Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Which raises the question of what you mean whan you talk about scientific evidence. If you don't believe in it to begin with, then calling on it would be hypocritical, right?
This is pretty simple to answer; I believe in scientific evidence if it doesn't conflict with the Word of God.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
So you see evidence in the Bible, not in science. Science is irrelevant.
As such, if you make claims about science, science that you ignore as inconsequential anyway, then the argument is hypocritical.
__________________ Geology: fossils in different ages To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So you see evidence in the Bible, not in science. Science is irrelevant.
I have no idea of what you're talking about. Nowhere did I say science is irrelevant; why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? You seem to make a habit of that.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
This is pretty simple to answer; I believe in scientific evidence if it doesn't conflict with the Word of God.
To be more accurate:
you believe the truthfulness of scientific evidence when it does not conflict with YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.
sad, because this function of general revelation to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture is lost, thus not allowing the two books of God to be read in concert, each stimulating and correcting each other.
Where is Jerusalem? Where is the Garden of Eden?
How do you know? are there GPS co-ordinates to the Temple Mount encoded somewhere in the Tanak? You think you know where Jerusalem is because of general revelation, not special. You rely on atlases, people's testimony, history to establish the overwhelming probability that a certain city known to the world as Jerusalem is in fact the same Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible. Yet you have no proof from the Bible itself about where is Jerusalem.
the location of the Garden of Eden is lost to general revelation. There is no general agreement as to whether it existed or not or where that place would be today.
You use scientific evidence constantly in your reading of Scripture, most of it completely unaware to you. Where is? What does this word mean?
Your interpretation of Scripture is in fact, completely embedded in an interpretation of general revelation that acts as a grid, supporting and giving specific meaning to the words you read in Scripture. The only time anyone is really aware of the complexity and necessity of this grid is where the two: general and special revelation begin to get out of sync with one another.
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
Forgive me Willtor, I'm certainly not trying to be unreasonable but you made three statements or claims that I asked you to support. You didn't answer any of those questions, at least as far as I could tell. Instead you gave me more stuff to understand and disect. I really don't know how else I'm to approach this.
Help me out here.
No prob. I tried to say too much in one post thinking you knew the context.
Originally Posted by vossler
I've never heard that story before...quite interesting, but how is that applicable?
The story is applicable because you had one man who thought he was relying solely on Scripture, and another man who thought he was relying on Scripture coupled with orthodox doctrine and understanding (and not a little human reason). However, having signed the Nicene Creed, you have identified yourself with the second man. Thus, my conclusion that you believe there are authorities besides Scripture.
Originally Posted by vossler
No I would not, especially in matters of faith. Excuse my simplemindedness, but I just don't see where you're going with this.
Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity over and against Arianism requires authority besides the Scriptures. At the very least, it requires reason. Realize that these same Church fathers, who defended the orthodoxy, used their human reason, believing that this was part of what was meant by "in the image of God." In fact, without reason, accepting the Bible as an authority is an arbitrary action.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To be more accurate:
you believe the truthfulness of scientific evidence when it does not conflict with YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.
No rm, that would mean we each could have our own interpretation of Scripture based upon the worldview we carry. I believe there is only one method of biblical interpretation and it uses hermaneutics that are well established and reliable.
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
sad, because this function of general revelation to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture is lost, thus not allowing the two books of God to be read in concert, each stimulating and correcting each other.
You sure are taking a lot of liberty here. Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture. I could go with supplement like in helping us understand, but not amending or correcting, that's taking far too much liberty. God's word is not in need of an amendment and/or correction. This is just a way for man to bring his version of events along side God's and then supercede His.
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
Where is Jerusalem? Where is the Garden of Eden?
How do you know? are there GPS co-ordinates to the Temple Mount encoded somewhere in the Tanak? You think you know where Jerusalem is because of general revelation, not special. You rely on atlases, people's testimony, history to establish the overwhelming probability that a certain city known to the world as Jerusalem is in fact the same Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible. Yet you have no proof from the Bible itself about where is Jerusalem.
One key thing, no where does this 'general revelation' supercede Scripture, it just supplements it.
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
You use scientific evidence constantly in your reading of Scripture, most of it completely unaware to you. Where is? What does this word mean?
Your interpretation of Scripture is in fact, completely embedded in an interpretation of general revelation that acts as a grid, supporting and giving specific meaning to the words you read in Scripture. The only time anyone is really aware of the complexity and necessity of this grid is where the two: general and special revelation begin to get out of sync with one another.
I agree completely...I have no problem with these assertions.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
No prob. I tried to say too much in one post thinking you knew the context.
That’s o.k., I’m just not as learned as you are so you’ll have to keep things simple for me.
Originally Posted by Willtor
The story is applicable because you had one man who thought he was relying solely on Scripture, and another man who thought he was relying on Scripture coupled with orthodox doctrine and understanding (and not a little human reason). However, having signed the Nicene Creed, you have identified yourself with the second man. Thus, my conclusion that you believe there are authorities besides Scripture.
I only believe in the Nicene Creed because it is based solely upon the Scriptures, therefore it isn’t an authority outside of Scripture.
Originally Posted by Willtor
Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity over and against Arianism requires authority besides the Scriptures. At the very least, it requires reason.
The doctrine of the Trinity is based solely on the Bible and doesn’t require anything outside of it. I suppose you could make the argument that it requires reason, but that isn’t authority.
Originally Posted by Willtor
Realize that these same Church fathers, who defended the orthodoxy, used their human reason, believing that this was part of what was meant by "in the image of God." In fact, without reason, accepting the Bible as an authority is an arbitrary action.
I don’t fully understand where this is going, but I can accept everything you said here, at least as far as I understand it.
Still, how does this relate to an authority outside of Scripture and how is faith related? Is reason the authority you’re referring to?
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
Last edited by vossler; 15th July 2006 at 07:01 PM.
I believe there is only one method of biblical interpretation and it uses hermaneutics that are well established and reliable.
denominationalism
and the discussions here are sufficient to disprove that proposition. it is at best an unobtainable goal, at worse, an illusion that appears to be true yet is deadly wrong. (if it is true the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not and some group like LDS or JW's are the only true Christians)
Where did God ever instruct us that general revelation was to amend and/or correct our interpretations of Scripture.
where is Jerusalem?
if you believe that it is in Antarctica, buried underneath tons of snow, then you are wrong, not on the bases of things you claim about Scripture but on the bases of errors in how you do history.
what does the word hesed mean? if your system of Biblical interpretation believes it to mean how Jerusalem ended up underneath the glaciers of Antarctica then again, your Biblical interpretation is wrong, and needs correction from linguistics, a field in general revelation.
__________________ i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.
thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.
denominationalism
and the discussions here are sufficient to disprove that proposition. it is at best an unobtainable goal, at worse, an illusion that appears to be true yet is deadly wrong. (if it is true the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not and some group like LDS or JW's are the only true Christians)
You know its quite fascinating how everyone agrees as to what the Bible says, but less and less people agree to what it means. It then becomes a convienient way out for people to avoid submitting to the Word of God, as it was written and as it was meant to be submitted to. In other words each person can become the judge of what Scripture means. So when it says something, then each person could easily come up with their own private interpretation of each biblical passage, which therefore leads to the same for each command and promise of the Bible. The net effect of that is a neat situation where everyone becomes their own God with their own private interpretations of right and wrong. The power of choice allows people to have Scripture conform to their lifestyles as opposed to their lifestyles conforming to Scripture. Not that this would be limited to lifestyle choices only.
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
where is Jerusalem?
if you believe that it is in Antarctica, buried underneath tons of snow, then you are wrong, not on the bases of things you claim about Scripture but on the bases of errors in how you do history.
what does the word hesed mean? if your system of Biblical interpretation believes it to mean how Jerusalem ended up underneath the glaciers of Antarctica then again, your Biblical interpretation is wrong, and needs correction from linguistics, a field in general revelation.
Like I said and you fail to acknowledge, I have no problem with general revelation as long as it doesn't amend and/or correct Scripture. In the example you provided, it clearly doesn't.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
Notice that this could be done without any evidence outside of man's direct and undoctored understanding.
What exactly does this mean?
The very existence of His creation and its invisible attributes was sufficient.
The verse is talking about God's invisible attributes, not Creation's.
No explanation was required. Yet today, with evolution, an explanation is required.
Explanation for what? The How of Creation? Well the Bible doesn't tell us how. Or perhaps you mean an explanation for Who and Why. Again (and I don't know how often this needs to be repeated) evolution is a scientific theory, it is not an excuse for Atheism. Those who think it is, simply don't understand how science should interact with faith.
So creation was a testimony of the glory of God, His power, divinity and His invisible attributes, it was not a license to speculation.
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how God is revealed in scripture and in nature. Both are the work of God, both are authoritative. Your theology is not on the same authortitative footing as scripture, it may be wrong. Just as science may be wrong about what it purports to reveal about creation.
God gave us inquiring minds, he commanded Adam to fill the earth and subdue it. How can you subdue something you do not understand? The Creation Mandate is our licence to speculate.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Linear Mode
