Deceiving the Nations.

[shernren]

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.

Evolution has been rejected by the American church, not the Church.

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.

A global flood is someone's interpretation of Scripture. Someone's interpretation of Scripture is verifiably and supportably not true. That doesn't mean that Scripture itself, or any other interpretation of Scripture, is similarly false.

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.

But the TE hermeneutic is not like the hermeneutic you mentioned back there, because it never alters the moral and theological implications of Scripture, no matter how much it alters our scientific understanding of which parts of Scripture are historical and which aren't. We still do believe that whatever is in the Bible is there for a reason; we just think that for some passages the reason is not to serve as a simple, literal, historical account of what actually transpired. If God put the story of the Flood into the Bible to show that He is wrathful towards sin, then we had better do all we can to avoid that wrath, whether or not the Flood actually happened and whether or not it was global!

In fact, it can well be a misnomer to speak of the TE hermeneutic, because there really is no one true method of interpreting Scripture across the board. TE is simply an admission that scientific evidence indicates to us that evolution was the most likely means by which God created us. That's all. A TE's theology is little affected by evolution; it is built far more upon the much more important issues of what s/he thinks of God and humanity and sin and redemption and the afterlife and morality. Against this vast backdrop of diversity, accepting evolution really isn't much of a homogenizing factor.

 

[vossler]

Evolution has been rejected by the American church, not the Church.

Be that what it may, it's the only church I know of.

A global flood is someone's interpretation of Scripture. Someone's interpretation of Scripture is verifiably and supportably not true. That doesn't mean that Scripture itself, or any other interpretation of Scripture, is similarly false.

Given that, no one's interpretation of Scripture, when it comes to the flood and a host of other topics is verifiable, and because they aren't by default they then becomes not true, hence the statement or claim. Since no one's interpretation can be verified, all are unsupportable and the Words of Scripture then essentially become meaningless.

But the TE hermeneutic is not like the hermeneutic you mentioned back there, because it never alters the moral and theological implications of Scripture, no matter how much it alters our scientific understanding of which parts of Scripture are historical and which aren't. We still do believe that whatever is in the Bible is there for a reason; we just think that for some passages the reason is not to serve as a simple, literal, historical account of what actually transpired. If God put the story of the Flood into the Bible to show that He is wrathful towards sin, then we had better do all we can to avoid that wrath, whether or not the Flood actually happened and whether or not it was global!

I'll just say this, if the story can be viewed as non-historical I've seen many, many people then dismiss the story as insignificant and inconsequential. Whether you or I believe that to be true doesn't matter, non-believers do.

A TE's theology is little affected by evolution; it is built far more upon the much more important issues of what s/he thinks of God and humanity and sin and redemption and the afterlife and morality. Against this vast backdrop of diversity, accepting evolution really isn't much of a homogenizing factor.

That all sounds fine when one reads it on the screen, but my own observations bear witness to a completely different story. Maybe that isn't the case with you and some others here, but I've come across many TEs, some who post here quite regularly, who's theology appears to be greatly affected by evolution.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Still an inconsistent hermeneutic. Why would God not intend all of his communication with us to be understood by us?

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.

The heavens declared the glory of God to the psalmist when he could only see stars visible to the naked eye. How much more amazed would he be had he been able to gaze through a telescope or discover there are millions of galaxies with a like number of stars? Sure, we don't need more than was known to Neo-lithic peoples to see God's glory in nature, but that doesn't mean it is not great to have an even better understanding of it. And it certainly doesn't detract from God's glory if we do. Not unless you want to keep God stuck in the gaps.

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

Are we not commanded to study the Word of God? One way the Word communicates with us is through what he created.

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.

You are conflating those four givens into two again.

Remember we don't have just scripture and science. We have scripture and nature and the interpretation of scripture and the interpretation of nature (by science).

It is scripture and nature that have an equally firm foundation in reality. Science is verifiable and supportable when it is true to the nature it purports to describe. And science that is true to nature is also true to scripture, given that nature and scripture come from the same source.

What is not verifiable and supportable is an interpretation of scripture that is not true to scripture and/or nature. For if it is untrue to either it is untrue to both.

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.

Scripture is very relevant on those matters for which it was given. It is even relevant when its apparent description of nature does not tally with what we know to be reality, because it is not the purpose of scripture to give a technical scientifically accurate portrayal of nature. Even without that, it can and does use descriptions of nature for the purpose of conveying spiritual and moral truth, and is successful in doing so, even for modern minds that have a different conception of nature.

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

Depends on what you mean by "world". If you are referring to the worldly opinions of secular humanity, you are slandering many God-fearing scientists.

If you mean the actual, physical cosmos God created, why wouldn't you expect the scriptures to fit that world? In fact, if you believe that the scriptures can be true and be in contradiction to that world, are you not verging on the denial of a real creation?

The idea of human beings having a soul makes sense,

Only because you already believe it.

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.

The difference is that you had in the math problem all the data you needed to come up with a correct answer. In contrast to the mathematician, the scientist often has to try and solve problems without all the relevant data.

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.

So? That is 50% of a minority of Christians. 50% of a minority is a smaller minority.

If the science is so overwhelming, why is that? Are Americans just plain ignorant...

"Now Jesus stood before the governor and the governor asked him 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus said 'You say so.' "

But remember, "ignorant" does not mean "stupid". It means "uniformed" "not knowing due to lack of information/education". I have heard many Americans complain about the inadequacies of the American education system. Combine that with the irresponsibility of the media in dealing with the issues, and the even grosser irresponsibility of creationist organizations which sow confusion and it is not surprising the level of ignorance is as high as it is. You will note that those Americans who do get a good education are much less likely to accept an interpretation of scripture that is out of harmony with creation. And that applies to believers as much as to unbelievers.

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.

Certainly one's world-view can bias one's interpretation. That is precisely why interpretations must be tested against reality. By the time science reaches a consensus on an interpretation which scientists of all different world-views can accept, those biases have been minimized as far as possible. Interpretations which are only acceptable to one world-view are not useful in science.

I’m sorry but I like scientists who wear biblical glasses because they have a solid foundation whereupon they base their interpretative findings.

So why do you agree with a non-biblical foundation of someone like Agassiz instead of the biblically informed science of Asa Gray?

The fact is, no matter how Christian a scientist is, you reject their science if it does not accord with your view of scripture, while you will accept the science of even an atheist (e.g. Hoyle) as long as it agrees with your opinion, so this matter of "biblical glasses" is really a sham.

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

You can lead a horse to water.....

They would if the God told them so.

And where has God told them so?

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.

I don't disagree with you, but the moral indiscretions of Christians is really a different topic.

Thereby making Scripture itself irrelevant.

That would not be my conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution has been rejected by the American church, not the Church.

It hasn't even been rejected by the American church. Only by some denominations and about half of American Christians.

 

[theFijian]

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.

Well I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you had made any such effort. And FYI, rmwilliams is a member of one of the most theologically conservative denominations in America, I'd presume he also holds to the Chicago statement. You'd do well to check out his contributions at the Semper Reformanda forum then tell me that he does not hold the Bible as infallible

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.

So what do you mean when you say 'truth leaps out of scripture'? In this case is it somehow bypassing your cultural lense?

 

[theFijian]

Be that what it may, it's the only church I know of.

So far as you're concerned the church outside of America doesn't exist and/or isn't important. Charming.

 

[vossler]

Still an inconsistent hermeneutic. Why would God not intend all of his communication with us to be understood by us?

I don’t have a problem understanding everything I need to know about Creation.

The heavens declared the glory of God to the psalmist when he could only see stars visible to the naked eye. How much more amazed would he be had he been able to gaze through a telescope or discover there are millions of galaxies with a like number of stars? Sure, we don't need more than was known to Neo-lithic peoples to see God's glory in nature, but that doesn't mean it is not great to have an even better understanding of it. And it certainly doesn't detract from God's glory if we do. Not unless you want to keep God stuck in the gaps.

I don’t disagree with anything you said here, I actually concur. The key difference between us though is what is known and what isn’t. I’m definitely not going to give God glory for something I don’t know to be true and He never told us about.

Are we not commanded to study the Word of God? One way the Word communicates with us is through what he created.

The Bible tells us what God created and how He did it, but I still fail to see anything that commands us to understand or study His creation.

Remember we don't have just scripture and science. We have scripture and nature and the interpretation of scripture and the interpretation of nature (by science).

Only one of which we are instructed to interpret.

It is scripture and nature that have an equally firm foundation in reality. Science is verifiable and supportable when it is true to the nature it purports to describe. And science that is true to nature is also true to scripture, given that nature and scripture come from the same source.

Yes they both have an equally firm foundation in reality, still only one requires interpretation. Man has chosen to interpret nature and within that process has taken the liberty to reinterpret Scripture through the eyes of man.

What is not verifiable and supportable is an interpretation of scripture that is not true to scripture and/or nature. For if it is untrue to either it is untrue to both.

On what basis can you make this claim? Scripture is never held accountable to nature, especially not man’s interpretation of it. This standard you describe has no foundation in Scripture and is solely man-derived.

Scripture is very relevant on those matters for which it was given.

Is this saying there are matters where Scripture speaks that it isn’t relevant?

It is even relevant when its apparent description of nature does not tally with what we know to be reality, because it is not the purpose of scripture to give a technical scientifically accurate portrayal of nature. Even without that, it can and does use descriptions of nature for the purpose of conveying spiritual and moral truth, and is successful in doing so, even for modern minds that have a different conception of nature.

So when God says He created in six days that is not considered accurate.

Depends on what you mean by "world". If you are referring to the worldly opinions of secular humanity, you are slandering many God-fearing scientists.

You may call it slander, I don’t, I called it being misguided and seduced into buying a lie.

Only because you already believe it.

I don’t think you’d find many people who don’t.

So? That is 50% of a minority of Christians. 50% of a minority is a smaller minority.

I won’t dispute the percentages because the point is still there, 150 years after the most scientifically supported theory that ever was brought forth a large percentage of people discount it. As far as I know there hasn’t been a single other theory that has even remotely been questioned by the public the way evolution has. Why do you suppose that is?

"Now Jesus stood before the governor and the governor asked him 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus said 'You say so.' "

I don’t know why you include this verse from John 18 but it happens to lead to one of my favorite verses in the Bible John 18:37

"You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."​

I love how in this one verse Jesus gives us the reason he was born and His purpose, to bear witness to the truth. I feel that is my own purpose too.

But remember, "ignorant" does not mean "stupid". It means "uniformed" "not knowing due to lack of information/education". I have heard many Americans complain about the inadequacies of the American education system. Combine that with the irresponsibility of the media in dealing with the issues, and the even grosser irresponsibility of creationist organizations which sow confusion and it is not surprising the level of ignorance is as high as it is. You will note that those Americans who do get a good education are much less likely to accept an interpretation of scripture that is out of harmony with creation. And that applies to believers as much as to unbelievers.

I understand ignorant doesn’t mean stupid.

Certainly one's world-view can bias one's interpretation. That is precisely why interpretations must be tested against reality.

Reality is definitely the key, I’m glad we’re in agreement here. Amen sister. Too bad we have two different views of reality.

By the time science reaches a consensus on an interpretation which scientists of all different world-views can accept, those biases have been minimized as far as possible.

I’m sorry but that sounds so worldly.

Interpretations which are only acceptable to one world-view are not useful in science.

Given the TE mindset this is no surprise; however, this fits quite well to the YEC. Multiple worldviews seeing things the same way doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

So why do you agree with a non-biblical foundation of someone like Agassiz instead of the biblically informed science of Asa Gray?

I’m not familiar enough with either to say I agree with one over the other.

The fact is, no matter how Christian a scientist is, you reject their science if it does not accord with your view of scripture, while you will accept the science of even an atheist (e.g. Hoyle) as long as it agrees with your opinion, so this matter of "biblical glasses" is really a sham.

Not true, over the years my view of Scripture has changed and I’m sure will continue to change. If someone is able to present a biblically strong position based on a good hermeneutic, regardless of the subject, I’ll seriously consider it no matter who they are.

You can lead a horse to water.....

No doubt, but if the water is poisoned a smart horse will walk away.

And where has God told them so?

Throughout the Scriptures we’re told the Truth, all that’s required from us it to believe and then act upon that belief.

That would not be my conclusion.

Maybe not, but the effect is the same.

 

[vossler]

Well I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you had made any such effort. And FYI, rmwilliams is a member of one of the most theologically conservative denominations in America, I'd presume he also holds to the Chicago statement. You'd do well to check out his contributions at the Semper Reformanda forum then tell me that he does not hold the Bible as infallible

Over a year ago I sent you a PM wishing to reconcile our differences and you responded very negatively to that idea, that's why I said what I did. I have no problem accepting your apology and am happy to move on. I will try to take some time and look at the link you provided and respond via PM.

So what do you mean when you say 'truth leaps out of scripture'? In this case is it somehow bypassing your cultural lense?

I believe sometimes it does bypass my cultural lense, in other words, I believe that the majority of people would read it the same way no matter what culture they grew up in.

 

[gluadys]

I don’t have a problem understanding everything I need to know about Creation.

How do you know that if you refuse to study it?

I’m definitely not going to give God glory for something I don’t know to be true and He never told us about.

He has told us about it, in the work of his hands. He has told us about it in creation.

The Bible tells us what God created and how He did it, but I still fail to see anything that commands us to understand or study His creation.

Only one of which we are instructed to interpret.

What? We are told in scripture to study God's Word. It never says that we are to limit our study of God's Word to the scriptures and ignore the rest of what the Word has spoken. Basically you are putting yourself in the position of defending your view of scripture by rejecting the testimony of scripture itself, that creation is also God's revelation, the work of the Word.

A command to study the Word of God is a command to study creation, since creation comes by the Word. Think about those passages where God speaks to Job. What does he ask Job to examine? His creation!

Yes they both have an equally firm foundation in reality, still only one requires interpretation.

Nonsense. How can you possibly propose that?

Man has chosen to interpret nature and within that process has taken the liberty to reinterpret Scripture through the eyes of man.

We interpret both nature and scripture because we cannot do otherwise. Scripture was "reinterpreted" by Jesus himself who presented a very different interpretation of the Messiah than the rabbis had discerned in the Hebrew scriptures. There is nothing inherently sinister about interpretation and reinterpretation as long as they continue to be tested against the reality of God's Word in both scripture and nature.

On what basis can you make this claim? Scripture is never held accountable to nature, especially not man’s interpretation of it. This standard you describe has no foundation in Scripture and is solely man-derived.

There you go again, making the same conflation of reality (scripture/nature) with interpretive understandings of reality. I never said scripture is held accountable to nature. I said:

What is not verifiable and supportable is an interpretation of scripture that is not true to scripture and/or nature.​

Is this saying there are matters where Scripture speaks that it isn’t relevant?

Not everything in scripture is relevant to its principal purpose. Some things are illustrative or incidental commentary rather than direct teaching.

I won’t dispute the percentages because the point is still there, 150 years after the most scientifically supported theory that ever was brought forth a large percentage of people discount it. As far as I know there hasn’t been a single other theory that has even remotely been questioned by the public the way evolution has. Why do you suppose that is?

Your knowledge of history is as lacking as your knowledge of science. It took the Catholic church more than 300 years to admit Copernicus was right. It only took half that time to admit Darwin was right.

It took nearly two centuries for even mainstream scientists to reach agreement on the age of the earth and the non-global extent of the flood.

Here is a good summary of that process (by an evangelical Christian)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

And by far the majority of the public does not question evolution. Not unless they have been influenced by creationists. (In Canada that amounts to about 8% of the population.) Please stop judging the whole world by the American context. As in many other matters, America is simply out of step with the rest of the world.

Multiple worldviews seeing things the same way doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

It does if you believe in a real creation. When world-views are tested against reality, there is only one reality to test them against, so sooner or later, that one reality will re-shape the world-views and generate consensus.

Unless, you intend to propose that God created multiple realities for multiple world-views?

I’m not familiar enough with either to say I agree with one over the other.

Well, it would certainly be worth your while to acquaint yourself with Christians like Adam Sedgwick, William Buckland, Asa Gray and Hugh Miller, especially the latter two who were also leaders in the 19th century evangelical movement.

By contrast, Agassiz was more Unitarian or Deist. He also believed in polygenism: the separate special creation of each human race.

Not true, over the years my view of Scripture has changed and I’m sure will continue to change. If someone is able to present a biblically strong position based on a good hermeneutic, regardless of the subject, I’ll seriously consider it no matter who they are.

Of course, you decide what a good hermeneutic is, so Christians who disagree with your hermeneutic are outside the pale, while non-Christians who support your beliefs are welcome. As I said, your "biblical glasses" are a sham.

Throughout the Scriptures we’re told the Truth, all that’s required from us it to believe and then act upon that belief.

On the contrary, we are encouraged to study, to question and to learn, not to be unthinking automatons doing only what they are told for no reason but that they are told to. If your prescription were followed we would be nothing more than dumb beasts.

Jesus reminded his disciples that they were not slaves but friends. Friends have the right to seek understanding, not just do what they are told.

And Paul reminded Timothy to study to show himself approved by God.

 

[vossler]

How do you know that if you refuse to study it?

I’m not required to study it, just praise God because of it. Tell me one thing I need to know about Creation that, in your opinion, it appears I don’t know.

He has told us about it, in the work of his hands. He has told us about it in creation.

Of course He has and He gets all the glory. I know that to be true. I don’t know evolution to be true and it actually takes the glory away from God and gives it to natural forces. Whenever I talk to atheists that’s exactly what they do.

What? We are told in scripture to study God's Word. It never says that we are to limit our study of God's Word to the scriptures and ignore the rest of what the Word has spoken. Basically you are putting yourself in the position of defending your view of scripture by rejecting the testimony of scripture itself, that creation is also God's revelation, the work of the Word.

A command to study the Word of God is a command to study creation, since creation comes by the Word. Think about those passages where God speaks to Job. What does he ask Job to examine? His creation!

Sure God asks Job to examine His creation. Did Job go off and study it, send teams out to report what it said to them? No, he didn’t need to do that because he knew, just as I know, that by looking Creation speaks for itself. Man isn’t required to come up with his own theories about it’s existence because it speaks so loudly on its own that Job knew right away it was God. He didn’t need a scientist and neither do I.

So to you the command to study creation is found in and based on Job 38 and 39? If these are not the chapters to which you are referring please point out the specific chapter and verse. If these are I’d like to know the verse(s) that make or even infer such a command. I don't know what it is you see here, but I see God admonishing Job, asking him where he was when creation happened and who it was that did all these wonderful things. I see this as a strong position for the sovereignty of God and the ignorance of man, which is exactly how the YEC sees things and certainly not in anyway supports evolution. If anything those same questions could be directed to an evolutionist, instead of Job, who arrogantly thinks they know how God did what He did.

Nonsense. How can you possibly propose that?

Like I said, show me where we are commanded to study nature or Creation. If we’re not commanded to do so then there isn’t a requirement for interpretation. Obviously we can choose to study it, the point here is we’re not commanded to do so, whereas with Scripture we’ve been commanded to study it.

We interpret both nature and scripture because we cannot do otherwise.

As long as our interpretation of nature doesn’t conflict with our interpretation of Scripture we’re on solid footing. We can choose to do that, the problem is we don’t.

Scripture was "reinterpreted" by Jesus himself who presented a very different interpretation of the Messiah than the rabbis had discerned in the Hebrew scriptures. There is nothing inherently sinister about interpretation and reinterpretation as long as they continue to be tested against the reality of God's Word in both scripture and nature.

If you had just dropped off the last five words “in both scripture and nature” you’d have something there. Again you place nature and the study of it on the same level as Scripture. You have nothing within Scripture to back up that claim. This is why our worldviews are so entirely different.

There you go again, making the same conflation of reality (scripture/nature) with interpretive understandings of reality. I never said scripture is held accountable to nature. I said:

What is not verifiable and supportable is an interpretation of scripture that is not true to scripture and/or nature.

This is a convenient escape that allows you and other TEs to dismiss Scripture without, on the surface, appearing to actually do so. It’s quite imaginative and has allowed you a great deal of latitude by other Christians. It always comes back to an interpretation of Scripture being subjective and unsupportable which, no matter how you dice it, always minimizes Scripture and maximizes science.

Not everything in scripture is relevant to its principal purpose. Some things are illustrative or incidental commentary rather than direct teaching.

I submit that everything in Scripture is relevant to its principle purpose. Whether it is illustrative or appears to be incidental commentary it is relevant or it wouldn’t be there.

Your knowledge of history is as lacking as your knowledge of science. It took the Catholic church more than 300 years to admit Copernicus was right. It only took half that time to admit

Of course I knew about Copernicus and the fact that it took 300 years for the Church to admit he was right. That’s not what I said, I said there hasn’t been a single other theory that has even remotely been questioned by the public the way evolution has. I wasn’t speaking about clergy, scientists, geologists, etc., only the public. In the past the public has always accepted scientific findings without much of any objection, that is until evolution came along. Again, I ask why do you suppose that is?

And by far the majority of the public does not question evolution. Not unless they have been influenced by creationists. (In

Canada that amounts to about 8% of the population.) Please stop judging the whole world by the American context. As in many other matters, America is simply out of step with the rest of the world.

I’m sorry but since I live in the US I will use the American context because that is what I know best. If you wish to use the Canadian context, please feel free to do so. The public which is measured quite effectively here in the states has always questioned evolution.

It does if you believe in a real creation. When world-views are tested against reality, there is only one reality to test them against, so sooner or later, that one reality will re-shape the world-views and generate consensus.

Yes, that one reality that all worldviews should be tested against is the reality of Scripture, not man’s speculations on nature. That one reality, Jesus Christ, found in Scripture not nature, will re-shape the worldviews soon.

Unless, you intend to propose that God created multiple realities for multiple world-views?

There is but one reality based upon one worldview.

Of course, you decide what a good hermeneutic is, so Christians who disagree with your hermeneutic are outside the pale, while non-Christians who support your beliefs are welcome. As I said, your "biblical glasses" are a sham.

The hermeneutic I use isn’t mine, it has been around for a long time and is a proven method. It isn’t influenced by the world, or worldly theories.
A non-Christian could never present a biblically strong position because the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside within them, so their beliefs are not relevant and obviously not welcome.

On the contrary, we are encouraged to study, to question and to learn, not to be unthinking automatons doing only what they are told for no reason but that they are told to. If your prescription were followed we would be nothing more than dumb beasts.

Of course we are encouraged to study, question and learn. One cannot effectively act on a belief without first knowing what the belief is.

 

[Deamiter]

Of course He has and He gets all the glory. I know that to be true. I don’t know evolution to be true and it actually takes the glory away from God and gives it to natural forces. Whenever I talk to atheists that’s exactly what they do.

What a load of nonsense! You honestly think evolution takes the glory away from God because it gives it to natural forces? Does the fact that humans procreate by natural forces take away the glory due God for the birth of a new human?!? Even to YEC, God created natural forces and to claim that when something is due to natural forces it takes glory away from God is quite blasphemous!

You keep claiming that you do not interpret scripture, apparently afraid that if you were to interpret scripture, you might be wrong... Then you claim that creation is not a revelation of the Word -- Jesus Christ.

Since you take the utterly unbliblical stance that the Bible alone is the Word of God (a title that is reserved solely for Jesus in the Bible) and utterly refuse to either study God's creation or question your interpretation of scripture, it's no wonder your interpretation of scripture is impossible to reconcile with creation. That you turn around and claim your interpretation of scripture is unquestionable is ironic when it violates your own standard -- that interpretation of scripture and nature do not contradict each other.

Of course, you get around this quite handily by vocally refusing to look even superficially at nature claiming that you know everything you need to know... It's certainly very easy to avoid contradiction between one's interpretation of scripture and God's revelation in creation when you shut your eyes and look not only at scripture, but only at one interpretation of scripture, ignoring any suggestion that your interpretation might be wrong.

 

[theFijian]

...but I still fail to see anything that commands us to understand or study His creation.

One of the things I find frustrating about this forum is having to go over old ground which has already been discussed at length ie. the Creation Mandate. What do you think God meant when he commanded Adam and Eve to 'fill the earth and subdue it'? Your failure to see this as a command to understand and study his creation is against what God plainly says in his Word.

 

[theFijian]

The hermeneutic I use isn’t mine, it has been around for a long time and is a proven method. It isn’t influenced by the world, or worldly theories.

There you go again perpetuating that falsehood. Again I'll ask, are logic and language divinely inspired? Are they part of the revelation of scripture? No they are not, therefore they are part of the world and as such are 'worldly theories'. Yet they undergird your hermeneutic. Unless you are about to reveal that your hermeneutic is a-logical.

 

[busterdog]

What a load of nonsense! You honestly think evolution takes the glory away from God because it gives it to natural forces? Does the fact that humans procreate by natural forces take away the glory due God for the birth of a new human?!? Even to YEC, God created natural forces and to claim that when something is due to natural forces it takes glory away from God is quite blasphemous!

You keep claiming that you do not interpret scripture, apparently afraid that if you were to interpret scripture, you might be wrong... Then you claim that creation is not a revelation of the Word -- Jesus Christ.

I honestly think that. I am entitled to my opinion.

I know that I am at the mercy of a Word that I may not understand and I am satisfied with that. But, I am not willing to let my oberservations of the world or science be the last Word on whether I do undertand it.

To me that is preferable and logically more reasonable that the conviction that the literal Word MUST give way to observations of the natural world.

I think this addresses several comments above, including those of Shernren and Glaudys.

 

[busterdog]

What is inconsistent about it?

That the red sea miracle is possible but a six day miracle is not. Yes, I understand there are some distinctions between the two stories.

 

[busterdog]

By the by, that's one thing that absolutely rankles me about most creationists: the selective memory that remembers raising arguments over and over again without remembering them being rebutted over and over again. I can count with one hand the number of creationists I have seen who have not thrown out an argument, have it torn to shreds, and then come back with that argument again as if it had never been raised before

Is redundancy a crime?

How about persistence?

Should I change what I think (or post) because you declared victory?

If grandpa wants to tell his favorite story one more time, so what? Maybe someone else wants to hear it, maybe not.

 

[artybloke]

I honestly think that. I am entitled to my opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to believe that the world is made of spaghetti if you so choose.

That doesn't make your opinion any less than nonsense however.

 

[busterdog]

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.




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.

As you indicated elsewhere, this is "probable." OK for now. Perhaps I spend too much time with people who may or may not be lying to me (part of my job). "Probable" means there is contrary evidence. You will note that I am only asking that the surface text be taken seriously as part of that equation.

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.

As I said before, study communism. It has been state policy for many years to teach against all Biblical understanding. This has also been partially true of some democratic institutions.

 

[busterdog]

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.
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?

Well, to be fair, I think there is a quite a bit of interest in understanding your position. I think lots of us understand quite a bit of it.

The OP has a thesis: whether the surface text of Genesis has any basis in reason to be considered evidence in these matters. There is no reasonable reading of Gen. 1 or Gen. 2 that can exclude all possibility that the text refers to a literal six days or a global flood. You have every right to argue that something else was meant (in the free will sense, and reason will support you), and maybe you are right but the surface text is what it is.

 

[busterdog]

I remember. It still surprises me.
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.

Absolutely. So true, and I wish you didn't have to say it.

From the Gates of the Forest, Elie Wiesel:

When the great Rabbi Israel Baal Shem-Tov saw
misfortune threatening the Jews it was his custom to
go into a certain part of the forest to meditate. There
he would light a fire, say a special prayer, and the
miracle would be accomplished and the misfortune
averted.

Later, when his disciple, the celebrated Magid of
Mezritch, had occasion, for the same reason, to inter -
cede with heaven, he would go to the same place in
the forest and say: “Master of the Universe, listen! I
do not know how to light the fire, but I am still able to
say the prayer.” And again the miracle would be
accomplished.

Still later, Rabbi Moshe-Leib of Sasov, in order to save his people once more, would go into the forest and say, “I do not know how to light the fire, I do not know the prayer, but I know the place and this must be sufficient.” It was sufficient and the miracle was accomplished.

Then it fell to Rabbi Israel of Rizhen to overcome misfortune. Sitting in his arm chair, his head in his hands, he spoke to God: “I am unable to light the fire and I do not know the prayer; I cannot even find the place in the forest. All I can do is tell the
story, and this must be sufficient. And it was sufficient.

Jesus is the story. That must be sufficient, whether I understand it or not.

But, we still have the right and obligation, as you suggest, to say, this is what the surface text says and man's science is not sufficient to define it.