You know, it’s quite odd.
I have heard a lot of debates in the last six or so months concerning the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. And, while they are all fascinating, in the end, I will be honest. I really don’t care.
I thought Kent Hovind had a pretty decent line of thinking, despite his tax problems and imprisonment, given one of my minister friends recommended him to me, and then I read about conspiracy theories supported by him. And brother Watts makes a good comment about just reading the text for its own merits.
I would have said the young earth views put forth by Bob Jones University and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, and as taught in our last school’s life science class. I thought Dake had a decent explanation of the gap theory. But there were other arguments against that.
Then there are the old earth people and evolutionists…
Does the dubious reputation of people like Hovind, Dake, and others really matter when hermenuting this passage? I mean, many of us were always taught to “eat the meat and spit out the bones” because so many ministers out there are full of bones. But perhaps the reputation and integrity of a minister does matter, even when speaking for God about His text.
The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, but can one walk in the fullness of all God has for that individual when s/he chooses to walk in a lifestyle contrary to that expounded in Scripture, “a life of holiness without which no one will see God?” Will the Lord of glory deign to permit our interpretations of Scripture to stand if sin colors our life? It is quite doubtful, because there is a larger issue in play than just one’s theology. Morality is connected to theology, because morality is what one practices, and morality/practice preaches more loudly than words.
But if we found a person or persons of character and integrity whom held to a young-earth view, could we yet trust that individual’s views as being biblically sound?
Perhaps.
I forgot who it was that said, “God has made the Bible so simple that a child can understand it and at the same time so deep a theologian can drown in it.” Perhaps if our interpretation is so complex that a child cannot understand it, then our interpretation needs revising. I also like the following two concepts with respect to hermenutics (hermenutics means “interpreting and understanding what the Bible says”)
1) Try to read the Bible for all its worth.
2) Try to get the plain sense of what is being said.
It seems there are a couple of definite places where it seems Jeremiah invokes creationary motifs, such as 4:23-26, and 31:35-37.
Thoughts?
For my view, the bible really doesn't cover creation, so all the debates of YEC or OEC etc… doesn't play well for me. Instead, I think that the bible's main concern is that we recognized that YHWH ALONE made and ordered the Cosmos for the zenith of His creation. That' you and me.
I think that if you are trying to pore over material for your own sake, then anything is fair game (so long as you really do have the discernment to spit out the bones), but when forming arguments, reputation matters. In the old testament, prophets were to be stoned for having a bad reputation. In the new testament, Paul certainly seems to care about the fortune-telling girl's reputation.
As long as the person on the receiving end of the argument also understands the principle of picking out the meat from the bones, our resources remain plentiful. But I don't do my faith credit if I build my arguments on those who have been called into question on related matters.
For me, this really comes down to knowing your audience. If I am talking to a highly rational person like a mathematician, then I might be able to cite someone in an argument about creation who has fanatical ideas about, say, government. But if I am talking with a person who has been badly hurt by governmental fanatics, I would do well to leave this authority out of my bibliography, even if he is the most highly esteemed of the field.
The Bible itself tells us about the sins and shortcomings of some of the very people who were at other times used to pen the Scripture. David, for instance, committed adultery, murder, etc. Yet at other times in his life he was used of God to write many of the Psalms and is referred to in the New Testament as a man after God's own heart. Problems or even sin issues in an individual's life doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw out their insight on Scripture if it is sound. One of the things that I am asking myself lately as I look at any doctrine of Scripture is, “How does this affect the Gospel?” I find that this helps as I study to show myself approved in the sight of God. Blessings, David.