Here is a question. What is your response?

[Preacherman777]

How interesting that after I made reference to it, someone would make a post that offers a perfect example of what happens when we don't understand the use of hyperbole in the scriptures. But then it shouldn't surprise me because stuff like this has long been the resource of the Bible's critics.

[Preacherman777]

Also, I find it very convenient that you decide to do away with the first ten chapters of Genesis since they are the ones that cause the biggest problems for your allegiance to secular science. Everything else you can make fit into your narrow view, but those don't work so they have to go. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I know a little too much about the Bible and it's history to be sold that bill of goods.

[executioner]

I think it still all comes down to a lack of faith in the Bible and which in turns leads to a lack of faith in God. The Bible at times boggles everyone's mind and in turn what we do is try and understand it from a humanistic viewpoint through other men and books, when in turn we should be looking at the Bible through the eyes of the heart.
All Scripture is God Breathed and totally comes from His Inspiration. If you think the Bible has faults, then you feel the same about God, but you just don't realize it.

It's all about faith nothing more and nothing less.

[Preacherman777]

I totally agree.

[LivingRock]

If narrow minded means letting the bible say what it says, the way it says it, with "one" meaning "one, and a "day" meaning "day", then...I guess so. It takes more balls to call the writers of the bible liars. Who was given divine revelation and instruction to write those words, you or them? I will take the ancient text over any "enlightened" modern day person, thousands of years removed from the writing and events covered in the writings.

I think people underestimate the effects of sin on all of creation. If God made creation an infant creation, sin has corrupted it to the point that it is aging and dying before it's time, just as we are. Personally, I believe God created everything with age and maturity.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[gman]

I believe God allows different interpretations of Scripture. He doesn't give us full knowledge in the regard. I don't think any one person or group has the exact, totally correct interpretation. But, regardless of whether we get the interpretation right, I believe the Bible has to be infallible and inerrant. If it's not, and we are going start reasoning away bits and pieces of it, we might as well go all the way and reason away the Christian faith.

[brent]

I believe God allows different interpretations of Scripture. He doesn't give us full knowledge in the regard. I don't think any one person or group has the exact, totally correct interpretation. But, regardless of whether we get the interpretation right, I believe the Bible has to be infallible and inerrant. If it's not, and we are going start reasoning away bits and pieces of it, we might as well go all the way and reason away the Christian faith.

I agree with most of that. Nobody has the market on truth. But, God is not the author of confusion. So, since multiple interpretations lead to confusion, He, through the Holy Spirit, cannot allow for different interpretations of scripture. It is man that comes up with erroneous interpretations. We all can study the same verse and it will speak differently into our lives, as a result of where we are vs. where we should be, maturity in our faith and walk, etc. But the fundamental truth of the bible has one meaning. We just need to let the bible say what it says, the way it says it, in the context it was written. While we should strive to have more understanding and understand all of the layers and minutia, I think (and hope) God gives us enough grace as we grow. None of us can understand or comprehend all that God is and how he works, so it only stands to reason that we generally muck up the simple, plain, Gospel, putting our own spin on things. Hopefully we get closer as we get to the end.

[CatNamedManny]

How interesting that after I made reference to it, someone would make a post that offers a perfect example of what happens when we don't understand the use of hyperbole in the scriptures. But then it shouldn't surprise me because stuff like this has long been the resource of the Bible's critics.

I find this statement fascinating. Who determines what is hyperbole and what isn't? Until Copernicus and Galileo, nobody thought Joshua and Hezekiah asking God to make the sun stand still or move backward were hyperbole. In fact, the church argued – pretty vociferously – that reasoning away that part of scripture left the rest of it open for attack. That argument went away as the scientific evidence became overwhelming, and the church restaked its argument elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the argument that science has never proven a statement of the Bible false can always be defended so long as you get to define what statements are really, really true and which are not. Given as I don't believe the Bible at any point is making a scientific claim, I actually agree with the statement, no caveats required: Science has never proven the Bible wrong because the Bible never attempts to speak on scientific subjects.

I understand the Bible says it is "God-breathed and useful." But, again, saying I am contradicting that incredibly vague standard only works if I accept your definition of it, which of course I do not. Can people be inspired to write things that are not historically true but contain deep theological meaning and reveal something of the mind and workings of God? Apparently so, as you argue the Bible speaks hyperbolically at points, and further argue that such hyperbole in no way affects its accuracy. If you accept that God can speak through hyperbole, then why can he not speak through mythology, metaphor or parable? Does it need to be clearly demarcated as such? Perhaps for us it does, but probably not for the original intended audience.

I agree with most of that. Nobody has the market on truth. But, God is not the author of confusion. So, since multiple interpretations lead to confusion, He, through the Holy Spirit, cannot allow for different interpretations of scripture. It is man that comes up with erroneous interpretations. We all can study the same verse and it will speak differently into our lives, as a result of where we are vs. where we should be, maturity in our faith and walk, etc. But the fundamental truth of the bible has one meaning. We just need to let the bible say what it says, the way it says it, in the context it was written. While we should strive to have more understanding and understand all of the layers and minutia, I think (and hope) God gives us enough grace as we grow. None of us can understand or comprehend all that God is and how he works, so it only stands to reason that we generally muck up the simple, plain, Gospel, putting our own spin on things. Hopefully we get closer as we get to the end.

I also find fascinating how I agree with almost all of this.

Brent, you say: "We just need to let the bible say what it says, the way it says it, in the context it was written." And I totally agree! It's funny how we apply that in totally different ways, because, to me, the context in which it was written differs drastically from the way we write today. And imposing modern-day notions of accuracy on a premodern text does no favors to either the text or our reading of it.

If you think the Bible has faults, then you feel the same about God, but you just don't realize it.

I think the technical word for this is bibliolatry. What is the truly inerrant and infallible Word of God? John 1:1 tells us.

My question, which has yet to be answered so I'll restate it: Why do we feel this way about the Bible and not about the church? Yes, there is 2 Timothy 2:16. But I think the Bible has even more strongly positive things to say about the church. Consider Ephesians 3:10: "God’s purpose is now to show the rulers and powers in the heavens the many different varieties of his wisdom through the church."

If the church is supposed to show God's wisdom, well, you'd think God would do something about how poorly the church tends to actually do that job. Perhaps – just perhaps – God is more comfortable with human imperfection than we think he is. Don't misunderstand me: God clearly has a big problem with sin, and an even bigger problem with the damage sin does to its committers and those sinned against. But I wonder: Is it God who demanded perfection from those he inspired to write down the history of his interaction with his people – or is it we who demand it instead?

[p-freak]

How interesting that after I made reference to it, someone would make a post that offers a perfect example of what happens when we don't understand the use of hyperbole in the scriptures. But then it shouldn't surprise me because stuff like this has long been the resource of the Bible's critics.

Please point out exactly where you think my 'limited' understanding of hyperbole goes wrong. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration to make a point. If you say for example: 'I've seen that film a thousand times.' when in reality you've only seen it seven times, you use exaggeration to make your point. I don't know how you think I went wrong, but please point that out to me. I would be very interested to see what you mean.

Also, I find it very convenient that you decide to do away with the first ten chapters of Genesis since they are the ones that cause the biggest problems for your allegiance to secular science. Everything else you can make fit into your narrow view, but those don't work so they have to go. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I know a little too much about the Bible and it's history to be sold that bill of goods.

Every sensible commentary on Genesis will tell you that those first ten chapters are considered to be a unit and do record history in a different way than the rest of Genesis. These chapters cause no problem at all for science (and secular science is rubbish, there is no difference between christian and secular science - what you see as secular science are scientists that react strongly against so-called 'christian scientists'.
And to be honest, I know a little bit too much about the Bible and its history and text criticism and understanding how you are supposed to read different genres to be sold your bill of goods.

And I would still like to hear your reply to the Joshua-issue that Cat repeated in his post. No one in his right mind will claim that the Bible is wrong when Joshua says: "Sun, stand still.", while it obviously is in flagrant contradiction to science. So how is this different from discovering through science that God used evolution to create? The Bible is still true. Not in the literal, modernistic, evangelical you want it to be, but still true. Copernicus and Galilei were also (like modern science) accused of making God into a liar and it all turned out that they were right and God wasn't a liar. Are you really going to fall into this old trap and do you really believe all this fundamentalistic, evangelic propaganda that the Bible is literally true in all circumstances? If you apply this type of interpretation to Genesis 1-10, I'd love to see what you come up with if you apply your literalistic view to the second part of Daniel or Revelation. But I'm sure you will agree with me there that these fall into the genre of apocalyptic literature and that means you will have to approach them in a different way than you would approach any other genre. The case with Genesis 1-10 is exactly the same. This specific type of genre (mythological proto-history) requires a different kind of approach.

[brent]

Who here knows a Messianic Jew? I know a couple and talk to them about history, traditions, historical landscapes of scripture. The are very enlightening.

What is interesting to me is the Jewish view of the tithe. They believe the tithe should only be paid to the Levites, for it's intended purpose. Since the Levite tribe basically no longer exists in form and function, they do not pay up.