Deceiving the Nations.

[Deamiter]

vossler, do you also reject the theology of all of the major theologians like Augustine who have gone before us and did not agree with your hyper-literal view of Genesis?

It seems a bit of a lost cause to even touch on scripture with you if you not only refuse to consider God's creation, but any major interpretation of scripture that is fully based in scripture but disagrees with your own interpretation.

It's easy to build a set of commentaries that all agree with you and then judge every new source based on whether it also agrees with you. It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that you check your interpretation with those who have gone before you if you reject anybody before you that disagrees with how you now interpret scripture... More like you're looking for support for your view in past theologians, not actually trying to examine what was believed in the past.

 

[vossler]

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.

Well there's one way to find out. If you really want to know I suggest you ask the atheists who interpret Scripture as you suggest. According to your line of thinking he's more likely to have the spirit anyway, plus given the close relationship many TEs apparently have with them, I think that's a far better way to find out. You can then come back and tell us what they said. This ought to be interesting.

 

[vossler]

vossler, do you also reject the theology of all of the major theologians like Augustine who have gone before us and did not agree with your hyper-literal view of Genesis?

I'll be the first to admit I haven't read much of Augustine, but what I have hasn't really been shown to be nearly what TEs have claim it to be. Like I've always said, if you can make a biblical case for something, anything, I'm all ears.

It seems a bit of a lost cause to even touch on scripture with you if you not only refuse to consider God's creation, but any major interpretation of scripture that is fully based in scripture but disagrees with your own interpretation.

I would love to see an interpretation of Scripture that is fully based in Scripture that supports evolution. I don't know of one that exists but if you do please don't withhold it any longer.

It's easy to build a set of commentaries that all agree with you and then judge every new source based on whether it also agrees with you. It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that you check your interpretation with those who have gone before you if you reject anybody before you that disagrees with how you now interpret scripture... More like you're looking for support for your view in past theologians, not actually trying to examine what was believed in the past.

I'd really like to know of a commentary that supports evolution. It would be a very interesting read. I haven't come across one yet but I'm sure you have. Please share.

 

[Xaero]

I would love to see an interpretation of Scripture that is fully based in Scripture that supports quantum mechanics.

I'd really like to know of a commentary that supports evolution.

I don't see one verse were the bible is teaching modern science, but we showed enough scripture which commands to look at nature (Psalms, Eccles, Job) but YECs somehow dismiss it.

Job 12:
"7 But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
And the birds of the air, and they will tell you; 8 Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you;
And the fish of the sea will explain to you.
9 Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this"



Furthermore, we read in scripture that God create/make or acts somehow, but that cannot always imply miracle ex nihilo events, but rather natural processes:

"i created (bara!) the blacksmith" "i created (bara!) the waster to destroy"(did the blacksmith suddenly pop out of nothing?)

"the father is feeding birds" (is god throwing birdfood out of heaven?)

"He took him in the garden of eden" (has god moved adam to eden with a giant hand or did he soar through the air?)


There are many more examples - this list will be continued ...

 

[theFijian]

In Genesis 1 we have God telling the earth to 'bring forth', so at God's command animal life and plant life arose out of the earth itself. Even Adam was created from pre-existant material! That sounds rather like evolution to me. It's interesting that Creationists normally such sticklers for literalism ignore these imporant facts.

 

[Melethiel]

Well there's one way to find out. If you really want to know I suggest you ask the atheists who interpret Scripture as you suggest. According to your line of thinking he's more likely to have the spirit anyway, plus given the close relationship many TEs apparently have with them, I think that's a far better way to find out. You can then come back and tell us what they said. This ought to be interesting.

Close relationship and line of thinking? Excuse me? How many times can you tell other people what they believe and be told you are wrong before you stop?

For your other point, been there, done that. I've had many conversations with members of the Atheists & Freethinkers Club on campus. They interpret Scripture that way because it is "obvious" and the "plain meaning." Which again leads me to my question...if only those who have the Spirit can interpret Scripture correctly, why do atheists reach the same conclusion as YECs?

 

[vossler]

In Genesis 1 we have God telling the earth to 'bring forth', so at God's command animal life and plant life arose out of the earth itself. Even Adam was created from pre-existant material! That sounds rather like evolution to me. It's interesting that Creationists normally such sticklers for literalism ignore these imporant facts.

It all depends upon what preconceived notions or thoughts one brings to the text. I myself would never see that in the text without someone like you telling me that.

 

[vossler]

For your other point, been there, done that. I've had many conversations with members of the Atheists & Freethinkers Club on campus. They interpret Scripture that way because it is "obvious" and the "plain meaning." Which again leads me to my question...if only those who have the Spirit can interpret Scripture correctly, why do atheists reach the same conclusion as YECs?

I don't believe anyone ever said all Scripture can only be interpreted by those who have the Spirit. If that were true no one who isn't a Christian could ever become enlightened by reading God's Word. No, there has to be certain Scriptures, Genesis 1 being one among many, that are plain and easy to understand for everyone so that God and His ways are known so no one can have an excuse. The atheist who understands Genesis 1 accurately has in his heart rejected God for whatever reason they decide, regardless of the stated reason, pride is somewhere at the core of it.

 

[Deamiter]

You might consider reading Augustine's "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" written hundreds of years ago. You said that he doesn't say what TEs say -- I suggest that's not because we're wrong but because you're not listening. Nobody claims that Augustine supported TE (or old age) so long ago, but he DID reject your literal reading of Genesis that puts creation in a six day period.

As others have said, there is no reading of Genesis that supports evolution just as there is no reading of Genesis that supports quantum mechanics. There are, however, interpretations of Genesis (like Augustine's in my opinion) that are fully compatable with everything we see in nature.

 

[vossler]

You might consider reading Augustine's "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" written hundreds of years ago. You said that he doesn't say what TEs say -- I suggest that's not because we're wrong but because you're not listening. Nobody claims that Augustine supported TE (or old age) so long ago, but he DID reject your literal reading of Genesis that puts creation in a six day period.

Yeah sure, add something to my already long reading list.

As others have said, there is no reading of Genesis that supports evolution just as there is no reading of Genesis that supports quantum mechanics. There are, however, interpretations of Genesis (like Augustine's in my opinion) that are fully compatable with everything we see in nature.

Given that there is a reading of Genesis that supports a six day creation you're asking me to support a reading that can't be supported. Does that make any sense?

 

[theFijian]

It all depends upon what preconceived notions or thoughts one brings to the text. I myself would never see that in the text without someone like you telling me that.

Gen 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
Gen 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was

What part of 'let the earth bring forth are you having difficulty with? Why is this plain reading of the text beyond your comprehension? Perhaps it's your predisposition that no evidence, scriptural, scientific, or otherwise will ever convince you of Evolution. It seems that not even scriptural evidence will suffice.

 

[vossler]

What part of 'let the earth bring forth are you having difficulty with? Why is this plain reading of the text beyond your comprehension? Perhaps it's your predisposition that no evidence, scriptural, scientific, or otherwise will ever convince you of Evolution. It seems that not even scriptural evidence will suffice.

I have no problem with 'let the earth bring forth', I see God as being the omnipotent God that He is describes Himself to be and just speaking and voila it happens. I don't see, without human evaluation, where He is speaking and then watching a process unfold over a long period of time in order to produce what He just said.

 

[Assyrian]

You don't believe what the bible tells us that it was the earth that produced these life forms. Church Fathers like Basil had no problem seeing these passages as God conferring on the earth the ability to produce life. God commanded. Then it was the earth that produced the living creatures. That is the simplest most literal reading of the passage.

Basil also believed in a six day creation, so for him, it meant spontaneous generation. God gave the earth the power to produce living creatures spontaneously.

Of course we know that is wrong. Spontaneous generation does not happen overnight. Ask any creationist. It is possible for the earth to produce new species over long periods of time through evolution and ma well have produced the first life itself through abiogenesis. Again this fits perfectly with Genesis description of God commanding and the earth producing life.

What we cannot have is both the earth producing life, and the six days, being literal. We must reject a literal reading of one of them. The one that fits both scientific evidence and has scriptural support is a non-literal reading of the Genesis days.

 

[vossler]

You don't beleive what the bible tells us that it was the earth that produced these life forms. Church Fathers like Basil had not problem seeing these passages as God conferring on the earth the ability to produce life. God commanded. Then it was the earth that produced the living creatures. That is the simplest most literal reading of the passage.

I don’t have a problem with that, we, man, were created in much the same way. It’s just difficult to do that, as you would claim, over a long period of time when God Himself told us it took days. The out of the goo to you scenario isn’t even remotely Scripturally substantiated and only weakly done so in science.

 

[gluadys]

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.

You need to be a little more discerning. No, there is no disagreement between TEs and atheists on the matters of scientific fact and theory. But there is a huge disagreement on what the science implies re God, theology and scripture.

I think it is important to note where agreement and disagreement lie.

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.

I disagree. I don't post much in C&E anymore, because a lot of it is just silliness. But I have, and I have made the same points there as I do here. So have other TEs. It has got to the point that even if they disagree with our beliefs about God, most of the atheists in C&E agree that science does not disprove God. I have seen other atheists reprove a newcomer who tries to assert that science is capable of disproving God. This is not often seen in forums where atheists dominate.

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.

In a sense you have, in part, since you reject a part of God's revelation.

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.

Of course, what constitutes a good solid hermeneutic is itself a problematical question. If you begin by assuming that a good solid hermeneutic will lead to an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis 1, then you will only recognise a hermeneutic that does as good and solid. That is circular reasoning.

In fact there are other viable interpretations based on good solid hermeneutics. I think the Framework intepretation of Genesis 1 is a good example of solid hermeneutics that does not lead to acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis 1.

Yeah but mathematical knowledge can be very beneficial in areas not related to math.

So what? If it doesn't make sense to me, why should I study it?

I don’t see a demand for evolutionists or people well versed in the theory.

You use the phrase "I don't see..." quite frequently. Is it likely you will see what you refuse to look for? In fact, in agriculture, forestry, medicine, geology and many other fields there is a demand for people versed in evolutionary biology. I can't help it if you are ignorant of this reality, still less if you refuse to acknowledge it.

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.

Shall I infer from this that you agree the physical realm should 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.

But it is impossible to know that it is clearly against the Word of God without studying it. If evolution is true, it cannot conflict with the Word of God.

To assume in advance of inquiring into the truth of it that it is clearly against the Word of God and therefore not worth the effort to learn about it is another example of circular reasoning.

Nothing that is true can be contrary to the Word of God.

Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples of it in politics or government, but Darwin is likewise in science.

Not if Darwin was right. Unlike many who misused his work, Darwin never proclaimed that evolution puts God on the sidelines, much less that it proved atheism. Darwin certainly never argued for tyranny on the basis of evolution.

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

Why? Where does the bible tell us the universe is expanding? Where does it provide any insight into what causes the expansion? How can one use biblical truth as a basis of theory when the bible does not speak to the issue. As xaero says, what scripture supports quantum mechanics? Or even alludes to it.

The bible is not and was never intended to be a universal encyclopedia. It cannot be used as a basis for conclusions on questions it neve mentions.

As for the real basis on which the controversy was resolved in favour of the big bang, it was the successful prediction and discovery of evidence that was required by big bang theory but incompatible with steady state theory.

In other words, the controversy was resolved by God's creation. Because it was in creation, not in scripture, that God placed the information needed to determine which theory was correct.

Now explain to me again what makes God's creation any less a reliable guide to truth than scripture is. Remember, I am talking about creation itself, not interpretations of creation. No amount of theory could have produced observations of cosmic background radiation unless it was actually there in creation.

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

Nonsense. Every hermeneutic, including the one you prefer, is an artifact of human reasoning. I am sure you do not see yours as attacking the bible. And there is no reason to see others as doing so, except on the basis of your own "man-derived" idea.

...yet we don’t have a clear definition of what truth is.

And that is why it takes careful study to determine what is and is not true.

My reply was too long to post in its entirety. More in my next post.

 

[gluadys]

This is where we definitely part company. Scripture can most certainly render another source of truth as untrue.

Yes, I worded that badly. What I meant to say is that no matter how or from what source we learn truth, no truth can render another truth untrue.

There is, no doubt, a hierarchy in the sense that some truths are more important than others. That God loves us is more important to know than how the moon produces tides, for example.

But there is no hierarchy in the equal truthfulness of every truth. A more important truth does not make a less important truth untrue, or vice versa.

A truth we learn from scripture and a truth we learn from a geometry text are equally true. And because they are equally true, they must be consistent with one another.

Most other sources of truth, if they’ve been touched by man, are not anchored in God who is the source of all Truth.

Indeed, God being the source of all Truth is the reason every truth is consistent with every other truth. Also, because God is the source of all Truth, it doesn't matter what from what secondary source we learn truth. What is important is to determine what is true in the sure conviction that all truth comes ultimately from God.

Humanly speaking a non-biblical source may be suspect and deserving of very close scrutiny before we accept anything from it as true. But if, after running the claim through every available test, it turns out that in this case the source was making a true claim, then we know this truth comes ultimately from the source of all Truth, and we must accept it as such.

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.

And that is what TEs have done. You need only check the personal histories of most TEs here to determine that a majority of them did not begin as TEs, but went through an intense period of scrutinizing the evidence and questioning what interpretation of scripture would do justice to both the revelation of scripture and the revelation of nature.

It really is important to us to recognize all truth, and the consistency of every truth with every other truth.

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

And I don't mean to use an argument ad populum either. It doesn't matter how many people agree with something if they are still wrong. However, I do think it is worth inquiring why so many Christians do not see a conflict between evolution and scripture.

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.

That's a step in the right direction. But does context include genre? Or, as your signature suggests, is a literal interpretation considered a default interpretation "unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." What are the criteria of "clearly indicate"? Does that mean the text must announce the non-facticity of the passage, as the gospels often announce that Jesus is telling a parable?

For many people, a genre analysis of Genesis 1 clearly indicates that it is not a text to be interpreted as a literal chronology of creation. And this is quite apart from any comparison of Genesis 1 with science. It is based solely on literary criteria. The primary raison d'etre of Genesis 1:1-2:4a appears to be liturgical, for use in worship. It also appears to have a strong connection with the centrality of Sabbath observance and to be a polemic against pagan pantheons and idolatry.

If someone else can present an interpretation that isn’t man-centered and is effectively supportable via other Scriptures, I’m all ears.

All interpretations, including yours, are "man-centered" so don't ask the impossible. As for other scripture supporting the interpretation above, you have all the scripture, especially in Psalms, that presents creation in the context of worshipping God. And you have all the prophetical denunciations of paganism, idolatry and the desecration of the Sabbath.

These are great themes in scripture and it should not be surprising to find them in the first chapter of Genesis.

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.

First, you have to determine whether or not it is true (or probably true). If it is true, it cannot be against the Word of God. It cannot be blasphemous.

If it is true, an understanding of the Word of God that declares it to be blasphemous is illegitimate.

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.

Virtually all creationists today do accept that evolution happens. They even accept limited common ancestry, for they say that the many species of (take your pick: dogs, cattle, fruit flies, frogs, etc.) are each descended from a common ancestral kind.

So here is your chance to be a teacher and explain that evolution is not limited to the concept of universal common ancestry, and that there is much in evolutionary theory that even a YEC can support. Mark Kennedy does this all the time. He is upfront about accepting evolution while rejecting what he calls "the common ancestor model."

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.

Not at all. There may be bad apples in every barrel, but that doesn't mean all the apples in the barrel are bad. I think that is a ridiculous standard, as much for scripture as for anything else. Not that I am suggesting one finds bad apples in scripture (at least not outside of Eden. )

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.

No, it is not. Nor is it based on the whole Word of God. As far as scripture is concerned, your position owes as much to the hermeneutic you prefer as to scripture itself. And this hermeneutic disallows the testimony of God's creation, which is also grounded in the Word of God, when that testimony contradicts your hermeneutic.

Note, I specify "when it contradicts your hermeneutic", not "when it contradicts scripture". Creation cannot contradict scripture. Truth cannot contradict truth. But a fallible human interpretive principle can contradict truth. And be contradicted by truth.

So I would say that when a hermeneutic puts anyone in the position of having to choose between scripture and creation, it must be a bad hermeneutic.

What they produce sounds, at least to this layman, is a logical a well presented argument that shows adaptation and not generation.

"adaptation and not generation"?

I would sure like to know how that is possible.

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.

The big picture is also made up of all the many details. And getting to know the details can lead to greater appreciation for the artistry of the big picture.

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.

Did he give us these universal truths only in scripture or can we also discover at least some of them in creation? (I agree we cannot find the truths of sin and salvation in creation.) Scripture seems to agree that some universal truths are found in the universality of the general revelation of creation.

Secular scientists take the opposite approach, they start with the particulars and attempt to determine the universals. All Christians should be concerned about this.

All scientists start with the particulars. We can only observe particulars, so that is what science is based on. So this is not a characteristic of secular scientists in particular.

And scientists recognize that universals can never be fully developed in this way. That is why all scientific theories are recognized as being vulnerable to disconfirming new evidence. In terms of understanding nature, well-supported scientific theories are the best available explanations in light of current data. And that is all they are.

Universals are the province of metaphysics and philosophy, not science.

 

[gluadys]

I see Scripture as the ultimate Truth and you see it as a truth among many truths.

Does even ultimate Truth render particular truths untrue?

If any particular truth is true, must not even ultimate Truth recognize it as true, indeed guarantee its truth?


I do confess that I would be more comfortable identifying ultimate Truth with God than with scripture. This is not intended as an aspersion on the infallibility of scripture. But to identify it as ultimate Truth smacks to me of deifying the bible.

 

[gluadys]

I have no problem with 'let the earth bring forth', I see God as being the omnipotent God that He is describes Himself to be and just speaking and voila it happens. I don't see, without human evaluation, where He is speaking and then watching a process unfold over a long period of time in order to produce what He just said.

And I don't see, without human evaluation, where He is speaking and then watching fully formed animals pop into being instantaneously.

How does a process unfolding over a long period of time suggest anything for or against God's omnipotence? Does God have to be like a magician, pulling rabbits out of a figurative hat, to be omnipotent?

 

[vossler]

And I don't see, without human evaluation, where He is speaking and then watching fully formed animals pop into being instantaneously.

Well then maybe you should be believing in some sort of hyper-evolution where God created man, through evolution, in a few days time.

How does a process unfolding over a long period of time suggest anything for or against God's omnipotence? Does God have to be like a magician, pulling rabbits out of a figurative hat, to be omnipotent?

It doesn't except for the fact that He declared days and we says trillions of days. That makes it sound like He wasn't quite as powerful as He said He was.

 

[gluadys]

Well then maybe you should be believing in some sort of hyper-evolution where God created man, through evolution, in a few days time.
It doesn't except for the fact that He declared days and we says trillions of days. That makes it sound like He wasn't quite as powerful as He said He was.

You draw the strangest conclusions. How does the time period involved lessen the power involved? One might just as well conclude that being able to sustain creative power over a long time period shows greater power than instantaneous poofing.

Who is the stronger strong man? The one who can lift the weight more quickly or the one who can keep it raised longer?