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.
It's amazing how much you can accuse others of not being faithful to God's word, when I'm the only one to have actually cited the Bible in reference to how it describes the shape of the earth. If you think you can provide an alternate biblical explanation that fits our 21st century perspective of the cosmos, by all means feel free.
Citing His Word doesn't in anyway imply or suggest that you are being faithful to it or that you are defending it. Rather you and others continually attempt to show how it isn't trustworthy and untrue by attempting to tear it down. You take your sacred truth of evolution and do everything in your capacity to defend it, even if it means tearing down the Truth of God's Word. I personally can't support anyone who considers themselves a Christian who is constantly attempting to find error or fault in God's Word. It would be one thing if you questioned it because of a lack of understanding, but sadly that's not the case. What is clear to me is that for the TE man's knowledge supercedes God's Word. This is why I no longer attempt to defend God's Word with TEs, it is only on rare occasion that I find a TE who loves the Word of God to the point they where they see it as superior to man's knowledge.
__________________ 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."
Citing His Word doesn't in anyway imply or suggest that you are being faithful to it or that you are defending it.
But suppose I proved a point using Scripture alone without any reference to contemporary science.
Surely you would agree with me that such a point would be Scriptural?
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Citing His Word doesn't in anyway imply or suggest that you are being faithful to it or that you are defending it. Rather you and others continually attempt to show how it isn't trustworthy and untrue by attempting to tear it down. You take your sacred truth of evolution and do everything in your capacity to defend it, even if it means tearing down the Truth of God's Word. I personally can't support anyone who considers themselves a Christian who is constantly attempting to find error or fault in God's Word. It would be one thing if you questioned it because of a lack of understanding, but sadly that's not the case. What is clear to me is that for the TE man's knowledge supercedes God's Word. This is why I no longer attempt to defend God's Word with TEs, it is only on rare occasion that I find a TE who loves the Word of God to the point they where they see it as superior to man's knowledge.
You talk a lot, but I'm still the only one here who has presented a cosmology fully supported by the Scriptures. And this isn't an invention of my own intended to defend evolution, as you say. The cosmology I presented is the same one accepted in one form or another by the Christian church for most of history, the details of which are given in this video series: BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT Science and Christian Education Page 1
The point is, the scientific concordism you espouse is bankrupt. The Bible obviously does not align with 21st century science, certainly not without twisting and distorting its intended meaning, as I showed juvie. Does that make the Bible untrustworthy? Only if you buy into the scientism of the atheists, who insist that the only true knowledge is that which aligns with science. Or you can opt for an accommodationist hermeneutic, which states that the Bible "is the Word of God given in the words of men in history", as G.E. Ladd put it. Christians, including yourself and peace4ever, have opted for the latter wherever the Bible references the shape and movement of the earth. I'm only suggesting you apply the principle consitently rather than selectively.
If you continue to reject an accommodationist approach in favour of a concordist approach, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe. Good luck with that.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
-- Charles Darwin
Last edited by Mallon; 10th June 2009 at 12:44 AM.
Citing His Word doesn't in anyway imply or suggest that you are being faithful to it or that you are defending it. Rather you and others continually attempt to show how it isn't trustworthy and untrue by attempting to tear it down. You take your sacred truth of evolution and do everything in your capacity to defend it, even if it means tearing down the Truth of God's Word. I personally can't support anyone who considers themselves a Christian who is constantly attempting to find error or fault in God's Word. It would be one thing if you questioned it because of a lack of understanding, but sadly that's not the case. What is clear to me is that for the TE man's knowledge supercedes God's Word. This is why I no longer attempt to defend God's Word with TEs, it is only on rare occasion that I find a TE who loves the Word of God to the point they where they see it as superior to man's knowledge.
We TE's are the ones who respect scripture enough to not make it say what we want it to say. No TE here is trying to tear down the Truth of God's word. We are trying to separate the "truth" of man's interpretation from the Truth that God intends. By pointing out how God's word is unsatisfactory for describing science rather than trying to retrofit the poetic and descriptive words in an out-of-context way to explain what we now know, we see scripture in a much purer sense.
Here's a picture of an ancient piece of clay stamped with a seal, juvie:
Notice that it is flat, like a pizza. The seal (called a bulla) is from Jerusalem and dates back 2000 years.
Now, do you really think that the author of Job was referring to the forces of gravity acting to gradually shape the globe (which occurs over millions of years, I might add)? Gravity wasn't even recognized as a force until the 16th and 17th centuries.
Or do you think that maybe -- just maybe -- the author of Job was referring to the bulla above, which was commonplace in his time and culture? Which scenario do you think illustrates the author's original intention? Which takes less twisting of the Scripture?
No. It is NOT flat. It has relief. That is the whole point of "clay under a seal".
We TE's are the ones who respect scripture enough to not make it say what we want it to say. No TE here is trying to tear down the Truth of God's word. We are trying to separate the "truth" of man's interpretation from the Truth that God intends. By pointing out how God's word is unsatisfactory for describing science rather than trying to retrofit the poetic and descriptive words in an out-of-context way to explain what we now know, we see scripture in a much purer sense.
If that shows how much faith you have, I am very sorry about it. In fact, I think it is quite s****d (no offense). If that were true, I don't want to trust that god.
No. It is NOT flat. It has relief. That is the whole point of "clay under a seal".
It's still a flat piece of clay, juvie.
Will you guys stop at nothing to deny the plain the meaning of Scripture? It's amazing how inconsistent your hermeneutic is: on the hand, arguing that Genesis must be read as a scientifically-accurate account of earth's creation; on the other hand, explaining away every reference the Bible makes to a flat-earth, geocentric universe. Does this kind of doublethink not bother you?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
If that shows how much faith you have, I am very sorry about it. In fact, I think it is quite s****d (no offense). If that were true, I don't want to trust that god.
I’d just like to point out that it in no way effects a mans faith in God if they see the Bible as being about man’s relationship with God and not as a science book.
.
__________________
The Universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects - Thomas Berry
The most excellent being in the universe is the universe itself. - Thomas Berry
If that shows how much faith you have, I am very sorry about it. In fact, I think it is quite s****d (no offense). If that were true, I don't want to trust that god.
I would argue that you are putting your faith and trust into the wrong things. Martin Luther showed great faith when he rejected Copernicus on biblical grounds; but that was a misdirected faith. Understand that I do not think that God holds that kind of faith is held against him (or you) - perfection in understanding is not a prerequisite for eternal life.
I think you would agree that the bible was NOT inspired for misuse; when you use it against its purposes it does not contain the same power. I do not believe that scientific concordism was intended or even implied for scripture, so I believe that to take it as so is to use scripture for uninspired purposes, and thus, ultimately empty.
Linear Mode
