything in it to be a commandment of God? No. Does it mean there is nothing in it which simply reflects the cultural bias of the people who wrote it? No. To be sure those wanting to use the Bible to justify racism, genocide, child abuse, and the slavery of women and others, they will insist this means everything is a commandment of God.

But that was not the meaning or purpose of the phrase when it was first introduced. It was a complaint against the Catholic church (at that time) and their slow shift of authority from the Bible to the church leaders. It was stand against the abuse in the Catholic church before the counter-reformation corrected them. So the protestants said no, we will take the Bible as the sole authority (given into human hands) on the Christian religion

1 Like
8

And God agreed?

Richard

9

In a sense, yes.

It is what we see from Jesus in the story of the gospels. He often spoke of the scriptures as authoritative and denied that the religious leaders of His time had any such authority. Of course God has the ultimate authority, we see that in Jesus also. But we don’t see God speaking to everyone except using the Bible.

At the same time, Jesus warned against going too far in this with John 5:39.

39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

1 Like
10

That might be subjective?

Itis what you see…

God speaks t me all the time, and very rarely is it when i am reading the bible or accessing it.

Of course that is subjective as well. Perhaps I am being vane or delusional.

Richard

11

Below is a breakdown of the key claims and arguments in the OP,

1. Argument Against Non-Literal Readings of Scripture

  • Claim: The Bible is the Word of God and should be interpreted literally when the language suggests a straightforward meaning.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • The doctrine of Sola Scriptura emphasizes that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for faith and life.
    • Passages such as Matthew 5:18 and Revelation 14:12 underscore the permanence and clarity of God’s law, which should not be subject to human reinterpretation.
    • References to creation (Exodus 20:8-11) and the Sabbath highlight a belief in the direct and literal truth of biblical accounts.

2. Critique of Science-Based Theological Beliefs

  • Claim: Interpretations that incorporate science-based perspectives (e.g., non-literal readings of Genesis) are inconsistent with a literal, biblical worldview.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • The post criticizes views that diminish the Bible’s authority by labeling it as “just the writings of men.”
    • It asserts that such perspectives undermine the universality and perfection of God’s Word, leading to division among believers.

3. Defense of Sabbath Doctrine

  • Claim: The Sabbath commandment and its connection to creation reflect an essential and literal truth about God’s law and His created order.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • The explicit link between the Sabbath and the creation narrative (Exodus 20:8-11) reinforces the importance of taking the creation account literally.
    • Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath (Luke 4:16-21) is presented as evidence of its continued relevance and authority.

4. Universal Relevance of Scripture

  • Claim: The Bible is universally applicable, providing clarity and guidance to all people regardless of time or culture.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • Biblical messages, especially regarding the law and salvation, are presented as internally consistent and clear, making them accessible to “ordinary believers.”
    • Literal interpretations are defended as the most faithful and straightforward way to understand these universal truths.

5. Rejection of “Human Writings” Argument

  • Claim: Dismissing the Bible as merely human writings denies its divine authority and undermines its role as God’s Word.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • The post directly opposes the view that the Bible is not the actual Word of God, framing this as a weak argument against a literal reading of scripture.
    • It reinforces the idea that scripture, as divinely inspired, carries absolute authority and is not subject to reinterpretation based on human reasoning or external frameworks.

6. Call for Consistency in Interpretation

  • Claim: A consistent, literal reading of scripture is essential to maintaining the integrity of Christian belief.
  • Supporting Arguments:
    • A “normal understanding of language” is advocated as the standard for interpreting the Bible.
    • This approach is presented as aligning with the internal consistency and clarity of scripture.

Underlying Assumptions

  • The Bible is divinely inspired, infallible, and intended to be understood literally where the language allows.
  • Science or external frameworks should not override scriptural authority.
  • Scripture is universally clear and accessible to all who read it in good faith.

Conclusion

This post argues for the primacy of literal scriptural interpretation grounded in Sola Scriptura. It critiques approaches that incorporate science or view the Bible as purely human writings, emphasizing the Bible’s divine authority and universal applicability.

2 Likes
12

The claims and arguments in the original post (OP) exhibit circular reasoning, primarily because they presuppose the truth of their underlying assumptions—namely, that the Bible is divinely inspired, infallible, and best interpreted literally—and use these assumptions to justify the claims and arguments. Here’s a closer analysis:

Key Circular Elements

  1. The Bible as the Word of God:
  • Assumption: The Bible is divinely inspired and infallible.
  • Argument: Because the Bible is God’s Word, it must be taken literally where the language permits, and its authority cannot be questioned.
  • Circularity: The claim that the Bible is infallible is used to prove that it should be read literally and that it is authoritative, but this proof relies on the initial assumption of infallibility.
  1. Literal Interpretation:
  • Assumption: A “normal understanding of language” dictates that the Bible should be read literally unless context clearly indicates otherwise.
  • Argument: Because the Bible is internally consistent and divinely inspired, its literal reading is the most faithful interpretation.
  • Circularity: The assumption that the Bible is clear and literal in its meaning is used to justify interpreting it literally.
  1. Rejection of Non-Literal Views:
  • Assumption: Any interpretation that deviates from the plain, literal meaning undermines the Bible’s authority.
  • Argument: Because the Bible is divinely inspired and literal, non-literal views are invalid.
  • Circularity: The rejection of non-literal views is based on the prior assumption that the Bible is both literal and infallible.
  1. Universality of Scripture:
  • Assumption: The Bible is universally clear and accessible to all believers.
  • Argument: Because the Bible is clear and universal, it must be read literally, as this is the only way its truths can be universally understood.
  • Circularity: The claim of universality is used to validate literal interpretation, which itself assumes the Bible’s universal clarity.

How Circular Reasoning Manifests

The OP’s argumentation relies on foundational beliefs that are taken as self-evident:

  • Premise: The Bible is God’s perfect Word.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, it should be read literally and is universally applicable.
  • Support: Because it is God’s perfect Word.

This reasoning assumes what it seeks to prove, creating a logical loop where the initial assumptions are never independently justified or critically examined.

Why It Feels Persuasive to Believers

Circular reasoning often feels convincing within a framework of shared beliefs because:

  1. The audience likely shares the same underlying assumptions.
  2. It reinforces pre-existing convictions without introducing external challenges.

Potential Responses to the Circularity

To break the circularity, the OP would need to:

  1. Justify the Assumptions: Provide independent reasons for believing the Bible is infallible, literal, and universally clear.
  2. Acknowledge Other Perspectives: Engage with alternative interpretations or frameworks without dismissing them outright based on the initial assumptions.
  3. Separate Claims from Assumptions: Distinguish between the basis of faith in the Bible and the interpretative method used to understand it.

Conclusion

The OP’s claims and arguments are indeed circular because they rely on unproven assumptions to justify their conclusions. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate the OP’s faith-based perspective but highlights the need for independent justification if the goal is to persuade someone who does not already share those assumptions.

3 Likes
13

The title of the thread, “Heavens Declaring the Glory of God versus the Bible Describing God,” suggests a tension or comparison between two ways of understanding or encountering God:

  1. General Revelation (the “heavens declaring the glory of God”):
  • This refers to how creation (nature, the cosmos) reveals God’s existence, power, and glory. It aligns with verses like Psalm 19:1 (“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”) and Romans 1:20 (God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen in creation).
  1. Special Revelation (the “Bible describing God”):
  • This refers to the Bible as a direct, divinely inspired communication from God that provides specific knowledge about His character, will, and plan for salvation.

Relevance of the Title to the OP

1. Implicit Focus on Special Revelation

  • The OP predominantly defends the Bible as the Word of God (special revelation), emphasizing its infallibility, literal interpretation, and doctrinal clarity.
  • The arguments suggest that the Bible is the ultimate and most reliable source for understanding God, indirectly prioritizing special revelation over general revelation.

2. Neglect of General Revelation

  • While the thread title juxtaposes general and special revelation, the OP does not explicitly address or integrate the role of the “heavens” (general revelation) in revealing God.
  • Instead, it critiques science-based theological interpretations, which are often associated with insights from studying the natural world. This suggests a tension with general revelation, even though the title implies a balanced or comparative discussion.

3. Potential Tension Highlighted by the Title

  • The title may allude to a broader theological debate about the compatibility or priority of insights gained from nature (science) versus scripture.
  • The OP leans heavily on scripture (sola scriptura) and critiques any interpretation that might incorporate or prioritize general revelation (e.g., scientific perspectives) over the Bible.

4. Implicit Resolution of the “Versus”

  • By defending a literal, infallible reading of scripture, the OP effectively resolves the “versus” in the title by elevating the Bible above the “heavens” as the ultimate source of truth about God.
  • The critique of science-based theological beliefs reflects skepticism about relying on general revelation when it appears to conflict with the Bible.

Conclusion

The title sets up a comparative discussion between general and special revelation, but the OP focuses almost entirely on affirming the supremacy of the Bible (special revelation) while indirectly dismissing general revelation’s contributions when mediated through science or non-literal readings of scripture. The relevance lies in the implied prioritization of one “voice” of God (scripture) over another (creation).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My question to Chat GPT: “The interesting feature of Psalm 19:1 is that “the heavens” refer specifically to the motion of the Moon, the Sun, the five visible Planets (Mercury, Mars, Venus, Saturn, and Jupiter, and the Constellations are natural phenomena and seem, by the Psalmist’s mention of them, to suggest “Intelligent Design”. no?”

ChatGPT said:
Yes, Psalm 19:1 can be interpreted as a reflection on Intelligent Design, particularly when considering the specific celestial phenomena mentioned or implied in the context of ancient cosmology. Here’s a breakdown of how this interpretation aligns with the text:

  1. “The Heavens Declare the Glory of God”

    The “heavens” in this context refer to observable celestial phenomena: the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. In the worldview of the Psalmist, these phenomena were part of a divinely ordered cosmos.
    The orderly and predictable nature of these celestial objects (e.g., their movements, phases, and patterns) would naturally evoke the idea of an intelligent creator to the ancient observer.

  2. Evidence of Order and Design

    Ancient cultures often marveled at the precision of the heavens, such as:
    The Sun’s consistent rising and setting.
    The Moon’s phases and their role in timekeeping.
    The predictable movements of the visible planets and their positions relative to constellations.
    The cyclical appearance of constellations, which marked the seasons.
    For the Psalmist, these phenomena were not random but indicative of a Creator’s intention and artistry—a hallmark of Intelligent Design.

  3. Communication of Divine Glory

    The “glory of God” in Psalm 19:1 is understood as being revealed through creation. The heavens “declare” and “proclaim” God’s greatness, pointing to the idea that:
    The universe itself serves as a “language” or “testimony” to the existence and attributes of God.
    This aligns with the concept of general revelation: the natural world provides evidence of God’s power, wisdom, and creativity.

  4. Harmony with Intelligent Design Theory

    Intelligent Design argues that complexity, order, and purpose in nature suggest an intelligent cause rather than random chance.
    The celestial phenomena described or implied in Psalm 19:1 fit this view because:
    They display complexity (e.g., orbital mechanics).
    They demonstrate order and predictability (e.g., the regularity of planetary motion and solar/lunar cycles).
    They appear purposeful, serving practical human functions such as timekeeping, navigation, and inspiring awe.

  5. Ancient vs. Modern Perspectives

    While the Psalmist did not have access to modern scientific knowledge, their observations of the heavens were sophisticated and deeply meaningful in their context.
    Today, understanding the mechanisms behind celestial phenomena (e.g., gravity, planetary orbits) might deepen rather than diminish the sense of design and order perceived by the Psalmist.

Conclusion

Psalm 19:1 does indeed suggest Intelligent Design when viewed through the lens of the Psalmist’s awe at the order and majesty of the heavens. This interpretation resonates with both ancient and modern understandings of the universe as a reflection of an intelligent Creator.

2 Likes
14

There is a basic criticism of both sola scripttua an the authorship by God.

It assumes two things

That the text is perfect

And

That the understanding and usage is perfect.

Anyone who claims any sort of Original Sin and/or human depravity cannot be understanding Scripture correctly because it is in direct conflict with prophecies by Jeremiah and Ezekiel which would then disprove any infallibility or perfection of Scripture

Richard

15

Dr. von Rohr Sauer said the same thing in class, and was only half-joking. He said you could take the JEDP assignments of passages by any given author and work backwards to determine their theological and/or philosophical biases. He had a “Rainbow Bible” that used colors for JEDP and showed the different assignments of redactor to verse (and even clause), and most verses had at least two different colors, to show how little actual agreement there was among “documentary hypothesis” scholars.

Another of my professors maintained that there were multiple redactors, i.e. more than one each of J, E, D, and P.

Which is why cross-referencing is a clumsy way (at best) to do theology: it ignores the greater concepts and thus misses overall context.

2 Likes
16

It was a return to the theological principles of such Fathers as Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nyssa (who called the scriptures “our referee/umpire”).

Yes, given how the canon formed from the bottom up and agreement was nearly universal early on, before that agreement made its way up to the level of regional councils.
I was rather Barthian about the scriptures until I took courses on the formation of the canon, where it became evident that the Spirit not merely inspired men but guided the selection of documents.

That, too.

I’ll just note that νόμος (NOH-mohss), while usually rendered as “law”, carries the meaning of “guide, counsel, instruction” and even “custom”, and the root bears the idea of what is proper for something/someone at a given time.

A dubious proposition given how the ancients thought about authority.

The operative word being “mere” – and the alternative presented as it being “God’s own words” employs false dichotomy.

2 Likes
17

Very nice analysis! I forebore to mention circular reasoning since you did such a superb job.

Sola scriptura assumes neither of those. The only assumption is that the collection of inspired documents is by nature more authoritative than any other source, those others not being inspired.

1 Like
18

You still have to claim that your understanding and usage is "perfect! otherwise there is no authority. Are you that arrogant?

Richard

19

Nope – that’s your tunnel vision at work. Sola scriptura requires no such thing.

1 Like
20

The doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is absolute nonsense. In placing the Bible above the Church, it conveniently obscures the fact that it must be interpreted - by members of the Church! One only has to look at the multitude of fundamentalist groups who purport to interpret the Bible and come up with opposing doctrines.

The doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is even rejected by the Bible itself. It is not just a sentence in the psalms. Let’s go to the New Testament, wherein St Paul says, " For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NIV). Natural Theology has a very strong foundation in the Bible itself, and those who deny it are “without excuse” according to Paul.

1 Like