Textbook Misleading Many Seminary and Bible College Students

[Greektim]

John Sailhamer's ideas sure are intriguing.
He taught for a short time at the former Philadelphia College of Bible, not far from where I live (now called Cairn University).
I have a short book that I keep next to Sailhamers Genesis Unbound called, A Promised Land for a Chosen People; the good land and the good life (1979) by Gordon Ceperley, also of PBU.
I don't know if the two of them interacted but if have a feeling that Ceperley's discussion of "the land" influenced Sailhamer (or Sailhamer influenced Ciperley).

IMO, Ciperley's booklet is not a must read, it just seems to support Sailhamer's ideas.

Rob

I'm a huge fan of Sailhamer's views of Gen. 1-2. Here is a good synopsis of the book and his view. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

The biblical theological value of his view is outstanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think that this issue, while indeed important, is NOT a primary issue, as long as he still upholds the essentials of the Christian faith, so would tend to see him as one who has accepted current modern thinking on Genesis/dating to some degree, but that overall his theology text still valuable!

is he now a theistic Evolutionists than?

 

[quantumfaith]

Think that this issue, while indeed important, is NOT a primary issue, as long as he still upholds the essentials of the Christian faith, so would tend to see him as one who has accepted current modern thinking on Genesis/dating to some degree, but that overall his theology text still valuable!

is he now a theistic Evolutionists than?

No he is not TE. He accepts the label Historical Creationist. Although I am much more TE, he has some interesting developed positions regarding "eretz' (the land). He suggests that our translation of "the heavens and the earth" is misunderstood and should be understood in terms of the "land" prepared for man. So far in my reading he does not commit to an OE, but seems to accept that possibility

Might be worthwhile to see a list of what you consider essentials for you to accept someone as a believer.

 

[evangelist6589]

I answered somewhere else. I have read balanced books with opposing theological views. For me, the issue is settled.

Explain please.

 

[quantumfaith]

Explain please.

Certainly, I responded in part to your request for a reading list. Do not remember which thread it was in.

 

[Yeshua1]

No he is not TE. He accepts the label Historical Creationist. Although I am much more TE, he has some interesting developed positions regarding "eretz' (the land). He suggests that our translation of "the heavens and the earth" is misunderstood and should be understood in terms of the "land" prepared for man. So far in my reading he does not commit to an OE, but seems to accept that possibility

Might be worthwhile to see a list of what you consider essentials for you to accept someone as a believer.

The trinity
Jesus death as a substitionary payment made to the father in my place for my sins
Bible inspired word of God
Second Coming
Resurrection physical sense
Saved ONLY by Grace thru faith!

 

[quantumfaith]

The trinity
Jesus death as a substitionary payment made to the father in my place for my sins
Bible inspired word of God
Second Coming
Resurrection physical sense
Saved ONLY by Grace thru faith!

Thats a good list. :thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm a huge fan of Sailhamer's views of Gen. 1-2. Here is a good synopsis of the book and his view. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

The biblical theological value of his view is outstanding.

So what is the main difference between his views and the gap theory view?

As still have the BIG problem of not reading the genesis account in a literal fashion IF presupposing that there could have been "Billions of years" described there!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thats a good list. :thumbsup:

the other things such as the timing aspect of the second coming, old earth/Young earth, spiritual gifts for today are important, but I do not elevate them to primary essential status!

Would also add to original list though baptism and communion, but NOT any regeneration effect to be seen in either!

 

[Greektim]

So what is the main difference between his views and the gap theory view?

As still have the BIG problem of not reading the genesis account in a literal fashion IF presupposing that there could have been "Billions of years" described there!

First, it is an extremely literal reading of Genesis. Moreso than the YEC view. Second, there is no gap. He is just saying that all of creation was done in 1:1. After all, Moses would be entrenched in creation mythology of chaos to order being the theme of creation accounts. Then vv. 2 and on are not about creation but about the preparation of the Garden of Eden, the promised land, amidst the chaos of creation. Therefore, you can't use the Bible to determine the age of the earth, b/c it doesn't say how much time elapsed after v. 1. Days, months, years, millennia? Doesn't say. It just focused on the place that God prepares to dwell with his people... a fitting theme considering the generation that Genesis was written (Exodus crowd).

 

[Yeshua1]

First, it is an extremely literal reading of Genesis. Moreso than the YEC view. Second, there is no gap. He is just saying that all of creation was done in 1:1. After all, Moses would be entrenched in creation mythology of chaos to order being the theme of creation accounts. Then vv. 2 and on are not about creation but about the preparation of the Garden of Eden, the promised land, amidst the chaos of creation. Therefore, you can't use the Bible to determine the age of the earth, b/c it doesn't say how much time elapsed after v. 1. Days, months, years, millennia? Doesn't say. It just focused on the place that God prepares to dwell with his people... a fitting theme considering the generation that Genesis was written (Exodus crowd).

that makes more sense, but aren't we back to the same problem that if was a long time period between chapters 1/2, then we had death/disease/ etc before there was even the fall and sin entering into His creation?

 

[Greektim]

that makes more sense, but aren't we back to the same problem that if was a long time period between chapters 1/2, then we had death/disease/ etc before there was even the fall and sin entering into His creation?

Just to clarify, the period of time may or may not be long, and it is after 1:1 when creation happened.

Second, Moses was acquainted w/ ancient mythic creation accounts which was all about chaos being overcome and order established. That is what Gen. 1:2ff is all about. The "land" was a waste land in disaray. God forms out of it paradise, a place for him to dwell with his people.

Third, I recognize that problem, and that I don't have a good answer for it. But the biblical trajectory for me is not sin and death but rather God dwelling with his people in paradise. So it is not a question the Bible seeks to answer. Therefore, I don't speculate unless I must. I'm not willing to give up on this view and its immense biblical theological value b/c I can't square it well with my systematic theology.

 

[quantumfaith]

Just to clarify, the period of time may or may not be long, and it is after 1:1 when creation happened.

Second, Moses was acquainted w/ ancient mythic creation accounts which was all about chaos being overcome and order established. That is what Gen. 1:2ff is all about. The "land" was a waste land in disaray. God forms out of it paradise, a place for him to dwell with his people.

Third, I recognize that problem, and that I don't have a good answer for it. But the biblical trajectory for me is not sin and death but rather God dwelling with his people in paradise. So it is not a question the Bible seeks to answer. Therefore, I don't speculate unless I must. I'm not willing to give up on this view and its immense biblical theological value b/c I can't square it well with my systematic theology.

I appreciate VERY much your eloquence and honesty when you simply don't know how to "square it all". I really like Sailhammer's perspective on the "land" (eretz). However, I do think his critical (intellectually speaking) views on related science is horribly shallow. I think this is probably so, in order that he not get lost in the weeds relative to the theological points he wanted to make.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to clarify, the period of time may or may not be long, and it is after 1:1 when creation happened.

Second, Moses was acquainted w/ ancient mythic creation accounts which was all about chaos being overcome and order established. That is what Gen. 1:2ff is all about. The "land" was a waste land in disaray. God forms out of it paradise, a place for him to dwell with his people.

Third, I recognize that problem, and that I don't have a good answer for it. But the biblical trajectory for me is not sin and death but rather God dwelling with his people in paradise. So it is not a question the Bible seeks to answer. Therefore, I don't speculate unless I must. I'm not willing to give up on this view and its immense biblical theological value b/c I can't square it well with my systematic theology.

Moses might have known of other myths, but the creation account we have penned from him in genesis was revealed to him by God Himself, correct?

An the question of there being death and disorder with the good creation of God before the fall would seem to be unable to get around, and stay true to the entire bible!

 

[gb93433]

Since the world attacks the truths of scripture and not always a particular book why not study scripture to be able to explain what the text teaches rather than spend our time what others write who may or may not understand Jewish thinking of the time. Very few seminaries and professors teach about Judaism duringt the time period of scripture and how Jews thought. If one does a search he will notice that little has been written on the subject for about a 100 year period until recently. For one to understand scripture well it takes a clear understanding of the historical context of scripture in such a way to understand how the words and ideas were understood then.

For example the word immediately in Mark is used quite a lot. Understanding Judaism and how disciples were made helps to understand why those who were called followed Jesus immediately. Although Mt. 18:20 is often interpreted as prayer the background of that verse is discipleship in Judaism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since the world attacks the truths of scripture and not always a particular book why not study scripture to be able to explain what the text teaches rather than spend our time what others write who may or may not understand Jewish thinking of the time. Very few seminaries and professors teach about Judaism duringt the time period of scripture and how Jews thought. If one does a search he will notice that little has been written on the subject for about a 100 year period until recently. For one to understand scripture well it takes a clear understanding of the historical context of scripture in such a way to understand how the words and ideas were understood then.

For example the word immediately in Mark is used quite a lot. Understanding Judaism and how disciples were made helps to understand why those who were called followed Jesus immediately. Although Mt. 18:20 is often interpreted as prayer the background of that verse is discipleship in Judaism.

wasn't it a given though that the early Church, and the jewish peoples, would see Genesis in the light of it being a relative short period of time ago, and that it was to be ;iterally read and understood?

 

[Greektim]

wasn't it a given though that the early Church, and the jewish peoples, would see Genesis in the light of it being a relative short period of time ago, and that it was to be ;iterally read and understood?

I'm sure young-earthers would like that. But you fail to recognize one huge thing: they are eastern thinking people... ancient near eastern. You are modern western post-enlightenment type of thinker. It is hard for us to see through their lenses. "literal" was a vague concept for them I think. History was not a matter of chronology but of a drama playing itself out. When something happened was minor compared to what happened and how it affected them at their present.

 

[gb93433]

wasn't it a given though that the early Church, and the jewish peoples, would see Genesis in the light of it being a relative short period of time ago, and that it was to be ;iterally read and understood?

From what I know there were several accounts of creation circulating at the time and what is recorded in Genesis is setting the record straight that God created. When we step outside of what scripture actually teaches then it becomes our opinion and should be stated that way. If we step outside of what scripture teaches and make the claim that our opinion is what scripture teaches then we make the claim that scripture and our opinion are equivalent. That is when the world attacks what we believe and those who do not understand scripture are confused.

When I was a new believer I was a physics major in college and heard someone talk about the gap theory. It made no sense to me and from what I knew in science it made no sense at all. While trying to better understand that theory I found it fruitless and found that understanding scripture solved many attacks on Genesis.

To state that the earth is young or old is an opinion which does nothing to serve others in living for Jesus and making disciples. It does not serve to facilitate an understanding of Genesis in light of its historical context and how a person with a Jewish background at the time would have understood those verses. We can easily say "God created".

For example if we say God created everything then can we also say God created evil? If we say God created everything and that includes evil then must we qualify our statement so that an American understands how Jews thought. If we do not then then we leave that open to an interpretation an American would assume.

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." The background of this verse is how disciples of a rabbi were made. It has nothing to do with election.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

"literal" was a vague concept for them I think.

It would be nice for "old Earthers" to think that, I suppose. :smilewinkgrin:

The truth is quite the opposite. Hebrew is an extremely literal language. The meaning of Hebrew words are always based on something tangible. In contrast, Greek words are based on intangible and abstract ideas, many of which can be vague and opaque -- if not explained by metaphor, symbol or clear example. In fact, it is said that God laid the foundation of truth in His Law in the tangible Hebrew, then developed the abstract concepts of heart, spiritual and conscience values by moving His message of the Gospel and His Son into the abstract of the Greek.

A primary example is the Hebrew kapar -- atonement. In English, it means restitution, or reparation for a wrong or injury, and in religious terms means, repairing or making amends or expiation -- appeasement for sin, such as giving your neighbor $500 to "appease" him after backing your car into his new shrub pine and killing it. That's not what kapar means.

In Hebrew, kapar means, for example, if we say something rude, offensive, insulting or hurtful to someone, they are spiritual enough and enough like God to ignore the rudeness, neither returning harsh words for harsh words, anger for anger or insult for insult. It does not justify a retributive action with the criticism that the previous act was insulting or unjust. It never even acknowledges it. They never have to mention it again, not letting it eat on them, privately causing great pain and grief, thus making them treat us, the rude insulting person, differently after the insulting event.

Therefore, if we atone (kapar) for the offense, then that which the rude person we have covered and keep it hidden. It does not repair the offense, or deal with it at all, except for ignoring, covering and hiding it. If your nasty neighbor continues to offend, you may well be tempted to uncover the offense of long ago, bring it up and deal with all of them in one great angry revengeful attack. That’s not what God demands of us. He reserves vengeance for Himself.

Atonement in Hebrew simply means “cover” -- quite literally “to sweep it under the rug,” deciding to deal with it later.

And that is precisely what the blood of bulls and goats did with sins until Jesus came and His blood took them all away.

OK, so I know the subject of your post was whether or not Hebrew is to be taken literally, but this was all to illustrate that it must be taken literally. To be sure, there is figurative language in the Hebrew, but it required the Hebrew writers to think "outside the box" of their language and construct sentences that demanded a figurative interpretation. Genesis is not written in that manner. It is to be taken literally in every aspect of it's narrative.

 

[gb93433]

Genesis is not written in that manner. It is to be taken literally in every aspect of it's narrative.

Then what would you consider the tree to be in Genesis 2:9?