A question for Young Earth Creationists

[vossler]

The nub of it is in what AiG doesn't say. Here's the statement again:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Follow their train of thought:

1. Divine inspiration
2. Inerrancy
3. Truth
4. Factuality
5. Historicity/scientificity

What I am asserting is that there is an exclusive link between 3 and 4. The link between 4 and 5 is unavoidable (given how "fact" is defined), and the links 1->2 and 2->3 are reasonable (though not agreed on by some TEs). But look what happens if I take a fork down from 3:

1. Divine inspiration
2. Inerrancy
3. Truth
4b. Myth/spiritual truth
5b. Allegorical/parabolic presentation

Why, we've arrived in TEville! As far as I see, the only thing that prevents YECs from coming down here is their refusal to admit that 4b. is a reasonable path to take from 3.

I could almost go along with this, at least for parts of Genesis, if you didn't mention the word Myth here and just left spiritual truth. If you did both models could work for the entire Bible. It would appear to me that TEville, for some reason, consists of mythical events. I believe this complicates interpretation and opens doors for many alternative ways of seeing Scripture. I believe it permits someone to take something spiritual in nature and convert it into a humanistic explanation. That's what I believe science does, it allows for humans to dictate history to their liking as opposed to just accepting what God said as He wrote it.

Do tell me why (if your reasoning is different) you would reject a mythical/allegorical interpretation of Genesis, or any other passage in the Bible.

First of all laptoppop did an excellent job in another thread describing how I read and see Scripture.

The Scriptures consist of many different forms of literary expression, including historical accounts, poetry, figures of speech, parables, songs, etc. One must remember this as one examines various passages. The Scriptures were written at a particular time and understanding the culture of the day can help to inform our understanding, but they were also specifically written to express God's message throughout history unto the present day. The Bible is not just a history book, but is accurate when it explicitly talks about history. The Bible is not a science book, but is accurate when it talks about science. Jesus is the ultimate clearest expression of God we have. The Bible is a specific revelation of God, given to us to convey God's messages to us. God used people to deliver these messages. While the use of various people throughout the years influences the delivery style, the Scriptures are exactly as God wanted, down to the smallest jot and tittle. The messages are His, not theirs. God made this universe and all in it. We can learn about Him through this general revelation. Scientific study can be helpful in investigating this general revelation. Studying the general revelation can help to inform our understanding of the specific revelation of God, and the specific revelation of God can help to inform our understanding of the general revelation as well. However, our own understandings of the general revelation must never take precedence over the specific revelation.

I couldn't have said it better myself, hence I quoted him. Great job!

So as for your specific question, I don't reject that parts of Genesis can and at times may be viewed as allegorical, but where we probably differ greatly is that this can never occur if it contradicts the plain and simple reading.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

However, our own understandings of the general revelation must never take precedence over the specific revelation.


where in special revelation is the canon?
something as important as what books are in the Bible and what books are not, part of the Bible?
why are there at least two different Christian canons?
is the difference between them in Scripture?

 

[shernren]

I could almost go along with this, at least for parts of Genesis, if you didn't mention the word Myth here and just left spiritual truth. If you did both models could work for the entire Bible. It would appear to me that TEville, for some reason, consists of mythical events. I believe this complicates interpretation and opens doors for many alternative ways of seeing Scripture. I believe it permits someone to take something spiritual in nature and convert it into a humanistic explanation. That's what I believe science does, it allows for humans to dictate history to their liking as opposed to just accepting what God said as He wrote it.

Well, what if I did drop myth? I use myth as a technical term here, not in the sense of "urban legend" or "falsehood".

My issue with your approach is:

1. Why is simplicity of interpretation good?

I don't see that an interpretation is good just because it is simple. All other things being equal, yes, the simpler interpretation would be the better. But I don't see that the YEC and TE interpretations have all other things equal, and I don't see how you can justify simplicity as being such a good thing that it overshadows the other advantages the TE interpretation has.

For example, a simple interpretation of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager would tell me that Jesus advocates a "means-to-an-end" morality. The people of the world are willing to steal and cheat to get their desires and so should we people of the light. That's a straightforward interpretation, and it's precisely because this is the simplest interpretation of the parable that most people have a problem with it. However, the simplest interpretation is not the best. Why should Genesis 1 be any different?

2. Why is unity of interpretation good?

In the first place, unity of interpretation is nigh impossible. Look at my "plain meaning" thread; laptoppop acknowledges that his interpretation is private (since others would have had a different "plain meaning") and then goes on to emphasise that the public interpretation must be the right one, in the same thread. I don't see why YECism should be so fixated on the idea that private interpretation is bad.

Scripture itself exercises private interpretation. Both Hebrews and Romans interpret OT passages in a way that was wildly different from how the authors themselves interpreted those passage. For example, Romans 10:6-9 describes the righteousness of faith and finds Jesus in the words of Deuteronomy 30:12-14, a passage which was describing the law. If that isn't "private interpretation", what is? I think Paul's finding Jesus in those words is far wilder than us finding evolution in Genesis!

3. Why should an interpretation be invalidated just because it can be twisted?

Yes, evolution becomes a humanistic explanation of nature for some. But not for all. None of us here who are TEs are humanists (at least not in the conventional sense of the word; yet J.I. Packer in Knowing Man said that "Christians should be the true humanists"). On the other hand, many will say that Jesus in the Beatitudes was doing nothing more than being a good preacher, or teaching psychology 2,000 years ahead of its time. Does that somehow invalidate the Sermon on the Mount?

A prime example of this is Jesus' temptation and how the Devil cited Scripture against Him. In Luke 4:10-11, the Devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12 to tell Jesus that He would be protected if He jumped down from the Temple. Of course, that is a humanistic explanation of the verse. But does that mean that the basic interpretation of the verse, that God will protect us against harm, is now suspect? I still do use this psalm when praying for friends who are in danger. Is that now invalid, just because the Devil happened to use that psalm humanistically?

Don't be scared of myths. Myths can be far more true than dry history.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe that whenever God uses names to tell us his Truth they were indeed real people. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Why would you believe them not to be?

How about Oholah and Oholibah in Ezekiel 23? We have two sisters named in this parable but they aren't real people they stand for Samaria and Jerusalem.

In Ezek 16 we read the story of a woman called Jerusalem and her two sisters Samaria and Sodom. God uses names in this sad touching story. Are they real people? God uses their names. But obviously they mean the cities of Jerusalem, Samaria and Sodom and the biography of the sisters is a parable. Genesis talks about Adam in its story, but that name is the word for 'man' or 'mankind', which we are told in Gen 5:2.

 

[vossler]

Well, what if I did drop myth? I use myth as a technical term here, not in the sense of "urban legend" or "falsehood".

That would be a great start.

1. Why is simplicity of interpretation good?

I don't see that an interpretation is good just because it is simple. All other things being equal, yes, the simpler interpretation would be the better. But I don't see that the YEC and TE interpretations have all other things equal, and I don't see how you can justify simplicity as being such a good thing that it overshadows the other advantages the TE interpretation has.

Let me ask you something and see if you can follow my reasoning. If you were God and had the infinite knowledge and power to create the universe and all that is within it would you even attempt to explain something that complex to a creation whose capability to understand can’t come close to grasping said knowledge? For lack of a better analogy wouldn’t that be a little like man trying to explain to an ant how he created a jet engine. As much as that ant may want to understand and know, it just isn’t possible. So as a loving God you would tell man the basics of what you did, but omit the details because man wasn’t capable of understanding them, nor did he need to know.

What are the advantages of a TE interpretation?

For example, a simple interpretation of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager would tell me that Jesus advocates a "means-to-an-end" morality. The people of the world are willing to steal and cheat to get their desires and so should we people of the light. That's a straightforward interpretation, and it's precisely because this is the simplest interpretation of the parable that most people have a problem with it. However, the simplest interpretation is not the best. Why should Genesis 1 be any different?

Good point! I don’t wish to claim to know the answer to this except to say that this parable was a moral or life lesson and was clearly identified as such so that no one would believe otherwise. Given that it is God’s Word and specifically meant to teach us a direct lesson that requires me to be spiritually aware, I don’t have a problem with it not following a plain and simple understanding. It requires, like many teachings, us to look deeper into the text, it certainly doesn’t purposely try to mislead. Genesis 1 isn’t a parable, it isn’t poetry or prophecy; it is simply an historical account. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt it as being only that. For me to take what was simple and make it complex without any sort of biblical exegesis or proper application of proven hermeneutical processes is to, I’m sorry, dilute and/or pervert the Word of God with man’s prideful and arrogant desires.

2. Why is unity of interpretation good?

In the first place, unity of interpretation is nigh impossible. Look at my "plain meaning" thread; laptoppop acknowledges that his interpretation is private (since others would have had a different "plain meaning") and then goes on to emphasise that the public interpretation must be the right one, in the same thread. I don't see why YECism should be so fixated on the idea that private interpretation is bad.

I won’t speak for laptoppop but I’ll give you my own thoughts. I don’t have a problem with private interpretation, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Word of God. I believe there are many, many truths locked within Scripture, little gold nuggets if you will, that we’re to mine through diligent study and prayer. Yet, no matter what nugget you get, it first needs to be held up to the light of Scripture and had better not conflict with it. Obviously in the case of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager an apparent conflict exists, at least to someone who isn’t being spiritual with his/her approach to the subject, but to the discerning spirit that conflict is non-existent.

Scripture itself exercises private interpretation. Both Hebrews and Romans interpret OT passages in a way that was wildly different from how the authors themselves interpreted those passage. For example, Romans 10:6-9 describes the righteousness of faith and finds Jesus in the words of Deuteronomy 30:12-14, a passage which was describing the law. If that isn't "private interpretation", what is? I think Paul's finding Jesus in those words is far wilder than us finding evolution in Genesis!

That’s an interesting assessment and something we probably could spend a lot of time discussing. I think it would be interesting. However, it is outside of the scope of this thread and forum. Yet given this interpretation, it still doesn’t contradict or go against the plain meaning of the text, at least not strongly. Also, one has to take into account what type of text this is. This isn’t historical information and that in and of itself opens the door for wider interpretations.

3. Why should an interpretation be invalidated just because it can be twisted?

Yes, evolution becomes a humanistic explanation of nature for some. But not for all. None of us here who are TEs are humanists (at least not in the conventional sense of the word; yet J.I. Packer in Knowing Man said that "Christians should be the true humanists"). On the other hand, many will say that Jesus in the Beatitudes was doing nothing more than being a good preacher, or teaching psychology 2,000 years ahead of its time. Does that somehow invalidate the Sermon on the Mount?

A prime example of this is Jesus' temptation and how the Devil cited Scripture against Him. In Luke 4:10-11, the Devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12 to tell Jesus that He would be protected if He jumped down from the Temple. Of course, that is a humanistic explanation of the verse. But does that mean that the basic interpretation of the verse, that God will protect us against harm, is now suspect? I still do use this psalm when praying for friends who are in danger. Is that now invalid, just because the Devil happened to use that psalm humanistically?

Of course not, but it does tell us to look at all the Scriptures through a proper hermeneutical approach (one which we don't spend near enough time doing, myself included), one where we minimize human understanding for godly wisdom. As you know it is very easy to twist Scripture into whatever form we wish in order to use it for our benefit, Satan is the master at doing so. It would behoove us to not allow our own pride to prevent us from falling into Satan’s enticing trap. This is why I try to minimize my own feelings and try to stick to the Word of God, if it, through a thorough and proper exegesis can support my beliefs then I can have confidence in it and be stronger for Christ.

Don't be scared of myths. Myths can be far more true than dry history.

Myths in and of themselves don’t scare me, what does is when people misapply Scripture as myth.


Shernren, I would so much like to have the opportunity for us to sit together and discuss matters like these. Over the past 18 months or so I’ve enjoyed our dialog and learned to appreciate you and your position. I know that I could learn a lot from you my young brother in Christ. Your heart is still soft and pliable, your intellect is great and you have an incredible thirst for knowledge. In some ways I envy you because when I was that age I didn’t have a clue what to do or who to listen to. I was very lost, you obviously are not. Who knows maybe someday I’ll come visit Malaysia and you can invite me over for dinner and we can discuss some of these matters.

 

[vossler]

How about Oholah and Oholibah in Ezekiel 23? We have two sisters named in this parable but they aren't real people they stand for Samaria and Jerusalem.

I'm not familiar with this story so I can't comment. However, I suppose if one wanted to we can always find an exception to Scripture if we look hard enough. The point for me is that when God uses names He does so for a reason and it is in our best interests not to look for a contrary reason.

Sure, now give me something else to do, have me look up Ezekiel 23 and actually read what it says.

 

[humbledbyhim]

When I was a small kid, my parents told me this story.

"Once there was a young boy who looked after a flock of sheep near a village. One day the boy ran into the village crying 'wolf, wolf!' The villagers rushed to the field, but found no wolf attacking the sheep. The next day the boy ran into the village again crying 'wolf, wolf!'. Again the villagers hurried to the field, but again there was no wolf. The boy did this a third time, and a fourth. Then one day a wolf came from the forest and attacked the sheep. The boy ran into the village crying 'wolf, wolf!' But this time no one believed him, and the flock was devoured.

The moral of the story is that you should never cry 'wolf'. Even when liars tell the truth, they are not believed."


My questions, directed at Young Earth Creationists, are:
1. Is this story a historical, factual account or is it a myth?
2. Does this story convey truth, or is it a false and worthless tale?

I don't know how many pages this thing has gone, but I'm sure you and every other human being knew without a shadow of a doubt that this was a story and not a factual event. The same can't be said about the bible and genesis.

 

[humbledbyhim]

I don't know how many pages this thing has gone, but I'm sure you and every other human being knew without a shadow of a doubt that this was a story and not a factual event. The same can't be said about the bible and genesis.

after a certain age that is...

 

[jereth]

I don't know how many pages this thing has gone, but I'm sure you and every other human being knew without a shadow of a doubt that this was a story and not a factual event. The same can't be said about the bible and genesis.

Could you please provide some substantiation for your assertion?

 

[shernren]

@ vossler.

Hmm ... seeing as how the word "myth" causes so much contention, maybe I'll just try my best not to use it. It's perfectly acceptable as a technical term and yet saying that Christianity is a myth (which would sound fine in my ears) horrifies others. So out of respect ...

Not a myth, then. Would you be okay if I used the word "metaphor"?

I like how you described a man trying to describe a jet plane to an ant. And yet, we know that even though God is infinitely powerful and wise, He deliberately took the risk of allowing His communication to come through fellow humans.

1. He had to use human words. Words are not perfect; they are often very bad at putting across what needs to be said. We use words only because really, there is almost nothing else! Witness how many times a pastor on pulpit will say "This, in the Greek, is ... " - a testament to how weak the English language in particular is. Each language borrows heavily from another. This would happen even though the Bible were divinely inspired, by the mere fact that what was inspired were human words.

2. He had to go through a human culture. In this case, the culture of the Jews. All this means that we today have to be very careful in interpreting the Scriptures. Half of the problem in translating Scripture is in bringing cultural differences across.

3. He had to speak to a particular human condition in space and time. That is exactly what redemptive history is supposed to be, isn't it? Particularized in space and time. It means that the image of leprosy, say, has really no sting in our time, and has to be replaced by far more powerful images like AIDS.

The thing is, you seem to assume that a man who wants to describe an airplane to an ant is trying to tell it how it was made. I don't know how plausible that is. What good would it be telling an ant how an airplane is made? It would be eternity before the ant itself can understand how an airplane is made and far longer before the ant can start to try itself.

That's why I have a problem with people assuming Genesis 1 is a "How the world was made" manual. Why would God want to tell anyone how the world was made? Firstly, He foresaw that the world itself would tell people how it was made, easily enough. Secondly, the how was never as important as the why.

When I look at the stars, I don't need the Bible to tell me that whoever made this universe must be an awesome God.
And when I read the Bible, I don't need science to tell me that this God not only knows me and loves me but considered my lowly human form good enough for Him to be Incarnated into.

 

[vossler]

Not a myth, then. Would you be okay if I used the word "metaphor"?

I have no problem with the word metaphor.

1. He had to use human words. Words are not perfect; they are often very bad at putting across what needs to be said. We use words only because really, there is almost nothing else! Witness how many times a pastor on pulpit will say "This, in the Greek, is ... " - a testament to how weak the English language in particular is. Each language borrows heavily from another. This would happen even though the Bible were divinely inspired, by the mere fact that what was inspired were human words.

I couldn't agree more, nothing to quibble about here except when you say "there is almost nothing else." Our non-verbal communication skills are far more telling and effective than our verbal.

2. He had to go through a human culture. In this case, the culture of the Jews. All this means that we today have to be very careful in interpreting the Scriptures. Half of the problem in translating Scripture is in bringing cultural differences across.

Here I begin to have some difficultly. I truly believe that when God put the Bible together He took into account cultural differences and was able to convey His message in such a way to transcend them.

3. He had to speak to a particular human condition in space and time. That is exactly what redemptive history is supposed to be, isn't it? Particularized in space and time. It means that the image of leprosy, say, has really no sting in our time, and has to be replaced by far more powerful images like AIDS.

No, I believe He spoke to a timeless human condition, man's depravity. AIDS is just the modern version of leprosy and no matter the subject, God's Word is timeless and requires no updates.

The thing is, you seem to assume that a man who wants to describe an airplane to an ant is trying to tell it how it was made. I don't know how plausible that is. What good would it be telling an ant how an airplane is made? It would be eternity before the ant itself can understand how an airplane is made and far longer before the ant can start to try itself.

You're making my point exactly! What good would it be telling man how life was created if it would take an eternity before man himself could understand it. That's exactly what evolution is doing by telling people how God created. I believe God was only giving us the cliff notes and had no intention of ever, in this life, telling us the specifics.

That's why I have a problem with people assuming Genesis 1 is a "How the world was made" manual. Why would God want to tell anyone how the world was made? Firstly, He foresaw that the world itself would tell people how it was made, easily enough. Secondly, the how was never as important as the why.

No it isn't a 'how the world was made' manual, but a means for God to tell us His story. What a wonderfully beautiful story it is! It only becomes corrupted when man introduces his own story.

When I look at the stars, I don't need the Bible to tell me that whoever made this universe must be an awesome God.

Exactly, so why speculate to the extent where we can eliminate God from the equation?

And when I read the Bible, I don't need science to tell me that this God not only knows me and loves me but considered my lowly human form good enough for Him to be Incarnated into.

Your sounding more and more like a YECer, I always knew there was hope for you.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

AIDS is just the modern version of leprosy

what? leprosy is a generic term in the Scriptures for skin diseases, there is a particular disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae, it is not obvious what percentage of either OT or NT times diseases labelled leprosy where caused by m. leprae and what caused by other problems.

The point of leprosy in the OT is appearances. A skin disease was obvious to all who just looked, this is an issue of the holiness of God and the diseased conditions of humanity and the utter separateness of the two.

AIDs is a viral infection, it is not obvious, nor visible from the outside necessarily.

i see no connection at all between the two diseases.
you will have to be more explicit if i am to understand this point.

 

[vossler]

what? leprosy is a generic term in the Scriptures for skin diseases, there is a particular disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae, it is not obvious what percentage of either OT or NT times diseases labelled leprosy where caused by m. leprae and what caused by other problems.

The point of leprosy in the OT is appearances. A skin disease was obvious to all who just looked, this is an issue of the holiness of God and the diseased conditions of humanity and the utter separateness of the two.

AIDs is a viral infection, it is not obvious, nor visible from the outside necessarily.

i see no connection at all between the two diseases.
you will have to be more explicit if i am to understand this point.

I'm not trying to put a scientific connection between the two, just pointing out, as you did "this is an issue of the holiness of God and the diseased conditions of humanity and the utter separateness of the two," nothing more.

BTW, AIDs doesn't have to be visible in order highlight the human condition. Society today has a far greater ability to transmit information and a physical affliction isn't required in order to get the message across.

 

[shernren]

Your sounding more and more like a YECer, I always knew there was hope for you.

Oh? But I make those statements right from TE heartland. Science won't tell me anything about God other than His grandeur and majesty (even that is questionable, say atheists). And the Bible won't tell me anything about the universe besides that it was made by God ... in particular, I don't expect it to tell me how the universe was made. Do I sound more like a TE now?

Exactly, so why speculate to the extent where we can eliminate God from the equation?

Over the time I've seen you post I think this has been your main objection to evolution in particular and science in general. Maybe I could straighten it out once and for all ...

I'm sure you know that when objects speed up to near the speed of light they start acting funny. They contract in the direction of motion and experience slow time and all that stuff. And yet, when we teach kids physics in high school, we give them all non-relativistic formulae to use. When we ask them questions about cars traveling on freeways, we forget to tell them that the cars are actually a little shorter because they're moving. Or when we ask them to find the time a ball stays in the air, we completely ignore the fact that to the ball in motion everything else in the universe has slowed down. (Or speeded up. I'm no Einstein, but I'm sure you get the idea of what I'm saying.)

These kids don't learn about the real world. They live in Newtonland where gravity is a force (not space acting like a weird sheet-o-rubber), objects can accelerate to infinite speed, and mass can't be converted into energy. We've distorted their view of the world by telling them all about Newton and nothing about Einstein. But does that mean we've harmed them?

No - because the world around us is effectively Newtonian, and almost nothing is changed on a practical level when we use our good old Newtonian sense, and we can't observe or pin down the difference that Einstein makes.

Think about it. How would science include God? If only it could! And yet God, by definition, isn't scientifically verifiable. We can't tag God and read out His mass and see if the universe acts different when He's not around - since He's always around, everywhere. Science works because the universe is effectively scientific. Sure, supernatural stuff happens once in a while. A man walked on water once, but most of the people who've ever tried that (involuntarily) end up at the bottom of the lake not the top. Putting mud on people's eyes is not standard opthalmological practice. And most people stay dead far longer than 3 days, crucified or not.

So much of the world plays by the rules of science that it would be silly not to take advantage of that. What more, God even hints that He's designed it that way. "I make my rain fall on the wicked and the godly", He says - He allows nature to work the same whether or not you've prayed today. He seems to be discreet, almost absent if you don't believe in Him - and with good purpose as demonstrated in Job: when people love God despite rain and cancer and death happening to them like normal, that's real love.

Science doesn't include God, but neither is it such an insult to God as you seem to think it is, since God made the world scientific in the first place, and if I read Genesis 1 right God thought it was very good.

 

[vossler]

Oh? But I make those statements right from TE heartland. Science won't tell me anything about God other than His grandeur and majesty (even that is questionable, say atheists). And the Bible won't tell me anything about the universe besides that it was made by God ... in particular, I don't expect it to tell me how the universe was made. Do I sound more like a TE now?

Maybe, but you sound like a YEC too.

Over the time I've seen you post I think this has been your main objection to evolution in particular and science in general. Maybe I could straighten it out once and for all ...

Many have tried, but few have succeeded.

I'm sure you know that when objects speed up to near the speed of light they start acting funny.

I don't know really know I've never witnessed it but I'll take your word on it; I feel pretty confident that if I sped up to the speed of light I'd act funny.

They contract in the direction of motion and experience slow time and all that stuff. And yet, when we teach kids physics in high school, we give them all non-relativistic formulae to use. When we ask them questions about cars traveling on freeways, we forget to tell them that the cars are actually a little shorter because they're moving. Or when we ask them to find the time a ball stays in the air, we completely ignore the fact that to the ball in motion everything else in the universe has slowed down. (Or speeded up. I'm no Einstein, but I'm sure you get the idea of what I'm saying.)

These kids don't learn about the real world. They live in Newtonland where gravity is a force (not space acting like a weird sheet-o-rubber), objects can accelerate to infinite speed, and mass can't be converted into energy. We've distorted their view of the world by telling them all about Newton and nothing about Einstein. But does that mean we've harmed them?

No - because the world around us is effectively Newtonian, and almost nothing is changed on a practical level when we use our good old Newtonian sense, and we can't observe or pin down the difference that Einstein makes.

Think about it. How would science include God? If only it could! And yet God, by definition, isn't scientifically verifiable. We can't tag God and read out His mass and see if the universe acts different when He's not around - since He's always around, everywhere. Science works because the universe is effectively scientific. Sure, supernatural stuff happens once in a while. A man walked on water once, but most of the people who've ever tried that (involuntarily) end up at the bottom of the lake not the top. Putting mud on people's eyes is not standard opthalmological practice. And most people stay dead far longer than 3 days, crucified or not.

So much of the world plays by the rules of science that it would be silly not to take advantage of that. What more, God even hints that He's designed it that way. "I make my rain fall on the wicked and the godly", He says - He allows nature to work the same whether or not you've prayed today. He seems to be discreet, almost absent if you don't believe in Him - and with good purpose as demonstrated in Job: when people love God despite rain and cancer and death happening to them like normal, that's real love.

Nothing to disagree with here, I support, at least as far as I'm capable of, everything you've said and highlighted.

Science doesn't include God, but neither is it such an insult to God as you seem to think it is, since God made the world scientific in the first place, and if I read Genesis 1 right God thought it was very good.

Now maybe I can straighten it out once and for all so that you too may understand. I've never said that science was an insult to God, not even remotely. If I did, I'd like you to point it out. As far as I know, I've always stated it was good. The insult, when it exists, is when man uses his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word. If we just stuck to empirical science which is based upon observation then no insult or problem could ever exist.

 

[Mallon]

The insult, when it exists, is when man uses his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word.

Shame on you, then, if you believe our Earth looks like this:

... rather than this:

... for you have insulted God by superceding his Word (e.g., Job 9:6, Job 26:11, Psalm 75:3, 1 Sam 2:8) with modern science.

 

[vossler]

Shame on you, then...for you have insulted God by superceding his Word (e.g., Job 9:6, Job 26:11, Psalm 75:3, 1 Sam 2:8) with modern science.

If I have then I'll have to ask for forgiveness.

 

[Mallon]

If I have then I'll have to ask for forgiveness.

And so will I.
The point I am making is just as I don't take the Hebrew cosmology literally, nor do you. So who are you to tell me that I am insulting God by not trusting what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth? (Matthew 7:1)

 

[vossler]

The point I am making is just as I don't take the Hebrew cosmology literally, nor do you. So who are you to tell me that I am insulting God by not trusting what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth? (Matthew 7:1)

First of all I'm not telling anyone that they are insulting God. Even if I was, I'm in no position to directly speak for Him, nor do I have any aspiration to. All I can do is seek His Word and Holy Spirit and apply it the best I know how. If someone else believes that when man supercedes God's Word that God isn't troubled or insulted by it, that may be true, although I wouldn't bet on it. So, you're free to believe that just as I'm free to believe otherwise. We each have to answer to Him and thankfully not each other.

Secondly, Scripture appears to imply the earth is fixed, I'll grant you that, and science has proven, through observation, that it isn't. Yet this observation has had little effect on how I live my life, for all practical purposes the earth could be fixed and the sun revolve around it and that would have no effect on my existence. It doesn't change other Truths within Scripture or the entire history of mankind.

Science hasn't, through observation, proved that man evolved.

 

[shernren]

Now maybe I can straighten it out once and for all so that you too may understand. I've never said that science was an insult to God, not even remotely. If I did, I'd like you to point it out. As far as I know, I've always stated it was good. The insult, when it exists, is when man uses his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word. If we just stuck to empirical science which is based upon observation then no insult or problem could ever exist.

I know I've seen you post this before, I just forgot it when I was posting just now. My bad. I'll have to answer specifically to that.

I think that evolution really isn't "man using his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word", on two counts. But first, can we establish that there really is a scientific interpretation of the evidence that can lead us to accept that evolution happened, the earth and universe is old, etc.? In other words, that the scientific phenomena can account for what we actually do see today, whether or not they actually happened. Of course, you may not agree with that. But let's take the easy way out and assume you do for now.

If you do, then evolution (etc.) ceases to be offensive the way you described it, on two counts. Firstly on a purely practical level, it is completely appropriate to make a scientific description of the world, even if it is only approximate. Science doesn't expect people to rise from the grave even though we know someone did just that. We don't expect people to float on water or burn it without some supernatural intervention. So it wouldn't really be wrong to say that "Given no supernatural intervention, we can account for this and that feature of the world by the fact that it is old." It is no different from our knowledge that given the normal order of things people stay dead and water doesn't burn.

On a deeper level, however, the question is whether or not we would have any good reason to doubt the scientific description of how everything came about. Is the Bible sufficient reason for us to doubt this scientific description of the world's creation? (Of course, this will strike you as doing things the wrong way around. I know.) In the first place one must ask: if God wanted the Bible to supersede science why did He do such a bad job of it? The Bible tells us almost nothing about science and doesn't even give any clues. If God's revelation were really about the physical nature of the world one would expect His Chosen people to be the strongest scientists in the world; and yet Israel in the OT is really a technological midget being pushed around by the superpowers of its day. God used the Bible to show us what we would never have known on our own.

"But shouldn't we be asking if science is sufficient reason for us to doubt the Bible's description of creation, instead of the other way 'round?" To some, of course, the descriptions of Genesis 1 and 2 seem entirely metaphorical right from the start. The imageries of chaos waters, tohu-bohu, the covenant of the Great King etc. are quite apparent; for some, the text itself appears metaphorical before dealing with a shred of science. But not everybody is an ANE-culture geek ... so my argument would be that Scripture does not prescribe science because Scripture assumes that we already know science. (Okay, Scripture can't really do anything, but I am referring to the litle I think I know of God's intentions in writing it. For me, if God assumed that we already knew science before coming to the Scriptures, it is as good as saying the Scripture assumes that we already know science. Horrendous theology, but it makes for easier writing.)

We encounter the world before we encounter the Bible, and we know what the Bible is saying precisely because it refers to things in the world. "The Promised Land flows with milk and honey" would hardly have any meaning if we did not know first what milk and honey was! And more importantly, the passage never tells us what milk and honey is: it assumes that we know, and trusts us to draw the right conclusion. When Jesus walks on water, we are trusted to know that it is a miracle (interestingly, the fact that water is an image of chaos in the OT doesn't enter people's minds when they read this. Jesus wasn't just miracle-surfing, He was employing imagery that any Jew would have recognized as imagery of creation.) because we are supposed to know that people sink in water.

What then, of Genesis 1? Does Genesis 1 assume that we already know how the universe was formed? I think the situation is slightly different and in Genesis 1 how the universe was formed is irrelevant. If you look carefully, there are no "hows". God speaks and it is done; there is no hint of any "process" whatsoever. I take this to mean (again, without any reference to science) that God is not cataloguing His actions, but His creations. "You see the light? I made it. You see the darkness? I made it. You see the sea? ... " God is referring to our present reality, with stars and trees and all.

I believe that God wasn't going to bother about telling us the how because He knew we'd find out eventually and we'd be spot on. But He worried a lot about the why; right from the start everybody was getting it wrong worshipping the Sun and all. And that is what Genesis 1 is about: not how God created, but why.

And so I don't think that the sciences you have in mind (evolution, etc.) really supersede the Scriptures, if the Scriptures themselves already have essentially nothing to say on the matter. As we've seen, Scripture seems to essentially leave the job of describing the universe to us; what it does is to take up all those descriptions (for which it leaves us responsible) and piece them together into an authoritative description of God.

(Brownie points for not mentioning geocentrism or a flat earth anywhere!)