Removing the stumbling-block

Vance · #1 28th August 2003, 08:02 PM

I know it is not wholly kosher to post long quotes from other sources, but this is not too long, and it happens to say what I would say very well. It is by Dr. Hugh Ross (a real Phd in Astrophysics), a Christian Creationist (anti-evolution, but "old earth"), and is something all Christians interested in this topic should read. It is actually an introduction to a book called "A New Look at an Old Earth". I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross believes, or everything included in the book, but what Ross writes here is very good. I added a couple of small notes in brackets which I think clarifies what he is saying.

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for God's Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.

Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read."

Sinai · #2 28th August 2003, 09:23 PM

Thanks, Vance. Once again you have posted a well reasoned and thought provoking article. It also parallels some of the problems I have encountered while witnessing to others for Christ. The perceptions created by many well-meaning young earth creationists may have added additional stumbling blocks to winning to Christ many scientists and other persons who are well educated in science.

Serapha · #3 29th August 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

I know it is not wholly kosher to post long quotes from other sources, but this is not too long, and it happens to say what I would say very well. It is by Dr. Hugh Ross (a real Phd in Astrophysics), a Christian Creationist (anti-evolution, but "old earth"), and is something all Christians interested in this topic should read. It is actually an introduction to a book called "A New Look at an Old Earth". I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross believes, or everything included in the book, but what Ross writes here is very good. I added a couple of small notes in brackets which I think clarifies what he is saying.

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for God's Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.

Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read."

Let me see if I have summed this up correctly... If I sell out to what YOU believe... which is a pick and choose application of interpreting the Bible... then people are going to believe my testimony....

they aren't going to question that my witness includes the statement that there must be contradictions in the Bible... of course, none pertaining to Christ... because with the pick and choose method, I can chose which passages are to be taken literally and which one to pitch out of the book.

The biggest problem I see with your application is that I wouldn't know when there was a lie and when the truth was being posted.

Like.. was jonah inside the big fish for three days or not????

Christ referened Jonah being in the belly of the fish for three days. Was Christ telling the truth.... is the book of Jonah the truth... or is there some reason that both the author of Jonah and Christ were lying?

Can a man live inside a fish for three days and three nights and still survive the ordeal? Science says "no"... God (Christ) says "yes"... so who is right?

You arguments on interpreation don't hold water, and your added notes are just that... your interpretation of what this author means to say...

Instead of interpreting WHAT the author meant... I sent an email tonight asking the author what he did mean to say.

Now... isn't it better to go to the source rather than intepret what he meant to say? The fact is, unless you are Dr. Ross, you don't know what he is thinking in that comments... you are speculating on what he is thinking.

~malaka~

Vance · #4 29th August 2003, 11:31 AM

Malaka:

You are worried about the slippery slope of interpretation. But the problem with that argument is that you *do* interpret every time you read the Bible, and Christians have throughout its history. It is easy to say you are going to stick with a literal, plain reading . . . well, except for *that* . . . and, um *that* . . . oh, and I see *that* as well . . .

Listen, here is how I consider the "slippery slope" argument. If you are at the top of the slope at the moment, and the Truth lies half way down the slope, do you remain at the top of the slope where you are "safe" or do you attempt to reach the Truth, even though you know you must be careful not to slip past it? I say you move toward the Truth, just make sure you have shoes with good traction.

You have shown a number of occasions yourself where you do not just accept the plain, literal reading, but insist on applying some interpretive process in order to fit with your ideas. And you are not alone in this. How do you think we have hundreds of different belief systems (on important issues like the trinity, assurance of salvation, baptism, etc, etc, etc) within the Church itself, all among groups that sincerely believe that the Scripture is the inerrant word of God? Even among those who insist on a plain and literal reading of Scripture we have siginficant discrepancies of what those Scriptueres literally mean. If the "plain" meaning was so plain, we would have one unified belief on every point of Christian theology. I think you must believe that if everyone would just accept the Bible as literal and a plain message, we would not have these differences, but this is VERY wrong. Interpretation is an inherent part of being a Christian. Messy, it is true, but you can't get around it.

Of course, you can say that every person other than you and those who have taught you are just not fully being led by the Spirit in their interpretations, but all those other dedicated Christians would beg to differ and would likely say the same about you and your group. I would not say anything of the sort since I am not that arrogant and prideful in my understanding of God's word.

And, of course, it is not a pick and choose situation. As I said, I start with what I deem to be the most literal reading and then only come off of that reading when there is a VERY good reason to. Even then, I am not dogmatic about my interpretation. Again, that would be very prideful and asking for the same dressing down that Job got when he adopted that attitude that he knew all about God and His ways.

Right now, one group chooses to interpret Genesis as talking about a Creation is six 24-hour days. That interpretation is a choice, based on their reading of the text. I believe it is very likely an incorrect interpretation based on my reading of the text and looking at the clear evidence of the world God created around us. That is another choice. I would like to think that neither is just "picking and choosing" since this implies a lack of seriousness and sincerity in the process.

The danger does not lie in selective interpretations watering down the validity of Scripture. The danger lies in one group believing that it's interpretation is the ONLY possible one and teaching their children that a failure to believe that interpretation is a failure to believe the Bible.

Serapha · #5 29th August 2003, 11:46 PM

Vance,

You have no authority to interpret what any author intended to say, and then to publish it on this forum as "truth".

For THAT, you should be removed from the forum.... not just warned or reprimaned.

It certainly is a practice that you need to cease doing.

Should I receive a reply to the email, I will post it with the permission of the author. Until then, I sugest that you cease translating what a preface to a book meant to say.

~malaka~

LewisWildermuth · #6 30th August 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Malaka

The biggest problem I see with your application is that I wouldn't know when there was a lie and when the truth was being posted.

Like.. was Jonah inside the big fish for three days or not????

Is it a miracle or not? Is there a fish that a man could survive in for three days? Is there even a fish big enough to swallow a man whole in the area around Israel?

Christ referened Jonah being in the belly of the fish for three days. Was Christ telling the truth.... is the book of Jonah the truth... or is there some reason that both the author of Jonah and Christ were lying?

Jonah could be completely myth and Jesus would not be lying when he compared with it.

If I say, "I'm going to lasso the moon just like Pecos Bill." and I somehow manage to lasso the moon, it doesn't mean I was lying at all, just using a mythic event to help people understand what I was going to do.

This is one of the dangers of Creationism/Literalism, a constant tying of ones belief to things that can be falsified.

"If the sky is not blue then there is no God." for example.

Say some Bible verse said that God made the sky blue, if one takes this literally then finds out the sky is not blue, that the blue color is only a trick of light does this disprove God?

I say no, it only disproves a faulty interpretation.

Here is another example that is out of the Bible.

Jesus refers to the mustard seed as the least of seeds, so using a strict literalist translation we must say that Jesus was lying if in some way the mustard seed is not the least of all seeds.

Now is the mustard seed the least in any way we can measure? No.

So Jesus is a liar... Unless you take one of two simple ways out.

1. The mustard seed is the least in some aspect that only God can measure.

2. Jesus was being non-literal here and using something he knew to be false, but sounded good at the time, to make a point, the point is not reliant on the seed being the least in anything.

Choice #1 is much like calling something a miracle, it removes the statement from scientific scrutiny.

Choice #2 is a simple non-literal translation, just like T.E.'s use in Genesis.

I have never heard of someone endorsing choice #1 or anyone loosing their faith over the mustard seed issue, or of people denying the existence of seeds smaller than the mustard seed, so it seems that even the hardest core YEC's and literalists accept that a non-literal translation is sometimes the best one.

Can a man live inside a fish for three days and three nights and still survive the ordeal? Science says "no"... God (Christ) says "yes"... so who is right?

Well if it is a miracle then science does not say no at all. It says, "It was a miracle and we cannot explain it."

If you are asking if there is a fish that a man could survive in without the aide of a miracle then and only then will science say no.

You arguments on interpreation don't hold water, and your added notes are just that... your interpretation of what this author means to say...

Instead of interpreting WHAT the author meant... I sent an email tonight asking the author what he did mean to say.

Now... isn't it better to go to the source rather than interpret what he meant to say? The fact is, unless you are Dr. Ross, you don't know what he is thinking in that comments... you are speculating on what he is thinking.

~malaka~

Sure, that would be great, do you happen to have Moses’ email address? How about Jesus? Any of the speakers or authors of the Bible?

No?

Then I guess our interpretations are the best we have, and since it is only an interpretation made by us, mere mortals, then it is just as fallible as we are.

nephilimiyr · #7 30th August 2003, 01:52 AM

I'm sorry vance but your belief in theistic evolution has put a stumbling block in our way. I know you see yourself as more knowledgeable and more enlightened then us, free from any stumbling block in your path but your sitting right on top of that block proclaiming truth. Why can't you see that?

Ark Guy · #8 30th August 2003, 10:21 AM

Vance posted:
This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers.

...come on vance. Do you really believe that rhetoric? I don't.

You paint the YEC's as bad guys. Community dividers, hostile attackers.

Perhaps you have some evidence to support your accusitions.

Of couse it is the bible that says six days....in 4 places.
It is the bible that says Adam was formed from the dust in both the Old and New Testament.
It is the bible that says Eve was formed second from Adams side.

Generally speaking...the bible is YOUNG EARTH. Now you have the right to disagree Vance...but to label the YEC's in the manner you did above is shamefull...especially considering the fact tht it is the YEC's who are reading the bible and believing what is written. It is the Theo-Evos that have to RE-WRITE Genesis to fit their interpretation of mans fallible science.

On more point...even the early Christians were young earth.

So Vance, I ask that you kindly retract your statement.

obediah001 · #9 30th August 2003, 10:31 AM

Vance is an amazing fellow is he not? He jumps threads like a sinking ship; where he goes nobody knows but we can be sure what he will be opposed to wherever he goes, YEC's.

obediah001 · #10 30th August 2003, 10:33 AM

Hugh Ross's understanding of the Bible is sooo out of context it is hard to believe anyone other than the left likes him.