| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
11th June 2009, 12:39 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
51     
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by shernren  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?
On the surface yes, but with the TE there is always more below the surface.  Originally Posted by Mallon 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
Accepted by who? Liberal theologians and pastors, certainly not conservative and orthodox Christians. 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.
The Bible most certainly aligns with 21st century science without having to twist or distort anything. The problem is that TEs treat the Bible the same way atheists and other non believers do. They dismiss it because it doesn't align with man centered thinking. I don't understand how any TE can possibly call the Bible the Word of God when they believe parts of it are false. 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.
I don't have to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe, it is you, who believes that it doesn't, who must show that it doesn't. This isn't as simple as how most unbelievers make it, the truth of God's Word is penetrating and not easily dismissed, especially by God's people. The problem is, your primary weapon to dismiss the Truth of God's Word is conjecture and speculation; that is nothing but sinking sand. Is it any wonder the ideas which support your theory need to be continually adjusted and/or changed while God's Word continues to stand firm. Originally Posted by crawfish 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.
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. TEs may not be knowingly tearing down the truth of God's Word, but they certainly are doing so practically. The only reason some feel God's Word is unsatisfactory for describing science is because they've already put their faith in man and his knowledge over God. Yes you see scripture in a purer sense, sadly however it is a purely human sense.
__________________
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." |
11th June 2009, 01:29 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29  
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by vossler Accepted by who? Liberal theologians and pastors, certainly not conservative and orthodox Christians.
Conservative and orthodox Christians were the ones who clung most strongly to the cosmology I just showed you. See the writings of Luther, Calvin, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Lactantius, Philipp Melanchthon, etc. Again, you can hear some of what they had to say concerning the state the earth in the video series I posted earlier. The Bible most certainly aligns with 21st century science without having to twist or distort anything.
As I have shown in this thread, it clearly doesn't. Simply insisting otherwise doesn't change that. The problem is that TEs treat the Bible the same way atheists and other non believers do. They dismiss it because it doesn't align with man centered thinking.
Dismissing the Bible as a science textbook is not equivalent to dismissing the Bible. What evolutionary creationists are trying to do is to understand God's true intent for the Bible. Obviously, as I have shown here, God did not intend for the Bible to be read in accordance with science, for if He had, He would have done a much better job of it. Saying throughout that the earth does not move while the sun does simply does not align with what we know to be true from God's creation.
So what was God's true intent in inspiring the Bible? The following passages convey a wholly spritual intent related to man's salvation through Christ, not simply to conceal scientific easter eggs in its pages for creation "scientists" to dig up 2000 years later: … from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, [You are]… built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. I don't understand how any TE can possibly call the Bible the Word of God when they believe parts of it are false.
The Bible is only false if you impose on it a post-Enlightenment mindset that truth must be conveyed as science. That sounds more in line with atheistic thinking than anything any evolutionary creationist here has advocated.
The first Hebrews simply didn't care about science, so we should expect them to write as though such things mattered to them? I don't have to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe, it is you, who believes that it doesn't, who must show that it doesn't.
And I did. All you have given in response is whining and complaining about how I'm trying to destroy the Bible. I find your inability to directly address my points, particularly with reference to the Scriptures, entirely validating.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
11th June 2009, 01:58 PM
|  | Veteran
45   
| | Join Date: 21st February 2007 Location: Way out in left field
Posts: 1,725
Blessings: 543,312 My Mood 
Reps: 10,818,175,665,014,668 (power: 10,818,175,665,020) | | Originally Posted by vossler That would be funny if it weren't so sad. TEs may not be knowingly tearing down the truth of God's Word, but they certainly are doing so practically. The only reason some feel God's Word is unsatisfactory for describing science is because they've already put their faith in man and his knowledge over God. Yes you see scripture in a purer sense, sadly however it is a purely human sense.
What is ironic here is that man's way - 21st-century rationalism - is behind the attempt to show scientific concordism within scripture. It is the need of some to have scripture meet modern criteria that forces onto scripture a meaning that it does not intend. God had no desire or need to satisfy 21st-century sensibilities when He wrote scripture. It is a text meant for all people of all cultures of all times.
I have no faith in man's science. I am simply willing to let it speak for itself, to succeed or fail on its own merits. I will not dismiss it because some uber-literal bible translation says it could not happen, though. |
11th June 2009, 07:34 PM
|  | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Mallon 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?
You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.
I won't do any argument if it is a seal stamped on paper. |
11th June 2009, 07:37 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.
Taken in context of the Bible's several other references to the earth being flat, I think the most parsimonious interpretation of this verse refers to the flattening of the earth as well (in addition to the creation of topography).
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
11th June 2009, 07:56 PM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51  
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,367
Blessings: 27,003,753 My Mood 
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.
I won't do any argument if it is a seal stamped on paper.
You do realise the phrase 'flat earth' never meant smooth? As I pointed out, people back then did know about mountains and valleys.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
11th June 2009, 11:22 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Dismissing the Bible as a science textbook is not equivalent to dismissing the Bible. What evolutionary creationists are trying to do is to understand God's true intent for the Bible. Obviously, as I have shown here, God did not intend for the Bible to be read in accordance with science, for if He had, He would have done a much better job of it.
I'm not interested in getting into a long fruitless discussion so I'll summarize this entire topic down to this. TEs don't believe that God meant six days when He went to great pains to clearly state exactly that throughout Genesis 1 and 2. This was nicely summarized in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
This despite the fact that the days are clearly individually distinguished.
They also don't believe the whole earth experienced a flood that killed everything except that which was in the ark. Genesis 7:4 states: "For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
verses 17-23 go on to say: The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Anyone who reads this can clearly see that the entire earth was under water and that all animals and people died except for those on the ark. Yet the TE denies this and uses man's ideas/theories to dismiss the Word of God to interpret this to say something entirely different. This is no different than the atheist or non believer.
Yeah you can call it trying to understand God's intent, but it is clear that this understanding is only contingent on what 'science' says first.
How you can in good conscience claim that TEs don't dismiss God's Word is beyond anything I can comprehend.
__________________
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." |
11th June 2009, 11:26 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by crawfish God had no desire or need to satisfy 21st-century sensibilities when He wrote scripture. It is a text meant for all people of all cultures of all times.
If only you truly believed this. If you did you would be a YEC. I have no faith in man's science. I am simply willing to let it speak for itself, to succeed or fail on its own merits.
Of course you have faith in man's science, you just have allowed it to blind you for so long that you no longer recognize it.
__________________
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." |
11th June 2009, 11:30 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by vossler I'm not interested in getting into a long fruitless discussion so I'll summarize this entire topic down to this. TEs don't believe that God meant six days when He went to great pains to clearly state exactly that throughout Genesis 1 and 2. This was nicely summarized in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
This despite the fact that the days are clearly individually distinguished.
They also don't believe the whole earth experienced a flood that killed everything except that which was in the ark. Genesis 7:4 states: "For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
verses 17-23 go on to say: The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Anyone who reads this can clearly see that the entire earth was under water and that all animals and people died except for those on the ark. Yet the TE denies this and uses man's ideas/theories to dismiss the Word of God to interpret this to say something entirely different. This is no different than the atheist or non believer.
Yeah you can call it trying to understand God's intent, but it is clear that this understanding is only contingent on what 'science' says first.
How you can in good conscience claim that TEs don't dismiss God's Word is beyond anything I can comprehend.
Blah, blah, blah. And you don't believe in geocentrism despite the fact that the Bible explicitly says four times that earth cannot be moved.
You apply the same accommodationist hermeneutic that evolutionary creationists do, vossler. You're just inconsistent about it.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
12th June 2009, 01:07 AM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Blah, blah, blah. And you don't believe in geocentrism despite the fact that the Bible explicitly says four times that earth cannot be moved.
You apply the same accommodationist hermeneutic that evolutionary creationists do, vossler. You're just inconsistent about it.
I'm not surprised by this response. Thanks for being consistent.
__________________
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." | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
