Textbook Misleading Many Seminary and Bible College Students

[Yeshua1]

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.

When one come to the text in Genesis itself, and reads and studies it, the case for the younger creation, no gaps, no evolutionary processes are right there spelled out...

The problem comes when one first takes as 'accepted" scientific "facts" concerning dating/evolution, and then try to have the texts address and accomodate them!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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

There are actually two trees in that verse: The Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. My take is they are literal trees. Note that there is at least a "Tree of Life" planted in heaven. Revelation 2:7, 22:2 and 22:14 indicate those in heaven will eat from it. It is unlikely this is the original Tree of Life, as the curse of the ground would have affected it as well as all other plants on Earth.

The phraseology in both the Hebrew and the Greek do not indicate euphemistic language regarding either tree, therefore while both are types -- the Tree of Knowledge being a type for disobedience. God warned Adam not to eat from that tree. He failed to heed this, and further failed to protect his wife by warning her of God's judgment. By eating of the tree, they gained knowledge of good and evil by experiencing good and evil through their choices.

The Tree of Life is a type for the love and salvation of God.

 

[Van]

Nevermind if YEC or OEC cannot be squared with scripture. Job 38 teaches we were not there, and we do not know. The textbook being addressed in the OP is a Calvinist screed. Why would anyone worry about how misleading it is?

 

[Rippon]

The textbook being addressed in the OP is a Calvinist screed.

Dr. Millard Erickson denies particular redemption. It's rather hard to be labeled a Calvinist --even a moderate one, by denying that central component.

So Van, as usual, you are ... wrong.:type:

 

[Van]

Anyone who denies Millard Erickson is a Calvinist has not read his book.

While avowedly Calvinistic in his soteriology, holding firmly to total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints, at two points Erickson deviates from the Dortian stream. He makes a stark distinction between effectual calling and regeneration, placing conversion between them in the application of salvation. This ties in with a universal atonement which is effectual to none except those who receive it by faith. He admits that thisview is also espoused by Arminians but, nevertheless, believes it to be biblical. A reading of Chapter 28 in J. P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology will provide a helpful critique of the position he espouses.

 

[Rippon]

Anyone who denies Millard Erickson is a Calvinist has not read his book.

Can one legitimately be called a Calvinist who denies particular redemption?

 

[Van]

Yes, only 5 point Calvinists deny that 4 or 3 point Calvinists are Calvinists. Word games to change the subject from the man-made doctrines of Calvinism. Been there, done that.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, only 5 point Calvinists deny that 4 or 3 point Calvinists are Calvinists.

Oh, so as an Arminian/semi-Pelagian you get to decide who meets Calvinistic requirements!

Word games to change the subject from the man-made doctrines of Calvinism. Been there, done that.

Are you saying that you were once a Calvinist?

 

[Greektim]

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.

That is not at all what I meant. But I doubt very much you understand Hebrew enough to talk intelligently on this. Words of course have literal meanings. But stories, books, myths, whatever... they have a different point or purpose than you or I perceive.

And so I wonder, what is guiding that final statement that Genesis is "not written in that manner. It is to be taken literally..."? How do you know that? I think it far more consistent to consider Genesis through the lens of Ancient Near Eastern culture that mythologized story rather than think everything was about the event recorded. For them, the story was important, not the event. The chronology wasn't important, but the theology behind the story. In this case, Israel's God is the creator and overcomer of chaos and wilderness and has prepared a promised land for his people.

 

[Greektim]

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.

From comparative religion standpoint of ancient myths, the most you might say of the Genesis account is that it is simply one of many other similar ways to describe creation by a deity. What makes Genesis unique is that it is ascribed to the God of Israel, YHWH. We of course take this account to be inspired by God. But that doesn't mean Moses (or whoever) was not influenced by the cultural milieu of his day.

 

[Greektim]

There are actually two trees in that verse: The Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. My take is they are literal trees. Note that there is at least a "Tree of Life" planted in heaven. Revelation 2:7, 22:2 and 22:14 indicate those in heaven will eat from it. It is unlikely this is the original Tree of Life, as the curse of the ground would have affected it as well as all other plants on Earth.

The phraseology in both the Hebrew and the Greek do not indicate euphemistic language regarding either tree, therefore while both are types -- the Tree of Knowledge being a type for disobedience. God warned Adam not to eat from that tree. He failed to heed this, and further failed to protect his wife by warning her of God's judgment. By eating of the tree, they gained knowledge of good and evil by experiencing good and evil through their choices.

The Tree of Life is a type for the love and salvation of God.

Hard to take you seriously when you see Rev. 21-22 as heaven. It's new creation! Heaven on earth! Paradise! God's dwelling is now with humanity, not the other way around!!! How can you suppose to speak with authority when you neglect such a basic yet important truth???

 

[quantumfaith]

From comparative religion standpoint of ancient myths, the most you might say of the Genesis account is that it is simply one of many other similar ways to describe creation by a deity. What makes Genesis unique is that it is ascribed to the God of Israel, YHWH. We of course take this account to be inspired by God. But that doesn't mean Moses (or whoever) was not influenced by the cultural milieu of his day.

:applause::applause:

 

[Revmitchell]

From comparative religion standpoint of ancient myths, the most you might say of the Genesis account is that it is simply one of many other similar ways to describe creation by a deity. What makes Genesis unique is that it is ascribed to the God of Israel, YHWH. We of course take this account to be inspired by God. But that doesn't mean Moses (or whoever) was not influenced by the cultural milieu of his day.

Statements like this is why liberals have no credibility when it comes to scripture. None at all.

 

[Deacon]

Statements like this is why liberals have no credibility when it comes to scripture. None at all.

Rev, so I guess you might say, ignorance is next to godliness?

Rob

 

[Greektim]

Statements like this is why liberals have no credibility when it comes to scripture. None at all.

Hmmmm... do I want to be deemed credible from a fundamentalist? Nah... I'm good.

 

[Aaron]

From comparative religion standpoint of ancient myths, the most you might say of the Genesis account is that it is simply one of many other similar ways to describe creation by a deity.

And, from that standpoint (one of unbelief) the most you might say of the Gospels is that Christ was simply one of many other similar religious figures.

What makes Genesis unique is that it is ascribed to the God of Israel, YHWH. We of course take this account to be inspired by God.

What makes Genesis unique is that it is true, and Christ, the Creator, appealed to the truth of it more than once. "Have ye not read . . . ?"

But from the stand point of the unbeliever, that might have been just the cultural influence on Jesus.

But that doesn't mean Moses (or whoever) was not influenced by the cultural milieu of his day.

We're told that Moses came out of Egypt. That he fled and spent many a year in cultural detox, if you will. And we're told that God spoke to Moses, and that Moses spoke to God "face to face," and that Moses face glowed for a while after being in God's presence.

So the question is, does one believe these accounts or not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, only 5 point Calvinists deny that 4 or 3 point Calvinists are Calvinists. Word games to change the subject from the man-made doctrines of Calvinism. Been there, done that.

Hate to have to wake you up, but ALL here hold to some form of "man made" doctrines, as NONE since the Apostolic age have been interpreting and writting down theology with inspiration!

 

[Yeshua1]

Can one legitimately be called a Calvinist who denies particular redemption?

Wou;dn't Dr Erickson actually be an Amyraldist, and haves't that view been acknowledge as being within calvinism, like a sub group of it?

 

[gb93433]

From comparative religion standpoint of ancient myths, the most you might say of the Genesis account is that it is simply one of many other similar ways to describe creation by a deity. What makes Genesis unique is that it is ascribed to the God of Israel, YHWH. We of course take this account to be inspired by God. But that doesn't mean Moses (or whoever) was not influenced by the cultural milieu of his day.

That is my point about Genesis and creation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hmmmm... do I want to be deemed credible from a fundamentalist? Nah... I'm good.

Fundamentalist actually do have the correct views though regarding the insperation/inerrancy of the scriptures...

Now can disagree with how they have interpreted them, but not their views on what the scriptures are!

Are you saying that Moses complied together all various creation accounts, and God inspired to him to record genesis down based upon that?