The key to remember for all of us. One's interpretation of Scripture is not equal to Scripture itself in authority.

[Deuteronomy]

People need to stop with the interpreting of Scripture and just study and UNDERSTAND.
Stop trying to prove what you belief and allow the Scripture to teach you.
Interpreting leads to all kinds of false belief and teaching.

Hello DWR, I don't believe that the problem rests with our interpreting Scripture per say, as we need to arrive at a proper exegesis of the Text so that we can know what it really means. For instance, here are some verses/passages that come to mind (that absolutely require "interpretation" to arrive at their God-intended meaning).

Matthew 11​

12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.​

13 For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.​

14 And if you are willing to accept it, John (the Baptist) himself is Elijah who was to come.​

​

Matthew 18​

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.​

9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.​

​

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.​

​

1 Timothy 2​

9 I want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.​

​

15 Women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.​

What I believe is important is coming to the Text, without any preconceived notions, to discover/draw out the meaning that God intended (this method of interpretation is called "exegesis"). However, many (most?) bring their personal presupposition(s) with them and attempt to bend/adjust the true meaning of the Text to fit their non-Biblical presuppositional beliefs instead. This latter process of Biblical interpretation (which I believe is referred to as "eisegesis") is a HUGE problem, because it attempts to read meaning into the Biblical Text (rather than drawing the meaning out of it).

God bless you!

~Deut
p.s. - interpretation is required to help us determine the meaning of verses that appear to be contradictory as well, such as:

Ephesians 2​

8 By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;​

9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.​

​

James 2​

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.​

​

 

[TheLearner]

Hi TheLearner,

I'm not sure what you have wrote is what you mean?

Do you mean that our understanding of scripture is enhanced by knowing the cultural/Historical backgrounds etc rather than scripture itself being enhanced?

If so then I would agree with your statement. As this stops us from reading our own modern culture into the text. With many and varied authors over a wide timeline it is helpful to understand the background to Scripture.

An example would be God ''cutting'' a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 - the Suzerain treaties of contemporary society's help us understand this even more. And possibly in the question posed by the Pharisees to Jesus regarding ''Any Matter/cause'' divorce in Matthew 19 (relating to the early 1st century rabbinical intra debate between the Hillelites and shammaites)

Scripture was not written in a vacuum. So, learning what I listed helps with correct understanding of Scripture.

 

[TheLearner]

It seem you're under the impression the scriptures are written by multiple authors. That's a nice added challenge when you're interpreting what you think are multiple authors. Good luck.

It is not as hard as you make it sound. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=lts_fac_pubs

 

[TheLearner]

Hello again @TheLearner, what does Noah's Flood have to do with the beliefs of YEC

Also, why did you refer to both of them as "MODERN novelties"

Thanks

~Deut

The "science claims" related to Noah's Flood come from the YEC system which is very modern. One will not find their theories before our era.

YEC is also, very new theology wise. Many of their positions are rationalizations to get around simple science.

Their arguments on Noah's Flood are beyond doubt novelties as are their rationalizations for a young earth.

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution Hardcover - Illustrated, March 22, 2011
by James Hannam


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...ompassed a,pharmacology, physics, and zoology.

As we know that Science as we know it got its start in Christian circles from philosophers in the middle ages. Before that there were Muslim Scientists. None of which to my knowledge holding tenants of YEC and their Flood Geology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#Before_the_18th_century

George McCready Price wrote a series of books on YEC and Flood Geology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price#Bibliography

He was reacting the recent view of Evolution.
https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Books/NG1923.pdf

After the 1925 The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes YEC took off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris popped up 1961 book on Flood Geology. His book has misquotes.

"
Geologists gradually began to see that the earth was older than Ussher’s age of 4004BC after 1680. Looking at the rocks in Nant Peris in Snowdonia the Rev John Ray, a great botanist, began to wonder if the earth was older than Ussher had suggested. He was tentative and rather sceptical, but was asking the right questions. By 1800, most thought the age of the earth was in millions and that included most Christians.

In the 20th Century, radiometric age dating showed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That is based on the physics of radioactivity and has nothing to do with evolution. If the dates are wrong then so is all physics."
https://www.premierchristianradio.c...10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist

 

[OrphanedRepublican]

Hi TheLearner,

I'm not sure what you have wrote is what you mean?

Do you mean that our understanding of scripture is enhanced by knowing the cultural/Historical backgrounds etc rather than scripture itself being enhanced?

If so then I would agree with your statement. As this stops us from reading our own modern culture into the text. With many and varied authors over a wide timeline it is helpful to understand the background to Scripture.

An example would be God ''cutting'' a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 - the Suzerain treaties of contemporary society's help us understand this even more. And possibly in the question posed by the Pharisees to Jesus regarding ''Any Matter/cause'' divorce in Matthew 19 (relating to the early 1st century rabbinical intra debate between the Hillelites and shammaites)

The scriptures are written by one author. Who are these "many and varied authors over a wide timeline?" Do you credit those that wrote down the words from God's mouth the actual authors of the scriptures?

 

[TheLearner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology believed in a young earth, but he was not part of the modern movement.
He did not use any of the rationalizations used today.

 

[TheLearner]

"
The Rise of the Modern Creationist Movement
Why, early in the twenty-first century, would so many Americans hold these views in the face of compelling scientific evidence that we live on a planet billions of years old and that biotic evolution best explains the history of life? The Scopes trial had a negative impact upon science education. Evolution was either omitted or its presentations muted in textbooks. This changed in the late 1950s when the Soviet government launched the first space satellite and startled the American government into creating its own space program and taking steps to improve science education. Textbooks and standards were extensively revised and upgraded. Biological evolution re-entered public school curricula.

In the face of this revival, a countervailing movement that had been forming quietly among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for some time took off with the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood by conservative theologian John C. Whitcomb and engineering professor Henry Morris. They argued on the basis of their belief in an inerrant Bible for a six-day creation and a global Flood. They supported their thesis with an extensive presentation of geophysical evidence they claimed confirms that all of the current geological strata and the fossils embedded in them resulted from the Flood (Numbers 296). They also claimed that evolution is refuted by "the fact of the Flood," and condemned it as contrary to Scripture and Christian faith (Morris and Whitcomb, passim)

...


Most books and articles produced by YECs today follow this approach. In other words, the authors constructed a "creation science." The Genesis Flood also caused an intense debate among Christians in the sciences. Many rejected its thesis as geologically unsound. Its six-day model also did not sit well with progressive creationists, including those who held either to the "day-age" or the "gap" readings of Genesis. These two interpretations arose in the nineteenth century among Christians who had come to accept the vast ages of the earth uncovered by the new science of geology. Those promoting the "day-age" interpretation believed that Genesis could be reconciled with "deepening" geological time by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as geological ages (Young, 1988, 57-59; Bailey 125-128). Bryan himself had been a "day-age" creationist (Numbers 296). Advocates of the gap or restitution theory, popularized by British theologian Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), proposed that an immense period of time had elapsed between the events recorded in verse one of Genesis 1, which describes a state of chaos, and verse two, the beginning of created order (Young ibid 55-57; Bailey 121-124). This theory was popular among both British and American fundamentalists right up to 1970 (Roberts, 2002, 6; 2007, 46).

These interpretations Morris and Whitcomb rejected. The Genesis Flood "brought about a stunning renaissance of flood geology" (Davis Young, in Numbers 297), an explanation that had been eclipsed for over a century. This revived form of strict creationism is a recent phenomenon, only about fifty years old. Morris and others founded the Creation Research Society (1963) and the Institute for Creation Research (IRC) in San Diego (1972). In 1994 Ham founded Answers in Genesis in Florence, Kentucky. YEC advocates began a concerted effort to bring into public school science education a form of "creation science" that avoided references to the Bible and could be presented along with the study of evolution. In 1982, an Arkansas "equal time" law was ruled unconstitutional; the Supreme Court struck down a similar Louisiana statute in 1987. But these legal setbacks have hardly slowed the movement's momentum. A vigorous campaign by ICR and AIG staff speakers and others has spread their message throughout the conservative Protestant community. Strict creationism, promoted by Seventh Day Adventists in the early twentieth century (Numbers 73-88), has become dogma in many churches. Literature produced by AIG and ICR are used in Christian schools and home-school programs. And attempts to bring some form of YEC into public school science courses continue to this day.

Strict creationism: a worldview
This contemporary creationist movement has had a widespread influence among American Protestant Christians because it offers an alternative worldview that provides security and certainty for believers living in the midst of a secularized American culture undergoing rapid changes in technology and troubling changes in social behavior.


"https://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay08.asp there is a lot more on this link worth reading.

 

[TheLearner]

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/his221/young-earth-creationists.pdf
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/appearance_of_age.html
https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthhistory/creawhat.html
https://ncse.ngo/young-earth-creationism
https://ncse.ngo/unmasking-false-prophet-creationism
https://biologos.org/personal-stories/confessions-of-a-failed-young-earth-creationist/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
https://biologos.org/series/science...th-scientific-creationism-history-and-beliefs

 

[TheLearner]

The scriptures are written by one author. Who are these "many and varied authors over a wide timeline?" Do you credit those that wrote down the words from God's mouth the actual authors of the scriptures?

The highlighted part is false. One can say God inspired people to speak. The words are those of he humans.
Prophecy is a mixed bag, some are words from God's mouth others are ideas inspired by God and the People used their own words.

This is an example of God speaking, there are many examples otherwise.
Ezekiel 36:25 New International Version
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

1 Corinthians 7:8
King James Version
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

 

[OrphanedRepublican]

The highlighted part is false. One can say God inspired people to speak. The words are those of he humans.
Prophecy is a mixed bag, some are words from God's mouth others are ideas inspired by God and the People used their own words.

This is an example of God speaking, there are many examples otherwise.
Ezekiel 36:25 New International Version
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

1 Corinthians 7:8
King James Version
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

So, God's powerful saving word he dictated a few, but left some of those words up to people to fill in? Is that right? We'll just disagree. I'm quite relieved that every single word in the scriptures came from God's mouth and none of them are left up to men to add in.

 

[Runningman]

The highlighted part is false. One can say God inspired people to speak. The words are those of he humans.
Prophecy is a mixed bag, some are words from God's mouth others are ideas inspired by God and the People used their own words.

This is an example of God speaking, there are many examples otherwise.
Ezekiel 36:25 New International Version
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

1 Corinthians 7:8
King James Version
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

and this verse

1 Corinthians 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away

 

[OrphanedRepublican]

and this verse

1 Corinthians 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away

Well, that's plain enough. I still can't see how it would be present in God's word had God not permitted it. Did God cause him to say that or simply permit him to say it? Is it an important distinction? I don't know, I don't think I'll argue it. Either way, it falls under the overall category of God's word to us. I have confidence that every word in the scriptures came from God, not any at all from man.

 

[Runningman]

Well, that's plain enough. I still can't see how it would be present in God's word had God not permitted it. Did God cause him to say that or simply permit him to say it? Is it an important distinction? I don't know, I don't think I'll argue it. Either way, it falls under the overall category of God's word to us. I have confidence that every word in the scriptures came from God, not any at all from man.

Well, did God cause Peter to deny Jesus three times or did God permit him to say it? I think while all scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) presumably through some sort of dream, vision, or verbally transcribed. I think the writers on the Bible had flaws and their own opinions sometimes, such as Peter and Paul, but unless otherwise stated they wrote word-for-word what God led them to write.

 

[phil36]

The bible is the word of God, and every word therein is exactly as God intended(original autographs).. The means God used was human authors using their individual backgrounds, traits and style in order to write down for us what God knew would be for our benefit. Just a cursory glance through the bible shows this - Paul's writing style is completely different than that of John's or Isaiah's.

An easy way to show this is looking at Paul's letters to the Corinthians. Paul is actually replying to situations to which the Corinthians had previously wrote him, for example:

'Now concerning the matters about which you wrote' (1 Corinthians 7:1)

and regarding situations/questions brought by word of mouth -

"My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you." (1 Corinthians 1:11).

Paul answers these questions and more in his letters using his own mind,personal traits, yet inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Below is a good (modern) summary on scriptural innerancy - Article 7 & 8 are helpful in what we are discussing.




Article VI. WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII. WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII. WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Taken from the 'Chicago statement on inerrancy'.

 

[OrphanedRepublican]

Well, did God cause Peter to deny Jesus three times or did God permit him to say it? I think while all scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) presumably through some sort of dream, vision, or verbally transcribed. I think the writers on the Bible had flaws and their own opinions sometimes, such as Peter and Paul, but unless otherwise stated they wrote word-for-word what God led them to write.

The problem is personal for me. I can't trust scriptures if I believe that man, even Paul, had any of their own input into them. Every word that falls from the lips of men are lies. It makes me feel very insecure about the scriptures if any of them are from the wisdom and thoughts of men. And that's just a personal thing. If man had any role in the scriptures other than like Baruch, just taking the dictation, then it's a bit of a confidence issue for me.

 

[Dino246]

"
The Rise of the Modern Creationist Movement
Why, early in the twenty-first century, would so many Americans hold these views in the face of compelling scientific evidence that we live on a planet billions of years old and that biotic evolution best explains the history of life? ...

You've overlooked something critical to the discussion: that the origins of evolution are pagan, and that the "science" that proposes an earth millions or billions of years old is founded on the rejection of God's authority. While "creation science" is relatively new, "evolutionary science" is also relatively new. Most significant scientific discoveries prior to the 20th century (and many since) were made by people who believed in God.

 

[Runningman]

The problem is personal for me. I can't trust scriptures if I believe that man, even Paul, had any of their own input into them. Every word that falls from the lips of men are lies. It makes me feel very insecure about the scriptures if any of them are from the wisdom and thoughts of men. And that's just a personal thing. If man had any role in the scriptures other than like Baruch, just taking the dictation, then it's a bit of a confidence issue for me.

I agree. I believe we can trust the whole body of scriptures as divine and authoritative.

 

[TheLearner]

So, God's powerful saving word he dictated a few, but left some of those words up to people to fill in? Is that right? We'll just disagree. I'm quite relieved that every single word in the scriptures came from God's mouth and none of them are left up to men to add in.

He left most of the words for people to fill in. Satan dictates his scriptures examples === Koran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book and New Age books and many others. God inspires most of the Bible. There are many places where God directly speaks. It is a mixture of both.

Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Job 26:4
Who helped you say these things? Whose spirit inspired you to speak?

There are four views of inspiration:
1. The neo-orthodox view of inspiration
2. The dictation view of inspiration
3. The view of limited inspiration
4. The view of plenary verbal inspiration
https://www.gotquestions.org/inspiration-theories.html

You are holding to the dictation view of inspiration which is of Satan --- we know from studying the cults and false religions that is how Satan works.

It is reasonable to hold your view where the OT says, "the Lord says," in prophecy.


2 Peter 1:20-21
Easy-to-Read Version
20 Most important of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in the Scriptures comes from the prophet’s own understanding. 21 No prophecy ever came from what some person wanted to say. But people were led by the Holy Spirit and spoke words from God.

There are over 600 Places in the Bible where the Lord says something directly.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=says+the+Lord&version=ERV

If you look at the 21 places where the Lord say not in quotes, the vast majority of simply quotes from the old testament.

If you put in quotes "the Lord says" there are only 259 places where God is speaking.
In the NT three are OT quotes of the 4 in the NT
The fourth says,

2 Corinthians 10:18
What people say about themselves means nothing. What counts is whether the Lord says they have done well.

How the Bible is inspired is a complex study. One must check each quote for context --- many quotes are out of context.


Translators use our own words.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ERV&quicksearch="the+Lord+says"&begin=47&end=73

VERBAL-PLENARY INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION

ERNST WENDLAND
https://sun.academia.edu/EWENDLAND

You may find this view most useful https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/a-case-for-verbal-plenary-inspiration/ and https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/287189495.pdf too.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield4.html
https://books.googleusercontent.com...v6bNupRKDDux8ZYZptbFFdJMbakekUa8j44mHEbmbatDo

 

[TheLearner]

The problem is personal for me. I can't trust scriptures if I believe that man, even Paul, had any of their own input into them. Every word that falls from the lips of men are lies. It makes me feel very insecure about the scriptures if any of them are from the wisdom and thoughts of men. And that's just a personal thing. If man had any role in the scriptures other than like Baruch, just taking the dictation, then it's a bit of a confidence issue for me.

You say, "Every word that falls from the lips of men are lies. " therefore you are lying?

 

[Nehemiah6]

The key to remember for all of us. One's interpretation of Scripture is not equal to Scripture itself in authority.

That's a given. But it is indeed possible -- even necessary -- to rightly divide the Word of Truth. So this thread should be about how Christians should (a) first of all study the Word diligently, then (b) interpret it correctly, then (c) apply it consistently. Nothing easy about this. But the only easy day was yesterday.