Baby with Bathwater, What do we really believe??

[krhagan19]

Our gracious Pastor, Joshua, has stated that he believes that the "flood event" of Noah, took place around 24,000 years ago. This is far far older than most mainline denominations will even grant the Earth or Universe for that matter existence. We have discussed Biblical "hyperbole" and "symbolism" for example the idea that the 6 days of creation were six different "Epochs" that signified such scientific events as the atmosphere going from opaque to transparent. i.e. the Sun really existed since light, but we could not see the sun because the atmosphere of the primitive earth was opaque (THANK YOU VERY MUCH Methane hydroxides of other hydrocarbons poluting the earths upper atmosphere in the early stages of its development, much like they still do Titan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon) My sincere question to you pastor is simply this. If we can count some parts of the Bible has not historical or true, then by what authority (other than outside, NON SCRIPTURAL authority) do we account the Historical parts accurate? It is almost universally agreed that Revelations is non historical and largely metaphorical. I imagine that if the endtimes come in our days, Hydrogen Bombs will replace a couple of goblets, or chalices, or bowls of wrath. What therefore do we cling to as true. If we were Catholics we would have uninterrupted Apostolic succession in our leadership to cling to for authority. But we alas are not Catholics. If we were Eastern, or even Oriental Orthodox we could make the same claim. Yet alas, we are neither. What do we, as Protestants, SEPARATE from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church cling to as Authority, OTHER THAN that which was passed onto us, from such Authority at the time of the reformation?

[Josh]

If we can count some parts of the Bible has not historical or true, then by what authority (other than outside, NON SCRIPTURAL authority) do we account the Historical parts accurate?

We apply the principles of hermeneutics and sift through the evidence in the text and elsewhere as to whether the particular account was intended by the author to be a historical account, symbolism, hyperbole, etc..

Sometimes the answers are pretty obvious, other times debatable. We hold the debatable perspectives more humbly.

Some related threads:

Reading the Bible literally or figuratively?

Tips on Interpretation

Really, the whole Inspiration sub-forum has relevant topics. Check them out separately:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=inspiration

[krhagan19]

I shall, and then, Like Samuel L Jackson return to thee with RIGHTIOUS ANGER, and FURIOUS VENGEANCE. :_)

[Douglas]

Just to throw in my 2 cents. When we talk about the bible as being historically true we have to be careful to define our terms. The bible is not history in the modern sense of the word, rather is is history in the ancient near eastern jewish sense. That is to say, Moderns are concerned with the event. If i pick up a modern history i expect a very logical fact filled breakdown of what happened. Dates, facts and figures. In a word: Science

I put forth that the ancients hebrews where not concerned with these things at all. For instance, we know that God created all things but yet in verse 2 of Genesis we receive no details whatsoever about the origins or water, darkness and chaos. If this were a modern history we would be up in arms as to why the author neglected these important details. The truth is that these details simply are not important to the story. What is important is Who was doing it. The person and character of God is the clear unopposed focus of the entire creations narrative, not the dates facts and figures so important to our scientific brains. The heart of the genesis native is not science but relationship.

So to claim that i, by believing in an old earth am not taking these passages as historically true is correct in a sense. I do not see them as historically true from a modernist perspective simply because that was not how they where written. On the other hand they are historically accurate in that they accurately portray the Creator, his being, divine power and authority.

Blessings,

Douglas