Good question, Greg. Should we thereby conclude—based on a literal interpretation of “Mother of all of the living”—that Eve is the mother of all of the living organisms on planet earth? (Or do you interpret that text far less literally?)
I just wanted to ask you that question so as to determine whether you interpret Genesis in a literal manner.
@Greg, does the earth look old in the eyes of the theology of man?
(It appears that you prefer the theology of man over and above “the science of man.” Why? Meanwhile, what do you think about the theology of God and the science of God as God has revealed them in the Bible and in his creation respectively?)
That’s a cheap shot, and it’s not a reading anyone has had, ever. But the notion that Eve is the first female ancestor of all human beings is a very common and very old reading. And I would argue that it’s “literal” within a reasonable sense of the term.
It’s not a cheap shot at all. It’s a perfectly valid question to ask of someone who insists on a rigidly literal translation of the most common English language version of Genesis. Claiming “literal within a reasonable sense” is a lame cop out. How to determine what is “reasonable” to consider literal is the whole point.
You owe AWM an apology.
The Bible didn’t fall from heaven one day. The New Testament wasn’t complete for many years after Christ’s resurrection. Christ instituted the church (however you want to define it) but he didn’t institute the Bible. Yes, he quoted from the Old Testament, and that was the only scripture the earliest church had. But Christ left it for the church to compile the New Testament and decide what books belonged in it. The church as an institution, with its scholars, decided that. We owe it to those who used their best scholarship, who rejected Gnostic and other questionable books that were popular at the time.
Ok. So what does this mean for me? That i should interpret messages from prophets and apostles recorded in the Bible and assigned by God through the lense of culture, literature and science? I believe that the variation of authorship of Scripture makes it more valid than if a single man entered a cabin and claimed an angel presented gold tablets w revelation which was then written down…right? .
Dr Don Green former seminary prof now pastor did a series on the authortity of Scripture recently. I did not listen to all of his teachings but some. He goes through in a logical concise way and documents why many churches today subscribe to the 66 books in Scripture as authoritative. For Scripture to say it is authoritative is counterintuitive. So how do we define it so? Greens teaching is worth checking out. I dont attend his church, but what i heard in part of this teaching i give my full support and accolades towards.
It is guys like yourself that tie the simplicity of Scripture into knots. Scripture is not difficult to figure out meanings. If God says He created animals according to their kinds, “man’s theology” has little to bicker about. If God says Eve is the mother of all of the living, “man’s theology” might struggle for a minute, but might just wisely conclude that…drumroll…Eve is the mother of all of the living.
There have been passages ive struggled to understand at first. But a good teacher will take the context of that scripture and the context of the judeo christian worldview as a whole and pretty easily make sense of it without theology gymnastics. If i sense gymnastics, i think “whose getting ready to write a new book” or “who is trying to stake a claim on a new denomination.”
Who told you that the scriptures are always characteristic by “simplicity”? And what about the “knots” that Greg ties?
Seriously?? It can be extremely difficult! (And which English Bible translation do you use to resolve those obvious meanings you so easily determine that the rest of us struggle with? What do you do when various English Bible translations render a passage very differently? What then, Greg?) That lack of “simplicity” is one reason why Christians fall into many denominations and doctrinal traditions. Even 100% verbal plenary inspiration fundamentalist Christians in the United States of America sharing much history and culture in common often figure out very different meanings! The fact that you are oblivious to this fact is astounding.
So. Your “answer” is:
“Eve is the mother of all of the living” = “Eve is the mother of all of the living”
Wow. that was really helpful, Greg. Your meaningless statement is an extreme version of the logic fallacy known as The Tautological Definition Fallacy.
Yes, Greg. Man’s theology might “struggle for a minute” is correct—as long as you define a “minute” as thousands of years now! That’s a very long “minute” you’ve got there, Greg.
Let me guess: Your struggle lasted only for a “minute”. Right?
Let me make another guess: Greg determines who qualifies as a “good teacher.” Right? (And anyone who doesn’t agree with Greg is a “bad teacher.” Or at least a very wrong teacher. Right?)
I will make a third guess: “theology gymnastics” is any interpretation which doesn’t agree with Greg’s interpretation.
Greg, please explain to us (1) how your “theology gymnastics” sensor works, and (2) why we should trust Greg’s theology gymnastics sensor to always tells us the correct interpretation of a scripture.
What prevents Greg’s interpretations from setting off someone else’s “gymnastics sensor” telling them that Greg is “trying to stake a claim on a new denomination”?
I will admit to sometimes succumbing to gaper’s block—so I will give a tap to @Michael_Callen to come and savor the carnage in this case. (The “carnage” I’m referring to is the mangled logic of Greg’s arguments. I readily admit my astonishment. And yes, Greg, in reference to one of your recent extremely denigrating posts about me, I am indeed a retired minister. Romans 14:4.)
All good gifts come down from heaven, Greg. Carpentry, accounting acumen, and scholarship are gifts just like apostles, prophets, and teachers. Any gift–including scholarship–can thrive under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. Any gift can also be subverted through selfishness and evil influence to become destructive.
You keep harping on how evil scholarship can be. Indeed, it sometimes works for evil. But you rule out the good that Spirit-empowered scholarship can provide. You acknowledge that the Spirit can empower accountants and carpenters, pastors and deacons, right? Is there something about scholarship that God in His power and sovereignty cannot redeem?
I do not make this claim lightly. A casual glance at the Scriptures and at church history shows that teaching has always involved Spirit-empowered scholarship.
Scripture: When Paul spoke to the scholars in Athens, he studied and cited their religious practices and quoted their poets. (Acts 17) He cites the Epimenides paradox (Titus 1:12 - 13). The Epistle to the Hebrews cites a division between soul and spirit (4:12), a division completely foreign to the Old Testament but quite familiar to those exposed to first century Greek philosophy. Our Lord Himself taught us to be “wise as serpents” as well as innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16)
Church history: Eminent teachers such as Justin Martyr, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were highly effective at least in part because of their deep scholarship. Of course, there was more to their ministry and lives than scholarship. Their scholarship, however, made important contributions to our understanding of Scripture and Christian life even today.
Everything a Christian does can be done under the guidance of and with the power of the Holy Spirit. Everything. As Scripture and church history teach us, “everything” includes the role of scholarship in interpreting the Scripture.
Why would you think that God cannot work among scholars, Greg? The Scripture and church history show that He loves scholars and loves to empower their work.
Yours,
Chris
A problem with fundamentalism is that fundamentalism basically divorces scripture from the church. It is as if scripture wasn’t developed through the church, and it denies the church as a living tradition with its creeds as a part of it. The individual believer is left alone with scripture to puzzle it out for himself as best as he can. And who is to say that a pastor who went to seminary can puzzle it out better than someone who didn’t? Who is to say an expert in Greek or Hebrew has more insight than someone who reads the “plain meaning” of the King James Version? The Bible is divorced from the church because there really isn’t a church as such - there is only the individual believer and his relationship with his Bible, trying to figure it out as best he can.
I 100% disagree. Sometimes the reason for denominations centers around the frivolity and self centeredness in man.
I will give an example: the issue surrounding the gift of tongues. One person seemingly has this gift and chooses to make themselves known by developing a denomination where the gift is taught in Sunday School (thus suggesting not much of a gift of the Spirit) and is used in an uncontrolled, confusing way in service. The person might have this gift, or maybe not…but the denomination was built upon two unbiblical applications that may point to making a name for the one who established it as opposed to honoring God who is the giver of gifts.
Then another sees the unbiblical use of the gift and takes Scripture out of context to suggest that the gift has ceased and establishes a denomination upon this Biblically unsupportable claim. This person also may be establishing these grounds upon self centeredness. They want to be known for being the one who refutes what is seen as strange and battle it with a twist of Scripture.
The church is very simply called to abide by the simplicity of Scripture that does not suggest that the gifts have ceased, but only recognizes the gift as legitimate when it is used as strictly defined by Scripture. This may mean that the gift is seldom seen use of, and so be it. Everyone w the gift and without the gift are welcommed to worship together in Spirit and in the truth of Gods Word and the church is unified and in peace.
Now do i think there are going to be differences on some side theological issues? Yes. I believe there can be unity when stuff like pre vs post trib etc. But on the majors, Scripture is pretty understandable. And Pre trib and post trib does not hinge on science or literature or culture. Scripture does not make it perfectly clear so we can agree to have differing views in some areas.
I am not a fan of literalism. But I don’t think your argument against literalism will be at all persuasive.
A big issue in fundamentalism is the authority of the Bible, because fundamentalism descended from the more radical Reformers who rejected all other authority, such as creeds and church traditions, etc. This tends to force a more literalistic reading because it is seen as safer, especially because there is no authority or creed or tradition to appeal to.
One interesting thing I have noticed in fundamentalist sermons (if I am out driving I generally play classical music but I might listen to a Catholic station if available and occasionally I will listen to evangelical or fundamentalist programs) - anyways, a striking thing I noticed about fundamentalist sermons is that the pastor will spend a lot of time establishing the authority of the Bible verses he is using for his sermon. It is almost like he is arguing in court. I guess the idea is he is presenting arguments to convince any unbelievers that the Bible verses he is quoting are true. I just thought it was interesting - you have to be “sold” on the Bible verses.
Yes, but @Greg has already rejected that argument. So he isn’t likely to be persuaded by it.
The Bible is written by prophets and apostles. In the new covenant, Jesus comissions apostles to be His spokesmen. These (capital A) Apostles were to have encountered the living Jesus. When Paul was defending his apostolic ministry, he did so by declaring that he had indeed had this encounter. (1 Cor 9:1)
So if you are to tell me that divine revelation can continue to be formed as the very words of God post new covenant to make a sense that the church and Scripture are still one, then you are abandoning Scripture that says that post new covenant revelation can only come through apostles who encountered Jesus face to face! They have all gone to heaven and Jesus has not returned since He left the planet so divine revelation has ceased.
So the church is very much married to Scripture, but Scripture is finished and complete as defined by Apostolic revelation… We as Christians abide by what is written and await our Saviors arrival.
I don’t expect him to be.
I’m glad to see that you’ve retreated from that prior post’s radical position on “simplicity”. Good for you, Greg.
No retreat at all. If Scripture does not say verbatim what something is, then there is room to speculate but no room to declare one way or another and can have unity on an unspecified minor. On the other hand, if Scripture states with purposeful definition things like God created kinds on a single day consisting of morning and evening, then there is no room for interpreting this as God evolved animals from bacteria over millions of years to appease the science of man.
Greg, the 1611 KJV mentions unicorns multiple times. Did unicorns really exist in Biblical times? Or is it possible there was a misinterpretation in translation and that not all of the English language Bible should be taken literally?
But not in English.