Deceiving the Nations.

[vossler]

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.

Wow, you sure hear a lot more than I ever do. You sure get around.

 

[busterdog]

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

Exd 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

No reason clear to me, but its a fact that he does not so intend.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deamiter
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.

Well, what takes away from his glory is when TE says God can't do it.

Especially after he says He did do it.

Any number of events do, however, reveal enormous power because they were formed relatively gradually and prepared for exactly the right moment - the floor of the red sea and the water from the rock. TO that extent you are correct, the amount of time something takes is not precisely the issue.

 

[Assyrian]

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?

Christians have been arguing about bible interpretation for two thousand years, the Jews for longer. Disagreements about what the bible says are hardly a new phenomenon. Catholics Orthodox and Copts argued over the interpretation of scripture. Later it was Protestant and Catholic, Calvinist and Arminian. What is disturbing is the way you are totally unaware that your interpretation is not identical with the word of God.

Slick work though the way you lump TEs and homosexuals into the same box.

In order for Scripture to mean anything, one has to be able to trust it and rely on it.

I do trust and rely on the word of God. What is strange is the way you think the trustworthiness and reliability of God's word depends on your ability to comprehend the thoughts of God. Is the bible meaningless if you can't understand everything? Do your comprehension leveles add anything to the reliability bible?

Did the OT prophets understand their own prophecies? 1Pet 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

If they did not understand, did that make the scriptures meaningless untrustworthy or unreliable?

12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Even angels don't understand, but you have the entire bible figured out. If you might be misunderstanding it, it is meaningless.

Peter tells us there are thing that are hard to understand, especially in Paul's epistles. 2Pet 3:16
There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.


Peter thought there were things in scripture hard to understand. You don't. According to Paul we only know in part, we have a dim unclear understanding 1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. What basis do you have in the bible you think you understand clearly, for thinking you can have such a clear understanding?

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.

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.

You keep repeating falsehoods about us. Things we have told are not true, but you keep repeating the accusation. It may sound good from your point of view to accuse us of preaching a relative truth. It is a popular Christian battle cry against a real aspect of modern life. People do believe truth is relative. We don't. We believe God's word is true and Gods creation is true and that any apparent conflict come not from God's word in the bible or from his creation but from human interpretations. You can't get around this argument, so instead you accuse us of relativism.

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.

Wise advice. A pity YECs don't wait and see like you suggest.

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.

Evolution has no bearing on our walk with God either, but YECs still go ahead and make the church look silly arguing against science.

You make this struggle with heliocentrism to be so pivotal, it wasn't.

It was a huge issue to the church of the time. How could the bible have got it so wrong?

What is really important from out point of view is that your hermeneutic would have been completely unable to get you out of that hole. The reasons you use to reject any other interpretation but the literal six day would have kept you firmly geocentric. The passages read like literal geocentrism, no one had ever read them any other way (unlike the days of Genesis) and any attempt at another explanation is dismissed as 'relying on components outside the bible'.

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.

I pray they are.

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

Still not dealing with the argument.

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.

Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." While it is the world that does the ridiculing, it can be Christians who are responsible. And while God knows your heart, the good and the bad, and no matter what, your are his, if you are standing up arguing for a misinterpretation of scripture that looks silly to people who know science, you are not standing for God but for your own misinterpretation.

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.

Heliocentrism, a spherical earth, mustard seeds all show where you are quite happy to rely on components outside the Scriptures to explain the meaning of God's word while you claim to reject outside information when it come to evolution and the age of the earth.

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.

If Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds why not believe him? Maybe it only appears the poppy seed is smaller. Do you walk by faith or by sight? If the bible says the sun hurries around the earth why not believe it? Maybe it only appears the earth rotates, no wait it appears the sun goes round the earth. If the bible say the earth has pillars and four corners and that the Medes came from the end of the heavens why not believe it instead instead of looking for ways to justify our thoughts?

Your omphalos arguments leaves us with a deceptive God. Creation is supposed to proclaim God's handiwork, not a misleading version.

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.

Agreed. As Paul says 1Cor 15:14 if Christ has not been raised...your faith is in vain. That would certainly effect our relationship with God. However the way God arranged the solar system and the way God created mankind have no bearing at all with our relationship to God.

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

Jesus.

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.

If he wrote it with poetic repetition there must have been a reason for it. If he used the word day in four different ways in the first two chapters there must have been a reason for it. If he avoided using the normal counting system and left out the definite article in 'a second day', 'a third day', there must have been a reason for it.

Just because we get confused trying to comprehend the thoughts of God, it doesn't make God the author of confusion. Just because you think the style is literal it doesn't mean its meaning is literal. Parables have a literal style.

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.

Makes it a bit pointless trying to limit it all to six days then doesn't it.

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.

If God wanted to deceive us he wouldn't have had Moses let us into the secret in Psalm 90, he wouldn't have had Peter warn us 2Pet 3:8 Do not forget this one thing. If you are going to go ahead and forget that one thing, don't blame God for deceiving you.

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.

Christians have realised the days were not meant literally since the early church. It is not an important issue, I am sure there are truths you see in scripture that I don't. It only becomes important when people try to hold up a misunderstanding of scripture as God's truth when science is showing us it is wrong.

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

Whether your argument are weak or not is irrelevant. It is just the simple facts. We do have vastly more evidence for common ancestry today than we had for heliocentrism even a hundred years ago. Regardless of whether heliocentrism or evolution are correct, scientists and the church accepted heliocentrism on much less evidence than we have for evolution today. And they were right.

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

It is not funny at all. Those realisations came from studying God's world.

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

Except of course you realise you can goof with that.

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.

You are happy to deal with hypotheticals when you say evolution excludes God and that TEs place him outside the game. Either you believe this is true or not. Please cut the double talk. Either the omniscient transcendent God could operate through evolution if he chose to, or he can't. I'm tired of you making accusations you cannot support.

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

I can tell you there wasn't a 1000 cubit flood all over the world yesterday

Only the scientifically enlightened ones have.

You are describing Origen, Augustine and Aquinas as scientifically enlightened? They understood the days in Genesis were not literal by reading the bible, not from modern geology books.

 

[Assyrian]

No I've never disagreed with science, just evolutionists.
Nor do I, science isn't the issue.
Again, I don't have a problem with him here.

Are you serious? Augustine warned against rejecting sciences nonchristians understand and you reject the science nonchristians understand, but its alright because you reject evolution as a science?

Because proper hermeneutics would show that to be false.

So you point about sounding literal and millions believing it was irrelevant?

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

So passages 'sounding literal' is really unreliable basis for establishing whether they were meant literally of not.

We are left with a narrative in Genesis that is full of things that are not literal, and you only basis for insisting the potter bit has to be interpreted literally is because it sound literal to you?

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.

That is a good place to start.

 

[Deamiter]

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



Well, what takes away from his glory is when TE says God can't do it.

Especially after he says He did do it.

Any number of events do, however, reveal enormous power because they were formed relatively gradually and prepared for exactly the right moment - the floor of the red sea and the water from the rock. TO that extent you are correct, the amount of time something takes is not precisely the issue.

Absolute hogwash. No TE (that I've ever heard, but if one existed, they'd depart from the vast majority of TEs) would EVER claim that there is something God cannot do. We are simply open to what God DID do and try to better understand the actions of God in his creation.

You might note that God never said how he created -- even in the Bible. There are a number of passages that quote God and Jesus, but Genesis 1 and 2 are written in the form of a story and nowhere suggest God as the author or narrator.

 

[Deamiter]

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.

Sounds like sarcasm to me -- at least I hope so. Our culture is hardly enlightened in the sense you're using it -- how many people have you met who really care about what words actually mean? When's the last time you heard somebody say, "I'll borrow it to you" or "The defeated army was decimated" when they really mean they'll lend it and the army was destroyed, not reduced by 10%? I don't particularly see it as a positive thing that our culture cares so little about history, literature and education but you can hardly use our culture to say that if it weren't figurative in the Bible, it wouldn't be used figuratively now. Meh, a silly point, but I hardly see the point in using sarcasm to try to contradict somebody when you don't really disagree (that something used literally in an earlier culture could continue to be used figuratively in ours).

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.

Beautiful about going where the Holy Spirit leads you! I was really torn over this debate when I first "converted" and through a ton of research, Bible reading and good hard prayer, I believe the Holy Spirit convicted me of the truth of evolution. Just don't close yourself off to the possibility that the Holy Spirit will lead you there because you now consider it heretical!

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.

After this, you go and say that if you tell somebody "what the Bible says" and they point out that it's an interpretation, you're doing the same as homosexuals. I can only assume that you're attempting very obviously to poison the well, but apparently you DO agree that your interpretation is not infallable and to claim that your interpretation is "what the Bible says" is arrogant to the extreme!

Usually when Christians I know talk about what the Bible says, they quote or paraphrase exact verses and then talk about their own interpretations and what they believe the verses mean. Maybe it's just me, but every time you say, "God said he did it in only six days," I look at the Bible and see that Genesis 1,2 is in no way attributed to God, and I further acknowledge that it's just as possible that God used a different timeframe as it is that God is not a door or a vine... Firstly, Genesis 1 and 2 are not quoting God, and secondly, many things God and the other authors of the Bible said were very colorful and hardly to be taken literally.

When you use, "God says ___" you really must acknowledge that your interpretation of the Bible has God saying it unless you're quoting directly from a bit of scripture that quotes God.

And quit comparing people you disagree with with Stalin, Hitler, homosexuals, atheists etc... There are much more respectful and effective ways to communicate than to go for shock value. As you might have noticed, we can find parallels between YEC and atheism too -- do you think that COULD say anything negative about YEC... Do you honestly think the logical fallacy of poisoning the well will accomplish anything. Or is this really just a confirmation of Godwin's law?

 

[vossler]

Christians have been arguing about bible interpretation for two thousand years, the Jews for longer. Disagreements about what the bible says are hardly a new phenomenon. Catholics Orthodox and Copts argued over the interpretation of scripture. Later it was Protestant and Catholic, Calvinist and Arminian. What is disturbing is the way you are totally unaware that your interpretation is not identical with the word of God.

Of course disagreements are hardly new. I believe what is new is the introduction of theories and ideas that are completely contrary to the text.

I do trust and rely on the word of God. What is strange is the way you think the trustworthiness and reliability of God's word depends on your ability to comprehend the thoughts of God. Is the bible meaningless if you can't understand everything? Do your comprehension leveles add anything to the reliability bible?

Comprehension isn’t nearly a critical as ones humble and contrite spirit is. How we approach the Word of God is far more important than our comprehension abilities.

Did the OT prophets understand their own prophecies? 1Pet 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

If they did not understand, did that make the scriptures meaningless untrustworthy or unreliable?

I’ve never stated any Scripture was meaningless or untrustworthy. 1 Timothy 3:16-17 states:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
​

They may not have known the meaning but that didn’t stop them from prophesizing.

12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Even angels don't understand, but you have the entire bible figured out. If you might be misunderstanding it, it is meaningless.

I claim no such thing.

Peter tells us there are thing that are hard to understand, especially in Paul's epistles. 2 Pet

3:16
There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter thought there were things in scripture hard to understand. You don't.

Please show me where I ever stated nothing in Scripture is hard to understand.

According to Paul we only know in part, we have a dim unclear understanding 1Cor

13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. What basis do you have in the bible you think you understand clearly, for thinking you can have such a clear understanding?

Again, I’ve never claimed a total understanding and I never will. Keep trying to put words in my mouth.

You keep repeating falsehoods about us. Things we have told are not true, but you keep repeating the accusation. It may sound good from your point of view to accuse us of preaching a relative truth. It is a popular Christian battle cry against a real aspect of modern life. People do believe truth is relative. We don't.

Well whenever someone claims the Bible to state something different than what you believe you always throw out the “that’s your interpretation” claim. That sounds pretty convenient to me.

We believe God's word is true and Gods creation is true and that any apparent conflict come not from God's word in the bible or from his creation but from human interpretations. You can't get around this argument, so instead you accuse us of relativism.

Like I said, that easy to say, but it’s in the action where one sees the truth. The interpretation of God’s Word is always held accountable and scientific interpretations are not. One was given specifically for instruction and the other wasn’t, yet it’s the latter that trumps the first and you can’t see the relativism in that.

Wise advice. A pity YECs don't wait and see like you suggest.

Wait and see doesn’t mean embrace.

Evolution has no bearing on our walk with God either, but YECs still go ahead and make the church look silly arguing against science.

Tell that to the NSA evolutionary biologists. YECs argue for God’s Word and not against science.

It was a huge issue to the church of the time. How could the bible have got it so wrong?

That’s just it, it didn’t. Man did!

What is really important from out point of view is that your hermeneutic would have been completely unable to get you out of that hole. The reasons you use to reject any other interpretation but the literal six day would have kept you firmly geocentric. The passages read like literal geocentrism, no one had ever read them any other way (unlike the days of Genesis) and any attempt at another explanation is dismissed as 'relying on components outside the bible'.

As I’ve stated previously, which you like to ignore, heliocentrism isn’t foundational to anything and therefore, in the big picture, is unimportant.

I pray they are.

I hope you were genuine in that statement because no matter how prepared they are, prayer is always welcome.

Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." While it is the world that does the ridiculing, it can be Christians who are responsible. And while God knows your heart, the good and the bad, and no matter what, your are his, if you are standing up arguing for a misinterpretation of scripture that looks silly to people who know science, you are not standing for God but for your own misinterpretation.

How is Romans 2:24 pertinent here? It speaks directly of teachers of the law not practicing what they preach and the judgment they will incur by being judged by the law which they themselves have not kept. Here are the previous 12 verses so that the context (a good hermeneutical principle to adhere to) can be seen.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
​

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.
​

I think you will be better served quoting Scripture that relates to the point you’re trying to make.

Heliocentrism, a spherical earth, mustard seeds all show where you are quite happy to rely on components outside the Scriptures to explain the meaning of God's word while you claim to reject outside information when it come to evolution and the age of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22 states: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;” the word circle can also be translated sphere. Mustard seeds were, in Jesus’ time, the smallest seed sown by the Isrealite. As far as Heliocentrism that’s a more complicated issue, but not if we look at it with the same intent that God does in the Bible. Never is the fact whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa a main point of discussion. It’s always presented secondarily, therefore I would submit since it wasn’t important teaching to God it shouldn’t be critical to us. The early church would have been well served with that approach.

Your omphalos arguments leaves us with a deceptive God. Creation is supposed to proclaim God's handiwork, not a misleading version.

I’ve never felt deceived and I believe every word.

Jesus.

Yes!

If he wrote it with poetic repetition there must have been a reason for it. If he used the word day in four different ways in the first two chapters there must have been a reason for it. If he avoided using the normal counting system and left out the definite article in 'a second day', 'a third day', there must have been a reason for it.

That’s right, there’s a reason for everything.

Just because we get confused trying to comprehend the thoughts of God, it doesn't make God the author of confusion. Just because you think the style is literal it doesn't mean its meaning is literal. Parables have a literal style.

Just because scientists believe we evolved doesn’t really mean we did.

Makes it a bit pointless trying to limit it all to six days then doesn't it.

Not if it was for our benefit.

If God wanted to deceive us he wouldn't have had Moses let us into the secret in Psalm 90, he wouldn't have had Peter warn us 2Pet 3:8 Do not forget this one thing. If you are going to go ahead and forget that one thing, don't blame God for deceiving you.

So you actually believe Psalm 90 is the secret to unraveling Genesis 1. You’re obviously a lot smarter than I am then.

Whether your argument are weak or not is irrelevant. It is just the simple facts. We do have vastly more evidence for common ancestry today than we had for heliocentrism even a hundred years ago. Regardless of whether heliocentrism or evolution are correct, scientists and the church accepted heliocentrism on much less evidence than we have for evolution today. And they were right.

O.K. who am I with no scientific facts to base my hermeneutic on to question the obvious. You’ve got the facts and I obviously don’t.

Except of course you realise you can goof with that.

Not that scientists haven’t goofed either.

You are happy to deal with hypotheticals when you say evolution excludes God and that TEs place him outside the game. Either you believe this is true or not. Please cut the double talk. Either the omniscient transcendent God could operate through evolution if he chose to, or he can't. I'm tired of you making accusations you cannot support.

I’m actually not happy to deal with the hypothetical of evolution. It has rudely been thrust upon the church and therefore I must address it. That doesn’t mean I have to address in the manner that those push it would like me to. The Bible sets the scene and tells us the players, my job is to listen and obey, not hypothetically question each of His instructions or declarations. BTW, evolution puts God on the sidelines and by implication that means TEs do too. God can do anything He desires, fortunately He’s told us what He did so that we don’t have to play with hypotheticals.

I can tell you there wasn't a 1000 cubit flood all over the world yesterday.

Oh, well I can tell you there wasn’t a murder in my house either. Looks like I’m now qualified to make other assertions.

You are describing Origen, Augustine and Aquinas as scientifically enlightened? They understood the days in Genesis were not literal by reading the bible, not from modern geology books.

No, I’m referring to the evolutionists. Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had reasonable biblical support for their beliefs.

 

[vossler]

Are you serious? Augustine warned against rejecting sciences nonchristians understand and you reject the science nonchristians understand, but its alright because you reject evolution as a science?

Parts of what are classified as evolution, yes!

So you point about sounding literal and millions believing it was irrelevant?

Nothing is irrelevant, right!

So passages 'sounding literal' is really unreliable basis for establishing whether they were meant literally of not.

We are left with a narrative in Genesis that is full of things that are not literal, and you only basis for insisting the potter bit has to be interpreted literally is because it sound literal to you?

No the context is what’s used to establish it. Even a literal text can have a figurative meaning. It’s the context that usually determines it.

 

[vossler]

Sounds like sarcasm to me -- at least I hope so. Our culture is hardly enlightened in the sense you're using it -- how many people have you met who really care about what words actually mean? When's the last time you heard somebody say, "I'll borrow it to you" or "The defeated army was decimated" when they really mean they'll lend it and the army was destroyed, not reduced by 10%? I don't particularly see it as a positive thing that our culture cares so little about history, literature and education but you can hardly use our culture to say that if it weren't figurative in the Bible, it wouldn't be used figuratively now. Meh, a silly point, but I hardly see the point in using sarcasm to try to contradict somebody when you don't really disagree (that something used literally in an earlier culture could continue to be used figuratively in ours).

Actually I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, I meant what I said. We know the truth yet we still continue using words that don’t describe reality. Is that a problem? Sometimes, but not in the case of the sun.

Beautiful about going where the Holy Spirit leads you! I was really torn over this debate when I first "converted" and through a ton of research, Bible reading and good hard prayer, I believe the Holy Spirit convicted me of the truth of evolution. Just don't close yourself off to the possibility that the Holy Spirit will lead you there because you now consider it heretical!

I try to always keep an open mind, for some things that is more difficult. Evolution is one of those things and that’s because God has spoken so clearly in His Word and that has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

After this, you go and say that if you tell somebody "what the Bible says" and they point out that it's an interpretation, you're doing the same as homosexuals. I can only assume that you're attempting very obviously to poison the well, but apparently you DO agree that your interpretation is not infallable and to claim that your interpretation is "what the Bible says" is arrogant to the extreme!

I’m giving an example of where else I’ve seen this logic used. It just so happens that the issue of homosexuality was it. If you wish to believe my ‘interpretation’ is arrogant to the extreme I’m not that surprised given that it is completely opposite of your own.

Usually when Christians I know talk about what the Bible says, they quote or paraphrase exact verses and then talk about their own interpretations and what they believe the verses mean. Maybe it's just me, but every time you say, "God said he did it in only six days," I look at the Bible and see that Genesis 1,2 is in no way attributed to God, and I further acknowledge that it's just as possible that God used a different timeframe as it is that God is not a door or a vine... Firstly, Genesis 1 and 2 are not quoting God, and secondly, many things God and the other authors of the Bible said were very colorful and hardly to be taken literally.

Do you want me to post Genesis 1 each time I say God says six days?

So to you quoting Genesis is quoting Moses then, right? God was on the sidelines again.

And quit comparing people you disagree with with Stalin, Hitler, homosexuals, atheists etc... There are much more respectful and effective ways to communicate than to go for shock value. As you might have noticed, we can find parallels between YEC and atheism too -- do you think that COULD say anything negative about YEC... Do you honestly think the logical fallacy of poisoning the well will accomplish anything.

I compared it like I did because I saw the parallel and it wasn’t too far off. I understand you can find parallels between atheism and YEC, I actually find them rather amusing. I really don’t care if you continue to use them. I don’t know about poisoning the well, I’m just trying to convey my point the best way I know how while dramatizing the severity of the issue.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't this essentially the same thing homosexuals say?

Are you trying to poison the well? Surely you know that resorting to logical fallacies indicates you have no further logical defence for your own position.

Please deal directly with the issue at hand. When conclusions are based directly on creation, which is the very utterance of the Word, you cannot say these realizations came from outside the Word.

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.

No, it is not a denial of the existence of a real truth. It is simply an illustration of the fact that (unlike the situation in science) we have no objective measure by which to determine whose hermeneutic is "proper".

Either the Catholics are right about transubstantion and the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, or they are not. But we have no way to decide for sure because we have no mutually agreed criterion by which to judge the matter. We only have our preferred hermeneutical principles, and we don't agree on those either.

In science we do have a mutually agreed criterion to which we can hold scientific conclusions accountable. We have the reality of God's creation.

 

[gluadys]

Exd 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

No reason clear to me, but its a fact that he does not so intend.

Wasn't the point in this case to communicate with the children of Israel?

It is also not pertinent to the issue. If God chooses to speak clearly (as Vossler says) about creation in scripture, why would he not also choose to speak clearly about creation in creation?

I don't necessarily agree that scripture always speaks plainly, nor is it always easy to read creation. But I can conceive of no reason why we should be less clear about creation than about scripture. Since it is God's intention to communicate with us, surely he will be consistent in ensuring the effectiveness of his communication, be it in general or special revelation, be it in creation or in scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Well, what takes away from his glory is when TE says God can't do it.

And when have you found a TE saying God can't do it? What we are saying is that the evidence shows what God did. It does not set limits on what God can do. But it does direct us toward an understanding of what God did do.

 

[Mallon]

I don't necessarily agree that scripture always speaks plainly, nor is it always easy to read creation. But I can conceive of no reason why we should be less clear about creation than about scripture.

Me neither. Especially since such a view is inconsistent with the theology of the Bible. It completely contradicts the teaching of Rom 1:20.

 

[vossler]

Are you trying to poison the well? Surely you know that resorting to logical fallacies indicates you have no further logical defence for your own position.

I spend some time over in the philosophy & ethics area and that's exactly what goes on there, so no I'm not trying to poison the well.

Please deal directly with the issue at hand. When conclusions are based directly on creation, which is the very utterance of the Word, you cannot say these realizations came from outside the Word.

Based on that line of thinking all conclusions that are based directly on creation could be said didn't come from outside the Word.

No, it is not a denial of the existence of a real truth. It is simply an illustration of the fact that (unlike the situation in science) we have no objective measure by which to determine whose hermeneutic is "proper".

Hence all biblical truth is relative.

Either the Catholics are right about transubstantion and the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, or they are not. But we have no way to decide for sure because we have no mutually agreed criterion by which to judge the matter. We only have our preferred hermeneutical principles, and we don't agree on those either.

Exactly, that builds off of my previous point.

In science we do have a mutually agreed criterion to which we can hold scientific conclusions accountable. We have the reality of God's creation.

So whenever possible, process all truth claims through the scientific filter, right?

 

[gluadys]

Based on that line of thinking all conclusions that are based directly on creation could be said didn't come from outside the Word.

Depends on whether they hold up when tested against creation. But in the case of well-supported conclusions that have been multiply tested, yes.

Hence all biblical truth is relative.

No, not at all. Biblical truth is just as solid as the truth of creation. But interpretations of biblical truth are relative. And less easy to resolve than interpretations of creation. Because when we hit an impasse on differing interpretations of scripture, we have no higher criterion to appeal to. Whereas in science, we do have the higher criterion of physical reality that sorts out correct from incorrect interpretations.

So whenever possible, process all truth claims through the scientific filter, right?

No. Only those that can be tested against the physical reality of creation. There are lots of truth claims where a scientific filter is useless. But that doesn't exempt us from using it when we can.

 

[vossler]

Depends on whether they hold up when tested against creation. But in the case of well-supported conclusions that have been multiply tested, yes.

Speculation and conjecture, are they legitimate tests?

No, not at all. Biblical truth is just as solid as the truth of creation. But interpretations of biblical truth are relative. And less easy to resolve than interpretations of creation. Because when we hit an impasse on differing interpretations of scripture, we have no higher criterion to appeal to. Whereas in science, we do have the higher criterion of physical reality that sorts out correct from incorrect interpretations.

How can it be solid when it has no foundation. Given that all biblical truth, according to you, is based upon man's flawed interpretation and not an objective standard, there can't be any true conclusions drawn and it's all therefore relative.

No. Only those that can be tested against the physical reality of creation. There are lots of truth claims where a scientific filter is useless. But that doesn't exempt us from using it when we can.

But of course, but if there is a scientific means of determining the truth, it stands above all others, right?

 

[theFijian]

Wow, you sure hear a lot more than I ever do. You sure get around.

Yes it helps in discerning truth from garbage, you should try it sometime.

 

[theFijian]

Well, what takes away from his glory is when TE says God can't do it.

Please do not bear false witness. I have never ever seen a TE say that God couldn't do something with respect to Creation. That has never been the point of debate, it's what God did do that is under discussion.

 

[vossler]

Yes it helps in discerning truth from garbage, you should try it sometime.

I've got enough to deal with in my own little world without having to reach out into every nook and cranny of alternative thought. I'll just leave that domain to you.