Is CMI ‘in a dizzy’?
28 October 2005
Why do you place such a high burden of proof on Scripture? I accept The truths of the Bible without further requiring those truths to be factual. You are confusing truth and fact, something Jesus did not do when He spoke in parables, he was teaching us the truth without any regard for facts. Do you see what is happening, you are all in a dizzy about “proving” Scripture to be factual, because in your minds if it is not factual it cannot be true. This literalism that you are touting is a recent development in history, it came along in the age of scientific reasoning, but it was not in place when the Bible was written, you are not honoring the original intent of the authors of Scripture. You have filled up your web page with issues regarding evolution, but you have missed the point of Genesis; God created the world and it is good. You are being deceived, and therefore distracted. Grace & Peace
Why do you place such a high burden of proof on Scripture?
If you had read our site somewhat, you wouldn’t have to ask this. Our feedback rules, which include a requirement to search our site first, are for the benefit of inquirers too!
I accept the truths of the Bible without further requiring those truths to be factual.
So are you implying that what you accept are actually lies? This sounds like the scientifically and ethically discredited atheistic anti-creationist Ian Plimer, who came up with the following gem, ‘In my view, the Bible is not true. However, it is the Truth.’
According to Dictionary.com, The primary meaning of truth is ‘Conformity to fact or actuality.’ And the thesaurus on the site lists truth and fact among each other’s synonyms. Or to put it another way, truth is the lack of deceit or distortion of fact. Consequently, truth is synonymous with fact. If you accept something as truth, you must also accept it as fact.
For example, while it is not a truthful statement, it is a fact that Jim told Jane that he has three ears. It is not only a fact, but also the truth of the matter, that Jim—like most of us—actually has only two ears. Jim may have lied to—or was teasing—Jane, but that does not negate the fact and truth that he said what he said.
Conversely, if Jane accepts the truth that Jim has two ears, it is a mandatory acceptance of the fact that he does indeed only have two ears.
You are confusing truth and fact,
As illustrated in the above example, truth and fact are synonymous. The confusion is only in your own mind, an example of lib-speak—the equivocation of words in an attempt to confuse the listener or reader into accepting a ‘liberal’ point of view.
something Jesus did not do when He spoke in parables, he was teaching us the truth without any regard for facts.
Actually, parables in Scripture are clearly stated as such, whereas Genesis is plainly treated throughout the Scriptures as historical literature. And Matt. 13:10 ff., Mark 4:11–12 and Luke 8:10 explain why Jesus spoke in parables—to hide the truth from the unbelieving masses. Jesus spoke in parables after the religious leaders accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12, Mark 3). But these passages also explain that Jesus spoke plainly to His disciples.
Conversely, Genesis has the literary structure of Hebrew historical narrative, as we have often explained.
The Scripture is God’s Word to man, designed to teach us (2 Timothy 3:15–17), so He wants us to understand Him, as also explained in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9, as I’ve explained to another post-modernist.
Do you see what is happening, you are all in a dizzy about “proving” Scripture to be factual,
No we are not, as you would have realized with even a cursory glance at our website. We are NOT trying to ‘prove the Bible’, because by definition, proof is going from an authoritative premise to a less authoritative conclusion. Yet we regard the Bible as providing a set of axioms from which to deduce theorems, including those required for science. If we were to try to prove the Bible with science, we would be making science authoritative, whereas biblical theology is the ‘queen of science’. See Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’ When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way
because in your minds if it is not factual it cannot be true.
Rather, it is your mind that invents a way of being true while having nothing to do with facts, as well as the implied straw man that we are unaware of figures of speech etc. in the Bible. However, the Bible is God’s propositional revelation, or facts about things. And if the Bible can’t be trusted when it makes factual assertions about the earth, e.g. its history and that of life upon it, then why should it be trusted about heavenly assertions (cf. Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus in John 3:12)?
We are not touting ‘literalism’ but a plain reading—in fact we have explicitly stated that the Bible should be interpreted according to the original understanding, which you wrongly claim we ignore. So we interpret parables as parables, poetry as poetry, figures of speech as figures of speech, and history as history. See Should Genesis be taken literally?
that you are touting is a recent development in history, it came along in the age of scientific reasoning, but it was not in place when the Bible was written,
Completely and utterly false (if what you misleadingly call ‘literalism’ is an understanding of Genesis as history), as amply proved by the way the Genesis 1–11 was understood by Jesus, the rest of the Bible and supported by the understandings of Josephus, eminent Jewish commentators and the Church Fathers and Reformers. In fact, it was the compromise positions such as yours that were invented as a reaction to Enlightenment (endarkenment!)-inspired uniformitarian ‘science’, as shown in Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related?
you are not honoring the original intent of the authors of Scripture. You have filled up your web page with issues regarding evolution, but you have missed the point of Genesis; God created the world and it is good.
Then why didn’t Genesis 1 confine itself to verses 1 and 31? Why go into all that detail about the timeframe and sequence? And how is the world ‘good’ if it has sin and its consequence, ‘the last enemy’, death? Your idea entails that God called death, bloodshed, suffering and cancer ‘all very good’—see The god of an old earth. All critics need to become familiar with one of the major problems with compromise—ignoring the Fall—see The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe.
You are being deceived, and therefore distracted.
Unfortunately, you deceive yourself, and are therefore distracted from a true picture of Jesus, which is found only in Scripture.
Grace & Peace
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.