God only wrote one set of Scriptures for all time. While the original hearers and writers were in one particular social context, God, who is both omniscient and omnipotent, is certainly capable of communicating in such a way that, given proper translation, anybody from any time period can understand at least the most important points of Scripture. This is known as the Doctrine of Perspicuity. It would make no sense for God to communicate in a way that is not understandable outside of a narrow social context. And for areas where we may be unsure, we have the benefit of being able to study the relevant context.
There have been near-countless people that were erroneously convinced of particular âfactsâ of nature based on their interpretation of Scripture in the past. Do you think it is impossible for humans to misunderstand what the Bible says about Godâs creation today?
3 Likes
No, clearly people can misunderstand the Bible on creation, even today. Most people participating in this forum are living proof of that. That says nothing, however, about the clarity of Scripture itself. People unfortunately see what they want to see, or fail to see what they do not want to see, all the time.
1 Like
Would you go so far as to admit that you could be mistaken?
7 Likes
Iâm just a man, like any other, so yes, I am fallible and can be mistaken.
6 Likes
Thanks for your candor, Paul. Just for the record (and since I asked the question), I also admit that possibility regarding my own position. I grew up in a staunchly YEC environment and have had conversations with several individuals that would not admit even the possibility that they could be mistaken.
8 Likes
Hi PD,
This is much harder than you think it might be. Imagine that you are an archaeologist in 10000 AD. You speak fluent Vulcan, but you know something about the dead language English, which died many thousands of years previously. For recreation you play the sport of jeklobyl, which involves throwing a pie-shaped disk down a field to teammates, who are only allowed to take 2 steps before throwing. In the course of your archeology work you run across a short document on the long-lost technology called the internet that you translate from English as follows:
âOn Friday night the green wave rolled down the field, overwhelming the boys from Goose Creek with a quick downward touch.â
You might ask questions like this: When a green wave touches the ground quickly, how many seconds does that take? How many boys from Goose Creek perished in the green tsunami?
What kind of event does this short document refer to?
Thanks,
Chris
3 Likes
We donât have to try to figure stuff out âout of the blueâ like that. We have lots, and lots, and lots of manuscripts, including many ancient translations, which enable us to ensure that our modern translations are not inaccurate. Check out www.coldcasechristianity.com
I read Cold Case, which is a fine but highly simplified view of Biblical scholarship.
Back to the analogy: You seem entirely uninterested in exploring cultural context and how it gets embedded in texts. Do you really think that a grasp on embedded cultural context is irrelevant to understanding an ancient document, inspired or otherwise?
Suppose I had fifty different manuscripts of that statement about a green wave, and those manuscripts were largely in agreement as to the actual text. Would that resolve all of the issues regarding the interpretation of the text?
Best,
Chris
3 Likes
No, I donât think itâs irrelevant. But I do think that when it comes to the fundamentals of Scripture, God did not so imbed his revelation in contextually-dependent language that we need to be scholars of ancient Hebrew language and customs in order to understand it. This is the doctrine of Perspicuity.
How do you know that the literalness vs. non-literalness of the 6-day creation and universal flood accounts are aspects of Scripture covered by the perspicuity doctrine, and not one of the parts of Scripture that are hard to understand (which Scripture itself acknowledges exist)?
3 Likes
Because I allow Scripture to give me the guide to interpreting Scripture. I cross-reference different parts of Scripture to give me a window into the meaning.
I look at Exodus 20:11, for example, where God lays it out in plain language that is unmistakable. He created in 6 literal days, just as the Hebrews were to work for 6 literal days per week.
I look at 2 Peter 3 where Peter prophesies that in the last days scoffers will come who will deny two very specific doctrines: Creation and the Flood. They will deny that the world was created out of water and they will deny that the world was deluged with water and destroyed. So I see that these are clearly important doctrines that are meant to be taken literally.
I see all throughout the Gospels where Jesus quotes from and teaches from the Old Testament as true literal history, going back to Adam and Eve, whom Jesus says were around âFrom the beginning of Creationâ.
Except that doesnât follow at all. Exodus 20:11 is a clear reference back to Genesis 1, so the days in Exodus donât have to mean anything different than the days in Genesis - and the days in Genesis simply donât need to be literal days to be compared to or symbolically identified with the Hebrew work week.
How do you know this means these passages need to be taken literally, as opposed to being taken seriously and not denying what they in fact teach (which requires discerning whether they are meant strictly literally or not)?
How do you know that âfrom the beginning of creationâ has any stronger meaning than asserting that Adam and Eve appear early on in the Scriptural narrative? Or that the scope of creation that Jesus is considering isnât limited to the part that is relevant to the history of salvation and Godâs bringing about the new creation through Jesus?
What seems perspicuous to me is that the Bible is about salvation history, not natural history.
4 Likes
You seem confused. That is MY point.
and the days in Genesis simply donât need to be literal days
Read back to the earlier part of your sentence.
to be compared to or symbolically identified with the Hebrew work week.
God literally says âjust as I worked for 6 days, so will youâ. If God didnât work for 6 literal days then his whole statement seems strained and borderline dishonest. I can think of no better way God could have made this point clear, both in the original passage of Genesis 1 and here in Exodus. Youâre putting blinders on to avoid seeing it.
How do you know this means these passages need to be taken literally , as opposed to being taken seriously and not denying what they in fact teach (which requires discerning whether they are meant strictly literally or not)?
What they in fact teach is a literal creation. They, in fact, teach that all animals and people were herbivores before the Fall. What they, in fact, teach, is that God created the world out of water (and Peter specifically mentions this aspect). Thatâs not symbolic water, thatâs actual water.
And they teach that God deluged the whole world with water, destroying it.
How do you know that âfrom the beginning of creationâ has any stronger meaning than asserting that Adam and Eve appear early on in the Scriptural narrative?
Because simply that is not what it says.
Or that the scope of creation that Jesus is considering isnât limited to the part that is relevant to the history of salvation and Godâs bringing about the new creation through Jesus?
Jesus was not dishonest or misleading. God is not the author of confusion. When Jesus says that God created Adam and Eve from the beginning of Creation, that is a clear statement that precludes the concept that they were actually around only at the very end of a long timeline encompassing billions of years.
What seems perspicuous to me is that the Bible is about salvation history, not natural history.
You seem to be closing your eyes to clear Scripture. Thatâs unfortunate, especially in light of Peterâs dire warnings in 2 Peter 3.
And thereâs your problem. When you teach your children all that, and they later learn that nothing of the sort actually happened, it might destroy their faith in you and in your god.
4 Likes
If itâs really true that ânothing of the sort happenedâ, as you say, then my faith in the Bible would be misplaced. This is the clear teaching of Scripture. Thankfully you are very much incorrect there. Godâs word is trustworthy over yours.
You write that as if itâs a bad outcome.
1 Like
So, basically, âWho are you going to believe: me or your own lyinâ eyesâ? In order to believe your interpretation of scripture, itâs necessary to dismiss most of biology, geology, and physics. Youâre OK with that?
3 Likes
Well, it is for him. Donât bother with evidence that it might actually happen; evidence is not his concern.
But you arenât trusting Godâs word. You are trusting the translations and interpretations of Godâs word made by fallible men. Then you ignore all the evidence some of those interpretations are wrong.
2 Likes