Creation vs. Creationism

[Wayne Smith]

I was asked to write a post on the issue of Creation vs Creationism. Let me define terms here first. When I am talking about Creationism I am talking about the Young Earth Creationism theory propounded by Robert Morris and others a number of years ago. They basically try to find a ‘scientific’ theory based on the literal interpretation of Creation in Genesis and the creation of the universe in a literal six 24hour days.

By Creation I am talking about using science to understand and expose more of the Glory of God in a more and more detailed understanding of His Creation. To make this sensible I need to define a few more terms and ideas. When I am talking about science I am talking about those using the scientific method, of examining the observable universe and attempting to understand it by collecting data, analyzing data, and constructing theories from that data. Anything that goes beyond this process is defined as a Meta science, ie Metapysical theories that are built on something other than observed fact.

In the philosophy of science a theory is an attempt to take all available data about a subject and organize it in such a way that it makes internally logical sense, does not conflict with other known fact, and creates new questions that are themselves testable and that create new data. In other words, a theory is never static and should always be changing and reforming as new data is added. When a ‘theory’ becomes static it is no longer science, it is now a statement of faith. An example of this is the way Evolution is often taught, as established fact and not something open to question. In Psychology Freudian Theory fits this definition.

I assume it is obvious that I do not accept the arguments of the Young Earth Creationists. It is arguable on both a Biblical and a scientific basis. For a combination of both of these arguments I would refer you to a book that is unfortunately out of print – you will have to haunt Amazon or used book stores to find a copy. It is: Schroeder, Gerald, Genesis and the Big Bang, ISBN 0-553-35413-2. The ISBN number is now the only reference one needs to identify a book in a search. A more specific book that comprehensively destroys the ‘science’ behind the Young Earth argument is: The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, ed. Hill, Davidson, Helble, & Ranney ISBN 978-0-8254-4421-0. The Grand Canyon is something that both sides accept and try to describe how it happened – and one is completely unsuccessful. This book is currently available, very readable and full of pictures as well.

Intelligent Design is the current name for the philosophical/scientific defense of God in the picture. Our son Kyle (MDiv, working on PhD - Comparative Ethics) gave me some names for those who wish to pursue this – you may or may not. John Lennox, John Polkingham, and Allistair McGrath are all scholars at Oxford (or were at Oxford) who have taken this up. He also suggested the IanRamseyCenter on Youtube. This is the only one that I have currently followed.

I do not read Hebrew, Kyle does. I have been told that it is not necessary to interpret the six days of creation literally for a number of reasons. One is that if the sun was not yet created there was no 24 hour day established at least until it was, and who knows when the Earth settled into a 24hr orbit once the sun was created? Another is that time is a variable in God’s kingdom different than in ours –“A day is to a thousand years and thousand years to a day” is a scriptural quote, and it is usually taken as a statement of hyperbole rather than a literal thousand years – i.e. it simply points out that God is outside of time and not constrained by it. Another is that the entire Bible is written so that the original readers could understand it, not so that we should read our understanding back into it. Probably the best example of this is God’s description of how to build the lake for the temple – he defines the circumference as three times the diameter – or Pi. Issac Asimov once wrote a commentary on the Bible where he states that God was wrong, Pi is an infinite number, not 3. My wife pointed out to me that Pi is 3, it is also 3.1, it is also 3.14, it is also 3.141, etc. and etc. My point is that God was not defining Pi to mathematicians; He was teaching people how to make something round. When He described His Creation to early man he described it in a way they would understand, not how Cosmologists now understand. They had no referents to understand the Big Bang nor did they understand galaxies.

When I talk about Creation I am talking about understanding God’s creation on deeper and deeper levels. For example, if you read Ecology you know that the trees on the opposite side of a forest from a fire will start producing more and more water. The forest communicates! No, I am not arguing for intelligence or anything close, but trees totally uninvolved with the fire are reacting to it. I am willing to bet, if you study any science, you will see the Glory of God in greater and greater depth. Who can look at the Hubble Telescope pictures and not see God? Only those who refuse. A number of years ago NASA published the lowest musical note ever discovered, and gave the numbers. For those of us in the bass section of the choir this, of course, proved that God is a bass! (Yes, we can have fun with it, too.) If one is willing to look, one sees infinity in all directions, infinite space, infinite complexity, infinite simplicity, infinite smallness (subatomic particles, maybe smaller), etc. If you look at numbers, there is infinity between 1 and 2 – those spaces can be divided infinitely (I’m no mathematician, but I’m told Mandelbrot sets can be found here). Can infinity be created other than by an infinite God?

Fundamental to Creation is the Creator. Science simply tries to understand what he has done. The Bible is our manual for moral development and behavior – our owner’s manual as it were. It is not a book of mathematics or of science or even of history beyond a specific time and geographical area and should not be used as one.

I was taught that all truth is God’s truth and should be seen as such. If you were to refine all of today’s knowledge into its minimal essence you would still have a library. Certainly not something you can carry around in a large pocket. I am not surprised that God did not include a discussion on gravitational theory in the Bible, he gave us minds and charged and challenged us to use them. Gravity is fundamental to our lives and always has been. Just because it is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean we should not endeavor to understand it. (Wow – I wrote a triple negative!)

I expect this will result in considerable discussion. Please read the entire post above thoughtfully - there are a lot of assumptions packed in there, I have only unpacked some of them. It is a result of considerable study and consultation and thinking. Please use the same thoughtful and considered approach in your responses.

[Ickisrulz]

I shudder when I hear people claim the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon and all the other geological anomalies. The science doesn't seem to back any of that up.

But the opening versus of Genesis suggest a repair to the earth following a worldwide flood. It is possible the earth was destroyed when Satan, who originally had power over the earth/forces of nature, fell. There are subtle clues in the Bible possibly supporting this, but one cannot be too dogmatic.

[claude]

I agree, when the manuscripts are consulted the clues are less subtle, and point to separate earth ages, same earth, different ages, but no where do they point to an earth that is only 6000 years old.

[Char-Gar]

When you read the creation narrative in Genesis 1, whether in English or Hebrew pay particular attention to the verbs used. God created. God said. God called. God separated. God saw. God blessed etc. etc. etc.

What you will find is a theological statement about God, His power, nature, and authority. It is not by chance that the Books of Moses begins with such a powerful statement about who God is, and what God does. All our understanding of God flows from this bedrock beginning.

Attempts to reconcile such a theological statement about God with various human sciences is to miss the point entirely. Genesis 1 is not about the mechanics or timeline of creation. It is about the nature, power and authority of God.

Therefore, a fortiori, all of this "ceation vs. creationism" is much ado about nothing. It is about God having the power and authority to create, name, separated, bless and so on. It really is just that simple. Now, I don't suppose anybody will slap their foreheads and exclaim "now I get it", for folks are so bogged down in argument and refutation that they can't put it all aside and see the forest for the trees. Generations have been locked down in this senseless and needless conflict, no reason to change now right?

I have heard it said that "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.". Theology is often like that as well. People go to the Bible with certain preconceived notions and that is what they find or don't find there. When one steps back and approaches Scriptures without presuming what they will find, often new understand will be the result.

[Char-Gar]

I agree, when the manuscripts are consulted the clues are less subtle, and point to separate earth ages, same earth, different ages, but no where do they point to an earth that is only 6000 years old.

That figures is obtained by folks adding up the ages of the various OT characters.

It would appear that humans can't live with ambiguity and must come up with all kinds of theories and notions to remove all trace of ambiguity. Mankind is so arrogant as to believe they can figure all this out in their human minds. However God and His working can be reduced to numbers, schematics, graphs, charts and other such notions.

I much prefer to live in world in pure wonderment about a creating God, that loves us without measure.

[Blackwater]

Great post, Wayne. Since man first stepped onto the scene, however God chose to create him, he's been trying to figure out whence he came to be here, and what his purpose is amid all that God has created for and around him. Mankind has been asking questions since his dawning. As time has progressed, he has learned seemingly honest and real answers to much of what he has asked. It's as proper and inevitable as anything could possibly be.

And yet, there's always been a few who don't WANT to know, and don't want anyone else asking or solving questions, either. They're satisfied with what they already believe, however right or wrong it might be. This tends, I think, to smack of fear as the basis for such treatment of the issue. Man is finite, and pretty fragile, so there are many things he rightfully fears. And being mortal and fallible, he can sometimes take his fears a bit too far. But even so, that'a a pretty inocuous thing, really. So what if some fear the unknown. Don't we ALL fear the unknown, at least a bit?

So if someone wants to believe the earth is literally only 6000 earth years old, I'm OK with that, if that's what they want to believe. It's certainly no skin off my nose. Yet, we ALL are curious about the reason we're all here, why we came to be here in the first place, and what our duties and rightful necessities are now that we're here. It's as inate and natural as anything we humans do.

Science has indeed, though, presented us with some awesomely likely answers to many, many questions, that can, if we add them up properly in their natural order, teach us much about the God who made us, and watches over us, and sent His Son to save us from our own selves. But we have to have some sort of interest in the matter, the question, and the answers, if we're to really be able to use this kind of info to strengthen and solidify and illuminate our understanding and faith. And the more we know, the shorter the distance our faith has to go to believe. And it also strengthens our beliefs, too, if we understand it better.

Despite pockets of disorder, the overall scheme of things in the universe is the creation of order out of disorder. When I learned just how many "coincidences" HAD to happen at just the exact microseconds of time, in order for our earth to exist, I was fairly dumbstruck. All those "coincidences" seemed to HAVE to be guided by a mighty hand. Someone once calculated, using accepted proceedures for calculating odds, that for all these things to have happened at just the right time in just the right places with just the right size planet, that had collided with another smaller celectial orb at some point, that left the elements we now have much more of than any other planet we have found so far, and the number the calculations turned up was greater than the number of all the atoms in the known universe!

Truly, the more we know about God, and what He has done, and a bit about how He has done it, the more immense and incalculable He becomes, and our minds grow with the perception of just how huge, immense and infinite God really is. When I say I'm awed by God, I mean REALLY, REALLY, REALLY awed! Many people speak of God as though He were another entity much like us. They give lip service to His infinite knowledge, power and love, but never truly perceive, I think (at least in many cases), just what "infinity" really IS. When one's concept of infinity is expanded, so must be his appreciation of just how awesome and incalculable our God really is. He left us enough advice and instruction for us to come to know Him ENOUGH to become a part of His Kingdom. He did NOT leave us all answers to all things, and I suspect that may well be because in our present human form, we don't have the simple ability to comprehend just how wondrous and infinite He really is.

The more I've learned of science, the more awed I've become in my view of our Creator and Sustainer. God is not just another "Joe." He is THE most awesome and incalculable entity that exists anywhere. When He is our own personal Lord and Savior, how could we be anything but loyal to and humbled by Him? The more we understand of God and how He has chosen to work, the more reverent we must inevitably be at all His mighty wonders. And humbled by His immensity, which is surely more than we have the mental facilities to comprehend. He is truly the one entity in all that is, that truly deserves the term "awesome." May all men come to know Him, and appreciate all He has done and created for us.

[Wayne Smith]

Car-Gar, I agree with you completely. My description of Creation:

God considered,
Jesus spoke,
The Spirit moved.

Like Blackwater the more details I know the more glory of God I see.

Bishop Usher apparantly did not know that the Hebrew term translated 'begat' in the KJV is not specific to one generation but can mean a direct relationship of multiple generations. Simply adding up all the 'begat's' in the OT is not a meaningful relationship of either time or the number of generations involved.

[wv109323]

In Exodus 20 God commanded man to rest on the Sabbath for 24 hours as he rested on the seventh day. The word "day" is consistent throughout the Bible meaning 24 hours. God created time for man not himself. A day(one revolution of the earth), a month(one lunar cycle) and the year are based on God's creation. God does not need time.
If you think God is awesome now consider Him doing everything in 6 days. Why would God need time to create if he is God?

[claude]

The word "day" is consistent throughout the Bible meaning 24 hours. God created time for man not himself. A day(one revolution of the earth),

Not 100%, read 2Peter 3:8, in fact the entire chapter is germane to this discussion.

[Wayne Smith]

In Exodus 20 God commanded man to rest on the Sabbath for 24 hours as he rested on the seventh day. The word "day" is consistent throughout the Bible meaning 24 hours. God created time for man not himself. A day(one revolution of the earth), a month(one lunar cycle) and the year are based on God's creation. God does not need time.
If you think God is awesome now consider Him doing everything in 6 days. Why would God need time to create if he is God?

It has nothing to do with how much time God needs. If everything we know about science is false, including the constants that establish the boundaries of possible life, then God's creation, including our brains to understand this, is based on lies? This is not consistent with the character of God as I know Him.

[wv109323]

I don't think God is restricted to the present earthly laws of science, laws of nature or thermodynamics. The miracles of the Bible have God's hand in them and do not abide by our laws or reasoning. Examples are the manna from heaven, the parting of the Red Sea, and Christ the Messiah in the form of man. Miracle after miracle can not be explained by our laws of science or laws of nature.
The Creation can never smarter than the Creator. On this side of eternity our minds will never approach the capacity of God's knowledge or reasoning. Man can not be omnipresent,all knowing or have the love that God extends to mankind.
How can you explain the Rapture of the Church, Christ's Resurrection or Judgement of mankind by our present knowledge of science?
If the formation of the earth was over millions/billions of years, how long or how much time do you believe it will take God to resurrect and judge the dead? Answer: in the moment of a twinkling of the eye.

[WRideout]

It is indeed difficult for humans to understand a God that exists outside of time and space. It is rather like asking a deer to interpret fine art; we are just not built for that.

I was educated as a scientist (microbiology and chemistry) as well as theology (Master of Divinity). I personally see not conflict between the theory of evolution, and Holy Scripture. Science only becomes a problem when one takes it farther than it is supposed to go; as the other Wayne pointed out, true science is always open to new data, and rearrangement of old theories.

Wayne

[Blackwater]

Good commentary all. However, I'm reminded of an old saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe." I think this came from Einstein? Whoever it was, I believe this is true, and I believe it because His word is always fulfilled. He makes rules for us, and then, almost always follows them. So things like gravity, matter, space and time, were indeed created by Him, but He created them for US. And we DO exist within the framework of all these things as long as we inhabit these delicate physical bodies we wear now.

But when we're freed from these bodies, and space, time, etc. no longer affect us, what will we discover then? We're not told, but it's hinted at that we will be even MORE awed at how great and grand and awesome our God truly is! The first step is ours - belief. Then we comply, and eventually we're freed from these mortal, weak bodies, and become spirit, and are free from the normal constraints of this earthly realm. I suspect we haven't been told more than a pitance of what that will be like, because we simply don't have the ability to understand it right now. Some things, apparently, God must withhold from us until we have the ABILITY to comprehend it all. And that's just not all while we're still wearing these limited and mortal bodies. But one day ..... we'll know, and we'll know so completely, that it'll be overwhelming, and so wonderful, we may not even be able to endure it while still on this plane of existence. I suspect it's no accident that those who die, and are part of the body of Christ, and are revived, don't ever fear death again, is at least in part because of these things.

Just speculation on my part, really, but .... FWIW, that's my take on it, and I'm ready to learn more, or better, any time there's an opportunity. Is our God a wonderful and mighty God or what?

[Thundarstick]

Interesting comments.

Is the Bible true, or a book of fairytales? Genesis 1:3-5 seems very clear to me. A day then is the same as a day now.
In John 1:1-3 who was this "word" that was with God, and was God? Did HE make everything, or not?

[NoAngel]

I have never understood why some people are so consumed with the craving to know why/how? Who cares? Does knowing how or why God made everything put food on the table? Understanding physics can put food on the table. Understanding how to conduct yourself so as to receive God's blessing can put food on the table. Establishing a factual timeline does nothing but create argument. There's no money in it. No food in it.

Questioning "WHY" can be a good thing but if your mind is forever bent on it, if you constantly dwell on it when you could be doing something constructive, you're accomplishing NOTHING. Science trying to unravel the mystery of the universe does nothing. They could put that money and effort studying the stars into finding a way to save lives at a Shriner's hospital or St. Judes...or find a REAL solution for the common cold. Who gives a cråp what's going on billions of light years away where you can do NOTHING about it. People are forever worrying about things they will NEVER master or control. Jesus addressed this in Luke 12:25.

There's nothing wrong with study and discovery, we NEED that. There's nothing with looking for answers but people are wasting their lives looking for something means absolutely SQUAT. I don't care how God made anything. I don't care why or when. I'm here. I'll make the best use of my time feeding myself and as time and money allows, helping others to feed themselves, the ones that deserve it anyway. Any time not spent furthering those ends are spent entertaining myself.

[Boaz]

I haven't chimed in so ... . I go by the book of Genesis on the creation , it has held up for much over two thousand years . Most scientific 'theory' lasts but a short time . I enjoy science , I believe dinosaurs existed , I believe many animals , plants , earth , the solar system and the universe have changed or evolved by intelligent design over what we call 'time' . I grow weary of those finds a 1' piece of scull fragment and show a picture of a primate ancestor of ours . Trying to determine in the millions of years by imperfect radio carbon dating , speculation of celestial bodies 15 trillion years ago . They are STILL trying to figure out how the pyramids were built . I'll stop there , although many of the theories are interesting no one is going to get it figured out . We still can not explain time .

As I said it is interesting but that's about it . Nothing wrong with talking about it , it is a built in part of our nature .

[NoAngel]

I haven't chimed in so ... . I go by the book of Genesis on the creation , it has held up for much over two thousand years . Most scientific 'theory' lasts but a short time . I enjoy science , I believe dinosaurs existed , I believe many animals , plants , earth , the solar system and the universe have changed or evolved by intelligent design over what we call 'time' .

There's not much to study, BUT, there were LOTS of things roaming the earth 'pre-flood'. Giants and leviathan. Dinosaurs. Even dragons wouldn't be a hard one to accept. Maybe not the fire breathers from Game of Thrones but still. I've never understood some church's stance on dinosaurs. As I said, 'pre-flood' there was a lot going bump in the night that would scare the snot out of us today.

[Boaz]

I'm a fundamentalist , I believe dinosaurs existed . Exactly why , when ? Don't know exactly , don't really care but they are interesting .

[Char-Gar]

Interesting comments.

Is the Bible true, or a book of fairytales? Genesis 1:3-5 seems very clear to me. A day then is the same as a day now.
In John 1:1-3 who was this "word" that was with God, and was God? Did HE make everything, or not?

Genesis 1:14 "And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs for seasons and for days and years. .......a fourth day. "

If God did not create the sun until the forth day, how were day one through three the same as a day now?

[claude]

There were two floods, the flood of Jeremiah chapter 4, and the flood of Noah, separate floods, with different descriptions.
The one, the first, sometime after Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 which caused the earth to become waste and void, the second to destroy an influx of half breed angelic/humans called Geber/giants.

(Genesis 1:1-2) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(flood of Jeremiah) {2} And the earth was(became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

[Thundarstick]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

I know people who reject the WHOLE Bible based on the creation account being false! For ME, if the creation account isn't accurate as portrayed by Jesus Christ and the apostles the Bible is a lie. It is truly the corner stone of the Bible!
It's enough for ME to to say "I don't know how God did it, or what laws ruled during the creation", but I must BELIEVE it's so! I don't have to explain it any more than you can explain how water was turned to wine, sick and crippled where healed, that Jesus bid Lazarus come forth from a tomb alive again, that He commanded the winds and the rain, walked on water, and commanded demons! Try and explain any of these accounts in the Bible against the natural laws that govern us! Are they lies, "much to do about nothing", or cornerstones of our faith as witnessed by these same men who believed the 6 day creation, or are these lies as well because they can't be explained in the context of natural law? Have you seen, or know of anyone who walks on water, or raised himself from death?

[Ickisrulz]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

The writers of the Bible did not use the same language we use today in our culture. I am not meaning English vs Hebrew or Greek. Their language was not precise like ours. The repeated use of "40" in the Bible most certainly did not mean precisely 40. It meant a complete period of time. The number "1000" was used to describe a large amount rather than a specific amount. Many examples like this exist and "day" could very well have meant just a period of time. This is not bending scripture, it is understanding how the author used language to express thoughts.

FWIW, the Bible doesn't even have a word meaning "forever" or "everlasting." The original wording is "age" or "end of the ages." See, not very precise.

[Thundarstick]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

[Ickisrulz]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

Well, the Bible is pretty clear that Lazarus was raised from the dead. So I doubt any believer would suggest he wasn't.

But when it comes to days of creation, or many other issues, we should attempt to understand what the Bible is not saying as much as what it is saying. When ground truth trumps what we think scripture is saying we need to take another look.

[Char-Gar]

And folks "could have" just happened to see someone around town that looked like Lazarus and claimed Jesus raised him from the dead! Still trying to make the Bible fit the narrative, not the other way round.

Factoid: There is a mosque built on the site of the tomb of Lazarus. It get into it, steps were cut into the bedrock beside the mosque. The original entrance was plugged when the mosque was built.

[Char-Gar]

So then we are to assume there was no morning or evening until the 4th day? Light divided from dark with no sun?

It appears to me from reading the Bible that Jesus had a 6 day creation knowledge, and all the ones who wrote about him had the same 6 day creation belief. Through the whole Bible this same narrative holds true unless we continually grasp at straws, change words, and bend phrases and words to fit our thoughts. Do we pick and choose what in the Bible is true and what's a lie? Was Jesus lying, Moses, apostles lying about the creation account?

I know people who reject the WHOLE Bible based on the creation account being false! For ME, if the creation account isn't accurate as portrayed by Jesus Christ and the apostles the Bible is a lie. It is truly the corner stone of the Bible!
It's enough for ME to to say "I don't know how God did it, or what laws ruled during the creation", but I must BELIEVE it's so! I don't have to explain it any more than you can explain how water was turned to wine, sick and crippled where healed, that Jesus bid Lazarus come forth from a tomb alive again, that He commanded the winds and the rain, walked on water, and commanded demons! Try and explain any of these accounts in the Bible against the natural laws that govern us! Are they lies, "much to do about nothing", or cornerstones of our faith as witnessed by these same men who believed the 6 day creation, or are these lies as well because they can't be explained in the context of natural law? Have you seen, or know of anyone who walks on water, or raised himself from death?

The people you reference were ancient Jews that understood the Genesis creation narrative and you do not. You are trying to inflict a modern understanding on an ancient theological narrative that they all knew was not a literal scientific explanation of the physical creation process. That was just not a matter of interest to them. They knew the run rose in the east and set in the west, but they didn't care about how that happened. They knew that God was creator and that was all they were concerned about.

Start with the notion that none of those folks spoke a word of English and in fact nobody did, for English as a language did not exist. If you have ever tried to master another language you will quickly find out that there are many words that can't be translated word for word. A translation is an approximation of what the concept would be like in English. Translators often disagree on what a word, phrase or sentence means in the context it was written or spoken. This is not bending or twisting words.

Our Christian faith does not stand or fall, on your understanding of the ancient Jewish narrative. You have a "house of cards" understanding of Scripture that fails to take into context the time it was written, by whom it was written, to whom it was written and it's purpose. You seem to think if the literal six solar day story is understood any other way that literally, then everything else falls down around our ears.

In case you think I am some theological liberal poo-pawing the miracles of Jesus that is not true. I am quite conservative, but neither am I ignorant when it comes to understanding the intend and meaning of Scripture.

I have never found any conflict between science and scripture when both a properly understood. They ask and answer different questions. People of faith ask "why" and science asks "how". They only come in conflict when people insist that scripture asked "why" and then comes back with the answer "why and how".

[Wayne Smith]

One of the principles of understanding Scripture is to attempt to understand it as the original hearers did. That means within their culture, their level of understanding and knowledge of the world, and their assumptions about the world. In the OT theirs was not a precise scientific culture and Hebrew is far from a precise language. To read precision into this culture is as much a mistake as Heinlein's mistake to read Pi into the instructions to build the lake in the Tabernacle area. It is reading our culture into a document that does not fit our culture. This is true not only for the Creation account but for all Scripture.

It is for this reason that I have studied the first century BCE and CE in order to attempt to understand the NT. There is a lot to know.

[Blackwater]

I have never understood why some people are so consumed with the craving to know why/how? Who cares? Does knowing how or why God made everything put food on the table? Understanding physics can put food on the table. Understanding how to conduct yourself so as to receive God's blessing can put food on the table. Establishing a factual timeline does nothing but create argument. There's no money in it. No food in it.

Questioning "WHY" can be a good thing but if your mind is forever bent on it, if you constantly dwell on it when you could be doing something constructive, you're accomplishing NOTHING. Science trying to unravel the mystery of the universe does nothing. They could put that money and effort studying the stars into finding a way to save lives at a Shriner's hospital or St. Judes...or find a REAL solution for the common cold. Who gives a cråp what's going on billions of light years away where you can do NOTHING about it. People are forever worrying about things they will NEVER master or control. Jesus addressed this in Luke 12:25.

There's nothing wrong with study and discovery, we NEED that. There's nothing with looking for answers but people are wasting their lives looking for something means absolutely SQUAT. I don't care how God made anything. I don't care why or when. I'm here. I'll make the best use of my time feeding myself and as time and money allows, helping others to feed themselves, the ones that deserve it anyway. Any time not spent furthering those ends are spent entertaining myself.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. It's the way many folks see it too, basically. One of the reasons I think the world has been allowed to deteriorate the way it has, though, is BECAUSE so many have ceased seeking answers, so they don't have the answers to questions when they're challenged, and consequently, many who may have been converted have given themselves over to disbelief. And were we not directed by Christ himself to "study to show thyself approved?" Does not "study" involve asking questions and seeking answers?

And yes, there IS much disagreement among believers about many questions, but disagreement doesn't in and of its own self, create problems. It's only when disagreement mixes with EGO that problems arise. It's when ego enters the fray that the good quality of discussion/argument becomes unpleasant and dysfunctional.

Since man has first started asking questions, which was near instantly after he was created, I think, we've been constantly trying to understand our world and ourselves and so very much more. It's inevitible, I believe, that we do this. It is however, NOT inevitable that we do it in a dysfunctional and unpleasant manner. I've had many arguments about things where egos did not enter into the picture. Those were fertile ground for discovery of new thoughts and ways of seeing things, if we allow them to be.

Only those, though, who are REALLY seeking answers and true edification, CAN argue without ego entering the fray and messing up the whole situation. Some argue from the perspective that "I'm right and that's all I want or need to know." This isn't really studying to show ourselves approved. It's stopping study, and beginning a dysfunctional, pride-filled argument - the kind that CANNOT edify anyone involved.

These kinds of "arguments" are common today, so much so that the word "argument" has pretty well come to mean an unpleasant dispute. But arguing doesn't necessarily HAVE to be that way. Argument CAN be, and often is, rather an interesting and absorbing endeavor, IF of course, we allow it to be. That too, though, is a matter of will, and these "modern" days seem to deny even such a possibility's existence! And therein lies the problem. When we stop arguing, the only thing left is fighting, which is why so many arguments today really only amount to the preparations for a "fight." Usually, it just stays verbal, but occasionally, can get violent physically. A crazed Bernie Sanders supporter recently shot several congressmen and their cohorts simply because they disagreed with his thoughts!

But here, more than anywhere else I've seen on the net or elsewhere, we seem to have a good many very serious and sometimes spirited discussions, but .... nobody seems to get too peeved in them. This is something that makes me very proud of the folks here, and of their essential character, and even though I haven't met any of them personally, I think I'd trust most of them with my very life! That's not something this ol' country boy does very often these days!

PC theology has decreed that everyone drop their true feelings and only express what others WANT to hear! What a contrived set of rules THAT is!!!! When has man EVER been ABLE to live up to such a set of insensible "rules????" We all have had very different lives, different experiences, challenges and assets going into our lives. How cold one EVER expect to get uniformity out of such a diverse group of people and experiences as makes up ANY nation? Even when folks thought alike on most of the bigger issues, there was MUCH diversity of opinion, evaluation and views. Now? It seems the more PC theology has tried to force folks into all "singing off the same sheet of music," the more hostility it has generated and the more insensibility and madness that has resulted! This is the exact OPPOSITE of what it purported to strive to do on its initial inception and promotion ... but .... there it is, right in front of us today, and it's everywhere!

Nothing really good has ever resulted without some real and often (usually?) VERY "spirited" argument! Why would we go to war, for instance, without hasing things out, the pros and cons and other related matters? Who could, in good conscience, NOT hash it all out before acting?

But at the same time, arguing is completely useless unless it's allowed to come to a reasonable conclusion. The ONLY purpose of argument is to settle some issue, is it not? And if it can't be settled, then it CAN be possible to settle the matter by disagreeing PEACABLY. This is far from impossible, and I've ended some arguments that way in the past, and later come to realize (at long last!) what the other side was saying and I had misunderstood!

Studying to show ourselves approved is NECESSARY, and some amount of reasonable and rational argument is a natural and inevitable part of that. If we don't argue, for whatever reason we decide to not do that, we commit ourselves to where we are now, and cast aside any chance of growth or deeper understanding. This, then, in its turn, means that when we're challenged by unbelievers, we are more likely to be unable to answer their questions. This leaves them with little alternative than to think we don't really know what we're talking about, and all too often, results in our walking away or "shaking the dust," which just further convinces the profane that what we have is NOT real, and that even if it were, we don't understand it ourselves.

THIS is what REALLY matters! Satan is a mocker, and he causes unbelievers to mock us and declaim us in many and varied ways. But his most effective tool in keeping his numbers large, is directly challenging us, and asking us questions we don't really know the answer to. If we more regularly answered these questions with thoughtful and easily understood principles, what a different world we might have today!!!! And the only way to do that is for folks who have little time to be edified by those silver tongued few who really, really know the answers BECAUSE they've spent the time and gone to the trouble to learn the answers, and have NOT backed away from serious challenges, but stuck with them to find the REAL answers. God bless these hallowed few! They are the ones that CAN, if we let them, illuminate us well beyond what we'd ever achieve by simply just reading the Bible. I for one, have learned more in simple discussions of everyday things with those who see them as "gifts" than I'll ever learn from those who see questions as just "one more problem" in life.

Just because arguments typically take a common form and result in a common manner, does NOT mean they HAVE to be that way. THIS is the value of good, beneficial and spirited and serious argument! But we have to know the difference, and be able to DO it like it ought'a be done. And that's not always easy, but it's always beneficial, if we simply LET it be. I'm so very glad and thankful that so many here CAN do it the RIGHT way! God bless all of you!

[NoAngel]

Blackwater, good post. I went to a church camp some as a kid. Had a younger minister tell me once: "Don't believe the old codgers when they say don't question things and NEVER question God. Question everything.....but do so out of ignorance and always be humble when doing so. God will make his point and you will understand. ....but do so out of spite with an arrogant attitude and you'll get a heel of brass grinding you into dust."

[Blackwater]

I don't mean to 'hog' the space here, but just played back a DVR'd hour long treatment of Stephen Hawking's "Grand Design" off satellite TV. In it, Hawking himself explained much of the story relating to his book on Creation, that concluding by the expression of his opinion that God was NOT necessary for the universe's existence, the Big Bang, or any of it. His theory is that the only things needed for a recipe for the creation of the universe are matter, energy and space. But since Einstein has pretty well proven beyond much doubt, that mass and energy are two versions of the same thing, only energy and space are necessary for the universe to come into existence. And without going though all his assertions and conclusions, I'll just conclude his treatise of the question of God by noting that he has concluded that because in quantum (sub-atomic) physics, particles CAN indeed seem to appear from nothing, that the same is possible in the non-quantum "bigger picture." This is, at best, a pretty wild and unsubstantiated theory!!! Taking one set of rules, and applying them to another whole set of parameters, without citing any sort of REASON for doing so, seems to me to be mostly wishful thinking on his part. I realize he knows more about the universe and physics and the universe than I do, but he has no corner on the much more simple principles of reason and rationality.

It seems to me that he began his "search" by assuming that God does not indeed exist, and worked from that position towards an explanation as to WHY He might not have to exist. His pathway in his reasoning seems too "goal oriented" for lack of a better word, for me to take to heart, and seriously consider very deeply. Does he have some deep-seated resentment of God due to his paralyzed condition? It's a legitimate question, for I've seen others who've taken that tactic after much lesser blows to their physicality. But I have no answer because I can't know what is really going on inside his mind without MUCH more info! But it's a legitimate question, nevertheless, since it's occurred, and obviously so, in others.

What I do know is that he absolutely leaves out anything that MIGHT lead him to other paths of inquiry. Since man has first existed, he has sensed that there really IS something out there that is MUCH bigger and more pervasive than we could ever be. And for millenea, we have studied and tried to discern what that "bigger thing" might be, and is.

He has never addressed the prophesies, or how or why they have been so accurate. These are but a few of the things that have led folks to belief for millenea before science came up with explanations for lots of phenomena, and proved at least some of the theories they've created really DO seem to be true.

And so many scientists now, believe, and see physics and all of science and creation as proving the existence of God, and the NECESSITY that he MUST exist! I don't know what Hawking's problem is, but he's long been anti-God in his beliefs. Before he became an invalid, he was reportedly quite a rounder, at least for a "science guy." So we're given a choice to believe those who are not hostile to the scientific view that God MUST in fact resist, and those who seem to have a very long-term disinclination to accept God's existence. Simple logic tells me that if someone has a natural or any other kind of disinclination to accept God's existence, that's probably not a good place to go to for advice on the matter. That much seems so simple a dunce could "get it."

And if God really DOES exist, and we are "created in His image," doesn't it naturally follow that He'd give us SOME way by which we could sense and come to know Him? At least to the degree that our mortal minds can in this realm of time, space and matter???

We are at a point in the development of science, that MANY things point towards the NECESSITY that there be a God who DOES indeed direct things. It's even been pretty well proven mathematically that the liklihood of all the details of earth's formation, as it's now generally agreed to have had to be, could not have occurred without some "Divine Guiding Hand" being involved! Take all the things that have had to occur for earth to be habitable, and for us to exist, and you have a number that in terms of probabilities, is so unlikely that nobody would bet against them in Las Vegas! And yet, so many stake their immortal souls on their not being right or valid!!!

Truly, man is just as willful, if not moreso, than the Bible says he is, and shows him to be, historically! So no matter how close science comes to "proving" that God MUST exist, there's still that gap, though it's gotten smaller and smaller over time, that MUST be crossed by simple Faith. If we conclude that the Bible's being right so very often and consistently is "proof" of God's existence, then science is not necessary for us as individuals. That's a given. But for those "agnostics" and other unbelievers, some serious knowledge of these things MAY well fascinate enough unbelievers to make a significant difference in our world, IF only they're known and used in the right times and in the right way.

And the more certain knowlege via physics and other sciences (there are many fields that are coming to recognize a seeming "guiding hand" in science now), the more fully and incontrovertibly we can be of our own beliefs, and this cannot do anything but strengthen us as we encounter the challenges endemic of our life here in our time and in this place.

It is said that "Knowledge is Power," and I reckon that's true. It seems incontrovertible to me, but ... there's always someone who seems to counter anything these days. And the more knowledge we have, the more certain we CAN be of our position, and our efforts, and of our destiny. Who who is human cannot appreciate that????

[Char-Gar]

Blackwater, good post. I went to a church camp some as a kid. Had a younger minister tell me once: "Don't believe the old codgers when they say don't question things and NEVER question God. Question everything.....but do so out of ignorance and always be humble when doing so. God will make his point and you will understand. ....but do so out of spite with an arrogant attitude and you'll get a heel of brass grinding you into dust."

Question God, argue with God, get mad at God and none of it will cause Him to punish you in any way. The nature of God is that of gracious love.

[popper]

Stephen Hawking is basically a mathmatician who calculated a lot of cosmic orbit, recessed them through time and came to the conclusion that there was a pint origin to what we call the universe, then procedded to concoct a theory that the point of origin came through a 'worm hole' from another universe. His hypothesis falls apart when you ask where the 'other' universe came from. Same argument of those that say life on earth came from extraterrestrials. I know a felow that stated when he meets God he would ask how Einstein's relativity theory works. I ask - so if you find out, what will you do with that knowledge? Build a space ship? Won't need it - as far as we know. Or you could argue Calvinism vs Armenian-ism. Won't know which is correct until the 'fat lady sings'. A slight danger in Calvinism as I see it, we can become 'lazy' in our evangelism.
New earth/old earth - does it make a difference? Like Hawking, attempts to regress history that we know can produce erroneous conclusions. Aka, the dinosaurs. The TV version of 'string' theory is bogus.
As g=for Galgatha/skull - again what difference does it make? If it truly is the location of 'special' circumstances, it is for a special reason. I have read some 'theories stating that is the location of the entrance to the Garden. Cute idea but we really DON"T know.

[Snow ninja]

Question God, argue with God, get mad at God and none of it will cause Him to punish you in any way. The nature of God is that of gracious love.
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

[Char-Gar]

And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

You don't understand grace do you? Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". In Jesus we see the nature and character of God. The God you reference in Numbers bears no resemblance to the God I know in Christ. You sure you are not talking about Allah?

[popper]

Arron made a golden calf, God didn't like that. Israelites walked in the 'wilderness' till the 'bad' generation died so only the young went into Canaan. Those who don't believe in Jesus got tossed into darkness. Yes, God does righteously punish.

[Snow ninja]

The God you reference in Numbers bears no resemblance to the God I know in Christ. You sure you are not talking about Allah? Where do I start... It's my belief that we don't have 2 different gods- same God, just more palatable in the new testament.

I don't understand how I could be referencing allah when it was a passage from the good book.

And lastly, why is it, anyone with a different view from yours is automatically a Muslim? I don't believe you can pick and choose which parts you want to follow and/or recognize. Just because he did some "not so lovely" things before, but is now "better". You can't just ignore the fact that he still did them.

That's just my view on things, neither one of us is right or wrong here, there is no right or wrong. Otherwise, just the Catholics are right or just the Baptists. In the end though, I guess it just comes down to what your comfortable with, or what you need. Some people need the fire and brimstone, while others need the raised hands, and still some need the speaking in tongues (still trying to wrap my head around that one...) It's whatever works for the individual. Anyway, thank you for letting me express my views and vent for a bit.

[Ickisrulz]

And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. Numbers 11-1

God is no different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. He didn't get better, he is the same.

The Bible is clear that God will violently remove wickedness from among his people. At the point you are referencing in Numbers some people disbelieved and rebelled after seeing significant manifestations of God's existence, power and care. Their actions and attitudes would have been a detriment to the entire nation. They had to be removed for the sake of the others. This is the exact reason why the Canaanites had to be exterminated: their wickedness and their negative influence. Israel's failure to do so after Joshua's generation died proved this beyond any doubt.

Another similar example is Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. This couple decided to rebel and lie to God (via the Apostles) even after seeing miracles that showed, without question, God's existence, power and care. Their removal from the Church was necessary so their influence would be eliminated.

Eventually unbelievers and the wicked must be removed from the earth. God will do this because of his love for his people. God cannot allow the wicked to influence or negatively effect his people.

All of this is a far cry from a Christian man or woman who questions what is going on in their life and the world around them and complaining to God in an honest fashion.

[NoAngel]

God is no different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. He didn't get better, he is the same.

The Bible is clear that God will violently remove wickedness from among his people. At the point you are referencing in Numbers some people disbelieved and rebelled after seeing significant manifestations of God's existence, power and care. Their actions and attitudes would have been a detriment to the entire nation. They had to be removed for the sake of the others. This is the exact reason why the Canaanites had to be exterminated: their wickedness and their negative influence. Israel's failure to do so after Joshua's generation died proved this beyond any doubt.



I have to agree. Based on what I see when I read Jehova and Jesus are polar opposites with respect to attitude. God cleansed with fire and water and took no lip service from men.
Jesus took a totally opposite approach. I'm somewhat awed at his ability to do so. He could have easily unleashed the power he wielded and laid waste to everything. Can't say I would have, the first time I seen that cat of nine tails there would have a smoking crater of ash and slag.

[Ickisrulz]

I have to agree. Based on what I see when I read Jehova and Jesus are polar opposites with respect to attitude. God cleansed with fire and water and took no lip service from men.
Jesus took a totally opposite approach. I'm somewhat awed at his ability to do so. He could have easily unleashed the power he wielded and laid waste to everything. Can't say I would have, the first time I seen that cat of nine tails there would have a smoking crater of ash and slag.

When reading the Old Testament, people often see and concentrate on the acts of judgement. But they don't seem to pick up on how God pleaded with his people to turn back to him. At times it was like he was begging them to repent. When his people did not turn from their evil, God had no choice but to act.

Jesus read from Isaiah in Luke chapter 4. The passage he read discusses the Messiah's mission.

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”…. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” – ESV

He intentionally left out the last line: to proclaim...the day of vengeance of our God. His time on earth was not a time of punishment. It appears that his Second Coming will include the remainder of his mission.

If you've seen the Son you've seen the Father. If you've seen the Father you've seen the Son.

[Blackwater]

As to being angry at God, I suspect it's more related to our attitudes in that anger, and maybe our assumptions (right or wrong) that determines whether it angers Him or not? Just a thought. He always loves us, that is a given. But yes, he CAN get angry with us, too, if we bring that on ourselves. But even when He's angry, He still loves us, just like our parents did when we aroused their ire. They didn't suddenly quit loving us just because we'd made them momentarily angry, did they? Certainly no good parents would do that!

[Omega]

So where does this hypothesis fit in?:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

[NoAngel]

It doesn't.
I come up with some pretty out there stuff but that one has me down by five laps.

[Hogtamer]

Thank you Wayne and Char-Gar for your excellent posts. Now: if they wrote hymns like this anymore there wouldn't be so much trifling dissent; from "Crown Him with many crowns"
Crown Him the Lord of years, the Potentate of time; Creator of the rolling spheres, ineffably sublime! All hail, Redeemer hail! For Thou hast died for me, Thy praise shall never, never fail for all eternity." Listen if you like. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YuMh_ept-Js

[Char-Gar]

Thank you Wayne and Char-Gar for your excellent posts. Now: if they wrote hymns like this anymore there wouldn't be so much trifling dissent; from "Crown Him with many crowns"
Crown Him the Lord of years, the Potentate of time; Creator of the rolling spheres, ineffably sublime! All hail, Redeemer hail! For Thou hast died for me, Thy praise shall never, never fail for all eternity." Listen if you like. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YuMh_ept-Js

That is a wonderful hymn that I have sung in church many times. I guess my favorite is "And Can It Be" by Charles Wesley...

And can it be, that I should gain
an interest in my Saviors blood.
Died he for me, who cause his pain?
For me to who him to death pursued?
Amazing love, how can it be
That thou my God should die for me?

All this picking around about this or that point. Quarreling about nothing, yet forgetting about the central part of the gospel. The amazing love of God who died for us while we were yet sinners.

Amazing grace how sweet the sound,
that saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found.
Was blind but now I see.

The anger, wrath and punishment of God, never broke a person's heart and brought him/her to the foot of the cross. The loving grace of God has brought billions to faith in a loving God.

Jesus told parables about what God is like. He told of the woman that had ten coins but lost one. She swept her house until she found the lost coin.

Jesus told of the Shepard who had 100 sheep but lost the one. He searched high and low until he found the one lost sheep.

That is what God is like? He is not willing for any of us to be lost. He seeks us until we are found. He does not seek up to crush us under his brass heel because we went out own way. His is a loving, searching God, that loves us beyond measure, even to the death of his own Son.

Those who focus on the OT God of wrath, punishment and fire miss the entire point of the NT. The ancient Jews got it wrong!!!!! There is not a slice of daylight between the Ancient Jews concept of Jehovah and the ancient Muslims concept of Allah. The Muslims are stuck in the far distance past, because they don't have a savior. They don't have a NT.

Others can pizz their pants in fear of a wrathful and punishing god if they wish, but I want none of that. I was found. I am loved. I am forgiven. I live in grace. I am a heaven bound sinner saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. "Perfect love casts out all fear.".

[Ickisrulz]

Those who focus on the OT God of wrath, punishment and fire miss the entire point of the NT. The ancient Jews got it wrong!!!!! There is not a slice of daylight between the Ancient Jews concept of Jehovah and the ancient Muslims concept of Allah.

The ancient Jews got what wrong? Are you suggesting the Old Testament writings are not inspired?

[Char-Gar]

The ancient Jews got what wrong? Are you suggesting the Old Testament writings are not inspired?

There are two major understandings of OT and NT revelation.

1. The Flat Book understanding, the Bible is flat and every passage in both testaments carries the same weight and have the same value to the Christian believer.

2 Progressive revelation, where God's statement to mankind continued as mankind ability to understand increased. God said it in the early OT. God said it better in the later OT. God said it best in Jesus Christ.

There are two major understanding of how God inspired the OT and NT.

1. Verbal dictation theory of inspiration. i.e. God dictated scripture to the various writers, bypassing their personalities, culture and history. They writers were just mindless scribes.

2. The Plenary (full) theory of inspiration. i.e. God inspired the entire/full person and that person brought with him his culture, history, personality and understanding.

Summary;

The various Fundamentalist sects, groups and churches hold to a Flat Book/Verbal Dictation understanding of scripture.

The various Evangelical groups and churches hold to a Progressive revelation/Plenary inspiration understanding of scripture.

Everybody get to choose what they believe about scripture and why. Neither choice means one is a Christian and the other is not. Being a Christian is a matter of faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord, not one's understanding of scripture.

Caveat: Some Christian get very close, if they do not cross the line to "Bibliolatry , i.e. the worship of the Bible. The Muslims believe that the Koran is in some ways the incarnation of God. To their way of thinking disrespect for the Koran is blasphemy.

I have not even touched in the various "liberal" understanding of revelation and inspiration of scripture and there are several of those. I have just included those which fall under the orthodox tent. I am in the orthodox tent. I do believe the OT was inspired, but probably not as you understand it.

[Ickisrulz]

There are two major understandings of OT and NT revelation.

1. The Flat Book understanding, the Bible is flat and every passage in both testaments carries the same weight and have the same value to the Christian believer.

2 Progressive revelation, where God's statement to mankind continued as mankind ability to understand increased. God said it in the early OT. God said it better in the later OT. God said it best in Jesus Christ.

There are two major understanding of how God inspired the OT and NT.

1. Verbal dictation theory of inspiration. i.e. God dictated scripture to the various writers, bypassing their personalities, culture and history. They writers were just mindless scribes.

2. The Plenary (full) theory of inspiration. i.e. God inspired the entire/full person and that person brought with him his culture, history, personality and understanding.

Summary;

The various Fundamentalist sects, groups and churches hold to a Flat Book/Verbal Dictation understanding of scripture.

The various Evangelical groups and churches hold to a Progressive revelation/Plenary inspiration understanding of scripture.

Everybody get to choose what they believe about scripture and why. Neither choice means one is a Christian and the other is not. Being a Christian is a matter of faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord, not one's understanding of scripture.

Caveat: Some Christian get very close, if they do not cross the line to "Bibliolatry , i.e. the worship of the Bible. The Muslims believe that the Koran is in some ways the incarnation of God. To their way of thinking disrespect for the Koran is blasphemy.

I have not even touched in the various "liberal" understanding of revelation and inspiration of scripture and there are several of those. I have just included those which fall under the orthodox tent. I am in the orthodox tent. I do believe the OT was inspired, but probably not as you understand it.

I still don't understand where you are coming from. It looks like you are dismissing all the acts of God's judgement as you do not see them as compatible with Jesus' message of love. But what do you do with Jesus' warnings of judgement, Paul's understanding of destruction of the wicked? What do you do with Jude's Epistle that not only acknowledges the historicity of God's acts of judgement, but warns of judgement on ungodly people who are corrupting the church?

I believe that the Bible shows a progressive revelation of God. I understand that God directed the writing of the Bible using the personality of the authors to arrive at a 100% inspired product. That being said, I don't see any change in God's character from one Testament to the other. The Old Testament expresses God's tremendous love as well as necessary acts of judgement to remove wicked influences, punish the wicked or bring about a change in behavior. The New Testament clearly states God's love, but also warns of judgement on the wicked.

Do you believe there will be universal reconciliation?

[Thundarstick]

2 Timothy 2:9-12

Does this teach there will be plenty of reasons not to believe and be lost? So, either is all true, or all just a tall tail told to keep people in line! It really is this simple!

[Char-Gar]

I still don't understand where you are coming from. It looks like y
Do you believe there will be universal reconciliation?

1. Nope, I am not a universalist. I believe in both heaven and hell. I don't believe God punishes people by sending them to hell. I believe that people punish themselves by choosing to live outside and away from the presence of God. Death only makes that life choice permanent. God offers us love and forgiveness in Jesus. Some people say yes and some people say no. The choice is their's. So, yes I believe in free will. There are eternal consequences, good and bad, for our exercise of free will.

2. I do not believe the nature of God has ever changed. I do believe that man's understanding of the nature of God has changed for the better. In Jesus, we see the clearest picture of God. It is not a perfect picture because our understanding is limited by our humanness. "Now we see through a glass darkly. Then we shall see face to face".

Bottom Line: You don't need to know where I am coming from. You need to know where God is coming from. I am just trying to give you a little information that might help point you toward your own understanding.

The last thing I want is one of these petty, stupid and often hostile bickering fights over theological jots and tiddles that infest this board. Challenges and counter challenges have no place in Christian dialogue.

[Char-Gar]

2 Timothy 2:9-12

Does this teach there will be plenty of reasons not to believe and be lost? So, either is all true, or all just a tall tail told to keep people in line! It really is this simple!

Many people can't live with ambiguity and unanswered questions. They must have all matters of faith reduced to their understanding. They need all things in boxes and pigeon holes. They need and want rules and codes. There are plenty of churches and "teachers" who are more than willing to supply what they want. They furnish people with a house of cards that requires all pieces to stand or all pieces will fall.

The Christian faith is full of unanswered questions, ambiguities, unresolved issues. This is because our faith is a living journey with a living God and Saviour. In 1972 a newly minted Christian came to me as asked is could continue drinking beer. I told him he was asking the wrong person. He needed to take that up with Jesus. A month later, he told me after much prayer and seeking the will of Christ, he determined not to drink beer any more. It would have been easy for me to give him a rule, but I wanted him to have a relationship and not a rule book.

[Char-Gar]

For those who have an interest in ancient Hebraic thinking as shown in their writings, let me offer you this;

Ancient Hebrews and some modern Hebrews think and express things in terms of "first cause". It would work something like this; I go to the top of a tall building and jump off and am killed by the impact with the ground. The ancient Hebrew would say that God killed me. We would say that he killed himself. Why the difference in perspective. It is because God gave me free will and God created gravity, therefore it is God that killed me. In the chain of events and circumstances that caused my death, God was the first cause.

Most misunderstanding about the OT come from a lack of understanding of ancient Hebrew thinking and writing. If a person understands ancient Hebrew thinking, the message of the OT will come through loud and clear. It is God's revelation, wrapped up in an ancient Hebrew mind.

[Thundarstick]

I do believe we are all in different places in our understanding at different times in our journey. I see no reason to throw stumbling blocks in front of others, and see the wisdom of letting others come to there own understanding. One problem is we study books about the book, and not THE book. :sad:

[Ickisrulz]

Bottom Line: You don't need to know where I am coming from.

No, I don't need to know where you are coming from. I typically enjoy your posts and recognize the wisdom you share. So it is nice to know how you approach the Bible even though I don't share your views on interpretation.

[Elkins45]

I live not too far from the new Ark Encounter theme park. For $40 (plus $10 for parking) you can visit a monument to Biblical literalism. They spent $100 million to build a 500 foot long wooden ship...on land...to convince people that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true.

I think a lot of people miss the true point of Christianity.

[Char-Gar]

I live not too far from the new Ark Encounter theme park. For $40 (plus $10 for parking) you can visit a monument to Biblical literalism. They spent $100 million to build a 500 foot long wooden ship...on land...to convince people that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true.

I think a lot of people miss the true point of Christianity.

Nope. They spent $100 million to build a 500 foot long wooden ship...on land...so people would pay money to see it. Throw in the rest of the stuff there for people to spend money on and there you have it. The folks who WANT to believe in Biblical literalism are their marks. This is called in some quarters sheering the sheep.

[Elkins45]

Nope. They spent $100 million to build a 500 foot long wooden ship...on land...so people would pay money to see it. Throw in the rest of the stuff there for people to spend money on and there you have it. The folks who WANT to believe in Biblical literalism are their marks. This is called in some quarters sheering the sheep.

Yeah. Good point.

[Blackwater]

I have to agree. Based on what I see when I read Jehova and Jesus are polar opposites with respect to attitude. God cleansed with fire and water and took no lip service from men.
Jesus took a totally opposite approach. I'm somewhat awed at his ability to do so. He could have easily unleashed the power he wielded and laid waste to everything. Can't say I would have, the first time I seen that cat of nine tails there would have a smoking crater of ash and slag.

FWIW, Angel, it appears to me that what you learned when young, and what you've found since then, has not been enough to inspire you to truly understand just who and what God and Christ really are. That's not your fault, really, for nothing is more common than misunderstandings about God and Christ and about the things they've given us to learn and live by. I'd really have to suggest that you do some good reading of some books written by authors who DO "get it," and have the ability to put their thoughts and insights into words that most others can understand. A good place to start is with C. S. Lewis. Amazon or your favorite bookseller will have a volume of his compiled works, and I think it would bring you to a much closer understanding of just who and what God and Christ truly are, and how they work, and their true actions in this world. Much is attributed to God that is really the handiwork of man himself.

You have something of a foundation to build on. It just needs some strengthening and some building upon it, to get to where you can see and appreciate the wonders and love that God and Christ both really want us all to know. But any search for wisdom and understanding MUST be done personally. Otherwise, all that's left is just adopting views of others, and the most often published views today are those of agnostics and doubters, who only ask questions, and never really provide answers. You need the real answers. So, it naturally follows that the best and most likely place to find them is in a widely acclaimed author that most all Christians will give a thumbs up to, and C. S. Lewis is one of the best at that.

Lewis, BTW, was an atheist who was wounded seriously in WWI, and set out to prove scholastically that God COULD not exist, and that in particular, Christianity was a bunch of hooey. Instead, what he found, was Faith, and from the time he found it, it was sorely challenged, and yet, he retained it through it all - even when his beloved wife got cancer, and died a slow and suffering death. His account of that time, as he watched her slowly lose her grip on this life, is as poignant and powerful an example of what true faith is truly like, as I know of anywhere.

It can literally sustain us through the most awful times we'll ever know, and the most awful trials man can face. Look at what happened to the Apostles. Nearly all of them died horrible deaths, and yet, they retained their faith in full despite all tortures and threats and pain. What could possibly see a man, or a group of men, or millions of people, through such awful things, but true Faith? Faith is the most powerful asset we can have in this world, if we'll just accept it, and use it, and feed it regularly. Those who mock and taunt, simply have no faith. I feel for them. If they would only allow themselves to know! Each person's choice is simply, their individual choice.

And no choice we can ever make is more crucial and determining than our choice to accept Christ, or to not accept Him. His hand is always outstretched to each one of us. It's WE who must decide whether to accept it or not. But within that decision is a whole world of difference that will determine our lives both here, and in the hereafter. Would that all could or would simply accept His outstretched hand, but we each must make some sort of effort on our own part, with which to take His hand. And then, we have to decide whether to "study to show thyself approved," but really, that's not nearly as difficult nor does it take nearly as long as those who constantly make excuses for not doing that seem to make it out to be.

And the funny part is, it's really enjoyable if you find a worthy author to read! If I personally had to recommend two authors, it'd be Lewis and G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton writes in the English that was common about 100 years ago, and his sentences are often long because he includes so many qualifiers and narrowing phrases as he speaks, so he's a little harder for most "moderns" to read, but more than worth it. He really, really penned some real zingers, and he did it readily. He's said to be the most often quoted author of the 20th Century!

And if you want to find someone who questioned every little jot and tittle of Christianity, Chesterton is your man, and more particularly so because he also provides the answers to those questions! But I'd still start with Lewis, and then go to Chesterton, who BTW is very amusing to read, despite his use of the older English manner of writing and speaking. It's not Chaucer, but it's different from our modern American English, but once you get used to it, it's really quite charming, and really produces statements that are much more lucid than had they been written in modern English.

Give it a try. I believe I can guarantee you that you will NOT be sorry, and believe it or not, once you begin, you'll likely want to get more of their books, and before you know it, you'll know more answers than you can even think of to ask right now. I know that's a brave statement to make, but .... answers - REAL answers - get kind'a addicting, and when you find a real gold mine of them, it's hard to stop digging in it. And it's a LOT more enjoyable than digging in a REAL gold mine, too! Most folks, on finding an author that "speaks" to them, are surprised at how much they love and become addicted to reading them. But life's full of ironies, and this is really a minor one. Good luck, if you simply give it a try.

[Blackwater]

The hardest and most dangerous part of theology comes when we concentrate so much on the "little points" that we forget the larger, broader and, I think, more important issues of that wonderful passage, "God is Love." Keeping that in mind kind'a explains most of the reasons we squabble over the fine points sometimes.

I've often found it extremely ironic that the more closely to arguers agree on the big principles, the more emotionally they'll argue the smaller issues. I'm here to learn and grow, so I listen to everyone, and take what I can make use of in my own life. I'm seeking edification, and so, I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me, though I'll argue my perspective if for no other reason than to see if it'll hold water when challenged. This I do to at least try to understand more and more deeply than I do now. I try not to let my ego inhibit my opportunities to increase my understanding.

And I also try hard, sometimes more successfully than at other times, not to let semantics get in the way of my understanding of another's point. That's pretty hard to achieve sometimes, and most especially when discussing the finer points of theology. We only have so many words in our vocabularies with which to try to make ourselves understood, and being understood is the turning point of any good, and beneficial arguing. And many seem to get off into arguing because of ego than truly trying to seek edification. It's just what we humans do, but .... if arguing effectively was easy, we'd see a lot more of it these days, wouldn't we? But it's always worth it if we'll just keep our egos contained, and just argue the points we want to contribute. Understanding others is always a great challenge, but we CAN be up to it if we really put ourselves to the task.

And when it comes to arguing theological points, it's really quite difficult to state precisely what we're trying to say, without leaving openings for our words to be misunderstood. Sometimes I think it's amazing that we communicate with each other as effectively as we do! But a good, spirited discussion and even argument CAN be quite edifying, if we simply let it be. Thank God for a good, substantial argument! It's how we truly learn from one another, usually!

[Wayne Smith]

The ancient Jews got what wrong? Are you suggesting the Old Testament writings are not inspired?
It was the theology that came out of the Synagogue - the theology post exile that in Jesus' time was exemplied by the Pharasees - that morphed into magic and science fiction by the second and third century CE - that got it wrong. Most of us are completely ignorant of this because it is out of our cultural line. We therefore do not know what Jesus was arguing against in his statments against the Pharasees - whitewashed tombs - nor do we truly understand that the religious leaders of the day clearly and specifically understood that Jesus was claiming to be God Himself - and thus, to their minds, blaspheming.

[Ickisrulz]

It was the theology that came out of the Synagogue - the theology post exile that in Jesus' time was exemplied by the Pharasees - that morphed into magic and science fiction by the second and third century CE - that got it wrong. Most of us are completely ignorant of this because it is out of our cultural line. We therefore do not know what Jesus was arguing against in his statments against the Pharasees - whitewashed tombs - nor do we truly understand that the religious leaders of the day clearly and specifically understood that Jesus was claiming to be God Himself - and thus, to their minds, blaspheming.


See post #46 for Char-gar's explanation of his statement.

[Char-Gar]

It was the theology that came out of the Synagogue - the theology post exile that in Jesus' time was exemplied by the Pharasees - that morphed into magic and science fiction by the second and third century CE - that got it wrong. Most of us are completely ignorant of this because it is out of our cultural line. We therefore do not know what Jesus was arguing against in his statments against the Pharasees - whitewashed tombs - nor do we truly understand that the religious leaders of the day clearly and specifically understood that Jesus was claiming to be God Himself - and thus, to their minds, blaspheming.

I take it you are making reference to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews and their eventual return to their lands. During this time they were deprived of Temple worship. There was about 300 years or so, between their return and the time of Jesus. There were two temples build, the last and great one of Jesus time was built by Herod the Great. The Romans destroyed this temple in 70 AD and there has been only Synagogue worship ever since. There was indeed a rise in Jewish mysticism in various Synagogues following their dispersal after this period.

I have to go now, but will continue in a an hours or so, about the Jewish religion at the time of Jesus. It is, at least to me, very interesting and something folks who are interested in Jesus need to know.

[Wayne Smith]

Thank you. I've not read the Mishna or the other Jewish books directly. Edelstein's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah is as close as I have come.

[Char-Gar]

OK Guys, I am going to assume that some folks want to read this and I will be investing some time in doing so. I will break this up into several posts to avoid anything being very long and to allow folks to comment on which portion they choose, and not comment on others. It will enable any following conservation to be more focused. First a few introductory words;

We are living in a time two thousand years removed from Jesus. In that two thousand years, the Christian faith has splintered, splintered again, made wars against each other, made war against other non-Christians, and have developed a bewildering number of groups and understandings, some of which are solid and some are truly idiotic and loonie.

When Jesus came on the scene, the Jewish people and their religion was thousands of years old and had splintered into many different groups and expressions, again some of which were solid and some of which were truly idiotic and loonie. The Jews also made war against themselves and others. As a consequence the Jewish faith was not unified in politics nor belief, just as today's Christian faith is not unified in politics nor belief.

The OT is a quite accurate record how how a wandering bunch of nomads became the worshiper of just one God and later came to believe that all others gods were false, i.e. non existant. Non-Jahwehism proceeded Mon-Theism by centuries.

The ancient Jews warred among themselves and others and as can be expected, victories were thought to be signs of God's favor, and defeats were through to be signs of God's disfavor. Look at the Christian faith and you will see countless example of the same thinking. Thus the OT is as much of a political history of the Jews as a religious history of the Jews. These two strains are woven together like a fabric in the OT and failure to try and tease these things apart results in myriads of misunderstanding and all kinds of theological disharmony.

I am not going to take time to footnote any of this, and will working from memory, this will be the result of over 40 years of study on this matter. I am likely to dis-remember some fine point and somebody will point that out no doubt. There are as many books on this subject as their are understanding and opinions and you can expect disagreement in the various books. I will deliver to you what I understand to basic mainline understanding.

OK: Now on to the next post, The Jewish Faith in Jesus Time.

[Char-Gar]

When Jesus came onto the scene, the Jewish people were a captive people in their own homeland. It was a kind of house arrest sorta thing, with the Romans being the captors. The Romans were only concerned about that the taxes were paid and sent to Rome and any rebellions were put down quickly. How the Jews governed themselves were of little or no interest to the Romans. The daily administration of Jewish affairs were turned over to the Sanhedrin which were 70 well to do Jewish men, with the High Priest being on top of the heap.
At that time, the Sanhedrin was in control of two major groups the Pharisees and the Sadducees, which were anything but good buddies. There were other groups, but they had little or no political power. Of all the groups in Jesus's time, the Pharisees where the tall hogs at the trough having the vast majority of the power and control. Let's take a look at the various groups.

1. The Zealots: These bunch was far more political than religious. They were dedicated to getting the Romans out, by violence. Threats, murder and assassination were their methods. They would kill any Jew that collaborated with the Romans, with the Tax Collectors being their favorite target. Tax Collectors were Jews empowered by the Romans to collect taxes. They had to collect a set amount for the Romans, but anything beyond that they would keep. The Romans would give them a squad of Roman soldiers when they need muscle to back up the tax collecting. The net result was tax collectors extorted money from the Jews, sent some of it to the Romans, kept the rest and became filthy rich. They were hated by all Jews of every stripe.

Think of the Zealots much as you would think of ISIS and you would not be too far off. They played a major role in a rebellion that eventual lead to a full on Roman conquest, destruction of the Temple and the end of any Jewish political state until the founding of Israel in 1947 or 48.

[Char-Gar]

2. The Essenes: This was another group that held no power. They were all balled up in secret teaching about the end of time. Therefore, they didn't care much about what was going on around them. The withdrew into small communities and neighborhood in larger communities. They read, studies, prayed, and didn't get married.

Some of their writings were found in the caves above Qumran in what is known as the Dead See Scrolls. This has been the happy hunting ground for all kind of contemporary nuts who think they have discovered some lost scripture. What was found in addition to real OT material was some cultic Essene stuff, which was not lost, but well know at the time and rejected by the other expressions of Jewish faith.

[Char-Gar]

3. The Saducees: These were the liberals or intellectuals of the Jews. The often held high economic wealth, which accorded them power. They did not believe, in the resurrection of the dead, any kind of spirits such as angels and demons. They also did not see devotion to "The Law" as necessary to faith. This is what put them at loggerheads with the Pharisees. Due to their wealth and social position they were in charge of the Temple, which in itself accorded them lots of power.

4. The Pharisees: What they lacked in economic power, they made up for in shear numbers and influence over the average Jew of the day. They were hyper legalistic. They took the 10 Commandments and granulated them into over 300. Each of these sub-commandments has dozens of interpretations and applications rendered by scholars over the years. None of these was written down, but held in the minds of the "Scribes" or as the KJV called them "Lawyers". These Scribes and Pharisees were two side of the same coin and together the controlled the religious life of the average Jew of the day. Jesus refereed to this "law" as the Traditions of the Elders" and he found himself in conflict with these people. Over the generations, these convoluted tradition found themselves in conflict with the true Law, i.e. 10 Commandments and were used by the Pharisee party to control the people and enrich themselves.

Next up the conflict.

[Char-Gar]

Much of what Jesus taught and did was consistence with but inconsistent with the Traditions of the Elders that the Pharisees used as a control mechanism. Jesus flaunted his breaking of these tradition and condemned the Pharisees for their leading the Jewish people astray.

As the popularity of Jesus grew, he became a real threat to the Pharisees and their control of the Jewish people. This probably delighted the Sadducees no doubt. How ever that was to change.

As the people began to understand the true nature of Jesus, that went beyond his breaking of the traditions of the elders, he became a threat to far more than the Pharisees. As people came to consider him as the Messiah, he became a threat to Temple worship in general and the entire power strutted of the Jews. The various groups began to send on spies to all his gatherings to gather information about him and in the end evidence against him.

The whole thing came together when the Pharisees, Saducees and the Herodians got together and decided Jesus had to go. The Herodians were the lackies of the Roman puppet king. That these three groups could agree on anything is a great testimony to just how great a threat to the Jewish power structure he had become.

These conspirators could not kill Jesus themselves for two reason.

1. Only the Romans had the "power of the sword", i.e. the right to legally execute somebody.
2. If the Jews executed Jesus, extra-legally, they would further alienate the Jewish people. All the Jews hated the Romans anyway, and the Romans could do it legally.

Jesus was arrested by the Sagan, the police of the Sanhedrin and taken before them in a nigh time illegal star chamber trial. When he Jesus responded to their questions by acknowledging he was Messiah, they condemned him as a heretic. However heresy against the Jews was not a Roman crime.

Jesus was hauled off to stand before the Roman Governor and presented as a person who claimed to be a king, which was in fact a Roman crime that could be punished by death. You know the rest of the story.

KNOW THIS IS JUST A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE TIMES. THIS IS NO WAY DEALS WITH JESUS AS MESSIAH, HIS TEACHING, HIS DIVINITY AND HIS RESURRECTION ALL OF WHICH I AFFIRM.

On to the last post....

[Char-Gar]

The death of Jesus did not solve the problem as the various leaders thought it would. The death and resurrection only pour gasoline on the flame of the people's faith in him. Read the book of Acts to understand all about that.

In only a short period of time the believers in Jesus as the Christ, grew to become as large or larger than even the Pharisee party. They were known as the "Sect of the Nazarine". They were the 5th major division of Judaism at the time of the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans.

The Roman state with their good roads and pirate free seas became the hollow rod through which the Christian faith was spread first to the Jews across the Empire and then to the non-Jews (Gentiles).

At first the Romans paid little attention to this new sect of Jews, but later came to institute harsh persecution against them. In the end faith in Christ, won out over the religion of Rome and the rest is history.

Modern "Jewish" faith evolved following the destruction of the Jewish state and took many different forms in many different places. It still has many different manifestations, with the majority having evolved the the remnants of the Pharisees with all of their laws and traditions.

Modern Jewish faith bears only a faint resemblance to Jewish faith at the time of Jesus. Modern Christian faith also bears only a faint resemblance to the Christian faith that followed on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many of the expressions of the Christian faith have morphed into hyper legalistic, preachers and teachers who use their rule and regulations to control people through fear, beating on the Bible until it is all worn out and declaring their mouthing is "The Gospel". The Pharisees are yet with us.

As for me, I strive to be a 1st. Century Christian living in the 21st. Century. This puts me at odds with many other understandings that have come along in the last two thousand years. I try and use the best scholarship of the our time,to develop a true heart faith in Jesus Christ for myself and others. I have been condemned to hell more than a few times for trying to do so.

Dat is it boys, flail away!

[Thundarstick]

Interesting reading, and things I was well aware of, but what does any of this have to do with the creation?

The "law" really wasn't burdensome until man mucked it up. It was just incomplete.

[Char-Gar]

Interesting reading, and things I was well aware of, but what does any of this have to do with the creation?

The "law" really wasn't burdensome until man mucked it up. It was just incomplete.

It has much to do with the entire OT and our understanding of it. I am sorry you missed the point. I must have expressed it poorly. The basis direction of this thread is about how people understand scripture often without attention to the cultural, historical and purpose of the writing. I thought what I said was germane to the general purpose and direction of the thread, but I guess I wasted allot of time in doing so. I was hopping somebody would find it enlightening and helpful, that somebody isn't you for sure.

[Ickisrulz]

It has much to do with the entire OT and our understanding of it. I am sorry you missed the point. I must have expressed it poorly. The basis direction of this thread is about how people understand scripture often without attention to the cultural, historical and purpose of the writing. I thought what I said was germane to the general purpose and direction of the thread, but I guess I wasted allot of time in doing so. I was hopping somebody would find it enlightening and helpful, that somebody isn't you for sure.

I enjoyed what you wrote and it was as accurate and concise as I have ever seen written. Certainly no time or effort was wasted on your part.

But I too have missed where this ties into how you believe the OT should be understood. I understand how Jesus' contemporaries "got it wrong", but I still do not see how the prophets and historians of the OT did. Are you suggesting the OT authors and stewards added to the original revelations given by God due to their own ignorance and biases? Or perhaps misunderstood what they were being shown? When you go down this type road, how can you determine what is true?

[Thundarstick]

that somebody isn't you for sure.
First, thanks for that personal jab in the eye brother, that really cleared things up!

So the point is that the OT account of the creation was, is, just a big ole bunch of malarkey because we just can't really understand what they where saying? Or did you mean to show that the OT recorders just didn't mean what they said to be understood?
When you go down this type road, how can you determine what is true?

And this IS the reason for this discussion, is the Bible to be believed, or is it just a collection of tall tails, where we pick and choose the "true" scriptures from the made up ones? Inspired or no?

[Char-Gar]

that somebody isn't you for sure.
First, thanks for that personal jab in the eye brother, that really cleared things up!

So the point is that the OT account of the creation was, is, just a big ole bunch of malarkey because we just can't really understand what they where saying? Or did you mean to show that the OT recorders just didn't mean what they said to be understood?
When you go down this type road, how can you determine what is true?

And this IS the reason for this discussion, is the Bible to be believed, or is it just a collection of tall tails, where we pick and choose the "true" scriptures from the made up ones? Inspired or no?

1. It was not a poke in the eye. You said you were well aware of everything I wrote so, I took you at your word.

2. The Genesis 1 story of creation is far from malarkey, but is a beautiful statement about the power and authority of a creating God. The writer fully understood what was writing and why. It is just us who did not understand be we are far removed from the thinking, time and culture of the writer. For a full explanation of my thinking please read Post #4 again. Saying it again won't make it any better.

[Char-Gar]

I enjoyed what you wrote and it was as accurate and concise as I have ever seen written. Certainly no time or effort was wasted on your part.

But I too have missed where this ties into how you believe the OT should be understood. I understand how Jesus' contemporaries "got it wrong", but I still do not see how the prophets and historians of the OT did. Are you suggesting the OT authors and stewards added to the original revelations given by God due to their own ignorance and biases? Or perhaps misunderstood what they were being shown? When you go down this type road, how can you determine what is true?

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Post 63 is how I think the OT should be approached. The task of one who studies the OT is to separate God's revelation from the writers time, culture, and purpose. One must understand that time, culture and purpose before they can separate the revelation of God from the human context.

The same will also apply to the NT material. For example, the letters to Paul were written to a specific group of people to deal with specific issues. We understand Paul when we understand to whom he wrote and why he wrote. The OT material is no different, just a different time, a changed culture and a difference group of readers/hearers.

The Bible is fully God's revealing of himself and his purposes to people. Without understand the time, culture and purpose of the writer, we miss the ball more often than we hit it.

Yes, this is very hard work and that is the reason so many people take easy way out and just consider all scripture to be verbally dictated by God to a bunch of mindless human scribes. That saves allot of work, a very lot of work.

The history of the Jewish people as written in the O.T. is certainly not wrong. In fact it is amazingly accurate. Modern archaeologist, even those have no faith, rely on it as their primary source for understanding that period of history in that part of the world.

[Blackwater]

Char-Gar, that was a great synopsis and condensation of it all - sort of the "Reader's Digest" version. Thank you for taking the time to punch it all in. I'm copying it, and running it by my preacher to see what he says, and then it'll go to my grandboys, and their parents. Just thought you should know this. And Thanks a bunch! Biblical history is a weak spot with me, and as a Baptist, I've heard so many versions of it all that it's been very confusing. But over the years, a glimmer of hope has shown its light, and I'm getting better, at least, in my appreciation for matters like these.

Isn't that something? 68 years old and just now learning what I ought to have known all along! Truly our Faith has been fragmented so stridently that we've lost much of our way, and our focus. It's a wonder Christ puts up with us and our willful and divisive ways! But thank God he DOES! At least so far!

[Thundarstick]

Yes I see exactly what your saying. It's a story, just like water to wine and raising Lazarus from the dead, all stories.

[Char-Gar]

Yes I see exactly what your saying. It's a story, just like water to wine and raising Lazarus from the dead, all stories.

No, you missed the point entirely, if you think either the creation account, the raising of Lazarus or Jesus changing water into wine are just stories. It certainly not what I said. Scripture is far more complex than you allow for. I think I will just leave it at that.

[Ickisrulz]

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Post 63 is how I think the OT should be approached. The task of one who studies the OT is to separate God's revelation from the writers time, culture, and purpose. One must understand that time, culture and purpose before they can separate the revelation of God from the human context.

The same will also apply to the NT material. For example, the letters to Paul were written to a specific group of people to deal with specific issues. We understand Paul when we understand to whom he wrote and why he wrote. The OT material is no different, just a different time, a changed culture and a difference group of readers/hearers.

The Bible is fully God's revealing of himself and his purposes to people. Without understand the time, culture and purpose of the writer, we miss the ball more often than we hit it.

Yes, this is very hard work and that is the reason so many people take easy way out and just consider all scripture to be verbally dictated by God to a bunch of mindless human scribes. That saves allot of work, a very lot of work.

The history of the Jewish people as written in the O.T. is certainly not wrong. In fact it is amazingly accurate. Modern archaeologist, even those have no faith, rely on it as their primary source for understanding that period of history in that part of the world.

So essentially you remove the miracles and any other direct acts of God that are recorded because they are only the perceptions of what people think is going on?

Were Jesus' miracles historical facts or just what people thought was happening?

[Char-Gar]

So essentially you remove the miracles and any other direct acts of God that are recorded because they are only the perceptions of what people think is going on?

Were Jesus' miracles historical facts or just what people thought was happening?

I take the miracles of Jesus as facts. I have seen a few up close and personal in my years of missionary service in the Ecuadorian Andes.

[Ickisrulz]

I take the miracles of Jesus as facts. I have seen a few up close and personal in my years of missionary service in the Ecuadorian Andes.

Then why not take the direct acts of God in the OT as fact? Is it because of the passages that describe wrath and judgement?

[Thundarstick]

There are some 50-60 other supernatural miracles referenced in the OT. They must become very complex to explain away then?

It becomes very difficult to believe any of these supernatural occurrence when I start discounting some of them. After all Al-Bburaq the flying horse took Muhammad to heaven to speak width god, but I believe that's a story.

I take the scriptures to be true, no matter how difficult to explain, because of the witnesses, and I believe Moses was inspired and made a witness to the creation, just as Jesus knew and the NT writers who wrote of him, the creator.

[Char-Gar]

There are some 50-60 other supernatural miracles referenced in the OT. They must become very complex to explain away then?

It becomes very difficult to believe any of these supernatural occurrence when I start discounting some of them. After all Al-Bburaq the flying horse took Muhammad to heaven to speak width god, but I believe that's a story.

I take the scriptures to be true, no matter how difficult to explain, because of the witnesses, and I believe Moses was inspired and made a witness to the creation, just as Jesus knew and the NT writers who wrote of him, the creator.

I discount nothing and I try and understand everything. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong. If I am wrong or right, it is because of my thinking and not that of someone else. I won't allow the assertions, opinions, rules, regulations or perceptions of other determine the actions and course of my life. I will answer to God for what I did and why I did it. I won't stand before God and say, "Yes, I was wrong, but it was because what somebody else told me was wrong.".

[Ickisrulz]

There are some 50-60 other supernatural miracles referenced in the OT. They must become very complex to explain away then?

It becomes very difficult to believe any of these supernatural occurrence when I start discounting some of them. After all Al-Bburaq the flying horse took Muhammad to heaven to speak width god, but I believe that's a story.

I take the scriptures to be true, no matter how difficult to explain, because of the witnesses, and I believe Moses was inspired and made a witness to the creation, just as Jesus knew and the NT writers who wrote of him, the creator.

I am in your camp when it comes to believing the entire Bible is the word of God when properly interpreted. This means I believe the love, the miracles, the judgements, etc. When I find something that makes me wonder or question God's character or truthfulness, I know something must be missing from the picture and I am in error not the scripture.

The Church is made up of a bunch of different types of believers with differing views on how scripture should be approached. There seems to be a wide allowable margin of error. I know that I must be wrong in some of the ways I understand things--I just don't know where (nor can I see how!). Everyone else is in the same position.

I believe what I do because of the time I took to study and apply logic. I alone am responsible for this just like everyone else.

[Thundarstick]

Matthew 12:36, Romans 14:12 make it so clear that we will give account. That causes me to think even more. This will be my last post to this thread. Not from anything but love. Love to everyone who thinks on these things, I hope to have you all for a neighbor in heaven some day! I just think God for revealing his love to and for us. Pray for me.
Hey, I'm cooking up a mess of squash out of the garden rite now, come to supper if you can make it, :p

[Blackwater]

When it comes to understanding and explaining the Bible, I have a strong sense that we all "see through the glass darkly," but even so, Christ never said we had to be perfect in our understanding, just persistent in our efforts, and if we ARE persistent, and diligent and sincere, He also told us that "Seek and ye shall find." It's taken me a lot of years to "solve" some of the questions I've had. First, I had to drop or "unlearn" some of the assumptions I'd been operating on, and wonder of wonders, the answers just seemed to come to me as though out of thin air! I can't really explain it, or even describe the process really, but .... that's what real Faith is for I guess?

I have always been awed and inspired by my Lord, but understanding has come with much difficulty for me - probably because I've been so willful at times, and too steeped in bad theology? At any rate, I'm just thankful for the understandings our Lord has given me, and hope to glean even more from Him in due time, as He prepares me to receive them. Truly, our Lord is one loving and wondrous God, and worthy of our worship and respect and reverence for Him!

[OldManMontgomery]

Being on 'personal' terms with Almighty God, I have no doubt He created the Universe (referred to in the KJV and other English language texts of the era as 'the world') from nothing. When Almighty God created the Universe, part of His creation was all the 'laws' of the Universe. Not just moral laws like no monkeying with another monkey's monkey, but gravity, expansion, the limitation of "C", entropy and the poor thinking of drawing to an inside straight.

With that in mind, all the scientific information relating to the age of the Universe should be considered, investigated, researched and so forth. The concept of 'science is evil' is a demonic lie. So is the concept of 'stupid is holy'.

The Genesis account says (and is quoted in other places) God created by speaking; usually phrased as "God spoke ... (all that stuff)..." That is unquestionably true. However, the word used for 'speak' or 'spoke' means more than just flapping one's lips. It can (and probably does in this case) mean 'authority' or 'will' (in the sense of 'intent'). Much the same as some king speaking, and it was done. One also has to consider prior to the creation of the Universe, there was no air. Sounds do not travel in a vacuum. So the idea of God talking (like humans) is a bit strained. Also, to believe this wording 'literally' - which cannot be done unless one understands the actual meaning of the word - then the claimant presumes God speaks in exactly the same cadence as humans in all circumstances.

Consider also the two mentions of the sun 'stopping' in the sky. One instance is in Joshua 10 where Joshua fights and defeats the Amorites. Instance two is in 2 Kings 20 and Isaiah 38. King Hezekiah was dying and prayed to be healed. He was healed (lived another fifteen years) and God gave Hezekiah a 'sign' by causing a shadow cast by the sun to reverse motion - which means the sun had to reverse motion.

For centuries, Christians understood this to be proof the sun orbits the Earth, per the Ptolemaic 'theory'. Some Christians still taught this long past the time of Galileo and Copernicus until the middle to late 19th Century. Due to so much exploration and astronomical observation, even Christians (mostly) now understand the heliocentric nature of the solar system. Further the passages in Joshua, Kings and Isaiah are understood as 'eye witness' reporting and NOT confirmation of any other theory.

The same is happening with the YEC theory of Creationism.

The God I serve and know is the ultimate Creator of all things. He conceived, designed, engineered, built and maintains the Universe - at His pleasure and pace, not ours. However, scientific enquiry is a valid exploration of God's Universe and nature as well. Which is not always understood, but still a valid claim.

[Blackwater]

Some may find this relevant, or not, but I believe the Christian account of the Beginning is the ONLY one in all of our history that precisely follows, in exact order as described, the processes that science has now come to believe to be the way the universe was created. No other book that I know of has even attempted to describe it, other than some who've told stories of monstrous supernatural beings making the world and mankind, kind'a like kids playing with play dough, but never has there been another accurate account, as verified by very well substantiated scientific theory and belief, as the account in Genesis. This, I think, lends credence to the concept that God tells us the simple Truth, always, and that's a sign I take as an expression of His love for us. HOW He did it all is NOT described in the Bible, other than that God spoke the words and things happened as he directed. Science is more involved in the HOW things occurred and WHY they occurred that way. It in NO way discounts the existence of God, for if God chose to use very logical and perceptible (albeit after many centuries of investigation) methods in the Creation, then He, it seems to me, is just following His basic nature in keeping things in logical order and in a progressive manner. The creation of time itself, which didn't really exist prior to the Big Bang, was the real starting point for everything that ensued.

Science now believes that had the temperature of the rush of matter at the Big Bang had been 1 degree Farenheit higher or lower, the universe would be vastly different than it is now! The absolute precision, down to infinitesimal fractions of a milisecond, in time, and in temperature, and every other trait of the Creation, seems to cry out that it did NOT and COULD not have come from mere happenstance or "accident." It HAD to be directed and controlled by some outside force, just like we'd cook an egg over easy in the frying pan. All of this, in my mind, makes God even more majestic, awe inspiring and wondrous.

Again, no other story of creation has EVER come so thoroughly close to explaining Creation as has the Genesis account. I think Sherlock Holmes would call that a "clue." A God who can do all that ..... well, He is truly a mighty God, an all-powerful God, and a wondrous and loving God indeed!

[TheGrimReaper]

The writers of the Bible did not use the same language we use today in our culture. I am not meaning English vs Hebrew or Greek. Their language was not precise like ours. The repeated use of "40" in the Bible most certainly did not mean precisely 40. It meant a complete period of time. The number "1000" was used to describe a large amount rather than a specific amount. Many examples like this exist and "day" could very well have meant just a period of time. This is not bending scripture, it is understanding how the author used language to express thoughts.

FWIW, the Bible doesn't even have a word meaning "forever" or "everlasting." The original wording is "age" or "end of the ages." See, not very precise.

You are correct. "Day" is better represented by what we call "Era".

[dverna]

You are correct. "Day" is better represented by what we call "Era".

Regrettably, maybe the scholars who translated the Word, were not as divinely inspired as we are led to believe. And subsequent iterations have not implemented the appropriate "corrections" to make the Bible understandable by modern cultures. Char-Gar may be correct in his statement that we need to interpret the Word from the perspective of the ancient Jews. But such a small number of people will be able to do that as we are ignorant of how they thought and spoke.

And so, we are left with faith. Genesis is 100% accurate because it must be....do not worry if a day is a day, or an era, or an eon. It is not important. Only a non-believer would quibble about such an inconsequential detail. The sad part is that such details make it so difficult for a "logical" and intelligent non-believer to accept the Word as it is written in the Bible. The question becomes, "What else needs to be interpreted correctly?"

I believe this is a God. How He came to be is above my pay grade (AMPG). How He created the universe is also AMPG. But He has given us specific directions on how we should live our lives and what His role is. His way is the good way. Of that I have no doubt.

[wv109323]

In Exodus while speaking of the Sabboth, God tells us to rest 24 hours like he rested at creation. So I take a day in creation to mean 24 hours.
Besides if God is God , why could he not do everything described in a day. I believe he could have done all creation in one day if he so desired.