Theologic Musings: How do we reconcile science with Biblical trustworthiness?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Dale

Wow, you are a literalist, aren’t you. You don’t think(!) that ‘one’ can be used in more than one sense?

Yes, “one” can be used in more than one sense. But you didn’t answer my question, Dale. Do you think the Godhead is about to gain a bunch of other members? Yes or no? If not, then it’s clear that being “one with” another doesn’t have to mean what you think it does in the case of Jesus and the Father, right? And since it doesn’t necessarily mean that, and since we know from direct scripture that our God and Father is also Jesus’ God and Father, and that Jesus is our brother and joint heir of the good things of the Father, it’s fairly obvious that it absolutely doesn’t mean what you thought it did.

What gave you the impression that it did mean what you thought it did? How did you come to that conclusion in the first place, knowing that “one can be used in more than one sense”?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MikeBoll

But you didn’t answer my question

Nor you mine. Is what you are presuming to expound your own or your church’s?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@RichardG

You share your understanding of Scripture but do not attempt to see further.

I share scriptures as they are. You share your assertions that what those scriptures clearly say are not really what they mean.

Richard, according to the scripture itself, does David say God made us a little lower than the gods? Yes or no?

Richard, according to the scripture itself, does Jesus say that our God is also his own God? Yes or no?

See? I’m the one just sharing what the scriptures actually say. When you don’t like what they say, you try to discredit those particular scriptural teachings in the name of “seeing further”.

@RichardG

How could God walk on earth if He could not be seen? Clothed in humanity!

This is another example of the same. Long after thousands had seen Jesus with their own human eyes, John wrote that no man had ever seen God at any time. You are attempting to discredit what John himself wrote by “seeing further” and imagining that John really meant, “No man had seen God WITHOUT HIM BEING CLOTHED IN HUMANITY.”

But that’s not what John said, is it? You’re adding to the Bible because, as it was written, it doesn’t support the man-made tradition you’ve come to hold so close to your heart.

@RichardG

@MikeBoll

How can Trinitarians just ignore clear and explicit biblical teachings like this?

Because they do not take it literally!

Why not?

@RichardG

The Bible is full of metaphors and hyperbolae, and you do not see any of it!

I see those things and know what they are. But how does the Bible’s inclusion of parables and metaphors alter the text of John 1:18 so that “no man has seen God at any time” becomes “men were able to see and touch God Almighty after he clothed himself in humanity”?

This is our difference, Richard…

Me: But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

You: But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live - unless I clothe myself with humanity, which I will one day do!”

Me: No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is closest to the Father, he has made Him known.

You: No man had seen God at any time until He clothed himself in humanity and dwelt among us as His own Son.

My understanding is based on what the scriptures actually say. Yours is based on things you wish the scripture said. And when they don’t say those things, you just mentally add them into the scriptures and pretend that the scriptures actually do teach what you want them to teach.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MikeBoll

I share scriptures as they are.

@MikeBoll

I’m the one just sharing what the scriptures actually say.

@MikeBoll

I see those things and know what they are.

@MikeBoll

My understanding

Your understanding is hyper-literal.

Do not be wise in your own eyes
Proverbs 3:7

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Dale

@MikeBoll

What do you mean by “another”?

In addition to “I and the Father are one.”

Yet you have no scriptural nor logical reason to believe that statement means they are one Godhead (sans the Holy Spirit for some reason) any more than you have a scriptural or logical reason to believe that Jesus’ disciples being one with them means that they will become part of the one Godhead, right? Can you admit that Dale? Can you admit that you want this statement to be saying that Jesus is the very God he is the Son of, but that it clearly doesn’t actually come right out and say what you want it to be saying?

@Dale

@MikeBoll

“Before Abraham came into existence, I am.”

That’s the whole point. He is timeless and self-existent like God the Father. I’m sorry you don’t get it.

Check these out…

Gen 15:7… "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans…

Gen 28:13… "I am the LORD, the God of your grandfather Abraham…

Exo 6:2… God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD…

Exo 6:6… Therefore, tell the Israelites, 'I am the LORD…

Exo 6:7… Then you will know that I am the LORD your God…

Exo 6:8… I am the LORD!

Exo 6:29… he said to him, "I am the LORD. Tell Pharaoh king of Egypt…

Exo 7:5… Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD…

Exo 7:17… "By this you will know that I am the LORD…

Exo 8:22… that you may know that I am the LORD in the midst of this land.

Do you see it? The term “the LORD” is just a placeholder for God’s personal name, which you say is “I AM”. So now replace “the LORD” with “I AM” in all of those verses, and what do you notice? Do you notice that the phase “I am” - in and of itself - isn’t a declaration that somebody IS the LORD? In order for “the great I AM” to declare that He IS “the great I AM”, He needs to add a SECOND “I am” into the statement.

Take Ex 7:5, for example. Yahweh couldn’t just say, “Then the Egyptians will know that I AM!”, right? Because that would be nonsensical. So instead, Yahweh must every time add another “I am” into His declaration, and say, “I am I AM!”

Likewise, in order for Jesus to make a declaration that he IS “the great I AM”, he would have also had to include the second “I am” and say, “Before Abe existed, I am I AM!”

Now, if you can find an instance where Yahweh claims to BE Yahweh with a single “I am”, then we can take a closer look into John 8:58. But since there is no instance of that, and the Bible is absolutely loaded with Yahweh declaring to BE Yahweh with the double, “I am I AM” (assuming “I AM” is the meaning of YHWH in the first place), then it is more than clear that Jesus couldn’t have possibly made a declaration of BEING Yahweh with a single “I am”.

So not only do I “get it” - I’ve been delving into this verse for over a decade, and have thoroughly debunked the “Yahweh declaration” claim from every possible angle.

By the way, you didn’t tell me why the Jews ended up charging Jesus with claiming to be the Son of God when he clearly (according to you) declared himself to BE God Himself in front of everyone. Can you come up with a VALID reason for the lesser and, quite frankly, contradictory “Son of God” charge when the coup de grâce was laying there right at their feet the whole time?

@Dale

Be careful you are not idolizing yourself and your personal translation… or is it your church’s? If the latter, could you tell us which?

I don’t belong to any religious organization or church. I’ve spent years reading the Bible on my own, and honing my understanding on discussion forums like this one, where disagreements cause me to research ever more deeply into the scriptures.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Dale

@MikeBoll

No one will take you seriously…

Now you’re being funny with your irony.

Okay. You made yourself feel better with your flippant remark. Now how about addressing the crux of the post that you didn’t quote? Here it is again…

@MikeBoll

Try to do better, Dale. No one will take you seriously if your answer to every scripture that refutes your understanding is, “It’s metaphorical/parable/figurative/poetry”. Try harder. Show me WHY these particular psalms being songs/poetry makes a clear statement about other gods into a statement about something other than other gods. And what is that something other? When David says God created man a little lower than the gods, what is the “poetical meaning” of “the gods”? What is David trying to say God made us a little lower than in reality, Dale?

Please address the bolded part this time. Thanks.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Dale

The Psalms are a very important part of the Bible, but they are still poetry and to be understood as such.

And what exactly does it mean to understand them as poetry, Dale? Does it mean to understand them as not describing literal and real things? Does it mean to understand them as made up parables?

Please explain EXACTLY what you mean by understanding them as poetry. Thanks.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

No thanks. Been there done that.

We could talk about conspiracy theory though, and go around in circles forever on another subject that tells us how you think, or not.

[Laura]

This topic seems to have run its course.