TE Observations

[chaoschristian]

For whatever reason you obviously don't like me, that's o.k. I can live with that. It would be nice if you didn't dislike me as you do, but I don't need for you to like me. No one else has questioned the validity of the observations except one, and ownership for that one was already claimed. If you wish to be demanding that's your option and perogative, just as it is my option and perogative to not respond. If I sensed any sort of love or genuine desire for understanding coming from you I would have gladly looked up everyone of these observations, but obviously the tone and hostility you've displayed toward me would preclude anything positive coming from such an effort.

I have absolutely no dislike of you personally. I don't even know you personally. You are completely misjudging this exchange. Now, please take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I was hurt by your OP - that much should be obvious. Now I am letting go of that hurt. I forgive you. If I have hurt you through the tone of my posts or my choice of words, then I humbly ask that you forgive me. Its yours to give. I don't expect it. I would welcome it.

 

[Mathematician]

Vossler,

This is your opinion, I haven't seen any lies perpetrated concerning Scripture, but that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. You'll have to be more specific in order for that charge to carry any weight.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...0020208_104.asp

Take as look at this picture. How many times have you repeated it? It's a lie. Ham knows it. But he hopes you don't check.

I haven't seen you response to this yet. I hope it means you're actually looking. Let me give you a hint. Outside of Genesis 1, there are only two places where the Hebrew is translated "evening and morning"

Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26.

Look up Dan. 8:26 in the King James. It is singular because the Hebrew is singular. Then look it up in any modern translation. It's plural because every translator knows it refers to a long period of time.

This is the example Ross used in his book. Von Bebber and Taylor never answered it in there book. Instead they made false claims about Ross, quoted some other liars, and dismissed the whole issue. Ken Ham knows this. The Morrises know this. Walt Brown knows this. Kent Hovind knows this. But they still repeat their lie. Every single one of them is a liar.

You are shilling for liars.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01242

 

[The Lady Kate]

It was me, Lady Kate. And I will still stand by this. And affirm that scripture stands by this. God does indeed love all his creation, not just his human creation.

Ok... it makes sense. There's certainly no reason for God to withhold his love for any part of His creation...

 

[gluadys]

Fallacy piles up upon fallacy. Do YECs never agree with atheists about anything?

Actually they do. I have run across a number of atheists who believe the only correct way to read Genesis is literally.

They also agree that this reading of Genesis contradicts science.

 

[vossler]

I have absolutely no dislike of you personally. I don't even know you personally. You are completely misjudging this exchange. Now, please take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I was hurt by your OP - that much should be obvious. Now I am letting go of that hurt. I forgive you. If I have hurt you through the tone of my posts or my choice of words, then I humbly ask that you forgive me. Its yours to give. I don't expect it. I would welcome it.

Just when I thought there wasn't much of a chance for us to find common ground, poof, it exists. Isn't it amazing how God can transcend everything! God never ceases to amaze me! We serve an awesome God!

Praise be to God that through His mercy and grace we can overcome the differences between us and see each other first as brothers in Christ. Thank you for forgiving me and of course I too forgive you. Regardless of what's been said or thought to have been said, I will always try to love you and see you as my brother in Christ first as opposed to any other label we tend to put on one another. So if I'm not acting accordingly I trust you'll point that out for me. Accountability is always a good thing, even when it doesn't feel so good.

Maybe sometime we can discuss the apparent hurt I inflicted upon you with that original post. I truly would like to better understand. My intent never was to hurt and it's important for me to know how I did.

 

[shernren]

To vossler, regarding post 14:

I hope I'm not being insulting, but it is very plainly obvious that your OP did actually come across as an insult or a list of "TE faults and fancies". I respect and believe that you probably did not intend for it to be so. However, it did. The whole problem is that words ... are not just words. Even interpreting literally, a lot of reading between the lines happens.

First I want to go over why the post has a hostile feel, which I'm sure you did not intend.

We'll start with the middle of the post, which goes:

Not a single TE statement or view listed above can be supported by the Bible.

The first main theme of the OP: indefensibility by Scripture.

You refer to this in a few other places:

When referring to the Bible as the Word of God many TEs are offended, to the point that some will call those who do believe this idolaters and/or blasphemers.

The most obvious answer would be that I want TEs to accept God’s Word as it is plainly written, but that would be too simple and probably not very realistic. However it is a good thing to pray for.


I can’t speak for other YECs, but there are the two primary reasons I come here.

• To find out what people are saying and their reasoning for it.
• To defend and/or promote the Word of God.

From these supporting statements throughout the OP, it is obvious that you consider the TE position to be unscriptural. The job of refuting this has been done all over the board, but I just want to point out the obvious fact: to say that what you believe is more Scriptural than what someone else believes ... is to imply that you are a more Scriptural believer than that someone else. That jumps right out at a TE.

Next:

Most TEs views are supported by the secular world.

TEs will yoke themselves with unbelievers in order to discredit a fellow believer.

TEs believe the ACLU to be a good organization.

The second main theme of the OP: that TEs are aiding and abetting the enemy.

When I put it that baldly it is obviously a hostile thing to say ... but the way in which you have said it is no less obvious. And the obvious insinuation is: if a TE is against fellow Christians then he must be for the Enemy. Now, what I was trying to get across in that sentence you didn't understand is that this second point is where the sting of the first point comes from. It is not simply that TEs "don't follow the Bible in a few areas", to look at it from your PoV. After all, the Bible never told us anything about democracy or environmentalism either. The real affront is that since the TE doesn't follow the Bible, he must be following the devil, which of course has serious implications for the TE's character.

When referring to the Bible as the Word of God many TEs are offended, to the point that some will call those who do believe this idolaters and/or blasphemers.

A TE stated that God loves everything, the animals, trees, plants and rocks, just like he loves us.

TEs stated that the feeding of the 5,000 was the miracle of sharing.

TEs are against the very idea of students even hearing about, much less studying, either Creationism or ID in a science classroom where origins is discussed.

The third theme of the OP: character assault, pure and simple.

By the way the post is constructed it is obvious that these are construed as statements of questionable doctrine, and then linked to TEs. And I would feel that even "most" doesn't cut it. It is possible to be a YEC and yet agree with these statements.

It is possible for someone to feel offended when improper theology threatens to conflate the Bible with the Logos of John 1 ... and yet believe that it literally means 6 24-hour days in Genesis.

It is possible for a YEC to believe that God loves what He creates.

It is possible for a YEC to look for a natural explanation to what otherwise seems a miracle.

It is possible for a YEC to believe that his beliefs are completely unscientific and therefore unworthy of discussion in a scientific classroom.

And what does that prove? Are those fundamental differences between YEC theology and TE theology? Are they points TEs have made that you honestly don't understand? Or ... are they attempts to paint TEs in a bad light, quite separate from anything they actually believe about origins?

I know that you made that OP with good intentions, Vossler. But you know what paves the road to hell ...

To SBG, regarding post 59:

I'm not making excuses. I'm presenting reasons. A man may be able to explain exactly how an affair happened from the first look to the last night but that won't make it any less a sin. And I'm trying to look at the way we behave, trying to look at why we do so, and wondering just what on earth is wrong with us and what can we do about it?

I've responded to you elsewhere and told you why I stick around here. There are some whom I feel will benefit from being corrected. And there are others whom I can learn from, especially in the area of empathy and learning how to agree to disagree. But increasingly I wonder if it does any good for the forum, for the people here, and for the Body to keep this up. When I examine my motives, I find with shame that often when I approach a post refuting something I've said, my first thoughts are not "how is he right?" but "how is he wrong?" ...

 

[vossler]

Vossler,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...0020208_104.asp

Take as look at this picture. How many times have you repeated it? It's a lie. Ham knows it. But he hopes you don't check.

I haven't seen you response to this yet. I hope it means you're actually looking. Let me give you a hint. Outside of Genesis 1, there are only two places where the Hebrew is translated "evening and morning"

Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26.

Look up Dan. 8:26 in the King James. It is singular because the Hebrew is singular. Then look it up in any modern translation. It's plural because every translator knows it refers to a long period of time.

This is the example Ross used in his book. Von Bebber and Taylor never answered it in there book. Instead they made false claims about Ross, quoted some other liars, and dismissed the whole issue. Ken Ham knows this. The Morrises know this. Walt Brown knows this. Kent Hovind knows this. But they still repeat their lie. Every single one of them is a liar.

You are shilling for liars.

Even if you're right, it doesn't change how the Bible reads. In order to get an accurate picture as to whether or not AiG is right one would first need to know which version of the Bible they were using and then one could actually test the validity to their claims. Have you done this?

 

[Mathematician]

Even if you're right, it doesn't change how the Bible reads. In order to get an accurate picture as to whether or not AiG is right one would first need to know which version of the Bible they were using and then one could actually test the validity to their claims. Have you done this?

Vosseler, if they are lying to you about such a trivial detail, something so easy to check, then how do you know they aren't lying to you about how the Bible actually reads?

Which version? They said Hebrew. I've done it in Hebrew. I've done it in Greek. I've done it in over a dozen English translations. I've told them. Hugh Ross has told them. Lots of other people have told them.

Now I've told you and you still won't look it up. I believe the Bible. You don't. You believe Ken Ham.

 

[vossler]

I hope I'm not being insulting, but it is very plainly obvious that your OP did actually come across as an insult or a list of "TE faults and fancies". I respect and believe that you probably did not intend for it to be so. However, it did. The whole problem is that words ... are not just words. Even interpreting literally, a lot of reading between the lines happens.

First I want to go over why the post has a hostile feel, which I'm sure you did not intend.

The first main theme of the OP: indefensibility by Scripture.

You refer to this in a few other places:

From these supporting statements throughout the OP, it is obvious that you consider the TE position to be unscriptural. The job of refuting this has been done all over the board, but I just want to point out the obvious fact: to say that what you believe is more Scriptural than what someone else believes ... is to imply that you are a more Scriptural believer than that someone else. That jumps right out at a TE.

Yes I consider the TE position to be unscriptural, but that wasn’t the point of the post. I’m sure many people think some of my views are unscriptural. My point was that many TEs have the point of view I was espousing. If it wasn’t true, I invited them to say so. I don’t see how that is insulting.

The second main theme of the OP: that TEs are aiding and abetting the enemy.

When I put it that baldly it is obviously a hostile thing to say ... but the way in which you have said it is no less obvious. And the obvious insinuation is: if a TE is against fellow Christians then he must be for the Enemy. Now, what I was trying to get across in that sentence you didn't understand is that this second point is where the sting of the first point comes from. It is not simply that TEs "don't follow the Bible in a few areas", to look at it from your PoV. After all, the Bible never told us anything about democracy or environmentalism either. The real affront is that since the TE doesn't follow the Bible, he must be following the devil, which of course has serious implications for the TE's character.

Yes indeed it is a hostile thing to say and incorrect on top of it. Is it not a fact that most TE views are supported by the secular world. This isn’t an emotional statement, although if you wish it to be I suppose it could be. As for your second point, well I’m not really sure where you’re going with it but if it is simply to state that TEs “don’t follow the Bible in a few areas”, at least when it comes to origins, then yes that's what I believe. What else am I suppose to say? I suppose if one then takes that to surmise that if one isn’t following the Bible one must be following the devil, well I can see that line of reasoning. Who else would one be following?

The third theme of the OP: character assault, pure and simple.

I suppose if one wants to read it as such one could do so. However, I did not present it as such.

By the way the post is constructed it is obvious that these are construed as statements of questionable doctrine, and then linked to TEs. And I would feel that even "most" doesn't cut it. It is possible to be a YEC and yet agree with these statements.

It is possible for someone to feel offended when improper theology threatens to conflate the Bible with the Logos of John 1 ... and yet believe that it literally means 6 24-hour days in Genesis.

It is possible for a YEC to believe that God loves what He creates.

It is possible for a YEC to look for a natural explanation to what otherwise seems a miracle.

It is possible for a YEC to believe that his beliefs are completely unscientific and therefore unworthy of discussion in a scientific classroom.

And what does that prove? Are those fundamental differences between YEC theology and TE theology? Are they points TEs have made that you honestly don't understand? Or ... are they attempts to paint TEs in a bad light, quite separate from anything they actually believe about origins?

I know that you made that OP with good intentions, Vossler. But you know what paves the road to hell ...

Yes one could infer that the observations can be construed as statements of questionable doctrine, however that wasn’t the primary point which was to highlight the differences. I’m sure if a TE came up with a list of observations about YECs that one could infer some of those to question doctrine, if it didn’t I’d be surprised.

Yes those things are possible, I have no dispute with your possibilities. I don’t know what they prove, maybe you can enlighten me. As for the statement as to whether I honestly understand TE positions, I can’t say that I really do. I somewhat understand how they got there, I just don’t understand why. I truly didn’t have to idea of painting anyone in a certain way, which implies I was going to color it the way I saw fit. Obviously this wasn’t the case because I asked whether or not my observations were correct or not and if they weren’t I solicited feedback.

You know I've found most interesting with this thread is the varying degrees of emotion in response to my post. Some replied with little or no emotion and took little or no offense, while others were very emotional and/or offended. I certainly wasn't expecting an emotional response and when for some it became so, I was surprised by who was and wasn't affected.

You Tee were one I was surprised about.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

As for the statement as to whether I honestly understand TE positions, I can’t say that I really do. I somewhat understand how they got there, I just don’t understand why.

I think that this is the major problem here, we are talking past each other out of ignorance rather than talking to each other with understanding. Even people like me who were YEC's before forget why we thought about things the way we did, just as adults often forget what it was like to be a child and make many mistakes in dealing with children.

 

[FreezBee]

Excuse me for interferring in your discussion here, but there is a slightly different angle on this, that might be of interest.

This page

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/durant.shtml

is pp. 12-16 of a book by John Durant "A Critical-Historical Perspective on the
Argument about Evolution and Creation".

According to John Durant, Charles Darwin was at first following in the footsteps of William Paley, who in 1802 had released the book "Natural Theology". This book basically described, what is today known as Intelligent Design. As Paley, Darwin was trying to figure out why species were so well adapted to their environments. Paley's explanation was that of a creator as a master craftsman. that had designed and manufactured each species, that is, special creation. But by what higher principles had the created made his designs?

However, beginning in the late 1830ies Darwin got the idea to find the design principle within nature itself, and he came up with: Natural Selection. When Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", he was still believing in a creator. But he became more and more of a doubter and ende up calling himself an agnostic.

Durant's thesis is that special creation is not theologically justifiable (because it is based either on Aristotelian or Platonistic metaphysics), only Darwinian evolution in a theistic version is both scientifically and theologically justifiable.


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

Quite basically, Vossler, your OP comes across simply as "Why I believe that I'm right and they're wrong". I know that you probably never intended it to be that way, but that is how it came across. Don't we have enough of those already?

I was surprised by your post too, Vossler, especially the way you implied that all TEs believe what you quoted in those first few lines. Only gluadys has said such about God loving nature and I've never seen the "feeding of the five thousand" here at all. The "no-ID-in-classrooms" is not a completely unqualified censorship, and the attacks on the topic of "the Word of God" (while excessive in force at times, I admit) have always had a proper theological basis and reasons wider than this YEC-TE tussle. That is why I took issue easily with this particular post: this sort of sneak attack (linking TEs to beliefs that are not fundamental to TEism) was something I wouldn't have expected from you.

 

[SBG]

YECs spread lies about what Scripture says and atheists believe them.

YECs spread lies about science and atheists call them fools.

What does that do for the spread of the Gospel? Atheists believe those they call fools (that means you) and dismiss Scripture accordingly.

You're in league with atheists to discredit the Gospel. You are giving them an excuse. We are supposed to make sure they have no excuse, not give them excuses.

Can you help me understand how this helps our problems here? You have labeled all who are YECs as liars, and have labeled Vossler as being in league with Atheists to discredit the Gospel.

You may not agree with Vossler on what he has said and that is fine, but was this extra personal attacks necessary on YECs and Vossler?

 

[SBG]

To SBG, regarding post 59:

I'm not making excuses. I'm presenting reasons. A man may be able to explain exactly how an affair happened from the first look to the last night but that won't make it any less a sin. And I'm trying to look at the way we behave, trying to look at why we do so, and wondering just what on earth is wrong with us and what can we do about it?

I've responded to you elsewhere and told you why I stick around here. There are some whom I feel will benefit from being corrected. And there are others whom I can learn from, especially in the area of empathy and learning how to agree to disagree. But increasingly I wonder if it does any good for the forum, for the people here, and for the Body to keep this up. When I examine my motives, I find with shame that often when I approach a post refuting something I've said, my first thoughts are not "how is he right?" but "how is he wrong?" ...

I wasn't trying to say you personally were making excuses, rather we all make excuses to either remove blame or lessen it. Look at Adam when he said, it was the woman You put me here with. This is our first example of not taking responsibility for our own actions and making excuses for them. I have done it many many times. I have seen it here many times.


I have said in the other thread that I believe we lack sensitivity towards other people, here on this forum. We state things and don't look at how others could take them. An example is your statement that says 'you what paves the road to hell...' Granted, you have a winking guy at the end, but when I read that, I can see how it could be taken by someone else.

You yourself said you look for what is wrong, not what is right in what others post. I have done the same thing and I wouldn't doubt if many do that. Knowing this, we should be even more aware that such statements could be taken wrongly. I know you didn't mean it that way, but unfortunately, it could be thrown back at you.

Our problem is that we lack sensitivity when posting to each other and increase our sensitivity when reading other people's posts. I know I am guilty of this.

What do we do? Can we just forgive people without them apologizing? Can we show them mercy even if they don't us mercy? Can we give grace even when grace isn't given to us? Didn't Jesus do this? Doesn't He show us this today, even when we don't? Does He bless us when we don't deserve it? Yes, all the time!

Why is it that as Christians, a name which we call ourselves, that we cannot follow the examples of our Master?

 

[SBG]

Vossler, my suggestion would be to drop this discussion. It seems it has only caused more problems then you had intended. I know you didn't mean for this to happen and were actually trying to understand how the TEs view their origins belief.

This forum has too much anger in it right now, which leaves itself open for attacks from the devil.

 

[vossler]

Quite basically, Vossler, your OP comes across simply as "Why I believe that I'm right and they're wrong". I know that you probably never intended it to be that way, but that is how it came across. Don't we have enough of those already?

I've obviously struck a nerve and caused to see or receive my observations as attacks. There wasn't any "I'm right and you're wrong" verbage here, simply observations and a solicitation to TEs if my observations were incorrect. Some TEs saw it that way while others didn't. I'm thankful that at least some saw it as it was intended.

I was surprised by your post too, Vossler, especially the way you implied that all TEs believe what you quoted in those first few lines. Only gluadys has said such about God loving nature and I've never seen the "feeding of the five thousand" here at all. The "no-ID-in-classrooms" is not a completely unqualified censorship, and the attacks on the topic of "the Word of God" (while excessive in force at times, I admit) have always had a proper theological basis and reasons wider than this YEC-TE tussle. That is why I took issue easily with this particular post: this sort of sneak attack (linking TEs to beliefs that are not fundamental to TEism) was something I wouldn't have expected from you.

Tee, I've always enjoyed reading your responses, yet here your using words such as 'attack' when I think if you look back, there hasn't been an attack. If you perceived my post as an attack I'm sorry, I didn't realize anyone, but especially you, would really see it that way. I tried to word it without it appearing that way but obviously I failed.

So in the end you've accused me of attacking TEs, insulting them, being hostile toward them and assaulting their character. As I go back and reread the OP I'm hard pressed, trying to be as objective as possible, to see any of those terms as being appropriate. Still, you as a fellow believer see them and have obviously felt them, so as your brother I must acknowledge it and again humbly apologize and ask for your forgiveness. Please forgive me.

What's left? It doesn't appear like much, at least for you and I in this thread. That's too bad, I wanted it to be different. Maybe, with prayer, the next time it will be.

Probably for me, the best thing to do is to step back again, no matter how hard I try I seem to be a catalyst for touching nerves.

 

[shernren]

Agreed. Let's just drop this one. My apologies.

 

[shernren]

I was just looking back at the OP and I managed to put my finger on what subconsciously struck me about it: (objectively speaking) it was completely about TEism. That's why it struck me as an "I'm right, you're wrong" post. I probably felt attacked because it seemed to be a post discussing only the flaws of TEism without discussing the merits of TEism or the flaws of YECism, either of which would have helped it to seem more objective and balanced. Even so, I was uncharitable in the way I dealt with and reacted to that post. My apologies.

 

[vossler]

I was just looking back at the OP and I managed to put my finger on what subconsciously struck me about it: (objectively speaking) it was completely about TEism. That's why it struck me as an "I'm right, you're wrong" post. I probably felt attacked because it seemed to be a post discussing only the flaws of TEism without discussing the merits of TEism or the flaws of YECism, either of which would have helped it to seem more objective and balanced. Even so, I was uncharitable in the way I dealt with and reacted to that post. My apologies.

I'm thankful that the rough edges of this issue have softened and that we can once again see eye to eye. Praise the Lord.

My original intent wasn't to try and present a balanced pro/con observation of TE vs. YEC. I guess I could have done that, but after seeing how this exercise went, such an endeavor would have been, I believe, wrought with even more difficulty.

By showing the differences, from a YEC perspective, I can see how you might view this as a post highlighting the flaws of TEism. However, the intent wasn't necessarily to point out flaws (although it seemed to be a by-product), what I really wanted to do was highlight the anomalies I saw. Those anomalies exist, I believe, because of the differences in our worldviews, our approach to Scripture and I'm sure some other foundational issue. I suppose some might quibble with this and say there's no difference between that and saying I'm better than you etc, and maybe in the end there isn't, I don't really know. The thing is, I really don't want to have to think that hard in order to post some personal observations.

 

[Mathematician]

SBC,

Can you help me understand how this helps our problems here? You have labeled all who are YECs as liars, and have labeled Vossler as being in league with Atheists to discredit the Gospel.

You may not agree with Vossler on what he has said and that is fine, but was this extra personal attacks necessary on YECs and Vossler?

Would you like to go back and count all the times in the past month that a YEC has claimed that TEs and OECs are unbelievers? Yet you just told one of them that he did it with the best of motives? Well why can't you give me the same benefit of the doubt?

I gave a link with two eaxmples of common YEC lies.

Ken Ham even gave one of Hugh Ross' counter-examples for one which Ham dismissed without addressing Ross' argument. If you read Ross' argument and Ham's dismissal, you'd see that they both agree on the facts. Hosea 6:2, gives an example of number say that does not mean one 24-hour day. Yet even after agreeing to that, Ham still makes the false claim.

Ross gave an example of the other. Ham ignores Ross' example and pretends it doesn't exist. I gave Ross' example to Vosseler plus another example. Did Vosseler even have the integrity to look them up? No. Instead, he claimed it didn't matter.

It doesn't matter that Vosseler believes two lies and uses those (among other things) to accuse us of unbelief. What if I showed Vosseler two more lies? It still wouldn't matter. What if I showed Vosseler two more lies after that? It still wouldn't matter. Vosseler doesn't care that he believes a lie. But he's quite willing to condemn us for not believing that same lie.

Don't you see a problem here?