Deceiving the Nations.

[Assyrian]

If the surface text is worth debating, then it is evidence.

Evidence of what? It is evidence that there are readings and misreadings of scripture. A misreading of scripture is not evidence of anything other than people's ability to misread scripture. The fact that the surface text is worth debating shows that there is more than reasonable doubt that the text makes the claims that YECs allege. When Moses their star witness does not support their interpretation of what he said, then their interpretation does not qualify as any sort of evidence.

Then we should worry that science is enough, even though we may be presuaded in the end that it is correct. If I have done nothing else, I have urged that the surface text is evidence of reasonable doubt that things like evolution and regional-only flooding are correct.

Personally, I do accept the surface text and I am less concerned about the evidence. (the more organized and collegial the discussion, the easier it is to assimilate contrary evidence). But, I am just asking TEs to admit the possibility that the surface text is some valid evidence that YEC is true, not toss all the contrary evidence in science (but you are welcome to do so).

I understand the idea of messing around with the suface text and wondering whether we can make other meanings work. But, the surface text pretty much is what it is and it is at least quite difficult to get around it without just rejecting it.

How is a misreading of scripture supposed to cast doubt scientific evidence? All you have is a simplistic reading of a text without any reference to what others part of scripture say about how we should read the text, and without any effort to identify where our own misconceptions might alter the way we read the scripture. How is this simplistic approach to scripture supposed to cast doubt on science, when it fails complete in every area we could care to examine.

Bats are not birds.
Neither are locusts.
Insects do not crawl on four legs, they have six.
The earth does not have pillars.
Neither does it have four corners.
The Medes did not come from the end of the heavens.
The Queen of Sheba did not come from the ends of the earth.
The sun does rush around the earth every day.
Mustard seeds are not the smallest of all seeds.

Even YECs mess around with the surface text for these passages. You have not shown any reason to doubt the scientific evidence. But there is plenty of reason for 'messing around with the surface text' as you put it, or as the bible describes it, rightly handling the word of truth.

 

[Assyrian]

I should have been more specific and said Science can be used as a tool to help fill the earth and subdue it.

...as God commanded us.

The thing is we humans haven’t had much difficultly with filling and subduing, but we’re not near as good at going out and preaching the gospel to the outer part of the earth.

Agreed. This first two commands are ones the human race have always taken to with glee. The church has not been so good on the new commission.

First of all heliocentrism isn’t a foundational or historical issue, but then again you already knew that. It also doesn’t contradict the Bible and you knew that too!

Neither is six day creationism foundational. And the literalist interpretation of the Genesis days doesn't have the historical support geocentrism had. Geocentrism, was universally understood as the scriptural position, without a single voice of dissent, up until Copernicus and Galileo. The Genesis days on the other had been given a wide range of interpretations, from the single day, a thousand years or the purely figurative.

Heliocentrism contradicts the plain literal interpretation of a wide range of scriptural passages and caused real problems for the church when it was shown to be wrong. Geocentrism was much better supported in scripture than six day creationism.

I love how man can speak with such authority when his own history is but only a few thousand years old, yet he can clearly and emphatically state the earth to be 4,500,000,000 years old.

I rounded it off.

Don’t forget resurrections from the dead, virgin birth, God incarnate, etc, etc.

You include resurrection, virgin birth, and the incarnation with seven headed monsters, talking trees, Crawl back into our mother's womb and six day creationism?

You don’t have too, it’s spelled out in your theology.

No it is not. We say the exact opposite. You are reading our theology through Atheist coloured glasses. They don't see God acting in natural processes. But this is a really strange viewpoint for Christians.

I’ve never said that, again another wishful thought. Please stick to what I do say, like I told shernren, there’s plenty to pick from.

I’ve never stated or implied anything even remotely like that. I believe everything is under God’s direct control, He is like a conductor of a symphony that guides and directs all the forces of creation. Like I’ve said before, God is the quarterback and He’s definitely in the game.

So you do believe God can act through natural processes? The force of gravity does not exclude God from being in control of the Solar System? Does meteorology exclude God from sending rain? No? You don't think that either? Does plate tectonics exclude God from creating the continents, mountains and valleys? Do genetics and obstetrics exclude God from forming me in my mother's womb?

But evolution puts God on the sidelines?

Real sciences are those based upon observation and empirical tests that can be shown authentic.

Most science deals with things we can never observe. Electrons protons and neutrons were accepted without anyone ever seeing one. Who has observed a hormone acting inside a living human cell? Has anyone seen a quark? However all sciences are rigorously tested to show they are authentic, including geology and evolution.

I don’t have a problem with speculation and conjecture as long as it is identified as such and not truth. Copernicus and Galileo were able to do that, why can’t evolutionists?

Speculation and conjecture as you put it are called hypothesis in science. So they are clearly identified, scientists just use different terms.

Heliocentrism was accepted on much less evidence and testing than we have for evolution and the age of the earth. How could a 17th century scientist carry out tests on the orbit of a planet?

I don’t know if Augustine is your best advocate. Augustine wrote The City of God, within it he writes, "the Scripture . . . has paramount authority . . . to which we yield assent in all matters . . . That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than God Himself." Regarding the age of the earth, he wrote in The City of God, "Reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have past."

The simple fact that he believed the days of Genesis were figurative shows that there have been a range of interpretations of Gen 1 through history and Augustine's nonliteral interpretation one of the most influential.

Augustine believe the earth was young. He was also a geocentrist. But much more importantly, he believed it was utterly foolish for Christians to set their own interpretations against science.

The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19
39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

That’s funny he sure wrote it like he did and countless millions believed him too.

You mean like he wrote about God having arms and hands or God getting tired? Read Psalm 90, the one thing Peter tells us not to forget.

Yeah just check out His Word, it’s a good read, He tells us quite a bit about how He works.

You mean like where he says Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Yes indeed, it is interesting. He’s still up to the same old game and we’re still buying it.

You should check out God's Word, it wasn't really a snake.

Tell me. Did God really say the seed of the woman would crush the snakes head? I don't remember reading that in the Gospels.

No God didn’t really say.

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

Since you don’t remember reading it then it hasn’t happened right? Isn’t that what you believe? I don’t!

You think Jesus did crush a 4000 year old snake's head, fulfilling the oldest prophecy in the bible, but the gospel writers didn't bother mentioning it?

God says a lot of things figuratively, their not hard to figure out either, that is if we’re willing to get our pride out of the way first.

You are not far from the kingdom.

Our understanding is developed by what we see manifested in actions and not so much in words. Lots of people claim to believe in God and call themselves Christians, that doesn’t make it true. The same for any of us who make claims. What’s true is what we produce, is it good fruit or bad fruit?

I don't see what that has to do with your misrepresenting what TEs believe.

First of all, none of issues you brought up are going strong. Oh there will always be a fringe element out there challenging anything and everything. They obviously carry no weight and no one takes them seriously.

Astrology is very strong about 30% of Americans believe in it. 18% think the sun goes around the earth. Think how much higher that would be if literalist preachers took their bibles seriously and really started pushing biblical geocentrism the way they push YEC. About 20% of Americans believe the moon landings were a hoax. This may not have the religious dimension of the others but shares the same science as conspiracy world view as YEC.

No but I can see you did. Thanks!

You are welcome.

 

[vossler]

And that's why I don't post much in C&E these days now. I'd rather say nothing.

I think that’s a good approach and would serve all of us well.

The atheists are everywhere! Run for cover!

I don’t suggest running from an atheist, my style is to confront or ignore, but never run.

"Atheists agree with YECs because it helps them with their mission of making the Bible look foolish" - really? So if there were no YECs around, beastt would have said something different?

No because the game doesn’t change except that the opposition is much closer. Tactics would obviously have to be adjusted.

"By embracing the TEs who have unknowingly jumped into their bed" - firstly, TEs have not jumped into their bed.

It doesn’t take much of an effort to see the shared sheets and intimate dealings over in C & E.

Secondly, atheists have by no means embraced us. Remember that article when Dawkins publicly debated Francis Collins? That's hardly a friendly handshake there, let alone a passionate embrace. Many atheists consider TEs to be the enemy as well, even if not so much the enemy as YECs.

I’m sure there are those that feel exactly as you say. I’m just saying that here at CF they apparently don’t exist.

Now, isn't that amazing? You and beastt agree as to what the Bible says.

Again, let’s be clear he agrees with me, I don’t agree with him. He agrees with me because it is a convenient way for him, in his eyes, to make God look foolish.

You see how difficult it is to interpret text? Scientists can resolve their disputes through experimentation and observation; literature people have to wrangle out the issues with immense subjectivity.

Interesting analysis. Let me respond to this area directly. If all we were talking about was within the box of what Sagan said “The Cosmos is all that ever is, was or will be” then I think you have a valid argument to make. However, as Christians we know that a transcendent being whom we call God exists outside the box of the Cosmos. He is God and He sent His Son Jesus Christ to redeem us and to testify to the Truth. What Truth did He come to testify to? Why did He need to testify? What was on trial? Truth! God has given us the Truth of His Word and it behooves us to listen to the universal truths He proclaims and not allow the world, which has no concept of truth, to sway and lure us into its lies. Romans 12:2 states:

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
​

Transformed here in the greek means metamorpho or as we would say it, metamorphosis. That’s a radical change and it only occurs when something radical happens to us through the renewing of our minds. When we feast on God’s Word and allow it to change us into the creatures God wants us to be we will be transformed. We can’t do that by working solely within the box, we have to acknowledge and permit God to do what only He can do, in us. He’s given us the universal truth of His Word, now we have to apply it to the particulars of life and not the other way around as the world would have us do.

Nothing could be more subjective than reading text and nothing could be more important than Scripture's meaning, and yet YECs and atheists agree about how to read Scripture and what it should mean!

Hardly, I’ve never met an atheist who agrees with me about how to read Scripture and what it means. Just because you can get an atheist to agree with certain aspects of Scripture that doesn’t mean a thing. You can get a Buddhist, Muslim, Deist, whatever to do likewise. When it’s convenient people will agree with whatever suits their fancy.

Scripture is far more important than science to both of us ... you accuse us of being bedfellows with atheists on the grounds that we agree on science, whereas all the while you agree with them on the far more important question of how to read Scripture!

Like I said, what does it take to agree with someone on a subject that means nothing to you. Nothing! But if you agree on a subject that you are both passionate about, well that speaks volumes.

 

[vossler]

I doubt that TEs agree everything can be explained by natural causes. Atheists may think that everything can be explained naturally, but TEs generally hold that science only deals with the material aspect of reality and that there is more to reality than nature.

Maybe they don’t, I know TEs come from a very diverse background, but my experience has shown them to be in a pretty tight unison with the atheist in this regard. I see very little if any disagreement on these matters in C & E.

Furthermore, against atheists (and YECs) TEs do not agree that nature excludes God. So even within the realm of the physical, where TEs agree that natural processes provide a sufficient scientific explanation, they do not agree with sidelining God as atheists and YECS both apparently do.

That to me, seems a simple reading of the facts.

TEs may not agree that nature excludes God (I certainly hope they don’t) but they act and preach as though He does. This can be confirmed in most threads over in C & E. As a YEC I’ve never sidelined God, nor do I know another YEC who has. If a YEC has done so then I don’t see him as a true YEC.

Almost everything you say along these lines is a double-edged sword, since it can mean the opposite of what you intend. I expect you intend here that our trust and faith in God should lead to an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis 1. But without knowing the context, it could just as well mean that our trust and faith in God should lead to an acceptance of what he said in his creation, and hence to rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

It should lead to an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis 1 if there is no other viable interpretation based on good solid hermeneutic.

You sound like my students asking why they should study literature when they plan to be accountants.

Yeah that was a bit of a flippant and rather ignorant statement. I should have qualified it better.

Math never made much sense to me when I was in school. Does that mean I should not have been required to spend some time and effort learning to understand it?

Yeah but mathematical knowledge can be very beneficial in areas not related to math. Other than biology, which apparently runs on the evolutionary engine, I don’t see a demand for evolutionists or people well versed in the theory.

Does the common man who is not a believer see sense and value in studying scripture, or does he learn the sense and value through taking the time and effort to understand it? Why should we expect God's Word expressed in creation to take any less effort to understand than God's Word in scripture?

Ahh but now we’ve stepped into the spiritual realm and that cannot be fairly compared with the physical realm. Spiritual matters, by their very nature, don’t make much sense in our normal way of thinking.

The essential basics of evolution are actually quite easy to understand too. They are not beyond the intellect of the average 5th grader. The details and how they support the theory are a matter for later discernment. So it is a matter of choice how deeply one wants to get into it. But at a basic level there is no reason to say it is beyond understanding and doesn't make sense.

Yes that’s somewhat true, but even when I recall being introduced into the concept of evolution, I just couldn’t see it and remember clearly thinking how foolish it was. You did make a very accurate assessment when you said it was a matter of choice, it really is a choice each of us has to make as to how deeply will we consider something clearly against the Word of God.

Yeah, I think we call Godwin's law on this one. Always a sign of desperation when one needlessly brings Hitler or Stalin into a converstation. As if Churchill or Jefferson or Lincoln did not have just as great an impact in the political realm, or Copernicus and Mendel and Einstein did not have just as much scientific importance.

I see it as a sign of the battle that is raging. Battles occur on many different fronts. All stem from a single causal agent, the truth vs. a lie. Hitler and Stalin were mentioned not for shock value but to show how even someone as clearly evil as they were, that didn’t stop them from holding power and swaying people. People are easily duped and led to believe things that are not true. Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples of it in politics or government, but Darwin is likewise in science.

And it still does not deal with how to resolve different conceptions. When Gamow and Hoyle championed differing explanations of the expanding universe (big bang vs. steady state) how were these conflicting theories resolved in favour of the big bang concept?

I don’t know, but it the argument should have been formed and based on biblical truth and I’m sure it wasn’t.

That is not the case here, though it may be in C&E. No one here is attacking the domain of scripture. All they are doing is considering the best means of correctly interpreting and understanding scripture.

Yet it is being done from man derived ideas and that is, no matter how we dress it up, an attack.

Ironically, the atheists who do attack scripture routinely use a literal interpretation of scripture as a weapon of choice.

That is in a sense ironic, but really not surprising.

You seemed to be suggesting that a strong faith can overcome the need to believe what is true, and to be commending such a faith.

I suggest that what is true is always to be believed and that one ought not even to try to create a faith so strong it can ignore or reject what is true.

Here’s the thing I see. Truth is a word that is thrown around quite liberally, in much the same way love is, yet we don’t have a clear definition of what truth is.

I thought it was quite clear. It was a statement of hermeneutical principle rather than of process. It does mean that any hermeneutical process or principle that requires rejecting truth, whether in the bible or extra-biblical, is of no value in interpreting scripture. Truth is truth wherever it is found and no one source of truth, even scripture, can render another source of truth untrue. Similarly, there is no possibility of scientific truth rendering scriptural truth untrue. That is what I mean about every truth being consistent with every other truth.

This is where we definitely part company. Scripture can most certainly render another source of truth as untrue. Most other sources of truth, if they’ve been touched by man, are not anchored in God who is the source of all Truth.

If we don't grasp the consistency between scriptural truth and scientific truth, that is a human problem we need to work out. It is not a sign that we are permitted to ignore, deny or reject either truth.

Here’s what I would like to see. We stand of Scriptural truth until it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is truly challenging our interpretation of Scripture. If not, we stand firm.

Most Christians don't think so. It is a matter of opinion whether it does or not.

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but opinions don’t matter to me.

Another of those double-edged statements. May I assume that when you refer to God's Word here, you mean only his Word as expressed in scripture and only as interpreted by your preferred literalistic hermeneutic? For someone who does not set these restrictions on their understanding of what "God's Word" is, the statement can have implications you reject, because your assumptions exclude them.

Let me just say this, my hermeneutic is based on a time proven and well supported method that takes many elements into account in its processes. Without getting too deep into it I’ll tell you the number one element is context and not literalness. If someone else can present an interpretation that isn’t man-centered and is effectively supportable via other Scriptures, I’m all ears.

Thanks.

You’re quite welcome! As a side note that was the first explanation anyone has ever submitted in my time at CF that cut through the chase and was very clear and effective.

That is why I suggested using the term "common ancestry" if that is the principal focus of your disagreement with evolution.

Common ancestry is by far my biggest beef with the ToE. It clearly is against the Word of God and I see it as blasphemous. I’m a bit torn as to how to approach this though. See if I from here on out only mention common ancestry as a speculative theory and don’t say anything about evolution itself that could be construed that I don’t have a problem with evolution and most people that I know associate common ancestry with evolution. If I even accept one part of evolution I’m by default accepting all of it. If one part of the overall theory is wrong then all of it is contaminated. I see the Bible exactly the same way so this isn’t a standard I hold only against evolution.

Exactly. Yet the term "engine" is also still useful as an umbrella term. Think of "evolution" in the same way. It is a useful umbrella term for the whole concept that includes observed changes in species, the mechanisms that lead to these changes and the inferred changes that have occurred over history.

I guess I just see it as too big of an umbrella, one that takes too many things under its purview.

I agree, we often need better popular presentations of science for the average person. But at some point those popular presentations still need the input of the expert.

I do want to reiterate though that you cannot separate adaptation from evolution. Evolution is the process that gives us adaptation. You can't have one without the other. I would encourage you to challenge creationist leaders to describe how you would get adaptation without mutation, variation and natural selection. If these are the mechanisms needed to generate adaptation, then they are just describing evolution under another label.

I’m certainly not in a position to challenge you or anyone directly on these matters. My entire foundation is based upon the Word of God and no matter how hard I try I can’t get that model to fit with His Word. Then to reinforce my beliefs there are fellow believers who are much more knowledgeable than I who can see the science of the biblical model and I listen to and support those groups. What they produce sounds, at least to this layman, is a logical a well presented argument that shows adaptation and not generation. The thing I want you and others to remember about this is that I don’t hold what AiG and others say as all that important, it’s what the Word of God says; that’s my plumb line.

I would also add that not all examples of evolution are adaptive. There is also such a thing as neutral evolution in which the changes in the species have little to do with adapting to environmental pressures. That is one of those little details that make the overall picture more complex.

See it’s all that complexity which confuses us, that’s why I like the Word of God because it cuts through most of it and paints the big picture for us.

However, whether or not they know it or believe it, scientists are investigating creation and creation was made by the Word of God. The reality of creation itself will inevitably shape their view of creation, quite apart from their beliefs about the Creator. For when they try to go against the reality of creation, their science will not hold together, since creation itsef is held together in the Word of God.

So, even secular scientists, if they are doing their science diligently and conscientiously, will not come to different results or conclusions than Christian scientists.

Here’s the difference that we as Christians should realize. God gave us the universal truths and we’re to approach all of life from that baseline and use those truths and apply them to the particulars of our world. Secular scientists take the opposite approach, they start with the particulars and attempt to determine the universals. All Christians should be concerned about this.

 

[vossler]

...as God commanded us.

to fill and subdue, yes!

Neither is six day creationism foundational.

It is when you start talking about did man evolve or was he created in the image of God.

Geocentrism was much better supported in scripture than six day creationism.

I guess it all depends on what glasses you’re wearing.

I rounded it off.

Give or take a few million years, right?

You include resurrection, virgin birth, and the incarnation with seven headed monsters, talking trees, Crawl back into our mother's womb and six day creationism?

Yes, they’re all a part of God’s Word, some are literal, some are not, only the discerning spirit-filled mind knows which is which.

No it is not. We say the exact opposite. You are reading our theology through Atheist coloured glasses. They don't see God acting in natural processes. But this is a really strange viewpoint for Christians.

That’s exactly what I think, it is a strange viewpoint for Christians.

So you do believe God can act through natural processes?

Of course, not only can He, He does!

The force of gravity does not exclude God from being in control of the Solar System? Does meteorology exclude God from sending rain? No? You don't think that either? Does plate tectonics exclude God from creating the continents, mountains and valleys? Do genetics and obstetrics exclude God from forming me in my mother's womb?

But evolution puts God on the sidelines?

Right, because it is natural forces that are responsible, not a omniscient transcendent being like God.

Speculation and conjecture as you put it are called hypothesis in science. So they are clearly identified, scientists just use different terms.

That’s not how evolution is portrayed.

The simple fact that he believed the days of Genesis were figurative shows that there have been a range of interpretations of Gen 1 through history and Augustine's nonliteral interpretation one of the most influential.

But he certainly wasn’t an advocate of billions of years. Please show me where he had a figurative approach to Genesis because I haven’t come across yet.

But much more importantly, he believed it was utterly foolish for Christians to set their own interpretations against science.

I don’t disagree.

You mean like he wrote about God having arms and hands or God getting tired? Read Psalm 90, the one thing Peter tells us not to forget.

I don’t know of countless millions believing that.

You mean like where he says

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

That’s why we need to renew our minds and become transformed into His likeness.

You should check out God's Word, it wasn't really a snake.

What, is a snake and a serpent different to you?

Gen 3:14

The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
You think Jesus did crush a 4000 year old snake's head, fulfilling the oldest prophecy in the bible, but the gospel writers didn't bother mentioning it?

Yes I believe Jesus crushed the head of Satan, I assume you do too.
Matthew 1:20 establishes that He was born of a virgin but I don’t see the importance of this and I don’t really know where you’re going with this. I really have never thought about the fact that the gospel writers never mentioned this, but obviously you have. Is this some sort of literal thing or am I missing something?

I don't see what that has to do with your misrepresenting what TEs believe.

The point being, TEs make claims that they believe the Bible but then disprove it in their words.

Astrology is very strong about 30% of Americans believe in it. 18% think the sun goes around the earth. Think how much higher that would be if literalist preachers took their bibles seriously and really started pushing biblical geocentrism the way they push YEC. About 20% of Americans believe the moon landings were a hoax. This may not have the religious dimension of the others but shares the same science as conspiracy world view as YEC.

I find all of those statistics to be rather hard to believe. Please show me your sources.

 

[busterdog]

Evidence of what? It is evidence that there are readings and misreadings of scripture. A misreading of scripture is not evidence of anything other than people's ability to misread scripture. The fact that the surface text is worth debating shows that there is more than reasonable doubt that the text makes the claims that YECs allege. When Moses their star witness does not support their interpretation of what he said, then their interpretation does not qualify as any sort of evidence.

How is a misreading of scripture supposed to cast doubt scientific evidence? All you have is a simplistic reading of a text without any reference to what others part of scripture say about how we should read the text, and without any effort to identify where our own misconceptions might alter the way we read the scripture. How is this simplistic approach to scripture supposed to cast doubt on science, when it fails complete in every area we could care to examine.

Bats are not birds.
Neither are locusts.
Insects do not crawl on four legs, they have six.
The earth does not have pillars.
Neither does it have four corners.
The Medes did not come from the end of the heavens.
The Queen of Sheba did not come from the ends of the earth.
The sun does rush around the earth every day.
Mustard seeds are not the smallest of all seeds.

Even YECs mess around with the surface text for these passages. You have not shown any reason to doubt the scientific evidence. But there is plenty of reason for 'messing around with the surface text' as you put it, or as the bible describes it, rightly handling the word of truth.

Is there reasonable doubt on the surface text? I wouldn't kick too much about that question. I am more concerned about the argument that there is no reasonable doubt DESPITE the surface text. Yes, there is a time to argue some of this stuff as scientists and academics.

As for the difference between metaphor and history in the surface text, we keep hitting that one again and again. I guess it needs its own thread. The TE view of this just proves too much, IMHO.

If we are putting our misconceptions at issue when we look at the surface text, yes, I understand that. That question is always on the table.

However, it does appear that there is an intractible problem of which paradigm should prevail over the other in the event of a conflict: 1. consensus of scientific observation; or 2. the Biblical surface text. I have never seen a way around that rather basic cleavage.

 

[shernren]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here, vossler, I'm sorry but my brain isn't well adapted to take in unfounded statements.

It doesn’t take much of an effort to see the shared sheets and intimate dealings over in C & E.

No kidding!

Here, for example, is a theistic evolutionist protesting that evolutionists shouldn't be talking rubbish about theism until (if they ever) prove that theism isn't an evolved trait: http://www.christianforums.com/t4928744-darwins-god.html

Here, for example, are two theistic evolutionists arguing with non-believers about theodicy: http://www.christianforums.com/t4792413&page=2

Here, for example, is a theistic evolutionist defending the historicity of the Gospels against an atheist attacking it: http://www.christianforums.com/t4912049&page=3

Here, for example, is a theistic evolutionist thread into which an atheist comes and claims that Christianity would not be able to argue with scientism: http://www.christianforums.com/t4919726

It doesn't take a lot of effort to see the shared sheets and intimate dealings in C&E indeed, when anything rational is going on there!

I’m sure there are those that feel exactly as you say. I’m just saying that here at CF they apparently don’t exist.

Right-o. I'll run along and tell Aron-Ra, Chalnoth, Baggins, fishface, lemmings, and many others that they don't exist.

Again, let’s be clear he agrees with me, I don’t agree with him. He agrees with me because it is a convenient way for him, in his eyes, to make God look foolish.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Interesting analysis. Let me respond to this area directly. If all we were talking about was within the box of what Sagan said “The Cosmos is all that ever is, was or will be” then I think you have a valid argument to make. However, as Christians we know that a transcendent being whom we call God exists outside the box of the Cosmos. He is God and He sent His Son Jesus Christ to redeem us and to testify to the Truth. What Truth did He come to testify to? Why did He need to testify? What was on trial? Truth! God has given us the Truth of His Word and it behooves us to listen to the universal truths He proclaims and not allow the world, which has no concept of truth, to sway and lure us into its lies. Romans 12:2 states:

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
​

Transformed here in the greek means metamorpho or as we would say it, metamorphosis. That’s a radical change and it only occurs when something radical happens to us through the renewing of our minds. When we feast on God’s Word and allow it to change us into the creatures God wants us to be we will be transformed. We can’t do that by working solely within the box, we have to acknowledge and permit God to do what only He can do, in us. He’s given us the universal truth of His Word, now we have to apply it to the particulars of life and not the other way around as the world would have us do.

While that was very edifying in general, that still doesn't answer my question: do I see anything different in my microscope if I pray before I look? If yes, why does atheism still exist? If no, why should you consider it an indictment against Christians if their observations of the physical world coincide well when the same observations are performed by non-believers?

Hardly, I’ve never met an atheist who agrees with me about how to read Scripture and what it means. Just because you can get an atheist to agree with certain aspects of Scripture that doesn’t mean a thing.

You can get a Buddhist, Muslim, Deist, whatever to do likewise. When it’s convenient people will agree with whatever suits their fancy.

Like I said, what does it take to agree with someone on a subject that means nothing to you. Nothing! But if you agree on a subject that you are both passionate about, well that speaks volumes.

Vossler, meet beastt? Again, you are insinuating that he did what he did simply because it was convenient for him. I'd like to see proof of that.

 

[vossler]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here, vossler, I'm sorry but my brain isn't well adapted to take in unfounded statements.

Here where time and space collide, enter this world of evolution, where the fourth dimension is crossed; Yes you have entered into the Evolution Zone.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to see the shared sheets and intimate dealings in C&E indeed, when anything rational is going on there!

I looked at all those links and initially I was actually going to post what people said and who said them but then I realized this wouldn’t be edifying to anyone. All I can say it people should look at them and see for themselves if they’re so inclined to know.

I’m also not going to go through the same exercise showing the opposite because it would accomplish nothing but show Christians, without first addressing them personally, in a bad light and I have no desire to do that.

Right-o. I'll run along and tell Aron-Ra, Chalnoth, Baggins, fishface, lemmings, and many others that they don't exist.

There’s always exceptions to the rule. Let’s be truthful, TEs are a welcome sight to atheists in C & E, if for no other reason they have a common enemy.

Do you have any evidence for that?

He places no worth to Scripture and sees it solely as a source of amusement and a means to an end. If not, then he would never say the things he does. If I place no worth on something that you obviously do and then if I am able to use that fact in a manner to my advantage, guess what, if I was a non-Christian you can bet I’ll do it. If you don’t think beastt would then you’re naïve.

While that was very edifying in general, that still doesn't answer my question: do I see anything different in my microscope if I pray before I look? If yes, why does atheism still exist? If no, why should you consider it an indictment against Christians if their observations of the physical world coincide well when the same observations are performed by non-believers?

Yes you do; because you believe and God has opened your eyes, you now see things differently. I don't know if you remember my thread about George Washington Carver sometime back, but he fits that description to a tee.

Vossler, meet beastt? Again, you are insinuating that he did what he did simply because it was convenient for him. I'd like to see proof of that.

I can’t prove that, just like I can’t prove to you I’m a Christian. How do you explain a lot of things? I recently saw a debate between an atheist and Christian where the man who was an atheist was a former Christian who used to be a Pastor for over 19 years. How do you explain things like that? You obviously can’t. In order to understand beastt I would have to spend some one on one time with him and get to know him. What I can say confidently is that he and I do not see the Bible through the same lenses.

 

[Melethiel]

It is when you start talking about did man evolve or was he created in the image of God.

False dichotomy. Why couldn't God have used evolution to create man in His image?

Of course, not only can He, He does!

Right, because it is natural forces that are responsible, not a omniscient transcendent being like God.

Do you not see the contradiction here? First you state that God definitely works through natural forces, then you state that if natural forces are responsible for something, then God didn't do it. So which is it? Why is God allowed to use gravity to hold the planets together but not evolution to create living species?

 

[shernren]

I looked at all those links and initially I was actually going to post what people said and who said them but then I realized this wouldn’t be edifying to anyone. All I can say it people should look at them and see for themselves if they’re so inclined to know.

I’m also not going to go through the same exercise showing the opposite because it would accomplish nothing but show Christians, without first addressing them personally, in a bad light and I have no desire to do that.

Fair enough - but quite frankly, I feel uncomfortable when people make unevidenced statements like this:

There’s always exceptions to the rule. Let’s be truthful, TEs are a welcome sight to atheists in C & E, if for no other reason they have a common enemy.

and say they think it would be impious to find evidence, at that!

He places no worth to Scripture and sees it solely as a source of amusement and a means to an end. If not, then he would never say the things he does. If I place no worth on something that you obviously do and then if I am able to use that fact in a manner to my advantage, guess what, if I was a non-Christian you can bet I’ll do it. If you don’t think beastt would then you’re naïve.

And I would say you're cynical. From where I stand the situation is pretty clear: beastt thinks that the Bible can only be interpreted literally and hence (not "in spite of that") is not worth his time.

Yes you do; because you believe and God has opened your eyes, you now see things differently. I don't know if you remember my thread about George Washington Carver sometime back, but he fits that description to a tee.

I remember that thread and the memory of it spurs me often. But the precise point I would make is that we see things differently, not see different things. The TE sees evolution in man's origins and praises God for it where the atheist would use it to claim God doesn't exist. We both see evolution, a trivial agreement on observations; we ascribe it to different transcendentalities, a profound disagreement.

I can’t prove that, just like I can’t prove to you I’m a Christian. How do you explain a lot of things? I recently saw a debate between an atheist and Christian where the man who was an atheist was a former Christian who used to be a Pastor for over 19 years. How do you explain things like that? You obviously can’t. In order to understand beastt I would have to spend some one on one time with him and get to know him. What I can say confidently is that he and I do not see the Bible through the same lenses.

Well, considering how much evidence you've given me to support that, you can't fault me for remaining unconvinced.

 

[Xaero]

The TE sees evolution in man's origins and praises God for it where the atheist would use it to claim God doesn't exist.

It's because those atheists believe that natural explanations rule out god , so with every new discovery in the natural realm, the atheist can smack down another strawman: "Didn't this finding prove that we don't need god to explain something?".

The concept that God only works in miracles is an unscriptural concept that produces whole armies of strawmans for the atheist's pleasure.

 

[vossler]

I feel uncomfortable when people make unevidenced statements...and say they think it would be impious to find evidence, at that!

I think all you post here are pretty familiar with what goes on in C & E, so there's no need to keep drawing attention to it. OK, that challenge demands some sort of response, a limited one, but a response nonetheless. No names but here is how a TE recently started a thread:

[FONT=&quot]What are you hoping to accomplish here?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are the rare conversions here of reasonable posters.

But seriously, most of the real discussions here are derailed by people, who have no intention of listening to anyone. Unfortunately, they do the most posting (preaching)and hog the board.

The gist of their posts are the Bible is inerrant therefore you are a nazi, communist, mafia, Hitler-loving, and/or Satanist if you accept evolution.

This thread is first address to the preachers here. What are you trying to accomplish?

Are you aware that the more you preach, that people should not believe their own eyes about evolution and should believe your myth, the more ridiculous the Bible appears?

Are you proudly confounding the wise with stupidity?

Do you care how many nonbelievers you harden with this approach? Do you care how many believers you cause to question the validity of their Christian beliefs?

Frankly, from a nonbeliever's perspective, you are confirming that religious beliefs can interfere with reasoning.

You are living proof on this board.[/FONT]

Remember, this was an original posting, not a response to some accusation or anything else. This may not be the exact thing I was looking for, but it does give you the flavor of what goes on there. I really didn't want to spend more time than the few minutes I did, but if others are more interested, knock yourselves out, I'm done.

And I would say you're cynical. From where I stand the situation is pretty clear: beastt thinks that the Bible can only be interpreted literally and hence (not "in spite of that") is not worth his time.

That's the beauty of the internet, we're all entitled to our opinions and they matter not.

I remember that thread and the memory of it spurs me often. But the precise point I would make is that we see things differently, not see different things. The TE sees evolution in man's origins and praises God for it where the atheist would use it to claim God doesn't exist. We both see evolution, a trivial agreement on observations; we ascribe it to different transcendentalities, a profound disagreement.

You know that thread spurs me often too. In all my time here I truly thought that the theme and idea of it could bridge the gap somewhat between the YEC and TE, instead it actually did the opposite. I tried so hard to show God in an exalted way that unmistakably would cause others to be similarly proud to serve such an awesome God, instead He wasn't seen that way at all. I'm still haunted by that and the implications of it. No other thread has ever caused me such discomfort.

Yes we do see things differently, very much so.

Well, considering how much evidence you've given me to support that, you can't fault me for remaining unconvinced.

I understand, I've long since given up the idea that I could convince anyone of anything here at OT. That is well beyond my power and scope.

 

[Assyrian]

Here’s what I would like to see. We stand of Scriptural truth until it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is truly challenging our interpretation of Scripture. If not, we stand firm.

You mean we are really just haggling over the price? How much evidence it takes to budge you from what you think is scriptural proof? So when the last piece of scientific evidence falls into place that finally convince you, what was it you had been standing so resolutely for up until them? It cannot have been scriptural truth because you are later convinced it wasn't true.

Now it appears your idea of scriptural truth is determined not so much by scripture, or by science, but by your ability to keep doubting scientific evidence. Given the large percentage of Americans who can manage to maintain their doubt in the moon landings, this does not seem a healthy attitude to either science or scripture.

I applaud the forlorn heroism of your stance, but an awful lot of people will get hurt before you realise you are wrong. Luke 14:31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

Science will never win a battle against God because God created the natural world. However science does win when God is not on our side, when our interpretations do not line up with what God means in the bible. So when it looks like science is going to win, we should make make our peace while it is still a long way off, long before we hold the bible and Christianity up to ridicule setting own misinterpretation into public battle with science.

Let me just say this, my hermeneutic is based on a time proven and well supported method that takes many elements into account in its processes. Without getting too deep into it I’ll tell you the number one element is context and not literalness. If someone else can present an interpretation that isn’t man-centered and is effectively supportable via other Scriptures, I’m all ears.

That sound good in theory, but in practice you reject any hermeneutic as man-centred if it leaves room for geological ages or evolution.

If you are looking at context, the context of the creation days in Exodus is in the middle of a metaphorical illustration of the Sabbath Command, while Moses himself shows us that he did not take God days literally in the creation psalm, Psalm 90. Jesus didn't take the illustration of the Sabbath command literally. A literal reading of Exodus and Genesis says that the reason for observing the Sabbath was because God ceased from his work on the seventh day and made it holy. Jesus on the other hand tells us that he and his Father never stopped working and the actual reason for the Sabbath was that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. According to the writer of Hebrews God's Seventh day rest is still going on and we can enter into it today. Hardly a 24 hour break.

Common ancestry is by far my biggest beef with the ToE. It clearly is against the Word of God and I see it as blasphemous. I’m a bit torn as to how to approach this though. See if I from here on out only mention common ancestry as a speculative theory and don’t say anything about evolution itself that could be construed that I don’t have a problem with evolution and most people that I know associate common ancestry with evolution. If I even accept one part of evolution I’m by default accepting all of it. If one part of the overall theory is wrong then all of it is contaminated. I see the Bible exactly the same way so this isn’t a standard I hold only against evolution.

What is it you see that is so clearly against the word of God? Is it God making us of clay? Being made of clay or God being a potter crop up a dozen times in scripture. It is only here that people insist it has to be taken literally. Why not read it for the figurative meaning it has elsewhere? This is narrative is that is rich in metaphor and symbolic figures. We have a snake that wasn't a snake and a prophecy of a redeemer crushing a snake's head which was wonderfully fulfilled, but whose fulfilment reads the account figuratively. We have a tree whose fruit gives everlasting life, when Jesus tells us that no perishable food can do that, only the Spirit and his own words. There are a lot of things in that story that were never meant to be taken literally. Why should it be such a massive stumbling block if science shows us one of them is not literal?

 

[Assyrian]

It is when you start talking about did man evolve or was he created in the image of God.

We are happy with both. Did you grow from the fusion of sperm and egg, or did God form you in your mother's womb? Both.

I guess it all depends on what glasses you’re wearing.

I don't think Luther Melanchton or Calvin wore glasses. I don't think you are really in a position to compare them. You believe in a six day creation but not in geocentrism. You are looking at them through very different lenses which distorts any attempt you make to judge which doctrine is better supported. For an objective comparison you would have to ask someone who didn't believe either, or someone who believes both.

You include resurrection, virgin birth, and the incarnation with seven headed monsters, talking trees, Crawl back into our mother's womb and six day creationism?

Yes, they’re all a part of God’s Word, some are literal, some are not, only the discerning spirit-filled mind knows which is which.

Which brings us back to YECs having the same spirit filled discernment as Atheists.

But I am glad you realise some parts of God's word are literal and some are not, and that they can be difficult to tell apart. But if we are to rely discernment to figure out where scripture is literal or not, then you have to explain how the leaders of the Reformation like Luther and Calvin goofed so badly over geocentrism.

But evolution puts God on the sidelines?

Right, because it is natural forces that are responsible, not a omniscient transcendent being like God.
That’s not how evolution is portrayed.

The force of gravity does not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from being in control of the Solar System. Natural processes like meteorology does not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from sending rain. Plate tectonics do not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from creating the continents, mountains and valleys? Natural processes like genetics and obstetrics do not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from forming me in my mother's womb. But Evolution is way too big. There is not way an omniscient transcendent being like God could ever handle natural processes like that, of course it excludes him.

Methinks your omniscient transcendent God is a bit too small Vossler.

Speculation and conjecture as you put it are called hypothesis in science. So they are clearly identified, scientists just use different terms.

That’s not how evolution is portrayed.

That is because evolution is long past the hypothesis stage. It is a thoroughly tested theory.

But he certainly wasn’t an advocate of billions of years. Please show me where he had a figurative approach to Genesis because I haven’t come across yet.

He told us God's days are not to be taken literally and was quite happy taking evenings and mornings figuratively in a meditation on the Genesis story. It don't think Moses tied God down to any particular timescale, neither did Peter. We are not told billions of years, just that literal day is a mistake.

But much more importantly, (Augustine) believed it was utterly foolish for Christians to set their own interpretations against science.

I don’t disagree.

No you just do it.

I don’t know of countless millions believing that.
That’s why we need to renew our minds and become transformed into His likeness.

You mean you are willing to misread figurative language as literal as long as lots of people support you? You should join the catholic church where countless millions believe bread and wine are changed into meat and blood.

What, is a snake and a serpent different to you?

No snakes and serpents are the same. Snakes and angels are different.

Yes I believe Jesus crushed the head of Satan, I assume you do too.

Matthew 1:20 establishes that He was born of a virgin but I don’t see the importance of this and I don’t really know where you’re going with this. I really have never thought about the fact that the gospel writers never mentioned this, but obviously you have. Is this some sort of literal thing or am I missing something?

Yes Jesus crushed Satan's head (so to speak). It was Satan he defeated on calvary, not a snake. No belly crawling animals were harmed, certainly not a 4,000 year old snake who once had a chat with a woman about fruit.

The story about the snake, and the promise of crushing the snake's head are metaphorical.

The point being, TEs make claims that they believe the Bible but then disprove it in their words.

We just believe misinterpretations of God's word are untrue. Why? Do you believe misinterpretation of scripture are true?

I find all of those statistics to be rather hard to believe. Please show me your sources.

Just google it. There seem to be a range of statistics out there. I excluded the one that said 40% of Americans thought the sun went around the earth.

 

[Assyrian]

Is there reasonable doubt on the surface text?

About the words of the text, no. About the meaning, yes. About whether some one reading the text from a completely different cultural perspective thousands of years later might might make a mistake in their understanding of it in their first impression of the passage. About whether in a body of literature so rich in figurative language we are justified to insisting on a surface text meaning without examining the text thoroughly and seeing what other passages say about it. Loads of reasonable doubt there.

I wouldn't kick too much about that question. I am more concerned about the argument that there is no reasonable doubt DESPITE the surface text. Yes, there is a time to argue some of this stuff as scientists and academics.

As for the difference between metaphor and history in the surface text, we keep hitting that one again and again. I guess it needs its own thread. The TE view of this just proves too much, IMHO.

If we are putting our misconceptions at issue when we look at the surface text, yes, I understand that. That question is always on the table.

However, it does appear that there is an intractible problem of which paradigm should prevail over the other in the event of a conflict: 1. consensus of scientific observation; or 2. the Biblical surface text. I have never seen a way around that rather basic cleavage.

Perhaps you could come back when you figure out how to deal with heliocentrism first? You have exactly the same cleavage between your 'surface text' interpretation and science there, and at least with geocentrism we both agree what the correct answer is. I hope.

 

[theFijian]

I apologize if I’ve ever said you believe one thing or another, that is not my intent.

You keep having to apologise for coming out with inaccurate statements, shouldn't this be a warning to check yoru facts before making such statements?

 

[vossler]

You mean we are really just haggling over the price? How much evidence it takes to budge you from what you think is scriptural proof?

See the difference between us comes down to this. I see Scripture as the ultimate Truth and you see it as a truth among many truths. So when you ask me how much evidence will it take me for me to budge, well you’ll have to start with Scriptural evidence first. If that doesn’t exist we don’t have much to talk about. Scriptural evidence isn’t something just pulled out at random but is based on the careful evaluation of the Scripture in question whereby then comparing it to the surrounding Scripture and ultimately to the whole. Fortunately I have many credible commentaries and other sources to use as a litmus test to see if what I’m reading and thinking fits or aligns with what they have ascertained the Scripture to say.

So when the last piece of scientific evidence falls into place that finally convince you, what was it you had been standing so resolutely for up until them? It cannot have been scriptural truth because you are later convinced it wasn't true.

I haven’t come across any scientific evidence that has been persuasive enough to change any Scriptural interpretations yet. I really don’t expect to either, but I am open to the possibility. So you question is hypothetical right now, therefore I’m unable to fully answer it.

Now it appears your idea of scriptural truth is determined not so much by scripture, or by science, but by your ability to keep doubting scientific evidence. Given the large percentage of Americans who can manage to maintain their doubt in the moon landings, this does not seem a healthy attitude to either science or scripture.

Scriptural truth is, first and foremost, determined by Scripture itself. I also realize that I don’t live in a vacuum and that I must constantly check my interpretation with those men of faith who have gone before me and those who are presently standing for the truth. Science and scientific doubts play little to no role in any of this.

I applaud the forlorn heroism of your stance, but an awful lot of people will get hurt before you realise you are wrong.

I know that no one will be ever be hurt from hearing the truth of God’s Word, it’s believing the lies of Satan that have the power to harm.

Luke 14:31

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

Whenever you fight for righteousness God will equip you, He never asks you to sit down and deliberate first.

Science will never win a battle against God because God created the natural world. However science does win when God is not on our side, when our interpretations do not line up with what God means in the bible. So when it looks like science is going to win, we should make make our peace while it is still a long way off, long before we hold the bible and Christianity up to ridicule setting own misinterpretation into public battle with science.

What, we should make our peace with science because it can hold the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule? Is that what you really just said?

That sound good in theory, but in practice you reject any hermeneutic as man-centred if it leaves room for geological ages or evolution.

I reject hermeneutics that rely on components outside the Scriptures.

If you are looking at context, the context of the creation days in Exodus is in the middle of a metaphorical illustration of the Sabbath Command, while Moses himself shows us that he did not take God days literally in the creation psalm, Psalm 90. Jesus didn't take the illustration of the Sabbath command literally. A literal reading of Exodus and Genesis says that the reason for observing the Sabbath was because God ceased from his work on the seventh day and made it holy. Jesus on the other hand tells us that he and his Father never stopped working and the actual reason for the Sabbath was that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. According to the writer of Hebrews God's Seventh day rest is still going on and we can enter into it today. Hardly a 24 hour break.

I’d really like to know how you see God asking Moses to write the six days in a literal fashion as he did, what that accomplished and how it benefited us? Why use the terms evening and morning if the days were not literal? Why be so specific?

What is it you see that is so clearly against the word of God? Is it God making us of clay? Being made of clay or God being a potter crop up a dozen times in scripture. It is only here that people insist it has to be taken literally. Why not read it for the figurative meaning it has elsewhere? This is narrative is that is rich in metaphor and symbolic figures.

Even if that were true, why did He not then elude to the process being long and lengthy, why deceive us into believing it was short and sudden?

There are a lot of things in that story that were never meant to be taken literally. Why should it be such a massive stumbling block if science shows us one of them is not literal?

Those other figurative things, to almost any student of the Bible, would never be taken literally. Whereas very few, uniformed of Scripture, would ever read Genesis 1 as anything but as a literal historical text.

Besides, science doesn’t even show that to be true, it has surmised that without any real proof.

We are happy with both. Did you grow from the fusion of sperm and egg, or did God form you in your mother's womb? Both.

I don't think Luther Melanchton or Calvin wore glasses. I don't think you are really in a position to compare them. You believe in a six day creation but not in geocentrism. You are looking at them through very different lenses which distorts any attempt you make to judge which doctrine is better supported. For an objective comparison you would have to ask someone who didn't believe either, or someone who believes both.

Which brings us back to YECs having the same spirit filled discernment as Atheists.

There’s part of the problem, you see atheists being spirit-filled and I most certainly don’t.

But I am glad you realise some parts of God's word are literal and some are not, and that they can be difficult to tell apart. But if we are to rely discernment to figure out where scripture is literal or not, then you have to explain how the leaders of the Reformation like Luther and Calvin goofed so badly over geocentrism.

Hey everyone goofs. They certainly didn’t goof on a vital tenet of the faith though or make up/add something to Scripture in order to have it comply with their own understanding like evolution does.

The force of gravity does not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from being in control of the Solar System.

Yes!

Natural processes like meteorology does not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from sending rain.

Yes!

Plate tectonics do not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from creating the continents, mountains and valleys?

Yes!

Natural processes like genetics and obstetrics do not exclude an omniscient transcendent being like God from forming me in my mother's womb.

Yes!

But Evolution is way too big. There is not way an omniscient transcendent being like God could ever handle natural processes like that, of course it excludes him.

No! He could handle anything, He just chose to do it His way instead of yours.

That is because evolution is long past the hypothesis stage. It is a thoroughly tested theory.

I love how truth can be based on hypotheses that show things happening billions of years ago when we can’t even accurately say what happened last week.

He told us God's days are not to be taken literally and was quite happy taking evenings and mornings figuratively in a meditation on the Genesis story. It don't think Moses tied God down to any particular timescale, neither did Peter. We are not told billions of years, just that literal day is a mistake.

Are you saying you’ve been given a special revelation that no one else has?

No you just do it.

I’m disagreeing with evolutionists, not so much with Augustine.

You mean you are willing to misread figurative language as literal as long as lots of people support you? You should join the catholic church where countless millions believe bread and wine are changed into meat and blood.

Funny, that’s exactly how I would describe evolution, willing to misread Scripture so that one can look intelligent to the world where millions of atheists would agree.

Yes Jesus crushed Satan's head (so to speak). It was Satan he defeated on calvary, not a snake. No belly crawling animals were harmed, certainly not a 4,000 year old snake who once had a chat with a woman about fruit..

The story about the snake, and the promise of crushing the snake's head are metaphorical.

I’m with you here 100%.

 

[vossler]

You keep having to apologise for coming out with inaccurate statements, shouldn't this be a warning to check yoru facts before making such statements?

Gotta love it.

 

[theFijian]

Gotta love it.

Ah I thought you had me on ignore or something, since you've not responded to the problems I pointed out with your contention that your hermeneutic is based on divinely inspired theories. I'll give you time to respond before I assume tacit admission that you have no response.

 

[Melethiel]

There’s part of the problem, you see atheists being spirit-filled and I most certainly don’t.

That's not what he said. He said that there is a problem is only one who is "spirit-filled" can interpret Scripture correctly. Given that that is true, why do atheists interpret Scripture the same way as YECs? I would say that, using your logic, that means the YEC interpretation is not the spirit-filled one.