Deceiving the Nations.

[vossler]

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.

As I've said before, given the importance of other matters, such as salvation, compared to science you'd think that would in some way raise it's head. The disagreement that you speak of is rarely if ever highlighted. Instead atheists and TEs feed off of one another in an effort to discredit YECs. Something is amiss with that picture.

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.

Well, I understand your point, but as my reply to shernren showed, TEs are very adept at making YECs look like fools over there and in my own personal experience of posting there I've seen many a TE side with an atheist against a YEC and not just in scientific discussions.

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

I reject nothing of God, if you think there is please be specific.

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.

It isn't a problematic as you make it out to be. No good hermeneutic should ever lead one to believe any preconceived idea.

I haven't looked at the Framework interpretation. Do you have a link that describes it well?

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

I personally have no issues whether you study it or not. Now if you're a child then there's a different argument to be made, but as an adult that's up to you. Math has no spiritual value and therefore isn't critical for any adult to study.

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.

I will have to admit my knowledge and scope of expertise in this area is very limited and that could be hindering my view. That's why I try to bring in other accurate and pertinent sources to supplement my lack of understanding and/or knowledge. Those sources haven't shown evolutionary biology to be of importance.

Shall I infer from this that you agree the physical realm should make sense?

From our limited stand point yes, but we have to remember our limitations.

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.

Yet evolution does conflict with the Word of God. No assumptions need to be made, just an open mind and heart is required. That's the truth of Scripture and to study it diligently will always lead one to the Truth.

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’m sure that there were many Germans who thought and even wished the same thing, what if Hitler is right?

Of course Darwin never proclaimed that his theory put God on the sidelines or eliminated Him. Sagan didn't either when he made his famous statement 'The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be' either. Had he come right out and say that God didn't exist his view would have been immediately dismissed, no he was too smart for that. So was Darwin.

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.

I agree, I wasn’t aware of what the argument was, I just know all areas of discovery should start with God in the foundation. So my statement was just a blanket one making a point concerning our approach.

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.

Nor would I ever claim it to be.

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.

O.K., like I’ve always said, as long as it doesn’t conflict with Scripture, I don’t have a problem with it.

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.

If it conflicts with Scripture then something is amiss and until that gets fully resolved Scripture is king.

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.

One based on Scripture itself and not another man-derived idea. Why shouldn’t I see others as attacking the Bible when they change what it says without any solid hermeneutical understanding.

 

[gluadys]

I reject nothing of God, if you think there is please be specific.

I think you reject creation, either as a genuine reality or as a knowable reality. I don't think the logic of YEC allows any other possibility.

I haven't looked at the Framework interpretation. Do you have a link that describes it well?

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

Note that the first comes out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. That is the denomination of rmwilliamsll. It is very conservative and most of its membership supports the YEC interpretation. So it is interesting to see this alternative coming from that soil.

I will have to admit my knowledge and scope of expertise in this area is very limited and that could be hindering my view. That's why I try to bring in other accurate and pertinent sources to supplement my lack of understanding and/or knowledge. Those sources haven't shown evolutionary biology to be of importance.

Which simply means that you need to widen your frame of reference, since those you study are obviously not giving you the whole picture.

From our limited stand point yes, but we have to remember our limitations.

You are waffling. Which takes us back to my first point. The logic of YEC requires that the physical universe be, if not unreal, at least unknowable.

Yet evolution does conflict with the Word of God.

No, not with the Word of God. It conflicts with your hermeneutic of the Word of God. It is your continual conflation of your preferred interpretation of scripture with the Word of God that leads to you to your conclusion. But your conclusion is based on your interpretation of scripture and your willingness to close your eyes to the rest of God's revelation.

Of course Darwin never proclaimed that his theory put God on the sidelines or eliminated Him. Sagan didn't either when he made his famous statement 'The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be' either.

Well, sure he did. If the cosmos is all there is or ever was or will be, there is no Creator of the cosmos.

I agree, I wasn’t aware of what the argument was, I just know all areas of discovery should start with God in the foundation. So my statement was just a blanket one making a point concerning our approach.

And now that you know what the argument was and how it was resolved, do you agree that in this case the Word of God was found in creation itself rather than in scripture?

BTW, this is the same atheist, Fred Hoyle, whose principal objection to big bang theory was that it opened the door to the possibility of creation. He proposed steady-state theory as a way of ensuring the correctness of Sagan's thesis: that the cosmos is all that is, ever was and ever will be.

If it conflicts with Scripture then something is amiss and until that gets fully resolved Scripture is king.

"If" it conflicts with scripture? How can there be an "if" about it. How can you seriously suggest that God's creation can conflict with scripture?

One based on Scripture itself and not another man-derived idea. Why shouldn’t I see others as attacking the Bible when they change what it says without any solid hermeneutical understanding.

How can any method of interpreting scripture be based on scripture? Where does scripture say, for example, "therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

Furthermore, you are assuming that the context is limited to the text of scripture without regard for the wider context in which scripture itself was written, and assuredly not the context of creation itself.

 

[theFijian]

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.

So it's not evolution you have a problem with per se, but evolution over millions of years. Gotcha.

 

[Deamiter]

Ah brilliant vossler -- you say that it would take away from God's power if he created in millions of years vs. days. You really might want to bump up Augustine on your reading list because he used precisely the same logic to conclude that God could not have created in days, but must have created everything instantly.

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?

It took me a couple minutes to figure out why you'd say something like this and then I got it. I know we talk about geocentrism a lot around here, but please pay attention because this is perhaps the first time I think the argument is fully applicable.

Geocentrism is supported by a reading of the Bible. There are numerous passages that talk about how the Earth is flat and how the sun moves in the sky rather than the other way around. There is NOT however, a reading of scripture that specifically would lead an uneducated reader to the conclusion that the Earth is a sphere (not a circle) and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

That is not to say that I believe the Bible contradicts reality -- I know the opposite is true and while I believe the authors of the Bible were mistaken about these physical details, it doesn't detract from the message one tiny bit.

It's the same with evolution and old age. There is similarly no reading of the Bible that SUGGESTS evolution (just as no reading of the Bible suggests heliocentrism or a round earth) but that is in no way grounds by itself to reject such an interpretation.

 

[vossler]

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.

Truth, is probably one of the most unknown words in the English language today. It isn’t until we understand that God is the source of all truth and when He speaks He doesn’t mislead or speak incorrectly because He cannot do so. It is only when we bring in outside elements in an effort to build from the particulars upwards, instead of downward from the universals that God has already so graciously provided, when we get ourselves into trouble.

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.

Agreed

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.

Does that really make sense? Going by that logic, God made man and since He did, man is a good source of truth. What does this mean “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.

What if every available test is insufficient and questions still prevail?

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.

I would strongly disagree because the evidence for evolution (common ancestry), goo to you, is anything but solid.

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.

That’s not really hard to ascertain. I believe it’s because they’ve been duped into believing what the world purports. But then again that’s only my opinion and it doesn’t matter.

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?

Literal should be the default because that gives us a good base from which to start. If there wasn’t a default, then we’d have whatever genre fits into our preconceived notion of what it is we’d like it to say. We differ from a literal interpretation when the context clearly indicates otherwise. So context is ultimately what determines the interpretative language to be used, whether literal, figurative, poetic, allegorical, parable, etc.

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.

That’s quite interesting because if that were true then before science came onto the scene there would have already been a fair amount of other accepted literary analyses for Genesis. Instead there is very little.

All interpretations, including yours, are "man-centered" so don't ask the impossible.

It is man-centered only in the sense that a man is accomplishing it, in all other respects it is not.

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

Yes that is very true and I’m not surprised in the least. That’s the beauty of the God we serve, He’s so multidimensional.

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.

I wouldn’t say it was blasphemous if I hadn’t already determined that it isn’t true.

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.

I’m not aware of creationists accepting evolution. They may accept adaptation or as some like to put it micro-evolution, but that’s about it.

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."

As I’ve already stated I have a problem with the word evolution. There are too many assumptions attached to it, like the common ancestor model as an example. So I’ll use the term adaptation and with that I’d agree with what you said.

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. )

Of course there can and most likely are some good apples in the barrel. You may see it as a ridiculous standard, but if something is going to be promoted as the truth and an element it espouses or promotes isn’t, then all of it is justly subject to ridicule. I see Scripture exactly the same, if someone were to prove part of it false, then the question becomes what kind of God do we serve. One who can’t even ensure that His written Word is true, hardly.

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.

The thing is gluadys, when you take that approach Scripture no longer carries near the authority it should. It’s now just another book with some good stuff in it, but just a book. BTW, in the past TEs have said words to that effect. It’s absolutely incredible, but not unexpected, to hear you say that the hermeneutic that says God created in six days is wrong. If you didn’t how else can you justify evolution? So your recommendation to me is that even though God may have said six days He really meant trillions of days and I just need to find a hermeneutic that lines up with this scientific interpretation.

"adaptation and not generation"?

I would sure like to know how that is possible.

Given that adaptation is the beginning of macro evolution, wouldn’t this be a logical way of seeing this?

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.

Oh how I couldn’t agree more. Yet here’s also where one of our biggest differences lies. God has already given us the universals and it is from those that we are to ascertain the particulars. What you and other evolutionists like to do is take the particulars and apply them to the universals. Do you see the dichotomy? The universals are from above and the particulars are here with us. The flow should be down, instead for you it is upward.

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.

Scripture is where God spoke in such a direct way to man so that he would clearly know everything he needed to know. It then should follow that whatever else God did, should be aligned and in complete agreement with everything He said. This, to me at least, says that I’m to revere and trust what He said without question or doubt, in other words I’m to have faith that what He said is right. His Words are always meant to edify and build me up so that I may know Him better. So if I were to then tell God that according to my intellectual abilities I’ve determined that what you said isn’t really what you said but it’s actually something else, well that would make me god and says that I never really trusted His Word to begin with. That’s the last thing I truly want to have happen.

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.

Yes, but do we observe those particulars through our own eyes or through the eyes of God? That’s the question.

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

No, universals are the province of all areas of our lives, that’s why they’re called universals.

 

[vossler]

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

This isn't about human evaluation, but about what He said. Shoot, if it were up to me I'd be in the evolution camp by now I'm sure.

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. That's not the problem, the problem, if we can just focus on that, is what God's Word says.

 

[vossler]

I think you reject creation, either as a genuine reality or as a knowable reality. I don't think the logic of YEC allows any other possibility.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and possibly thought there was something to what you were saying, but obviously not.

Note that the first comes out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. That is the denomination of rmwilliamsll. It is very conservative and most of its membership supports the YEC interpretation. So it is interesting to see this alternative coming from that soil.

Interesting…I didn’t realize it but I was already aware of this interpretation, I just didn’t associate the term framework with it. Thanks for the links.

Which simply means that you need to widen your frame of reference, since those you study are obviously not giving you the whole picture.

What, when something doesn’t fit into your paradigm you’re supposed to widen your view until it does? I don’t think you’ll find much Scripture to support that.

You are waffling. Which takes us back to my first point. The logic of YEC requires that the physical universe be, if not unreal, at least unknowable.

You can call it waffling, I call it being prudent and respectful.

No, not with the Word of God. It conflicts with your hermeneutic of the Word of God. It is your continual conflation of your preferred interpretation of scripture with the Word of God that leads to you to your conclusion. But your conclusion is based on your interpretation of scripture and your willingness to close your eyes to the rest of God's revelation.

As you wish to believe.

Well, sure he did. If the cosmos is all there is or ever was or will be, there is no Creator of the cosmos.

Yeah, you and I know that today but most of society back then didn’t.

And now that you know what the argument was and how it was resolved, do you agree that in this case the Word of God was found in creation itself rather than in scripture?

My statement here had nothing to do with the Word of God being found in creation. I was commenting on your comments concerning the expanding universe. Since the Bible doesn’t speak of this much, although it does confirm it, our scientific observations are not in conflict and therefore worthy of note.

"If" it conflicts with scripture? How can there be an "if" about it. How can you seriously suggest that God's creation can conflict with scripture?

I can very seriously suggest that man’s measurements of creation are in direct conflict with Scripture.

How can any method of interpreting scripture be based on scripture? Where does scripture say, for example, "therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

It doesn’t, but then again it also doesn’t say “take every word as allegorical, mythical, figurative, poetic, or literal as long as it aligns with where the scientific evidence points to, that is unless the science is clearly in error” either. If I had to choose one, I think the first is far more secure.

Furthermore, you are assuming that the context is limited to the text of scripture without regard for the wider context in which scripture itself was written, and assuredly not the context of creation itself.

I make no such assumption, that claim is totally unfounded. In a previous post I even stated that language, culture, history and geography were other elements of consideration.

 

[vossler]

Ah brilliant vossler -- you say that it would take away from God's power if he created in millions of years vs. days. You really might want to bump up Augustine on your reading list because he used precisely the same logic to conclude that God could not have created in days, but must have created everything instantly.

Yes Augustine was partially right in this regard. God limited Himself or held back due to the lesson He wanted to emphasize which was a six day work week. He's always looking out for us. Pretty awesome if you asked me, I realize you're not, but I threw it in there anyway.

It took me a couple minutes to figure out why you'd say something like this and then I got it. I know we talk about geocentrism a lot around here, but please pay attention because this is perhaps the first time I think the argument is fully applicable.

Geocentrism is supported by a reading of the Bible. There are numerous passages that talk about how the Earth is flat and how the sun moves in the sky rather than the other way around. There is NOT however, a reading of scripture that specifically would lead an uneducated reader to the conclusion that the Earth is a sphere (not a circle) and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

I don't see the same things you do, there is no Scripture that says the earth is flat and as far as the sun, well to this very day we still talk as if it goes around the earth.

That is not to say that I believe the Bible contradicts reality -- I know the opposite is true and while I believe the authors of the Bible were mistaken about these physical details, it doesn't detract from the message one tiny bit.

I don't believe a single writer of the Bible was ever mistaken.

It's the same with evolution and old age. There is similarly no reading of the Bible that SUGGESTS evolution (just as no reading of the Bible suggests heliocentrism or a round earth) but that is in no way grounds by itself to reject such an interpretation.

There is no reading of the Bible that suggests aliens either, so does that mean there could be aliens?

So it would appear that you do suggest that I accept an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the very words of the Bible. And you guys think I'm out there.

 

[Assyrian]

I don’t have a problem with that, we, man, were created in much the same way. ...
The out of the goo to you scenario isn’t even remotely Scripturally substantiated and only weakly done so in science.

It is even more difficult for the earth to do it in a day. Inanimate matter simply can't do things like that.

We have two statements describing the creation of animals in Gen 1.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Atheists believe the earth produced living creatures, but not that there was a god involved.

YECs believe God made all the animals, but not that the earth was responsible in any way producing life.

Only TEs have a view of creation that can hold on to both verses. This is not just an isolated anomaly. We see the same pattern in the creation of marine life, while in the creation of plants the writer neglects to mention that God created it, God told the earth to do it and the eath did it.

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.

And Moses told us God's 'days' are are a lot longer than ours Psalm 90:4. What is the problem? You reject the plain meaning of of the earth producing life in favour of a plain meaning 'days' Moses told us doesn't always apply.

 

[theFijian]

One based on Scripture itself and not another man-derived idea.

You keep saying yours is based on scripture, but as we've clearly seen you understand scripture through the lens of man-derived theories and hermeneutic methods. So please stop saying that your interpretation in no way is man-derived as we know this to be false.

 

[theFijian]

Ah brilliant vossler -- you say that it would take away from God's power if he created in millions of years vs. days.

The idea that God is somehow less powerful if he takes a greater length of time is one of the most man-centred ideas I can possibly think of. It is completely tied to our own perception of the passage of time and fails to grasp the eternal nature of God. That Creationists keep bringing this up as some kind of problem points to a tragically flawed understanding of the nature of God.

It took me a couple minutes to figure out why you'd say something like this and then I got it. I know we talk about geocentrism a lot around here, but please pay attention because this is perhaps the first time I think the argument is fully applicable.

Geocentrism is supported by a reading of the Bible. There are numerous passages that talk about how the Earth is flat and how the sun moves in the sky rather than the other way around. There is NOT however, a reading of scripture that specifically would lead an uneducated reader to the conclusion that the Earth is a sphere (not a circle) and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Indeed the Bible supports Geocentrism and a flat earth over and above heliocentrism and a spherical earth. But people loke vossler do not accept geocentrism and a flat earth. Why? Because of so-called man-derived and worldy theories that vossler so readily derides. The inconsistency in his approach is quite evident.

It's the same with evolution and old age. There is similarly no reading of the Bible that SUGGESTS evolution (just as no reading of the Bible suggests heliocentrism or a round earth) but that is in no way grounds by itself to reject such an interpretation.

I believe that the verses in Gen 1 which talk about the earth\waters bringing forth life readily supports evolution. Vossler admitted as much and now says that it's the timesclaes that he has a problem with (as we addressed above).

 

[Assyrian]

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.

I tend not to think in terms of 'ultimate' truth. Things are true or they are not. However if you want to talk about ultimate truth, I would say the ultimate truth it is God, the I AM. Jesus Christ, God incarnate who told us he was the Way the Truth and the Life. Unfortunately while you say you believe Scripture is the ultimate truth, what you seem to mean is scripture and your interpretation of it is the ultimate truth.

God is truth and his communication to us is true. So is his creation. Do you have a problem with the idea that many things can be true? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is cat spelled c-a-t? Is that what you mean by 'many truths'?

Or are you suggesting we believe truth is relative, that Christianity it 'true for me' but yoga could be true for you. That is what it sounds like to me and if so it is slanderous.

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.
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.

It is not hypothetical. Christians have face that exact problem before. Look at the struggle with heliocentrism.
Should the church have stood against the evidence until the first rockets left the earth's orbit, providing at least the direct human test of non geocentric mechanics?

Should they still hold out like the geocentrists who claim all motion is relative and that it impossible to prove the earth is not fixed.

Or should they have gone with the scientific consensus when they did, when scientists began to be convinced heliocentrism was a better explanation of the evidence, before it was authenticated by 'observation and empirical tests' as you define real science?

Which approaches makes the gospel and Christianity look silly? How much evidence should it take to shift us from a misinterpretation?

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.

Two problems here. One, you are very selective of the men who have gone before you. You plead long history, but ignore Augustine, you even ignore the founders of Fundamentalism who accepted Geological ages.

Worse you are relying on people who may never have faced the questions we face. When the church struggled with heliocentrism it had no help from previous generations who were all geocentrists. At least with creation we have a long tradition in the church of reading Genesis and its days figuratively.

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.

If Sunday School children are told science is wrong and that the bible says the earth is 6000 year old, their teachers have prepared them as lambs to the slaughter when they get to college and learn real science.

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

And when you fight for a misinterpretation you are on your own.

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?

No. When science shows you have misunderstood scripture, if you keep ignoring the truth, you are holding the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule.

If science wins it is because you were standing for a wrong interpretation. Shouldn't you have 'made peace' with the scientific evidence long before the bible is held up to ridicule for the sake of your misinterpretation?

I reject hermeneutics that rely on components outside the Scriptures.

Except for heliocentrism, a spherical earth, and mustard seeds not being the smallest seed.

You claim to be open to other hermeneutics in this debate, but you are not. Any hermeneutic that allows for an ancient earth or God using natural process to create life is rejected because you see it as relying on components outside scripture. Science tells us the earth is ancient, if we examine the scriptures to see if these things were so, to see if the days of creation might be metaphorical (which I have shown plenty of evidence for) you reject it as relying on components outside the Scriptures.

Yet you do not believe the sun goes around the earth. You rely on the same process of believers searching the scriptures to see if what Copernicus said might be so. You accept their hermeneutic, their explanation without question but refuse to accept a similar reexamination of scripture for the age of the earth.

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?

Why did he use evening and morning in Psalm 90?
Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as a day, yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers.

Why speak of evening and morning before there is a sun in the sky? You are simply assuming he wrote in a literal fashion, or that because it is written in a literal fashion it means it is literal. Moses writing about creation in Psalm 90 should be more than enough reason not to take God's days literally.

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?

You are deceiving yourself if you ignore what Moses says in Psalm 90. This is the one thing Peter told us not to forget. 2Pet 3:8 But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Genesis was not giving us the duration of creation. If it was it wouldn't give us three or four different meanings for the word 'day' in the first two chapter, including describing the whole of creation as a 'day' in Gen 2:4. We wouldn't have Moses telling us God's days are not the same as our literal days in a creation psalm and we wouldn't have a contradiction between the biblical calendar where days run from evening to evening and the Genesis days which end with the morning.

God wasn't telling us how long creation took. Instead Genesis is presenting God's creation as an illustration of Sabbath observance.

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.

Actually a surprising number of creationists do take it all literally. They do believe there was a literal snake and that God made snakes crawl as a result of the fall. They do believe in a literal tree of life. There is much more evidence in Scripture that God as a potter making people from clay is a common biblical metaphor than there is telling us the snake was Satan or that the tree of life is not literal.

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

We have vastly more evidence for common ancestry today than we had for heliocentrism even a hundred years ago.

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

Is that meant to be a serious answer?

I don't think atheists are spirit filled. I just don't think your hermeneutic is the 'spirit filled discernment' you claim it is either.

I don't see any evidence your interpretation flows from the revelation of the Holy Spirit when it is the same interpretation atheists have. And I see no evidence in the history of the church that the Holy Spirit has any priority in giving us the correct scientific understanding of scripture. He certainly didn't give the church any clues about not reading geocentrist passages literally before Copernicus and Galileo.

The nearest thing we have is the idea from Augustine picked up by Calvin that in scripture God often presents us with a highly simplified explanation, like a nursemaid talking to an infant, just getting an idea of the important points across. That didn't give any Holy Spirit discernment of what passages to take literal and figuratively as you suggest, but it does give us an important way to approach scripture, especially when we run into difficulties with science.

Hey everyone goofs.

You claim the Holy Spirit give you discernment when to take scriptures figuratively. You mean you can still goof?

They certainly didn’t goof on a vital tenet of the faith

Neither does YEC although there is a temptation to make belief in a six day creation necessary for salvation

though or make up/add something to Scripture in order to have it comply with their own understanding like evolution does.

They realised the geocentric passages were not to be taken literally, we realise the days are not literal and that being made of clay is a metaphor. We have a much stronger basis in scripture for non literal days (from Moses himself as well as Peter) and for a non literal potter (throughout the bible) than they had for reinterpreting the huge number of geocentrist passages.

Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!

Why does that sound familiar..?

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.

This is important. Your problem with evolution is you don't think God did it that way. That is fine you are free to believe that if you want.

But you are saying if God chose to use evolution he would not be excluded from the process. So please stop saying Evolution excludes God or that TEs place God on the sidelines.

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.

Tell that to CSIs.

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

No. Christians have realised there are problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days through the history of the church.

 

[Assyrian]

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

You are disagreeing with science which is exactly what Augustine warned against.

Augustine didn't say it was alright for Christians to pick and choose which science to accept and which science to set their bible interpretation against.

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. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Augustine is talking about Christians rejecting the sciences that non Christians, infidels, people outside the household of faith know well.

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.

You didn't answer the question. If you think a literal interpretation supported by millions of people is important, as you suggested, why not a literal interpretation of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood like all the Catholics believe. You are the one who appealed to 'mass' support for a literal interpretation.

I’m with you here 100%.

So the snake wasn't a snake it was Satan, and the promise of a redeemer that would crush the snake's head didn't have anything to do with stepping on a literal snake, it was Jesus defeating Satan. As we have seen you cannot gain everlasting life by eating fruit but by faith. Jesus tells us that physical food doesn't give eternal life. So if all these things which sound literal in the Genesis narrative are really figurative, why the big problem with a figurative reading of God as a potter molding clay, a very common metaphor in scripture?

Shouldn't the snake, and the tree of life, and the promise about stepping on the snake, tell us not to take everything in the story literally? In fact if we were to insist that the promise being as literal as you insist the made of clay bit is, it would disqualify Jesus as Messiah. That has got to be a problem.

 

[Deamiter]

I don't see the same things you do, there is no Scripture that says the earth is flat and as far as the sun, well to this very day we still talk as if it goes around the earth.
I don't believe a single writer of the Bible was ever mistaken.
There is no reading of the Bible that suggests aliens either, so does that mean there could be aliens?

So it would appear that you do suggest that I accept an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the very words of the Bible. And you guys think I'm out there.

You do realize that we talk about the sun going around the Earth BECAUSE of, not in spite of the Bible right? You are always very adament that we accept the plain meaning of scripture -- if a person didn't know any better, what WOULD they think if they read in the Bible, "the sun rises and sets." The reason we still use this language today is because it's so strongly embedded in our literature, not because it's always been taken figuratively!

I suggest that you yourself are taking a position that goes against the words of the Bible -- but you have (wisely in my opinion) decided that these words are figurative because you know that the Earth revolves around the sun and that Jesus couldn't visually see the entire world from any mountain. It is no stretch of your own hermeneutic to similarly interpret the language in early Genesis as figurative when we have evidence of a much longer timescale than Genesis suggests.

Finally, your assertion that none of the authors was ever wrong is quite unBiblical. Not only did they often recount events differently (even the 10 commandments which were supposedly written in stone differ in different passages, and the matter of who wrote them the second time is contradictory) but the Bible calls scripture inspired, not dictated. Further, Paul at least had no qualms about calling unCannonized writing (at the time) "scripture." Finally, the inerrancy of scripture is utterly worthless when you consider that our interpretation of scripture is far from inerrant. You throw out, "the Bible is the Word of God" as support for your interpretation, but it's meaningless unless you are really claiming, "my interpretation of the Bible is flawless."

I know you don't claim directly that your interpretation is flawless (at least I don't think so) but every time you bring up Biblical inerrancy as support for your interpretation, you're either going way off topic or you are implicitly suggesting that not only was the Bible dictated by God, but your interpretation has similarly been dictated by God.

 

[vossler]

I tend not to think in terms of 'ultimate' truth. Things are true or they are not. However if you want to talk about ultimate truth, I would say the ultimate truth it is God, the I AM. Jesus Christ, God incarnate who told us he was the Way the Truth and the Life. Unfortunately while you say you believe Scripture is the ultimate truth, what you seem to mean is scripture and your interpretation of it is the ultimate truth.

In order for Scripture to mean anything, one has to be able to trust it and rely on it. Only TEs and those Christians who believe homosexuality is fine seem to continually make the challenge "that is your interpretation." Why is that? That's the same challenge I hear from atheists. If that's the standard answer how can it be considered truth for you?

God is truth and his communication to us is true. So is his creation. Do you have a problem with the idea that many things can be true? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is cat spelled c-a-t? Is that what you mean by 'many truths'?

No because all truth, like I said, comes from God. I mean we each have our own truths and if the two are alike then fine, if not then that's your interpretation.

Or are you suggesting we believe truth is relative, that Christianity it 'true for me' but yoga could be true for you. That is what it sounds like to me and if so it is slanderous.

That's exactly what I am saying and if you interpret that as slanderous that's up to you but that's what I see.

It is not hypothetical. Christians have face that exact problem before. Look at the struggle with heliocentrism.
Should the church have stood against the evidence until the first rockets left the earth's orbit, providing at least the direct human test of non geocentric mechanics?

No, but the church could have said, we'll wait and see how the evidence bears out instead of making threats of excommunication and the like.

Which approaches makes the gospel and Christianity look silly? How much evidence should it take to shift us from a misinterpretation?

Given that the issue had no bearing on one's walk with God, the church obviously was made to look silly. The church shouldn't get involved with areas that have no bearing on history or our walk with the Lord.

Two problems here. One, you are very selective of the men who have gone before you. You plead long history, but ignore Augustine, you even ignore the founders of Fundamentalism who accepted Geological ages.

Worse you are relying on people who may never have faced the questions we face. When the church struggled with heliocentrism it had no help from previous generations who were all geocentrists. At least with creation we have a long tradition in the church of reading Genesis and its days figuratively.

You make this struggle with heliocentrism to be so pivotal, it wasn't. The same holds true for many of the questions Augustine had. Remember, in the end Augustine stood upon the truth of the Bible and not science.

If Sunday School children are told science is wrong and that the bible says the earth is 6000 year old, their teachers have prepared them as lambs to the slaughter when they get to college and learn real science.

Ahh, science isn't wrong, man's interpretation of what he sees is. That's exactly what I've taught my two teenagers and trust me they will be just fine when they go off to college.

And when you fight for a misinterpretation you are on your own.

That's the sad thing about evolution, not being one with God.

No. When science shows you have misunderstood scripture, if you keep ignoring the truth, you are holding the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule.

If science wins it is because you were standing for a wrong interpretation. Shouldn't you have 'made peace' with the scientific evidence long before the bible is held up to ridicule for the sake of your misinterpretation?

It is only the world that can attempt to hold the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule. This is one area that I'm not concerned about in the least. God knows my heart and that I will do anything to stand for Him and the righteousness of His Word. So no matter what happens, God knows that I'm standing for Him and I've long since made my peace with that.

Except for heliocentrism, a spherical earth, and mustard seeds not being the smallest seed.

None of them are. Pretending things are one way in order to support your contention might, temporarily, serve you well but it certainly doesn't serve God.

You claim to be open to other hermeneutics in this debate, but you are not. Any hermeneutic that allows for an ancient earth or God using natural process to create life is rejected because you see it as relying on components outside scripture. Science tells us the earth is ancient, if we examine the scriptures to see if these things were so, to see if the days of creation might be metaphorical (which I have shown plenty of evidence for) you reject it as relying on components outside the Scriptures.

Now were getting to some meat.

If God created everything ex nihilo it would stand to reason that things would look older that they would appear. I mean if I had the ability to poof a rock right before your eyes and you then immediately took the rock and measured it's age to be 4.5 billion years old, you'd know your measurement was wrong. Since none of us were here when God created, then I think it would behoove us to believe Him when He says things about how He did stuff instead of looking for ways to justify our thoughts. Remember, the Bible tells us to transform our minds. That means from the worlds way of thinking to God's way.

Yet you do not believe the sun goes around the earth. You rely on the same process of believers searching the scriptures to see if what Copernicus said might be so. You accept their hermeneutic, their explanation without question but refuse to accept a similar reexamination of scripture for the age of the earth.

My belief of the earth going around the sun has no bearing at all with my relationship to God. So if scientists tell me it is so, who am I to challenge it and why should I. Now if you tell me that Jesus' bones were buried in a box and recently discovered, well that has a bearing on my relationship with God and what He told me.

Why did he use evening and morning in Psalm 90?
Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as a day, yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers.

How about to give us a perspective on God that we can relate to?

Why speak of evening and morning before there is a sun in the sky? You are simply assuming he wrote in a literal fashion, or that because it is written in a literal fashion it means it is literal. Moses writing about creation in Psalm 90 should be more than enough reason not to take God's days literally.

God is not the author of confusion. How about that? If He wrote it in a literal fashion there must have been a reason for it. Why couldn't God tell us of evening and morning without the sun if His intent was to dramatize His awesome power and splendor; how He is outside of time and the physical limitations of the universe.

You are deceiving yourself if you ignore what Moses says in Psalm 90. This is the one thing Peter told us not to forget. 2Pet 3:8 But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So God deceived us when He said it took Him six days. He really wanted to see how smart we would be and if we could finally figure it out. Congratulations, you've obviously passed the test and I haven't.

Genesis was not giving us the duration of creation. If it was it wouldn't give us three or four different meanings for the word 'day' in the first two chapter, including describing the whole of creation as a 'day' in Gen 2:4. We wouldn't have Moses telling us God's days are not the same as our literal days in a creation psalm and we wouldn't have a contradiction between the biblical calendar where days run from evening to evening and the Genesis days which end with the morning.

It would appear that only those with a scientific mind, ones who are able to discern truth at a different, deeper level, who are able to reach into the text and pull out the real truth are the ones God is really seeking. Once again, you've shown yourself superior. I hope God still has a place for those of us not nearly as complete.

We have vastly more evidence for common ancestry today than we had for heliocentrism even a hundred years ago.

If you are hell bent on believing that, who am I with my weak arguments to stand in your way.

I just don't think your hermeneutic is the 'spirit filled discernment' you claim it is either.

Obviously!

The nearest thing we have is the idea from Augustine picked up by Calvin that in scripture God often presents us with a highly simplified explanation, like a nursemaid talking to an infant, just getting an idea of the important points across. That didn't give any Holy Spirit discernment of what passages to take literal and figuratively as you suggest, but it does give us an important way to approach scripture, especially when we run into difficulties with science.

I don't have a problem with that, I agree.

You claim the Holy Spirit give you discernment when to take scriptures figuratively. You mean you can still goof?

Of course, I'm not bold enough to be a TE.

Neither does YEC although there is a temptation to make belief in a six day creation necessary for salvation.

Not by anyone I'm familiar with.

They realised the geocentric passages were not to be taken literally, we realise the days are not literal and that being made of clay is a metaphor. We have a much stronger basis in scripture for non literal days (from Moses himself as well as Peter) and for a non literal potter (throughout the bible) than they had for reinterpreting the huge number of geocentrist passages.

Isn't it funny how those realizations came from outside of God's Word?

This is important. Your problem with evolution is you don't think God did it that way. That is fine you are free to believe that if you want.

It is not so much about what I think, but what God said.

But you are saying if God chose to use evolution he would not be excluded from the process. So please stop saying Evolution excludes God or that TEs place God on the sidelines.

That if, you mentioned is a mighty big IF and given that He doesn't even remotely tell us something like that I can't even consider it. I don't deal with hypotheticals like that. That's a little like my son coming to me with his countless 'wouldn't it be great if' scenarios. I don't take any of them seriously either.

Tell that to CSIs.

So you're saying we've got a handle on everything that happened yesterday? You've obviously been watching too much TV.

No. Christians have realised there are problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days through the history of the church.

Only the scientifically enlightened ones have.

 

[vossler]

You are disagreeing with science which is exactly what Augustine warned against.

No I've never disagreed with science, just evolutionists.

Augustine didn't say it was alright for Christians to pick and choose which science to accept and which science to set their bible interpretation against.

Nor do I, science isn't the issue.

Augustine is talking about Christians rejecting the sciences that non Christians, infidels, people outside the household of faith know well.

Again, I don't have a problem with him here.

You didn't answer the question. If you think a literal interpretation supported by millions of people is important, as you suggested, why not a literal interpretation of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood like all the Catholics believe. You are the one who appealed to 'mass' support for a literal interpretation.

Because proper hermeneutics would show that to be false.

So if all these things which sound literal in the Genesis narrative are really figurative, why the big problem with a figurative reading of God as a potter molding clay, a very common metaphor in scripture?

They may, on the surface, sound literal to you, not to me.

Shouldn't the snake, and the tree of life, and the promise about stepping on the snake, tell us not to take everything in the story literally? In fact if we were to insist that the promise being as literal as you insist the made of clay bit is, it would disqualify Jesus as Messiah. That has got to be a problem.

That's why it takes a lot of study to fully understand all there is to know.

 

[vossler]

You do realize that we talk about the sun going around the Earth BECAUSE of, not in spite of the Bible right? You are always very adament that we accept the plain meaning of scripture -- if a person didn't know any better, what WOULD they think if they read in the Bible, "the sun rises and sets." The reason we still use this language today is because it's so strongly embedded in our literature, not because it's always been taken figuratively!

Given our enlightened state, that should have changed hundreds of years ago. It hasn't because it really wasn't important then and it isn't now.

I suggest that you yourself are taking a position that goes against the words of the Bible -- but you have (wisely in my opinion) decided that these words are figurative because you know that the Earth revolves around the sun and that Jesus couldn't visually see the entire world from any mountain. It is no stretch of your own hermeneutic to similarly interpret the language in early Genesis as figurative when we have evidence of a much longer timescale than Genesis suggests.

I personally don't even know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa. I'm taking it by faith that it is so. I also don't know how Jesus can do what He says He can do, I just accept that by faith too. As far as me stretching my hermeneutic to interpret early Genesis as figurative, well I'll just say this: I go where the text and the Holy Spirit leads me.

Finally, your assertion that none of the authors was ever wrong is quite unBiblical. Not only did they often recount events differently (even the 10 commandments which were supposedly written in stone differ in different passages, and the matter of who wrote them the second time is contradictory) but the Bible calls scripture inspired, not dictated. Further, Paul at least had no qualms about calling unCannonized writing (at the time) "scripture." Finally, the inerrancy of scripture is utterly worthless when you consider that our interpretation of scripture is far from inerrant. You throw out, "the Bible is the Word of God" as support for your interpretation, but it's meaningless unless you are really claiming, "my interpretation of the Bible is flawless."

I'm not going to go into a long discussion about this because it would serve no purpose, my point was to show you and others exactly how I think and I believe I've done that.

I know you don't claim directly that your interpretation is flawless (at least I don't think so) but every time you bring up Biblical inerrancy as support for your interpretation, you're either going way off topic or you are implicitly suggesting that not only was the Bible dictated by God, but your interpretation has similarly been dictated by God.

The first half of what you said is pretty close to reality, God inspired and led each writer to say in his own words what God had placed on him to say. God didn't dictate as you stated, but placed in their hearts what to say. Big difference, at least to me.

The second half, well, it would be pretty arrogant and foolish to think that God has dictated to me my own interpretation. LOL! It is something that is in constant fine tuning and even some major reshaping is going on. Far from a finished product that's for sure.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't it funny how those realizations came from outside of God's Word?

No, vossler, they did not come from outside of God's Word. They came from inside God's creation which is an expression of God's Word. That is why we can affirm confidently that they cannot conflict with God's Word as expressed in scripture.

Because proper hermeneutics would show that to be false.

Proper hermeneutics according to whom? This is just saying that you prefer non-Catholic to Catholic hermeneutics. It doesn't determine which hermeneutic is proper. Catholics have every right to suggest that your failure to recognize the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine is due to your improper hermeneutics.

 

[vossler]

No, vossler, they did not come from outside of God's Word. They came from inside God's creation which is an expression of God's Word. That is why we can affirm confidently that they cannot conflict with God's Word as expressed in scripture.

Isn't this essentially the same thing homosexuals say?

Proper hermeneutics according to whom? This is just saying that you prefer non-Catholic to Catholic hermeneutics. It doesn't determine which hermeneutic is proper. Catholics have every right to suggest that your failure to recognize the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine is due to your improper hermeneutics.

This goes back to there is no real truth, there's my truth, your truth and who's to say which is true truth. Therefore let's all just do what we think is true.

 

[theFijian]

Only TEs and those Christians who believe homosexuality is fine seem to continually make the challenge "that is your interpretation." Why is that? That's the same challenge I hear from atheists. If that's the standard answer how can it be considered truth for you?

Your perception is very selective methinks. I hear the same thing from paedobaptists about credobaptists and vice-versa, from post-millenialists about pre-millenialists and vice-versa, from amillenialists about both pre-and post-millenialists, from anglicans about prebyterians and vice-versa. You keep trying to tar TEs and atheists with the same brush when the fact is that it's atheists and creationists who believe the same thing about scripture.