The comparison of the mustard seed tells all that the words “unquestionably inspired” cannot mean what you think it means.
Specific findings in Science trump the arguable exegesis of ambiguous texts having unlikely meanings.
1 Like
I can’t help you there, then. It seems to me Jesus was primarily concerned with announcing the Kingdom, rather than giving us insights into historical method and literary genre. I’ll bow out now.
1 Like
That would be a bit unnatural though. I could theoretically make a theological point using a reference to Odysseus or Robin Hood. You wouldn’t need to know what I thought about the historicity of either person in order to understand the point. It would be weird to point out, “and when I refer to Robin Hood, of course I am referring to the mythologized figure who perhaps did not exist in a real historical sense.” The important thing would be that everyone in my audience have the same frame of reference for who Robin Hood was and what he represented so that the theological point would be clear.
2 Likes
Let me be quick to say that it seems you and a number of others here are BioLogos do not share my deeply-held conviction that Scripture is the word of God. I hereby exempt all of you who think differently from me on this point from feeling any sympathy for my questions.
I understand why you’d feel this way.
I agree with you fully up until the comma, but I don’t think He intended us to ignore how He read Scripture, Genesis included.
Thanks for your interactions.
1 Like
This is mostly true of the NT, but not necessarily true of the OT. In any case, “inspired in the original autographs” is a giant loophole built-in to the Chicago Statement.
Amen. The Scriptures are never as simple as they appear, and the “plain reading” is rarely the best interpretation. I’m reminded of a quote of Augustine’s in defense of his typological interpretations that saw Christ in all of Scripture:
“In every page of these Scriptures, while I pursue my search as a son of Adam in the sweat of my brow, Christ either openly or covertly meets and refreshes me. Where the discovery is laborious my ardor is increased, and the spoil obtained is eagerly devoured, and is hidden in my heart for my nourishment.”
What “age of the earth issues” are you talking about? Seriously, if you go back and look at the early interpretations of Genesis 1-3, you will see that the church fathers were interacting with the best “science” and philosophy of their day in arriving at their understandings of Scripture. Aquinas did the same. So did the medieval scholastics. So did Calvin and Luther. So do we. The church’s interpretations have always interacted with “secular” science and philosophy.
You have been sold a bill of goods. We are servants of the God of truth. As long as you and, frankly, the majority of Evangelicals continue to deny what is becoming more obvious and certain every day, our children will continue to desert the church in record numbers. The only way forward is to embrace and affirm the truth of both the word of God and the conclusions of scientists working in many different fields of endeavor. The probability that all of their conclusions are false is highly unlikely in the absence of a vast, worldwide conspiracy of scientists in almost every field – geology, archaeology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, computer science, etc.
Frankly, interpreting a piece of ancient literature – let alone an extensive collection of diverse documents written by various authors over the course of at least a thousand years – is far more complex and likely to err than interpreting the results of a scientific experiment. You really do have things backward here, because truths about the physical universe are far easier for us to discover and understand than truths about the living God.
Edit: Had to edit for clarity. The non sequitur had to go!
2 Likes
If you really want to understand how Jesus and his apostles read Scripture, you must read these two essays by Evangelical scholar G.K. Beale:
Did Jesus and his followers preach the right doctrine from the wrong texts?
The Right Doctrine, Wrong Texts: Can we follow the Apostles’ Doctrine but not their Hermeneutics?
1 Like
What I think would be unnatural would be to reference either of those two characters in a Christian theological discussion - particularly one conducted by the Messiah of Israel Himself - unless the reference turned on the mythical aspect. That is, when you’re trading in truth, sub-truths undermine you.
I am familiar with Beale’s work and own some of it. I appreciate much of what he says, but I do not consider him the final word on the subject.
We stand apart on some foundational points, though not always in the way or to the degree you think.
There’s too much to unpack here so I’ll just try to stay focused on what questions @Bill_II might have about the problems I see with his view.
1 Like
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah…
I may have missed something tucked away in a post somewhere, but I don’t think anyone said anything of the sort. Agreed, many here INTERPRET the Bible a little (or a lot) more liberally than you do, but you are making a rather sizable jump to make the claim you did.
4 Likes
That’s beside the point. The point is you can’t tell when someone references a mythologized but potentially historical figure, exactly what they believe about the figure. I don’t buy that just because Jesus referenced Adam and Eve to make a theological point about marriage, we can draw the clear conclusion that therefore he believed they were 100% historical and 0% mythologized. Adam and Eve were literary figures that everyone was familiar with. But I don’t think we can assume with certainty what everyone believed about their literal historicity or myth status or even if they thought of them in those terms.
1 Like
Curtis, I meant no offense to anyone. I only meant that @gbrooks9 and probably some others here think I grip my Bible too tightly. I was not judging anyone else; rather, I was acknowledging how I might be judged by others, and I was not complaining about it.
My point was a practical one: that I don’t want anyone who thinks I’m too much of a Bible thumper to feel obligated to answer my questions.
Although I do not like the doctrine of inerrancy, I’m what most people would call an inerrantist. I get that. [quote=“cwhenderson, post:33, topic:36201”]
Agreed, many here INTERPRET the Bible a little (or a lot) more liberally than you do, but you are making a rather sizable jump to make the claim you did.
[/quote]
I was only saying what you said between the first and second comma. Maybe I said it inartfully, but I was trying to say it respectfully. Since you say before the first comma that we are agreed about this, then I don’t understand what there is to be stirred up about. I don’t know what “rather sizable jump” you think I took beyond our point of agreement.
P. S. The expression “grip my Bible too tightly” should be taken figuratively and not literally. 
No worries, it just sounded like there was some miscommunication about the perception of the Bible. Inerrancy is a tricky issue, to be sure. I guess I would hesitate to say I’m an inerrantist to the letter, but I do lean in that direction, as well.
2 Likes
Why would interperting Genesis to agree with the vast amount of real world data that shows the earth to be very old be considered ad hoc? The age of the earth was not set based on being good for evolution. In fact most of the early geologists that began to realize the earth was very old were Christians. You are also well aware of the OEC view that has no problem with 4.543 billion years.
ad hoc - formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only
1 Like
Because it meets the definition of ad hoc (i.e. “formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only”). By saying “the vast amount of real world data” you’re just saying that you believe you have a very good reason for being ad hoc.
I am well aware that belief in an old earth preceded belief in evolution.
Perhaps beside your point…but not beside mine.
In the abstract, I would generally agree with this statement. However, we are discussing this matter in very specific contexts: biblical, and even more specifically, the words of Christ.
The point Jesus was making only makes sense if Adam and Eve were historical. In His argument against the use of Moses’ commandment to justify divorce Jesus said:
“…from the beginning it has not been this way.” Matt 19:8
If it was actually some other way from the beginning, HIs argument falls apart.
Here you go @Mike_Gantt
But one that has to be made when you study the portions of Biblical history that do not match up with actual history.
Show me one quotation of the OT by Jesus that in itself REQUIRES the OT to be historically accurate. And don’t give me the “Jesus always spoke truth” because we both know he spoke in very nonhistorical parables.
And if you have never come across them, there are some quotations of Jesus and the Apostles that take OT verses figuratively when the verse quoted was literal in it’s original meaning.
It could be called prehistory/protohistory.
Actually prehistory and protohistory are widely studied outside of Scripture.
I don’t believe I shut off any valid interpretation. I just don’t go into areas that are not supported. “I go where the evidence leads me.” One interpretation of Genesis has the earth surrounded by a crystal sphere. Do you think this is a valid area that should be explored? Dinosaurs on the ark?
No more so than any other interpretative scheme of which I am aware.I am open to making changes when something comes up that requires it. If you are interested I tend to follow the Historical-grammatical hermeneutics which also requires I follow the Dispensational model. Am I in perfect agreement with others that follow these, probably not. Do you have a scheme that is foolproof? And what is interpretive abuse? Is it something more than yours doesn’t agree with mine? The multitudes of interpretations proves that there is no one right way to do this.
Bingo. Move along now. Nothing to see here. “always existed”, and here you were acting like I was crying alone in the wilderness. Don’t believe I have ever called mine new or improved.
Anytime your belief conflicts with your reality you need to change your interpretation.
Now what are some of the things that I consider reality:
A great age for the earth.
God created time and space.
God made man in His image.
Jesus is fully man and fully God.
Jesus was raised from the dead.
You notice I didn’t say things other people consider to be reality.
1 Like