Comments on: Thesis #1 http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/ Life. Belief. Et cetera. Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:48:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: learning to read the Bible again « Scream Without Raising Your Voice http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-352 learning to read the Bible again « Scream Without Raising Your Voice Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:07:30 +0000 http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-352 [...] on Learning To Read The Bible Again.  They are taking each of the points in turn.  Point 1 is here on Russell’s blog and here on Matt’s.  Join [...] [...] on Learning To Read The Bible Again.  They are taking each of the points in turn.  Point 1 is here on Russell’s blog and here on Matt’s.  Join [...]

]]> By: Russell http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-350 Russell Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:29:59 +0000 http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-350 I think I see what you both mean. And I think I concur. Truth does not have to exist solely in literal writing. The stories of Genesis do indeed convey Truth. That God looked at his Creation and said, "It is good" is definitely not false. The more I dwell on Genesis, the more I think I really don't care about the timeline of God's creation acts. Call the divisions stages, phases, ages, eons, whatever. (Probably not 24-hour Roman-calendar days, though.) I do believe God spent 6 different blocks of time focused on 6 creating different interdependent "projects" though, and that communicates to me that each one of those categories has value in his sight. But really, what the hell does "time" mean to God? I think the reason I don't care about the timeline is more accurately that when I think about time in relation to God, my head spins. So it seems that we weren't meant to settle on a definitive answer. Funny thing about inerrancy... when a professor that held to it taught its tenets to me, I got the impression that non-inerrantists only wanted to use errancy to discount the Bible's authority on their lives. And that's not me. I honestly don't know if I could cling to inerrancy, but I do know that when God uses Scripture to point out a way in which I suck, I feel convicted to change. I think I see what you both mean. And I think I concur.
Truth does not have to exist solely in literal writing. The stories of Genesis do indeed convey Truth. That God looked at his Creation and said, “It is good” is definitely not false.
The more I dwell on Genesis, the more I think I really don’t care about the timeline of God’s creation acts. Call the divisions stages, phases, ages, eons, whatever. (Probably not 24-hour Roman-calendar days, though.) I do believe God spent 6 different blocks of time focused on 6 creating different interdependent “projects” though, and that communicates to me that each one of those categories has value in his sight.
But really, what the hell does “time” mean to God? I think the reason I don’t care about the timeline is more accurately that when I think about time in relation to God, my head spins. So it seems that we weren’t meant to settle on a definitive answer.
Funny thing about inerrancy… when a professor that held to it taught its tenets to me, I got the impression that non-inerrantists only wanted to use errancy to discount the Bible’s authority on their lives. And that’s not me. I honestly don’t know if I could cling to inerrancy, but I do know that when God uses Scripture to point out a way in which I suck, I feel convicted to change.

]]> By: Stewart http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-349 Stewart Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:29:05 +0000 http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-349 I prefer to use the word 'truth' about scripture. It contains truth because for me it seems obvious that some parts aren't 'true' in that they happened as reported. That doesn't mean that they don't contain truth. Matt's example of the Creation story is one which I don't think happened as it is written, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the account doesn't contain truth. God created the world. I believe that to be true. I also believe that he did it in the order of the creation story. I don't think he did it in six days, but six ages. So, for me, the story may not be 'true' but is 'truthful'. Anyway, we're supposed to be talking about how the Bible relates to life these days. Well, truth, as they say, is eternal. If the Bible contains truth then it will be relevant for all time. That isn't to say that we won't receive new revelations of truth. One of the dangers of a closed canon is that people forget that God is still speaking to us in all kinds of ways. Let's not forget that. As for the second question, I think that God is at work in the world. Left to our own devices the place would be much worse! I prefer to use the word ‘truth’ about scripture. It contains truth because for me it seems obvious that some parts aren’t ‘true’ in that they happened as reported. That doesn’t mean that they don’t contain truth.

Matt’s example of the Creation story is one which I don’t think happened as it is written, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe the account doesn’t contain truth. God created the world. I believe that to be true. I also believe that he did it in the order of the creation story. I don’t think he did it in six days, but six ages. So, for me, the story may not be ‘true’ but is ‘truthful’.

Anyway, we’re supposed to be talking about how the Bible relates to life these days. Well, truth, as they say, is eternal. If the Bible contains truth then it will be relevant for all time.

That isn’t to say that we won’t receive new revelations of truth. One of the dangers of a closed canon is that people forget that God is still speaking to us in all kinds of ways. Let’s not forget that.

As for the second question, I think that God is at work in the world. Left to our own devices the place would be much worse!

]]> By: MShed http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-348 MShed Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:45:31 +0000 http://rduren.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/thesis-1/#comment-348 True is such a weird word in relation to Scripture. For me Genesis 1-16 may not of had to happen to be true. I think that some of those stories, are stories about what is true about the world, not that they actually happened. For me it is worth fighting the word inerrancy because the word puts scripture in a light that isn't meant to have. In some ways people who fight for those understandings of scripture are trying to raise it to status of fourth member of trinity, or even that it basically is God, and I am not comfortable with the text being dealt with in that way. Good post this is going to be fun. True is such a weird word in relation to Scripture. For me Genesis 1-16 may not of had to happen to be true. I think that some of those stories, are stories about what is true about the world, not that they actually happened. For me it is worth fighting the word inerrancy because the word puts scripture in a light that isn’t meant to have. In some ways people who fight for those understandings of scripture are trying to raise it to status of fourth member of trinity, or even that it basically is God, and I am not comfortable with the text being dealt with in that way. Good post this is going to be fun.

]]>