When scripture teaches something, does that settle a matter, a belief and practice? If a naturalistic explanation clashes with a scriptural one, should the natural overrule the biblical? The virgin birth is not naturalistic. Should believers reject that event and teaching for a naturalistic explanation? Should men just receive what the Bible says happened?
New studies say that spanking isn’t good for children. The Bible says it is good. Should the Bible continue to rule on child rearing?
Naturalists say earth is billions of years old. The Bible says less than 10,000. What decides?
Linguists say there’s evidence the Hebrew language developed from other ancient ones. The Bible shows Hebrew the original language in the Garden of Eden. Is the Bible true?
Naturalism says that societal evolution advances egalitarianism. The Bible says God designed man as the head of the woman. What are we to think?
Naturalistic rules of textual criticism say that no one can be sure of the exact wording of the New Testament, neither was the text of the New Testament accessible for centuries. The Bible says God preserved and would preserve every Word of His Words for every generation of believer. Which should be trusted?
Taking a naturalistic position in denial of scriptural teaching is a faithless position. According to scripture it doesn’t please God.
When scripture teaches something, does that settle a matter, a belief and practice? If a naturalistic explanation clashes with a scriptural one, should the natural overrule the biblical? The virgin birth is not naturalistic. Should believers reject that event and teaching for a naturalistic explanation? Should men just receive what the Bible says happened?
( Men won't, but the true believer will receive it, because they trust in the living God and His words. See the discourse in John 6:26-71, noting especially that the true disciples confessed that Jesus had the words of eternal life, while the false ones walked away. )
New studies say that spanking isn't good for children. The Bible says it is good. Should the Bible continue to rule on child rearing?
( It should among believers, who are told to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. )
Naturalists say earth is billions of years old. The Bible says less than 10,000. What decides?
( God's word, of course. Who does the child of God trust…God, who cannot lie, or man, who does? )
Linguists say there's evidence the Hebrew language developed from other ancient ones. The Bible shows Hebrew the original language in the Garden of Eden. Is the Bible true?
( Where the Bible shows this I am unaware. Would you please provide Scriptural reference so that the reader may see where you have gained your understanding of this? )
Naturalism says that societal evolution advances egalitarianism. The Bible says God designed man as the head of the woman. What are we to think?
( Scripture, "naturally". )
Naturalistic rules of textual criticism say that no one can be sure of the exact wording of the New Testament, neither was the text of the New Testament accessible for centuries. The Bible says God preserved and would preserve every Word of His Words for every generation of believer. Which should be trusted?
( I'm hoping this is a rhetorical question. As for myself, I don't trust ANY degree of "textual criticism", because it ultimately seeks to put into doubt that God's words are to be found in any text today. )
Taking a naturalistic position in denial of scriptural teaching is a faithless position. According to scripture it doesn't please God.
( As I see it, according to Scripture it is clear evidence of unbelief and I agree that it is faithless and doesn't please God. )
Dave,
Adam spoke in Hebrew in Genesis 2 and he used a pun to describe his new wife, Eve, bone of my bones, that works only in the Hebrew. That's the earliest language and it is Hebrew. Hebrew wasn't a later development after Phoenecian, etc.
Thanks.
If you say so sir, but since Scripture does not state that Hebrew is the root language, then to me, there is some doubt. I'll take the objective view that if God didn't explicitly state it, then there's no absolute way to be sure.
In addition, I don't know that Adam spoke in Hebrew…from what I understand, Moses was given the first 5 books of the Bible to relay to God's people, and HE spoke what God inspired him to…which was Hebrew.
Best wishes.
Exo. 4:11 "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth?…have not I the LORD?" All of man's abilities are of divine origination. Human language didn't developed from a grunt it is given by God as a gift. God gave us language so that we can communicate literal truth to one another. Moreover, God communicates literal (rational, objective, verbal, propositional, revelational) truth to us through His inspired and preserved words. A God that communicates literal truth to man is the naturalists' worst nightmare. Language isn't just capable of conveying truth, it is the only vehicle for doing so.
Sir, I'll leave you with this…
This is what I would call the objective, "scientific" approach ( using the neutral power of observation combined with the strict statements of God's word ):
Adam spoke the original language, the same as that spoken before the languages were confused at Babel. After Babel, I know that the language eventually spoken by Abraham when he came out of Ur was probably the same as what Moses spoke when God gave him the 10 commandments as well as had him write down the inspired words of Genesis through Deuteronomy…Hebrew.
I disagree with the theory that Adam spoke Hebrew. Why? Because I do not see God's word anywhere specifically stating that what Adam spoke and what Moses and Abraham spoke were the same. To declare it as true is to take a leap of logic that is not supported by God's words, IMO. I also disagree with what I see as the theory that God always communicates everything in a rational way…which I will qualify with this:
" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."
Here I see that the natural mind ( which relies on its own ideas of "rationality" ) thinks that God's words and ways are foolishness to him; But the mind of the believer is always subject to God's very words, and not His words to our ideas of what's rational and what is not. If He says it, I believe it. I agree with Mr. Hardecker that God's truth is literal, and meant, at least in most places, to be literally understood ( for example, wisdom in Proverbs is not a literal woman, described as "she" ).
Finally, to me, the "naturalist" is nothing more than a member of rebellious, sinful mankind as a whole, who either resists God's word or dismisses it as unimportant to him. As I see it, Romans chapters 1-3 paint a very sobering and explicit picture of mankind's absolute rejection of God and His ways. He is a "naturalist", and functions according to what comes "naturally", which is according to the corrupt flesh and unregenerate nature….the "natural man".
Again, best wishes and good day.