http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/ Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-96022 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Creation-Evolution Posts and Reading Recommendations Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:07:35 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-96022 [...] Young Earth and the Bible [...] [...] Young Earth and the Bible [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-228 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » The Danger of False Assumptions Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:05:21 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-228 [...] The simple fact is that this common rule of Biblical literalists comes close to guaranteeing that they will misinterpret the Bible. The reason is that there is a substantial portion of the Bible that is intended figuratively. Let’s consider, for example, applying this rule to the plays of Shakespeare. I could quite easily construe many of the plays as portrayals of actual history on that basis. The signs that we have a dramatization would likely not be enough to convince me that they were fictional or fictionalized. In a previous entry, I indicated that one of the strengths of the young earth position is simply that if one assumes literal interpretation, it accords with the Biblical data. But that assumption of literal interpretation is the key. [...] [...] The simple fact is that this common rule of Biblical literalists comes close to guaranteeing that they will misinterpret the Bible. The reason is that there is a substantial portion of the Bible that is intended figuratively. Let’s consider, for example, applying this rule to the plays of Shakespeare. I could quite easily construe many of the plays as portrayals of actual history on that basis. The signs that we have a dramatization would likely not be enough to convince me that they were fictional or fictionalized. In a previous entry, I indicated that one of the strengths of the young earth position is simply that if one assumes literal interpretation, it accords with the Biblical data. But that assumption of literal interpretation is the key. [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:41:13 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-67 [...] The Bible and Young Earth [...] [...] The Bible and Young Earth [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » The Bible and Theistic Evolution Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:34:32 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-66 [...] Previously I’ve discussed young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and ruin and restoration creationism.  That brings us to theistic evolution, or I could say theistic evolutionary creationism. [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Ruin and Restoration Creationism Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:26:27 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-64 [...] In two previous entries I’ve discussed young earth creationism and old earth creationism. Continuing with this series on how various groups of Christians understand origins, I will now discuss the ruin and restoration theory. [...] [...] In two previous entries I’ve discussed young earth creationism and old earth creationism. Continuing with this series on how various groups of Christians understand origins, I will now discuss the ruin and restoration theory. [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-63 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Rev. Creech Rebukes Clergy Letter Signers Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:32:31 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-63 [...] But what I find even more objectionable in this article is the attack on the faith and commitment of those Christians who accept evolution. Creech says, “Moreover, to doubt a literal interpretation of the creation account is to undermine everything taught in the Bible.” That is an incredibly stupid statement. There is no doubt introduced by believing a portion of the Bible is one type of literature or another. The question is what type of literature it actually is. In fact, someone who demands that one take a figurative passage literally is simply setting up Bible students to lose their faith when they discover that the literal interpretation makes the passage false. (See my comments in my previous entry, The Bible and Young Earth.) [...] [...] But what I find even more objectionable in this article is the attack on the faith and commitment of those Christians who accept evolution. Creech says, “Moreover, to doubt a literal interpretation of the creation account is to undermine everything taught in the Bible.” That is an incredibly stupid statement. There is no doubt introduced by believing a portion of the Bible is one type of literature or another. The question is what type of literature it actually is. In fact, someone who demands that one take a figurative passage literally is simply setting up Bible students to lose their faith when they discover that the literal interpretation makes the passage false. (See my comments in my previous entry, The Bible and Young Earth.) [...]

]]> http://henrysthreads.com/2006/02/young-earth-and-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » The Bible and Old Earth Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:20:53 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=80#comment-59 [...] In my previous entry, Young Earth and the Bible, I mentioned three points regarding the Bible that are accepted by young earth creationists. If one accepts these three points, one must accept a young earth. Old earth creationists hold a modified view of the first and third of these points. They believe that one must determine whether something in the Bible is to be taken literally starting from a neutral position. Gleason Archer, for example, indicates that it is equally wrong to take something figurative literally as it would be to take something figuratively taht was intended literally. In his words, “We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.” (From The Witness of the Bible to its Own Inerrancy, quoted from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html.) [...] [...] In my previous entry, Young Earth and the Bible, I mentioned three points regarding the Bible that are accepted by young earth creationists. If one accepts these three points, one must accept a young earth. Old earth creationists hold a modified view of the first and third of these points. They believe that one must determine whether something in the Bible is to be taken literally starting from a neutral position. Gleason Archer, for example, indicates that it is equally wrong to take something figurative literally as it would be to take something figuratively taht was intended literally. In his words, “We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.” (From The Witness of the Bible to its Own Inerrancy, quoted from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html.) [...]

]]>