Deceiving the Nations.

[gluadys]

To me this is one kernel of the problem. This rhetorical question. One assumes that God would not have made C14 as clear as it is if He was the loving God that we know Him to be. Rocks would not look as old as they do and there would be no cosmic background radiation.

Much of it yes!

So, is it your contention that God communicates plainly in scripture but obscurely in his created work? To me, that comes across as an inconsistent hermeneutic.

Yes, busterdog, you are right about the "assumption" that a loving God--and I might add--a truthful God, would not plant deceit in his work. Rocks would not look as old as they do unless they are that old.

But that assumption is based solidly on the scriptural revelation of the nature of God. If I didn't have scripture, I would have no notion of what sort of being God is. I would have no assurance that God is good and just and loving and truthful. It is because scripture reveals the nature of God that I can trust the nature of nature and know that natural processes are not whimsical.

It is this assumption about God's nature and whistling past the enemies "deception of the nations" that is essential to a absolute TE confidence in its position. (I am not directly attacking TE based upon a mere preponderance of the evidence.)

Basically because it has nothing to do with the deception of the nations. Satan was deceiving nations long before Christians began rejecting science. And what he deceives nations about are the same old lies: that violence can bring about good, that enemies must be hated and warred against, that selfishness and greed are permissible ways to live, that oppression will not bring judgment, etc.

You want to see the fruits of Satan's deception of the nations, look at where there is war, violence, poverty, destruction, and look to those who support the big lies that create these evils. Read the scriptures, especially Amos and Isaiah and Jeremiah and see that these are the evils they denounced.

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that the tempter offered Adam and Eve---not the tree of information about the cosmos.

Again, astute observation is not the beginning of wisdom. Fear of the Lord is.

Astute observation is the beginning of knowledge. And science is about knowledge not wisdom. People can be very knowledgeable without being very wise in their use of it. Witness how often the findings of science have been used to build more effective weapons for war. That doesn't make the science incorrect. (If it were, the weapons wouldn't work.) It makes those who put it to such uses unwise.

The prophet warned the leaders of Judah not to put their trust in the strength of horses and chariots or alliances with Egypt. We could equally counsel our leaders not to put their trust in improving the technologies of military might, but to turn the knowledge generated by science to better uses and trust in God to deal with our enemies.

There isn’t anything I’ve ever come across from God that tells us we are commanded to understand or comprehend Creation for anything other than to give glory to God.

Isn't is probable that the better we understand or comprehend creation, the more clearly we will see how it reveals God's glory?

Evolution doesn't even remotely do that

Yet my first reaction on learning about evolution as science understands it, (not the creationist caricature I had previously been exposed to) was to praise God for his wisdom. I was literally awestruck. To me, evolution is one of the best examples of how creation reveals the glory and majesty of God.

Of course that’s true but he would still appear older than he is. Are you saying that if you saw a 6’2” man you wouldn’t think he would appear to be more than 10 years old? C’mon be honest.

Only on a superficial level. Further exploration would show that the appearance does not tally with reality. If he were not really more than 10 years old, there would be indications of his youth in his body and mind. Would he, for example, have memories from 15 years ago?

Similarly, a young earth might have a superficial appearance of age, but further investigation would determine the appearance does not match reality.

Yet even as Mount St. Helens has shown us, there is a lot about geology, sedimentary processes, etc., that we clearly don’t understand.

On the contrary, geologists do understand the processes that were in play at Mount St. Helen's and the very different processes that gave us the Grand Canyon. Mount St. Helen's AFAIK did not produce any phenomenon that surprised geologists or reveal a lack of understanding of geological processes.

Catastrophic events, like a worldwide flood, cannot be tested and known by any means of measurement that we’re capable of undertaking.

I take it that is a statement of faith?

It really amazes me what we can measure and are capable of undertaking. laptoppop is claiming that creationists are developing models of a worldwide flood. So according to him, we can indeed test and measure such a catastrophic event, and creationists are trying to do just that in support of their hypotheses.

I guess it all depends on how one defines real and knowable. Truth is reality and God is first and foremost the source of all that is Truth. He’s told us what He did, how He did it, and how long it took Him. Our first job is to believe Him, and then we can go about attempting to find out more knowing that we have an established foundation.

I have no problem with this, as long as you do not assume that an unverified and unsupportable interpretation of scripture is an established foundation. You keep neglecting the fact that creation is also of God, also a revelation from God, and the very handiwork of the Word of God. It offers just as firm a foundation in reality and in Truth as scripture does.

God has indeed told us in creation what He did, how He did it and how long it took.

In your example above my approach would be from the standpoint that I know the Bible plainly says this and so therefore my measurements should correspond accordingly. If they don’t then I need to make sure of two things, does the Bible say what I believe it to say and can I support it, if so I then need to rethink how I’m approaching my scientific conclusions. Never will I use the scientific conclusions to determine what the Bible says. So reality is always based upon what God said and not what man says or thinks it is.

What you are effectively doing is limiting how God is permitted to speak to you. It must be in scripture and not in creation, and it must be within the terms of your hermeneutical paradigm. Sound scientific conclusions must accord with the reality of creation. When we have every reason to believe the science is sound, it is just as appropriate to question our interpretation of scripture as to question scientific conclusions because of what we read in scripture.

Secondly, you are overlooking the fact that Christians over the last two centuries have already done exactly what you describe. They have looked at the apparent discrepancy between scientific measurements and the text of scripture. They have re-examined the measurements and methods of science. They have looked for other possible interpretations of the evidence. They have not meekly thrown out a traditional interpretation of scripture without challenging the science deeply.

I’m not convinced that ANE people truly believed the earth to be flat, but that’s another discussion. Actually what they saw didn’t comply with a flat earth.

When they observed carefully. That is how they discovered the sphericity of the earth. But it is not a concept that is obvious until careful observations are made and questions asked about them. AFAIK, the Greeks were the first to publish speculation on the possibility the earth is a sphere, and that not until after most of the OT was written. But Jews and the first generation of Christians paid little attention to Greek philosophy. Probably, it was not until those educated in Greek academies became Christian that they brought the concept into Church circles.

Not surprisingly, Aristotle couldn’t accept something he couldn’t see,

Why "not surprisingly"? Democritus had no problem with it. And there are all sorts of other things people then and now accept without being able to see them. Who has seen a soul? Who has seen God? Aristotle believed in "forms" although his thinking about them was somewhat different from that of his teacher Plato. So the invisibility of atoms would not be a bar to accepting the concept.

but I’m not going to base biblical interpretation upon someone else’s speculation or conjecture and neither should you.

I don't. I am satisfied that the science in this case is no longer speculative.

Nor does it necessarily make the scientist right. Again and again the science has been found to be wrong

Folk wisdom has often been found to be wrong, but can you really say science has been found to be wrong rather than incomplete? As shernren noted, new theories must include all that was accounted for by older theories and then explain additional phenomena as well. Newton was not wrong, but his conclusions did not encompass a reality he was not aware of. Einstein did not disprove Newton so much as add to his work to provide a more complete and more accurate picture.

and my contention is let’s wait to see definitely just what actually is true before we start changing our interpretation of Scripture.

Which is what most Christians did a century or more ago in respect of the age of the earth and evolution.

Of course not, this is not a question of what we see it’s a question of how we interpret what we see. What is our worldview, does God exist, and is He the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe? Wouldn’t you agree that depending on how we see that question will determine how we interpret what we see elsewhere?

No. Not when it comes to the sort of objective observations we make in science. As you have already stated, wearing "biblical glasses" will not change what a microscope shows. And when a theory has been multiply tested from various points of view until only one unfalsified interpretation remains, that one theory stands until it can be called into question by new evidence. More importantly, even if the current theory is shown to be false in the future, that will not mean a theory already falsified gets a new lease on life.

A global flood, for example, has already been falsified by multiple lines of evidence. Nothing can give it a new scientific lease on life.

And this is the important aspect of science. Every scientist works to support or tear down current theories. Every new theory meets multiple challenges. But once a definitive observation or test decides which competing theory is best: it is best for every scientist, both those who do and do not wear "biblical glasses". That is why scientists of many different religious, political, ideological and philosophical persuasions can agree on scientific conclusions. Because interpretations that are only tenable if one is wearing a particular set of lenses are weeded out.

I don’t see any evidence for evolution at all, so that makes it very difficult to support.

To me that proves the truth that no one can see what they refuse to look at.

I’ll give you one example of where they did exactly that. Harvard University, within a short period of time, jumped right onto the evolutionary train and never looked back.

Actually, Harvard was a bit slow on the uptake, due to the influence of Louis Agassiz who was a professor of zoology there and a staunch opponent of Darwin's thesis. But Asa Gray, an early supporter of Darwin in America, was also a professor of natural history at Harvard. Gray and Agassiz engaged in some famous debates on the issue.

I suspect the "quick switch" at Harvard occurred after the passing of Agassiz and under the influence of Gray who survived him by more than a decade.

The Agassiz-Gray opposition on evolution illustrates another irony for creationists. For Agassiz, the creationist in this duo, was not even a Christian. His religious inclinations were toward Unitarianism (very fashionable in Harvard at the time). But Asa Gray, who supported the concept of evolution, was a devout evangelical Presbyterian.

If anyone was wearing biblical glasses in this controversy, it was Gray the evolutionist, not Agassiz the creationist.

I don’t know, maybe it is because they already know the truth that God has proclaimed? Why go out and attempt to prove something already known to you when you could better spend the time and money proclaiming it?

I couldn't have expressed such a clear antithesis of scientific thinking better myself. That is why AiG does not engage in science. A person committed to science would not suppose that what they "already know" is the truth should remain unquestioned and unresearched.

Wouldn’t you say that the reason Scripture has most of the controversies is because people don’t want to do what it prescribes?

No. People who simply don't want to do what scripture prescribes don't get into controversies about it. They just ignore it, holus-bolus. It is people for whom the truth of scripture is important that generate the controversies about what it means.

Well if you believe the inerrancy of Scripture is irrelevant how will an inerrant interpretation ever help?

It would make the inerrancy of scripture relevant. It is only on the basis of an inerrant interpretation that we can perceive the inerrancy of scripture.


The Baha'is have noted this necessity. They believe the writings of their founder Baha'ullah are inerrant scripture. But they are also aware that this is insufficient to prevent internal controversy and division. So they also believe the interpretations of his writings by his son and grandson are likewise inerrant, and that any additional matters that arise are to be settled by the nine members of their supreme international council, which is also guaranteed to be infallible. So they not only have (as they believe) an inerrant scripture, they also know exactly how to interpret it infallibly.

 

[vossler]

So, is it your contention that God communicates plainly in scripture but obscurely in his created work? To me, that comes across as an inconsistent hermeneutic.

No that isn’t my contention at all, what I’m saying is that Scripture was intended for us to fully understand, Creation wasn’t.

Isn't is probable that the better we understand or comprehend creation, the more clearly we will see how it reveals God's glory?

To some extent that is true, especially when we see DNA and similar discoveries. However, I never needed DNA to clearly see the glory of God displayed in nature, its been self-evident from the beginning.

So where was it that we are commanded to understand creation?

Yet my first reaction on learning about evolution as science understands it, (not the creationist caricature I had previously been exposed to) was to praise God for his wisdom. I was literally awestruck. To me, evolution is one of the best examples of how creation reveals the glory and majesty of God.

Isn’t it fascinating how two people see the same thing and one believes something to glorify God and the other believes it to do the opposite.

Only on a superficial level. Further exploration would show that the appearance does not tally with reality. If he were not really more than 10 years old, there would be indications of his youth in his body and mind. Would he, for example, have memories from 15 years ago?

So you’re actually saying a 6’2” man would only superficially give you the idea that he is over 10 years old. Is it any wonder we see the evidence of evolution so differently then?

It really amazes me what we can measure and are capable of undertaking. laptoppop is claiming that creationists are developing models of a worldwide flood. So according to him, we can indeed test and measure such a catastrophic event, and creationists are trying to do just that in support of their hypotheses.

I’m sure there are creationists who are in fact doing exactly what you said. I personally don’t believe they can build an accurate model, but what do I know, next to nothing. From everything I do know there is no such model yet and I’m sure once one is developed it will immediately be ridiculed by the scientific community.

I have no problem with this, as long as you do not assume that an unverified and unsupportable interpretation of scripture is an established foundation. You keep neglecting the fact that creation is also of God, also a revelation from God, and the very handiwork of the Word of God. It offers just as firm a foundation in reality and in Truth as scripture does.

I can’t see how you can say that Scripture offers just as firm a foundation in reality as science does because wherever the two clash science takes precedence for the TE. Of course since, in the TE mind, Scripture is unverifiable and unsupportable it is by its very nature unreliable and therefore, as you said, irrelevant because its inerrancy can not be proven. Truth is primarily known through science.

What science says should therefore be our foundation because we can support and verify it, right?

God has indeed told us in creation what He did, how He did it and how long it took.

That’s exactly my point, what Scripture says is irrelevant, it’s only what science says that carries any weight.

What you are effectively doing is limiting how God is permitted to speak to you. It must be in scripture and not in creation, and it must be within the terms of your hermeneutical paradigm. Sound scientific conclusions must accord with the reality of creation. When we have every reason to believe the science is sound, it is just as appropriate to question our interpretation of scripture as to question scientific conclusions because of what we read in scripture.

There are plenty of people who will today state that homosexuality is biblically acceptable behavior for a Christian. They would claim they have every reason to believe their hermeneutic is sound. Without a doubt I’m definitely limiting the sources of information that I allow to influence me and my thinking. God isn’t the author of confusion, if His Word says one thing and a scientist says another, you can believe it that I’m not listening to the scientist. Sure the scientist can claim that his theory is only based upon nature, then again the homosexual makes essentially the same claim.

Secondly, you are overlooking the fact that Christians over the last two centuries have already done exactly what you describe. They have looked at the apparent discrepancy between scientific measurements and the text of scripture. They have re-examined the measurements and methods of science. They have looked for other possible interpretations of the evidence. They have not meekly thrown out a traditional interpretation of scripture without challenging the science deeply.

They have done so in order to make the Scriptures fit what the world is claiming and not what the Scriptures themselves are claiming. Big difference!

Why "not surprisingly"? Democritus had no problem with it. And there are all sorts of other things people then and now accept without being able to see them. Who has seen a soul? Who has seen God? Aristotle believed in "forms" although his thinking about them was somewhat different from that of his teacher Plato. So the invisibility of atoms would not be a bar to accepting the concept.

The idea of human beings having a soul makes sense, it’s logical and most importantly supported by the Bible. Who has seen the wind and yet we all believe it exists. Why because it’s supported by other evidence. Whether the invisibility was a bar or not for Aristotle I wouldn’t know, but I could it being one for me, especially if it didn’t make sense.

Folk wisdom has often been found to be wrong, but can you really say science has been found to be wrong rather than incomplete? As shernren noted, new theories must include all that was accounted for by older theories and then explain additional phenomena as well.

Newton was not wrong, but his conclusions did not encompass a reality he was not aware of. Einstein did not disprove Newton so much as add to his work to provide a more complete and more accurate picture.

I remember doing equations in college algebra and answering problems with part of the formula or answer on a test. Guess what, when the instructor graded my paper it was wrong even though it was incomplete.

Which is what most Christians did a century or more ago in respect of the age of the earth and evolution.

And yet almost a 150 years later there are more than 50% of Christians in the US who have serious issues with the theory of evolution. If the science is so overwhelming, why is that? Are Americans just plain ignorant or maybe just maybe they’re spiritually awake.

No. Not when it comes to the sort of objective observations we make in science. As you have already stated, wearing "biblical glasses" will not change what a microscope shows. And when a theory has been multiply tested from various points of view until only one unfalsified interpretation remains, that one theory stands until it can be called into question by new evidence. More importantly, even if the current theory is shown to be false in the future, that will not mean a theory already falsified gets a new lease on life.

So you’re saying one’s worldview plays no role on how we interpret what we see? It has everything to do with how we see.

A global flood, for example, has already been falsified by multiple lines of evidence. Nothing can give it a new scientific lease on life.

If that’s true, then I’m even more thankful that I don’t place much stock on science over Scripture.

And this is the important aspect of science. Every scientist works to support or tear down current theories. Every new theory meets multiple challenges. But once a definitive observation or test decides which competing theory is best: it is best for every scientist, both those who do and do not wear "biblical glasses". That is why scientists of many different religious, political, ideological and philosophical persuasions can agree on scientific conclusions. Because interpretations that are only tenable if one is wearing a particular set of lenses are weeded out.

I’m sorry but I like scientists who wear biblical glasses because they have a solid foundation whereupon they base their interpretative findings. It’s no different, to me, than having a theologian who studies the Bible but isn’t a Christian and then giving me his interpretation of Scripture.

To me that proves the truth that no one can see what they refuse to look at.

I’ve had countless people show me the ‘evidence’ and I saw it and walked away totally unimpressed.

I couldn't have expressed such a clear antithesis of scientific thinking better myself. That is why AiG does not engage in science. A person committed to science would not suppose that what they "already know" is the truth should remain unquestioned and unresearched.

They would if the God told them so.

No. People who simply don't want to do what scripture prescribes don't get into controversies about it. They just ignore it, holus-bolus. It is people for whom the truth of scripture is important that generate the controversies about what it means.

Then what’s all ballyhoo of homosexuality about?

If people truly wanted to do what the Scriptures say, believe me they’d do it. It doesn’t even take a scientist to figure out that Christians don’t do what the good book tells them to do. Divorce is rampant among Christians, adultery, fornication, lying, etc., are all clearly evident in the church. It all comes down to submission, very few will completely submit themselves before God.

It would make the inerrancy of scripture relevant. It is only on the basis of an inerrant interpretation that we can perceive the inerrancy of scripture.

Thereby making Scripture itself irrelevant.

 

[shernren]

The ability of water to stand in a heap is very much like the ability of many miles of granite to be formed in a day. Or, put it this way, the process of reason is close enough that I don't see the confident dismissal of the latter process on the basis of so-called evidence.

"So-called evidence" is evidence nonetheless, until you can provide a better explanation for it.

Is there evidence that a few thousand years ago some water stood in a heap for a few hours over a few meters at the Red Sea? No.
Is there evidence that a few thousand years ago water could not have stood in a heap for a few hours over a few meters at the Red Sea? No.

Is there evidence that a few thousand years ago, miles of granite were formed daily over almost a year globally? No.
Is there evidence that the many miles of granite we see today could not have been formed over almost a year globally a few thousand years ago? I'd say yes.

What is inconsistent about this?

 

[shernren]

I can’t see how you can say that Scripture offers just as firm a foundation in reality as science does because wherever the two clash science takes precedence for the TE. Of course since, in the TE mind, Scripture is unverifiable and unsupportable it is by its very nature unreliable and therefore, as you said, irrelevant because its inerrancy can not be proven. Truth is primarily known through science.

What science says should therefore be our foundation because we can support and verify it, right?
That’s exactly my point, what Scripture says is irrelevant, it’s only what science says that carries any weight.

Far out! Where has any TE claimed that Scripture is "unverifiable", "unsupportable", or "unreliable"? I've claimed, for example, that external evidence corroborates the story of the Resurrection and allows us to confirm that it is an actual historical event. That's as far from "unverifiable" as you can get! We TEs are sure that the Bible does not tell us how the heavens go - but that does not mean we will ignore anything it says on how to go to heaven!

There are plenty of people who will today state that homosexuality is biblically acceptable behavior for a Christian. They would claim they have every reason to believe their hermeneutic is sound. Without a doubt I’m definitely limiting the sources of information that I allow to influence me and my thinking. God isn’t the author of confusion, if His Word says one thing and a scientist says another, you can believe it that I’m not listening to the scientist. Sure the scientist can claim that his theory is only based upon nature, then again the homosexual makes essentially the same claim.

How on earth does science make ethical claims? I will sidetrack here to make my point. I know roughly what you're talking about: you're referring to those people who believe that homosexuality is partly genetically determined. (By the by, a "gene for homosexuality" more often simply means "people who have this gene are 10% more likely to be homosexuals than people who aren't". I probably have a few "genes for diabetes" inherited from my maternal grandmother but as long as I watch my diet I should be able to avoid it, too.) Now the question is: what would you do if a scientist told you that homosexuality has a genetic component? Will you stick your fingers in your ears and say that it mustn't be true because you cannot believe that it is?

I'd say that would be committing the error of causing science to make ethical decisions. For me, if there was good evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis, then I would accept it. (I haven't looked at the data yet; I simply don't know.) But if someone told me, based on that data, that homosexuality is "acceptable", I would ask him or her: How do you determine what is acceptable through science, and how does right or wrong have a genetic component?

If ex-President Bill Clinton had a gene for infidelity, would that make his affair any more excusable?
If Princess Di had a gene for dying in car accidents (heh, heh) would that make her death any less tragic?
If President Bush had a gene for screwing up his speeches, would that make his frequent misstatements any less hilarious? ("Public speaking is very easy." - Bush)
If a person had a gene for color blindness, would that make the Mona Lisa any less beautiful, just because he couldn't appreciate it?

Certainly not! And yet people claim that a gene for homosexuality would make it "right". "Something people cannot avoid doing can't be wrong for them, can it?" And yet Christians struggle with some sins their whole lives long; in any case, the Christian message is not about overcoming sin through human effort, so it is no surprise that some people face sin they cannot overcome on their own. "It's not their fault that they're homosexuals, so it's okay!" If I am raised in a violent family, I might be predisposed to violence: would that make it okay for me to go out into the street and shoot people, because it's not my fault that I'm that way? Whether or not you think I need punishment or help, you would still know at some level that what I did was wrong.

You see? There is no scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is right; there is no scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong either. There is no scientific reason to believe that the Bible is wrong to condemn homosexuality. Science informs ethics, and technology inputs tremendously on the practical working out of ethics in our everyday lives, but it cannot decide ethics and make rules about what is right and significant and true and beautiful. There are no scientific arguments for what is right and wrong, only ethical arguments cloaked in the sheepskin of innocent scientific facts. And in the same way, there would be no Scriptural reason to believe that there isn't a gene for homosexuality (or that there is one), and there is no Scriptural reason to believe that evolution could not have been God's means for creating us (or that it was).

If the universe had not been built for human comprehension, God would not have given us minds that can comprehend it; if He was graspable by human comprehension, He would not have given His Son to redeem it. We must know what we were made for and what we weren't made for, and avoid confusing the two at any cost.

 

[theFijian]

Whereas to believe in evolution is actually easy. All one has to do is agree with the world.

Frankly, your attitude towards your christian brethren is disgusting. You have been around here long enough to know better than to make such insinuations, you should be ashamed of yourself but you probably aren't.

 

[theFijian]

However I would tell you and everyone else that my interpretation, as much as possible, isn't based upon any other preconceived notion other than the Bible is a book of absolute truth. It is from that foundation upon which I based all my decisions and whereby everything else is measured against.

Same here. Remember that Chicago statement on Innerrancy?

I have no outside, man-derived, theory upon which I place my trust.

Are logic , language and hermeneutics all divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible? No, yet they undergird the framework through which you understand the Bible. Please stop perpetuating the falsehood that the text of scriptures leaps directly off the page into your brain with no outside filtering whatsoever.

 

[Assyrian]

I think what we are doing is drawing parallels and trying to say that God is, time and again, concerned with how people regard what he says he has and will do.

And as we keep pointing out, you keep trying to draw bad parallels, with things that simply aren't an issue.

Apparently, the TE view is that God was serious about dividing the red sea, but metaphorical about the flood.

Actually I think God was serious about both, it is just the YEC interpretation of a global flood that is unsupported by either scripture or geology.

This seemes to be because there is very little direct evidence for or against a Red Sea crossing (though there is some) outside of what scripture records. Why isn't it enough simply to say that, well water doesn't stand in a heap -- science has proven this time and again. Well, why not? You can observe this as readily as you can do Carbon 14 dating.

Because no one here is questioning the power of God.

It is not a question of what God could do, but of what he actually did, what actually happened.

One method of distinction is that science studies the age of the earth, but not the dividing of the red sea . Why should this make any difference? Any science dealing with water presumes it will not stand in a heap, right?

Actually no. Water is quite capable of standing in a heap and when it does it has a similar effect on people who get in the way as it had on the Egyptian army. Just look at what happens in a tsunami or storm surge.

That you can pick evidence you find to be conclusive (C14 dating) and that which can be dismissed is difficult to understand (water not standing in heaps).

If the evidence dismisses the claim, then it doesn't matter whether the claim is easy to understand or would have required a mighty work of God.

The gospel writers claimed that Jesus healed a man born blind. Science could never dismiss that on the basis of medical impossibility because science doesn't know what God can or cannot do. The Pharisees adopted the only strategy possible. If they could prove the man had his sight before, then no miracle had taken place. Real miracles are able to stand this sort of test.

If you say the world was created 6000 years ago and scientific tests show it to be composed of rock at had been around millions of years before, then your proposed miracle did simply did not take place, or it did not happen how and when you claim.

When does the Bible ever, ever, ever, look to physical evidence as opposed to the testimony of its prophets, like Moses, who wrote Gen 1 and Gen. 6?

We are not looking at prophets like Moses. Moses never said the world was only a few thousand year old or that there had been a global flood. I was talking about the biblical test to distinguish false prophets from true.

Deut 18:21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Jer 28:8 The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. Jer 28:9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet."

Even God's own words are to be tested by how it lines up with reality. YEC preachers are simply intepreters rather than prophets, and I would never encourage them to be taken outside the town and stoned, but their interpretations do not line up against reality. They fail the biblical test. Either that or they are giving a true interpretation of the passages and Moses has failed his own test of a false prophet. I think it is the interpreters who got it wrong because Moses never actually said how old the earth is.

Does YECs have a problem with being false prophets ? Maybe. But, how are we distinct from TEs, except on the basis of physical evidence, which is just not an issue in Scripture?

That claim is so alien to the biblical worldview.

OK. Then, let science tell me what the future is. Will the trumpet sound? Will we be changed in the twinkling of an eye? Will the elements melt and a new Jerusalem decend? Seems to me that philosophy is grounded on something science doesn't have, and that is a record of prophecy.

By the way, we are talking about comparing scripture to science, not philosophy to science. The former is revelation v. human thinking. In the latter case, both are human thinking. I am saying that the issue of a self-validating revelation is in issue and it must be equal to or greater than so-called physical evidence. If that is accepted, then we can proceed to the issue of who simply doesn't understand this revelation.

No you definitely mentioned 'a philosophical basis to be skeptical of science'.

I am an arm-chair luddite, not a practicing one. No one is really going to smash the machines.

And you validate science by testing it against the real world every time you do.

We agree that this is a problem. But, there must be some admission that it would make sense for God to use the surface text as well as the subtext to deal with a fallen world that is full of deception.

The earth itself is not deceptive. God created it and said it was good.

We have found in the past that when the surface text does not agree with what we are learning about the real world, as was the case when we discovered the sun did not orbit the earth, then the thing to do is take a closer look at both subtext and surface text, because the reading we had was wrong.

YECs simply haven't learned that lesson.

Our hope is to be lead by the Spirit and to abide in His protection. I agree that there are interpretive issues that need to be questioned. However, I don't think TE has ever ventured from the impenetrable citadel of physical evidence as the test of all things. I think the default drive rejects all scripture where it fails to square with evidence. If we put the scripture surface text and "conclusive" physical evidence on an equal footing at least, I think the nature of your interpretive process changes. I simply argue that the method of analysis that makes physical evidence sacrosanct is philosophically unsound and scripturally challenged.

In one way what you say is very good. When there is a conflict, we have to subject both our understanding of the natural evidence and our understanding of scripture to rigorous testing. You problem is you are a couple of centuries late. The science has been tested again and again. In fact that is how science works so well it keeps testing its ideas. On the other side church leaders and theologians, respected scholars like James Orr, Schofield and the original 'Fundamentalists' reexamined their approach to Genesis and rejected six day literalist interpretation as without a firm foundation, just as their predecessors had rejected geocentrism.

Been there, done that, now the YECs want to bring back the tee shirt a hundred years later.

On the other hand if we are going to say that any scientific theory that contradicts a bible interpretation could be a Satanic deception then I suggest you think very seriously about your casual rejection of geocentrism, simply based on the claims of science.

Romans 8:28 is may fail safe, not my personal theology. I am sure there is deception on both sides of this issue.

Even in the early church there were lone voices like Cosmas Indicopleustescalling for a rejection of pagan theory of a sphere and a return to the biblical view of a flat earth. Do you think Satan left his scientific deception of the nations to the last few centuries?

See above.

You are saying there deception about heliocentrism and a round earth?

Concern for satanic deception should dethrone the supremacy of "physical evidence" and science. It does not enthrone any particular theology.

It was God who said we could check out his prophets against the physical evidence. Passing the test does not make a prophet a true one but it sure weeds out a lot of false ones.

Is YEC thinking so pure that it is above theology? No. As much of a paradox as this is, I think it has more to do with how we argue about theology and use scripture. I don't have a great thesis. I am just trying to pull down strongholds.

Lots of us have managed to do a great many things in life through desperate prayer and without any understanding at all. I think of Churches that thrive, marriages restored, businesses that sustain and broken bodies that heal. Why should I approach question differently? The evidence is that God is more than able. I doubt any of us has ever tested that truth to its full extent by putting aside our own habits, world-views or other stand-bys of our own construction.

Do I need to have a systematic theology or philosophy of science to survive? Well, they are somewhat useful. But the current question, at least in my view, is whether even that process should be informed by a view that honors what the Word say above what the physical evidence may seem to say in this world of deception. Personally, I think that such ideas will give way to the Lord's own presence and teaching after His return.

You think you are arguing for a higher view of the word of God, instead you are emptying it of its great claim that God is the creator of reality and his words are true. To defend a fallible human interpretation that has been shown to be wrong, you try to divorce the bible from a reality you label 'deceptive'. In the bible God was never afraid to have his word tested against reality.

 

[Assyrian]

I have no outside, man-derived, theory upon which I place my trust

​

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."​

​

​

​

 

[vossler]

Far out! Where has any TE claimed that Scripture is "unverifiable", "unsupportable", or "unreliable"? I've claimed, for example, that external evidence corroborates the story of the Resurrection and allows us to confirm that it is an actual historical event. That's as far from "unverifiable" as you can get! We TEs are sure that the Bible does not tell us how the heavens go - but that does not mean we will ignore anything it says on how to go to heaven!

As an example gluadys said "A global flood, for example, has already been falsified by multiple lines of evidence." Correct me if I'm wrong but that is claiming that Scripture is unverifiable, unsupportable and thereby unreliable.

How on earth does science make ethical claims? I will sidetrack here to make my point. I know roughly what you're talking about: you're referring to those people who believe that homosexuality is partly genetically determined. (By the by, a "gene for homosexuality" more often simply means "people who have this gene are 10% more likely to be homosexuals than people who aren't". I probably have a few "genes for diabetes" inherited from my maternal grandmother but as long as I watch my diet I should be able to avoid it, too.) Now the question is: what would you do if a scientist told you that homosexuality has a genetic component? Will you stick your fingers in your ears and say that it mustn't be true because you cannot believe that it is?

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I wasn't trying to say that science made ethical claims. I was, unsuccessfully, trying to make a comparison between someone who claims their science is sound with someone who claims their hermaneutic is sound. Gluadys was comparing science with scripture when she said "When we have every reason to believe the science is sound, it is just as appropriate to question our interpretation of scripture as to question scientific conclusions because of what we read in scripture." All I was doing is showing that there are plenty of people who think their hermaneutic is sound by believing that homosexuality is permissible. That doesn't somehow then make it a sound doctrine because they can twist the Scriptures in the same way scientists truly believe they see nature a certain way.

Anyway, let's just drop it, obviously I'm not conveying my thoughts very well here.

 

[vossler]

Frankly, your attitude towards your christian brethren is disgusting. You have been around here long enough to know better than to make such insinuations, you should be ashamed of yourself but you probably aren't.

Deny it if you wish but evolution has been enthusiastically accepted by the world and not by the church. So I don't see how the statement is in any false or misleading.

 

[vossler]

Same here. Remember that Chicago statement on Innerrancy?

I remember. It still surprises me.

Are logic, language and hermeneutics all divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible? No, yet they undergird the framework through which you understand the Bible. Please stop perpetuating the falsehood that the text of scriptures leaps directly off the page into your brain with no outside filtering whatsoever.

If I've perpetuated that belief then I'm sorry because that is not my intent. If anyone knows that isn't true it's me. Sometimes the truth does leap off the page, but most of the time it requires a mixture of meditation, study and prayer before many of the truths of God's Word are known.

 

[grimbly]

Deny it if you wish but evolution has been enthusiastically accepted by the world and not by the church. So I don't see how the statement is in any false or misleading.

I guess it depends on how you define church or which church you're referring to. I see by your icon that you are a Baptist. Well here's a statement from a Baptist University.





Baylor > Biology Home > Statement on Evolution Statement on Evolution


"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."




http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=27622

And
Does the fossil record support the idea of biological change over time (biological evolution)?

Yes. The fossil record clearly indicates

• a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,
• that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and
• that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.
The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists.



http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26729

 

[vossler]

I guess it depends on how you define church or which church you're referring to. I see by your icon that you are a Baptist. Well here's a statement from a Baptist University.

According to the latest Gallup Poll a majority of Christians don't believe in evolution, that's the church I was referring to. I'm not surprised in the least that Baylor or any other 'Christian' college would state otherwise.

 

[Melethiel]

Why are Americans so America-centered? Just because a lot of people in America don't accept evolution, doesn't mean that a majority of Christians don't.

 

[Mallon]

Why are Americans so America-centered?

http://www.stephenville.org/americans/

 

[theFijian]

I remember. It still surprises me.

And what still surprises me is that you have no intrest in discovering how I can hold to it and yet accept evolution as God's method of creating our biosystem. Which suggests to me that you're more interested in defending the infallibility of your own interpretation of scripture than the infallibility of scripture itself.

Sometimes the truth does leap off the page, but most of the time it requires a mixture of meditation, study and prayer before many of the truths of God's Word are known.

What do you think 'leap of the page' means? Do you understand what I mean by 'cultural lens' or 'cultural framework'? Do you think you do or do not have a 'cultural lens' through which you read scripture?

 

[grimbly]

[/color]

According to the latest Gallup Poll a majority of Christians don't believe in evolution, that's the church I was referring to. I'm not surprised in the least that Baylor or any other 'Christian' college would state otherwise.

You do realize that YEC is largely an American phenomenon and that a majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution and an ancient earth as the best explanation of our universe.

I couldn't help but notice the scare quotes around Christian when referring to Baylor. Are you implying that Baylor is not in some manner a Christian university just because they maintain a high standard of academic excellence? They are not the only Christian colleges that include evolution and/or ancient earth geology in their curriculum. There's a ton of Catholic, Luthern, Baptist and other denominational colleges that teach conventional science as part of a Christian education. Are they not real Christians also??

 

[theFijian]

I couldn't help but notice the scare quotes around Christian when referring to Baylor. Are you implying that Baylor is not in some manner a Christian university just because they maintain a high standard of academic excellence? They are not the only Christian colleges that include evolution and/or ancient earth geology in their curriculum. There's a ton of Catholic, Luthern, Baptist and other denominational colleges that teach conventional science as part of a Christian education. Are they not real Christians also??

I think the modus operandi is clear now, not Creationist = not real Christian.

 

[vossler]

You do realize that YEC is largely an American phenomenon and that a majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution and an ancient earth as the best explanation of our universe.

Yes!

I couldn't help but notice the scare quotes around Christian when referring to Baylor. Are you implying that Baylor is not in some manner a Christian university just because they maintain a high standard of academic excellence? They are not the only Christian colleges that include evolution and/or ancient earth geology in their curriculum. There's a ton of Catholic, Luthern, Baptist and other denominational colleges that teach conventional science as part of a Christian education. Are they not real Christians also??

I'm implying that most 'Christian' universities are not very biblical in quite a bit of what they teach, evolution not with-standing, and Baylor being among them. There are very few 'Christian' colleges that I would ever consider sending my two teenagers to. As a matter of fact my daughter is going to be going to a very liberal northeastern school next year and I don't have even a slight problem with it because she will be prepared to deal with those limited areas where their instruction is tainted. At least I won't have to prepare her for a slew of false biblical teachings from a 'Christian' college.

 

[vossler]

And what still surprises me is that you have no intrest in discovering how I can hold to it and yet accept evolution as God's method of creating our biosystem. Which suggests to me that you're more interested in defending the infallibility of your own interpretation of scripture than the infallibility of scripture itself.

I have a lot of interest in knowing that, especially since you are the only TE I've met that holds the Chicago Statement in such high regard. The reason I don't pursue such a discussion with you is two-fold. 1. You've treated me and my previous efforts of dialog with contempt and so therefore I don't believe our discussion would produce much fruit. 2. Such a discussion would also be quite lengthy and would be far better served via another more direct means of communication.

What do you think 'leap of the page' means? Do you understand what I mean by 'cultural lens' or 'cultural framework'? Do you think you do or do not have a 'cultural lens' through which you read scripture?

Of course I have a cultural lense through which I read Scripture, that's part of what the meditation, study and prayer is supposed to do, minimize it.