Deceiving the Nations.

[Deamiter]

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.

Are you purposefully trying not to understand gluadys? Biblical truth is NOT based on man's flawed interpretation. Our understanding of Biblical truth IS based on man's flawed interpretation. Biblical truth isn't relative but we know our understanding is flawed... therefore we can never claim that our understanding perfectly lines up with Biblical truth.

We can certainly draw conclusions based on our flawed understanding of Biblical truth, but there's really no objective way to confirm that our conclusions are based on a proper understanding of Biblical truth. We can continue to search and we are lead by the Holy Spirit so I think we can get darned close, but the history of us who follow Christ suggests that the Holy Spirit does not lead all equally in all areas and most (if not all) of our conclusions are going to be wrong since there are so many contradictory conclusions being made based on our flawed interpretation of scripture!

It's got nothing to do with relativism -- we all agree that there are hard moral and Biblical truths. However, since we interpret the Bible differently, we clearly come to slightly different conclusions on many of these truths -- since even you acknowledge that your interpretation of scripture is imperfect, surely you agree that your conclusions based on your interpretation cannot be perfect.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well said, Deamiter.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Are you serious? Don't you think that most sides in these arguments might think the other has introduced theories and ideas that are completely contrary to the text? Of course what is really happening is that the ideas are completely contrary to their interpretation of the text.

Cosmas Indicopleustes thought that Christians who believed in a spherical earth had introduced a pagan idea completely contrary to the text. Luther thought Copernicus was a fool with a love of novelty whose ideas were completely contrary to the text.

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.

Agreed.

I’ve never stated any Scripture was meaningless or untrustworthy.

No just that scripture would be meaningless and untrustworthy if your literal interpretation wasn't what it meant.

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.

So when God speaks, our first impression literalist interpretation of what God says is not necessarily what God means. You seem to think you can pick up a passage and the Holy Spirit will give you automatic insight into the true interpretation.

I claim no such thing.

You seemed to be arguing that if you interpretation was not reliable then scripture was not reliable. That was your reply to our point out the difference between the truth of God's word and the fallibility of human interpretation. That and simply painting us with the same brush you use to tar homosexuals.

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

There is you constant assumption that your interpretation is identical to the word of God:

Remember, I'm not the one confusing anything God said.

and that we are arguing with God's word instead of your interpretation of it. There is also your assumption that if there are difficult passages, you know which ones are which and you know Genesis is meant literally. The Holy Spirit told you so.

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

No it is just the assumption that when you do interpret a passage, you know when your interpretation is infallible.

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.

It probably sounds convenient because you think your interpretation is identical with the word of God. However this has nothing to do with your accusation or 'relative truth'.

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.

No I can't. Not even in your wild misrepresentation of the situation. Science is constantly being held to account. It is constantly subjects new ideas to rigorous testing adn old ideas are constantly being examined against new information. That is what makes science so good at studying the natural world. On the other hand the YEC default mode of scripture study is a rigid conservatism and defence of tradition. You forget that when the conflict arose over both heliocentrism and the age of the earth, science and hermeneutics were both subject to rigorous reexamination. The science was shown to be correct while evangelical scholarship came up with better way of understanding God's word.

You act as if none of this happened.

Wait and see doesn’t mean embrace.

It don't mean preach against either.

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

Who?

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!

Exactly. The bible didn't get it wrong about geocentrism, just as the bible didn't get it wrong about six day creationism. They are both human misinterpretations. Man got it wrong both times.

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

Neither YEC nor geocentrism are foundational. That is one of the reasons they are such a good comparison and why geocentrism teaches us such important lessons.

Geocentrism is also important because it shows how something apparently meant literally and interpreted literally throughout the history of the church can actually be wrong.

It is also important because if Christians keep teaching geocentrism as the plain word of God, in spite of scientific evidence, it can shake peoples faith in the bible and Christianity.

It should be very important to you because it shows how your hermeneutic approach is quite incapable of dealing with conflicts between science and bible interpretation. You think your hermeneutic shows you science is wrong, but it would never have been able to show you the right answer with geocentrism.

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

I've got kids myself Lord help us.

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.

You seem to think that it is only the world that can hold the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule. Paul was writing to Christians and telling the church in Rome that God's people can be responsible for God's name being blasphemed.

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.

There is a word in Hebrew for ball. That is not it. Can you show me where this word is translated sphere? Even if it could mean either this isn't the bible teaching a spherical earth and certainly the verses that describe the earth having corners, being visible from one mountain or being set on pillars are not to be reinterpreted by a verse that can mean either. I am afraid you are allowing evidence from worldly science to influence you interpretation.

Mustard seeds were, in Jesus’ time, the smallest seed sown by the Isrealite.

No they were not. Poppy seeds were smaller and poppies were grown in Israel back then. Besides Jesus doesn't say mustard seeds were the smallest seeds sown by Israelites, but that it was the smallest of all seeds.

You are simply refusing to accept the plain and simple literal meaning of what Jesus said, because you know it contradicts science. Your hermeneutic does not get you a way out of this so you correctly ignore your hermeneutic.

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.

Genesis doesn't say how long creation took, you simply assume the days were both literal and consecutive. While God does give a definition of literal days, and the light he called day and the darkness night, the numbered days do not fit that definition as they include 'evening to morning'. In fact there are four different uses of the word day in the first two chapters. Apparently the actual meaning to the word day must be secondary or even irrelevant to the purpose of the chapter which is to tell us God created everything. If the literal meaning of day was important or even primary, we wouldn't have Moses tells how flexible God's days can be.

In Exodus the days are also strictly secondary, the six days are used as an illustration of the Sabbath command. Even there it appears in the middle of a metaphor.

But your hermeneutic doesn't even allow you to do this:

David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

The plain sense of the geocentrist passages does make common sense. The facts of the context do not indicate any other reading. Only the science tells us it was wrong.

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

You don't believe what creation tells us. The reason the omphalos argument was rejected by the church when it was proposed is that it preaches a deceptive God. That is too high a price to preserve a literal interpretation of the Genesis days.

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

But not necessarily the reason you think.

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

Just because Jesus said he was a shepherd it doesn't mean he was.

Not if it was for our benefit.

God obviously though 98.5% of the Chimp genome was for our benefit too.

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

No I just listen to scripture when it says 2Pet 3:8 Do not forget this one thing. It is very easy once you do that. Or you could read Psalm 90 and see how Moses starts off:
Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Moses starts off talking about God creating the world and then goes on to tell us in verse 4 to talk about God's 'days'. It doesn't require any great intellect to see this. All it takes is not being bound up by an absolute refusal to consider anything but literal days.

 

[vossler]

Are you purposefully trying not to understand gluadys? Biblical truth is NOT based on man's flawed interpretation. Our understanding of Biblical truth IS based on man's flawed interpretation. Biblical truth isn't relative but we know our understanding is flawed... therefore we can never claim that our understanding perfectly lines up with Biblical truth.

Of course biblical truth isn't relative, but it becomes relative when we treat it as such when every time when someone states a biblical truth and it doesn't correspond with the other person's 'evidence' 'feelings' 'theology' or whatever you want to call it, it is dismissed because that's their 'interpretation' and of course that's relative.

We can certainly draw conclusions based on our flawed understanding of Biblical truth, but there's really no objective way to confirm that our conclusions are based on a proper understanding of Biblical truth.

This is the scientific mindset from which you form all of your conclusions.

We can continue to search and we are lead by the Holy Spirit so I think we can get darned close, but the history of us who follow Christ suggests that the Holy Spirit does not lead all equally in all areas and most (if not all) of our conclusions are going to be wrong since there are so many contradictory conclusions being made based on our flawed interpretation of scripture!

I happen to believe that contradictory conclusions are a result of not submitting ourselves fully to the Holy Spirit and a lack of study of His Word.

It's got nothing to do with relativism -- we all agree that there are hard moral and Biblical truths. However, since we interpret the Bible differently, we clearly come to slightly different conclusions on many of these truths -- since even you acknowledge that your interpretation of scripture is imperfect, surely you agree that your conclusions based on your interpretation cannot be perfect.

If that isn't a definition of relativism I don't know what is.

Relativism:

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

You didn't understand my point did you?

I was talking about the amount of evidence available when the church changed their interpretation with geocentrism, the amount of scientific evidence needed to get Christians to reexamine a traditional interpretation.

Not that scientists haven’t goofed either.

And are regularly corrected by other scientists.

Who can correct your goofs?

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.

You think God has told you how he created the world. If you are wrong then God is not pushed to the sidelines by evolution, because as you say, he can do anything he desires. Why should you claim that when TEs say evolution is God's way of creating species, they are pushing God to the sidelines, when you admit God could do just that if he desired?

It makes no sense, and the only reason I can see that you keep making the claim is to have another insult to throw at TEs.

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.

So science can tell us something about the past.

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

Are you saying the bible has changed? That the reasonable biblical support Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had for not taking the Genesis days literally has suddenly disappeared?

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!

Which is rejecting secular science, which is exactly what Augustine said was disgraceful and dangerous.

I could understand you disagreeing with Augustine, what I cannot understand is you doing exactly what Augustine was talking about, while claiming you aren't disagreeing with him.

Nothing is irrelevant, right!

Should I take it this kind of meaningless answer is you dropping a claim you can't support? TEs are getting a lot of it in this discussion.

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.

So, what is it in the context that tells us the snake, the tree of life, and the redeemer bruising the snake's head are all figurative, but God making man out of clay has to be literal?

 

[Deamiter]

*sigh* vossler -- relativism is the idea that morals are defined arbitrarily by anybody who wants to. I'm simply asserting that none of us can conclusively KNOW God's morals -- as I said we can get darned close, but there's no repeatable and testable way to distinguish most small details -- hence the many denominations of Christianity.

If I said we could both have conflicting and correct interpretations, that'd be relativism. If I told you that murder is okay in a culture that condones it, that'd be relativism. Saying that we cannot perfectly know Biblical truth and thus can't claim that our morals are perfect acknowledges one and only one truth, but similarly acknowledges that one might misinterpret scripture so it'd be arrogant and untruthful to claim that our interpretation is synonamous with scriptural truth itself.

In short, if I said we could both be right about the creation account, I'd be a relativist. In fact what I DO say is that one of us is wrong and it's rather arrogant on your part to say I'm wrong because the Bible says so when you MEAN I'm wrong because your interpretation of the Bible says so. My theology is just as fully based on the Bible -- I just don't feel the need to contradict what I can observe in God's creation in my walk with God.

And I love the implicit claim that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't study the Bible enough... What about those of us who disagree with your interpretation of Genesis and pray before reading the Bible daily as well as continually working to humble ourselves before God? Is it possible that you are so set in your beliefs about what God must have meant and done that you are not willing to listen to the Holy Spirit on these matters?

 

[theFijian]

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.

No wonder your hermeneutic is so limited in scope and validity.

 

[gluadys]

Speculation and conjecture, are they legitimate tests?

No. They can and do play an important role in suggesting hypotheses and how they can be tested, but they are not themselves tests of hypotheses. A test requires some form of evidence. Both the old age of the earth (and universe) and biological evolution are supported by a great deal of evidence and a great diversity of evidence that leads consistently to the same conclusions. This suggests that the conclusions are well-grounded in the very reality of creation.

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.

You really have trouble with the concept of interpretation, don't you. No, by no means is biblical truth based on flawed (or even good) interpretation.

Biblical truth is the bedrock, the foundation, grounded in God himself. Interpretations, both good and bad, are our perceptions of biblical truth. Our perceptions are incomplete and imperfect, so we can misrepresent biblical truth to ourselves and others, but that does not alter the foundation of biblical truth itself. By no means.

Nor is it correct to say that there can't be any true conclusions drawn about biblical truth. In theology, as in science, we do at times come to consensus and agree on what the biblical truth is. For example, everyone in this forum has agreed that the Nicene Creed is an accurate summary of biblical truth. We all agree that God is the Creator of all that is, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal persons in a Triune God, that the Son became incarnate in human flesh for us and for our salvation, etc. etc.

So we can and have drawn true conclusions about biblical truth. However, there are still outstanding issues on which we have significant disagreements about what the biblical truth is. And here is where we cannot afford to be arrogant and assume that a particular hermeneutic is correct.

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

You really want to set up a hierarchy of truth, don't you?

No, my point is that there is no such hierarchy. All truth is true. Every truth is equally true. There can be no setting of scientific truth above scriptural truth, nor can there be any setting of scriptural truth above scientific truth. One truth cannot trump another. One truth cannot make another truth untrue.

Insofar as our understanding of scripture is true and our understanding of creation is true, both truths must be accepted. It is only when our understanding of one or the other (or both) is imperfect that it can appear as if we must choose between them. When that happens, it is a signal of the imperfection of our interpretation (scientific or biblical or both), not of any deficiency, much less deception, in either of God's revelations.

 

[vossler]

Are you serious? Don't you think that most sides in these arguments might think the other has introduced theories and ideas that are completely contrary to the text? Of course what is really happening is that the ideas are completely contrary to their interpretation of the text.

That’s one way of looking at it, I happen to see it differently.

No just that scripture would be meaningless and untrustworthy if your literal interpretation wasn't what it meant.

Again, No I didn’t.

You seemed to be arguing that if you interpretation was not reliable then scripture was not reliable.

LOL! Hardly.

There is you constant assumption that your interpretation is identical to the word of God…and that we are arguing with God's word instead of your interpretation of it. There is also your assumption that if there are difficult passages, you know which ones are which and you know Genesis is meant literally. The Holy Spirit told you so.

Of course, if you approach Scripture as an absolute source of truth you can’t be vague about how you see it. Then again if you approach it from a relativistic point of view, then you allow lots of interpretations.

No it is just the assumption that when you do interpret a passage, you know when your interpretation is infallible.

If I believe it why shouldn’t I proclaim it? If I’m wrong there will be more than enough people available to tell me and then prove it, otherwise I’ll continue to proclaim it loudly and frequently.

No I can't. Not even in your wild misrepresentation of the situation. Science is constantly being held to account.

To man and his theories yes, but not to God and His Word.

It is constantly subjects new ideas to rigorous testing adn old ideas are constantly being examined against new information. That is what makes science so good at studying the natural world. On the other hand the YEC default mode of scripture study is a rigid conservatism and defence of tradition. You forget that when the conflict arose over both heliocentrism and the age of the earth, science and hermeneutics were both subject to rigorous reexamination. The science was shown to be correct while evangelical scholarship came up with better way of understanding God's word.

You act as if none of this happened.

Science is good at studying the natural world. I understand that the church, and let’s be clear that was primarily the Catholic church, got theology and science mixed up and they were clearly wrong. It wasn’t the first time and it wasn’t the last. The church should stick to theology and let science deal with its realm of study. It’s only when science intrudes into theology or vice-versa that a problem occurs. It’s a problem for theology (like geocentricism) when the Scriptures don’t speak on a subject and likewise with science when it speaks to theological issues without adequate proof or authority.

It don't mean preach against either.

It does if the ‘science’ is preaching against God’s Word.

Who?

I was referring to the thread “Cornell University Evolution Project” sorry.

Exactly. The bible didn't get it wrong about geocentrism, just as the bible didn't get it wrong about six day creationism. They are both human misinterpretations. Man got it wrong both times.

Well then I suppose we’re wrong about being created in God’s image since science shows we were created through natural selection. There probably isn’t much we’ve gotten right and that’s why we need science so that we can straighten out all the bad theology. I Got it!

Neither YEC nor geocentrism are foundational. That is one of the reasons they are such a good comparison and why geocentrism teaches us such important lessons.

I believe God describing His Creation week to be very foundational, geocentricism has little to no value.

It should be very important to you because it shows how your hermeneutic approach is quite incapable of dealing with conflicts between science and bible interpretation. You think your hermeneutic shows you science is wrong, but it would never have been able to show you the right answer with geocentrism.

Science isn’t wrong, scientist are.

I've got kids myself Lord help us.

Amen

You seem to think that it is only the world that can hold the Bible and Christianity up to ridicule. Paul was writing to Christians and telling the church in Rome that God's people can be responsible for God's name being blasphemed.

Far from it, the worst attacks to Christianity and the Bible come from “believers.”

There is a word in Hebrew for ball. That is not it. Can you show me where this word is translated sphere? Even if it could mean either this isn't the bible teaching a spherical earth and certainly the verses that describe the earth having corners, being visible from one mountain or being set on pillars are not to be reinterpreted by a verse that can mean either. I am afraid you are allowing evidence from worldly science to influence you interpretation.

Wouldn’t a better approach to Scripture be that everything within it is true no matter what because God said it. I think the crux of the problem is you don’t believe God said it. If you don’t understand a statement and that statement can be disproved via a scientific process, then the statement is false. Given that I don’t know the original language and environment that these verses come from, I’m not in a position to challenge their authenticity. I don’t believe the Bible teaches either a flat earth or round one, heliocentricism or geocentricism.

No they were not. Poppy seeds were smaller and poppies were grown in

Israel back then. Besides Jesus doesn't say mustard seeds were the smallest seeds sown by Israelites, but that it was the smallest of all seeds.

My research has shown a different answer, but that really isn’t the issue here because ultimately you see Jesus either lying or being ignorant and I see neither. If you don’t then explain what it is you do see. Sometimes I get the distinct impression I’m arguing with an atheist, someone who can’t wait to disprove their little pet Scriptures.

You are simply refusing to accept the plain and simple literal meaning of what Jesus said, because you know it contradicts science. Your hermeneutic does not get you a way out of this so you correctly ignore your hermeneutic.

I don’t reject the plain and simple literal meaning because it contradicts science, I do so because it contradicts the very nature of God. The nature of God is Truth, He cannot lie and that is the first rule of my hermeneutics, as it should be for all.

Genesis doesn't say how long creation took, you simply assume the days were both literal and consecutive.

Yeah that’s quite a stretch for me to do, taking the liberty and assuming the text to read like there were six days when it is in fact it is clearly implied to be much, much more than that. Psalm 90 has shown us that, why couldn’t I see that without you?

The plain sense of the geocentrist passages does make common sense. The facts of the context do not indicate any other reading. Only the science tells us it was wrong.

Good except for when you use ‘the science’ I would substitute ‘our scientific understanding.’

You don't believe what creation tells us.

Creation doesn’t tell me anything even remotely similar to what it tells you.

Just because Jesus said he was a shepherd it doesn't mean he was.

As you’re free to believe.

Moses starts off talking about God creating the world and then goes on to tell us in verse 4 to talk about God's 'days'. It doesn't require any great intellect to see this. All it takes is not being bound up by an absolute refusal to consider anything but literal days.

I don’t know but when I read that I see God telling us about His eternal nature. When He says that “a thousand years are nothing to God’s eternity” and that there is no proportion to His eternal Mind I saw that as a reminder of how totally frail we are and how divine He is. We can’t even accurately describe what we did in the last hour, but God can tell us everything over eternity. I could go on but I’m sure I’d be showing my lack of intellect and my bound nature when I fail to see how those days tell us about the creation days.

 

[vossler]

Who can correct your goofs?

Do you want a list? My wife, the kids just love to although they don’t get near the opportunity they’d like, my bible study buddies, my best friend and even you!

You think God has told you how he created the world. If you are wrong then God is not pushed to the sidelines by evolution, because as you say, he can do anything he desires. Why should you claim that when TEs say evolution is God's way of creating species, they are pushing God to the sidelines, when you admit God could do just that if he desired?

Because as I’ve heard TEs and atheists alike state, that evolution happens on its own, we have science to measure it and therefore God isn’t actively playing a role. C’mon if He was do you think TEs and atheists could be so together on this?

It makes no sense, and the only reason I can see that you keep making the claim is to have another insult to throw at TEs.

Insults are not required nor permissible. Evidence is but a few clicks away.

So science can tell us something about the past.

Never said it couldn’t.

Are you saying the bible has changed? That the reasonable biblical support Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had for not taking the Genesis days literally has suddenly disappeared?

No.

Which is rejecting secular science, which is exactly what Augustine said was disgraceful and dangerous.

Not if that ‘science’ is based on conjecture and speculation.

Should I take it this kind of meaningless answer is you dropping a claim you can't support? TEs are getting a lot of it in this discussion.

If that is how you wish to interpret it, sure, isn’t that how it works.

So, what is it in the context that tells us the snake, the tree of life, and the redeemer bruising the snake's head are all figurative, but God making man out of clay has to be literal?

I really don’t have time to present a lengthy presentation, and that’s what it would take if I wanted to do it right, on a topic that will edify no one.

 

[vossler]

*sigh* vossler -- relativism is the idea that morals are defined arbitrarily by anybody who wants to. I'm simply asserting that none of us can conclusively KNOW God's morals -- as I said we can get darned close, but there's no repeatable and testable way to distinguish most small details -- hence the many denominations of Christianity.

I believe a primary reason for the many denominations is human pride.

If I said we could both have conflicting and correct interpretations, that'd be relativism. If I told you that murder is okay in a culture that condones it, that'd be relativism. Saying that we cannot perfectly know Biblical truth and thus can't claim that our morals are perfect acknowledges one and only one truth, but similarly acknowledges that one might misinterpret scripture so it'd be arrogant and untruthful to claim that our interpretation is synonamous with scriptural truth itself.

We can know biblical truth, no one said it had to be perfect. It isn't arrogant and untruthful to claim an interpretation to be correct if there isn't any biblical evidence to support the opposing view.

In short, if I said we could both be right about the creation account, I'd be a relativist. In fact what I DO say is that one of us is wrong and it's rather arrogant on your part to say I'm wrong because the Bible says so when you MEAN I'm wrong because your interpretation of the Bible says so. My theology is just as fully based on the Bible -- I just don't feel the need to contradict what I can observe in God's creation in my walk with God.

I don't think it's arrogant for me to say you are wrong because you haven't provided even a remotely viable, biblically sound, alternative position. It would appear to me that your theology is based upon both the Bible and science.

And I love the implicit claim that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't study the Bible enough... What about those of us who disagree with your interpretation of Genesis and pray before reading the Bible daily as well as continually working to humble ourselves before God? Is it possible that you are so set in your beliefs about what God must have meant and done that you are not willing to listen to the Holy Spirit on these matters?

Sure it's possible, I pray that isn't the case but until the Holy Spirit convicts me to say otherwise I will continue to believe as He leads me to as should you.

 

[vossler]

A test requires some form of evidence. Both the old age of the earth (and universe) and biological evolution are supported by a great deal of evidence and a great diversity of evidence that leads consistently to the same conclusions. This suggests that the conclusions are well-grounded in the very reality of creation.

I see old age being supportable and biological evolution (natural selection) not.

You really have trouble with the concept of interpretation, don't you. No, by no means is biblical truth based on flawed (or even good) interpretation.

Yes I do because whenever it comes up it’s usually in reference to something clearly stated in the Bible.

Biblical truth is the bedrock, the foundation, grounded in God himself. Interpretations, both good and bad, are our perceptions of biblical truth. Our perceptions are incomplete and imperfect, so we can misrepresent biblical truth to ourselves and others, but that does not alter the foundation of biblical truth itself. By no means.

I can agree with this 100%. It’s nice to have agreement or unity on a point.

Nor is it correct to say that there can't be any true conclusions drawn about biblical truth. In theology, as in science, we do at times come to consensus and agree on what the biblical truth is. For example, everyone in this forum has agreed that the Nicene Creed is an accurate summary of biblical truth. We all agree that God is the Creator of all that is, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal persons in a Triune God, that the Son became incarnate in human flesh for us and for our salvation, etc. etc.

I’m with you here, but that’s only scratching the surface to all that God would have us know.

So we can and have drawn true conclusions about biblical truth. However, there are still outstanding issues on which we have significant disagreements about what the biblical truth is. And here is where we cannot afford to be arrogant and assume that a particular hermeneutic is correct.

We can if the opposing side doesn’t have the biblical support to back up their claims.

You really want to set up a hierarchy of truth, don't you?

More specifically a hierarchy to the source of truth.

No, my point is that there is no such hierarchy.

I realize that and that’s why we have this disagreement.

All truth is true. Every truth is equally true. There can be no setting of scientific truth above scriptural truth, nor can there be any setting of scriptural truth above scientific truth. One truth cannot trump another. One truth cannot make another truth untrue.

The hierarchy is important for just this reason. If science is equal to Scripture then we have the problems we’re presently faced with.

Insofar as our understanding of scripture is true and our understanding of creation is true, both truths must be accepted. It is only when our understanding of one or the other (or both) is imperfect that it can appear as if we must choose between them. When that happens, it is a signal of the imperfection of our interpretation (scientific or biblical or both), not of any deficiency, much less deception, in either of God's revelations.

Good except I would add that the Scriptural account of an issue that is in both realms should take precedence.

 

[Melethiel]

Because as I’ve heard TEs and atheists alike state, that evolution happens on its own, we have science to measure it and therefore God isn’t actively playing a role. C’mon if He was do you think TEs and atheists could be so together on this?

As has been repeatedly stated, TEs believe God DOES play an active role. There, I've said that straight out. Will you stop making your false claims now?

 

[gluadys]

I see old age being supportable and biological evolution (natural selection) not.

However, the evidence supporting biological evolution is just as solid and extensive as the evidence supporting an old age for the earth. I notice you even mention a mechanism of the process of evolution. I thought your beef was with common ancestry, not the process of evolution. There are a number of examples of natural selection cited in the literature.

What I see is you closing your eyes to the evidence, refusing to allow the truth of creation to affect your interpretation of scripture. This is always what YEC comes to in the end: a denial of creation.

Yes I do because whenever it comes up it’s usually in reference to something clearly stated in the Bible.

However clearly it is stated, it doesn't follow that it must be interpreted literally. That only follows from the hermeneutical (human-derived) principle that the literal reading must be the default reading.

Matthew takes a clear statement about God calling the people of Israel out of Egypt and applies it to Jesus. If one insists on a literal reading, he was wrong to do that.

I’m with you here, but that’s only scratching the surface to all that God would have us know.

So? Does that mean that what we do know is wrong? Surely what we do know can be right even as we wait to discover what we don't yet know. We will not know all until we know as we are known.

We can if the opposing side doesn’t have the biblical support to back up their claims.

That is circular reasoning as long as you decide what counts as biblical support. After all, the other side holds that it does have biblical support. They are also interpreting the scriptures, just using a different hermeneutic. Just ask them what the bible says. They will be quick to cite the scriptures which they believe support their case.

Indeed, the case for the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine is based precisely on taking Jesus' clear statement at face value. In this case, it is you who must defend a hermeneutic that goes against a literal reading.

More specifically a hierarchy to the source of truth.

Irrelevant. While we may be willing to trust some sources more than others, all that means is that we may subject some claims to more rigourous testing than others. But if the claim proves true, it is true, no matter what the source. No source of truth can simply decree that truth from another source is not true. Every truth is true.

And no, that is not relativism. I am not saying that everyone's perception of truth is true. Only those perceptions that agree with reality--with God's truth--are true.

The hierarchy is important for just this reason. If science is equal to Scripture then we have the problems we’re presently faced with.

It is not science that is equal to scripture. It is the reality of God's creation which is just as true as scripture. But when we have very solid reasons to believe science is true to that reality, we should accept the truth of the science.

It is only a problem to those who think it important to hold to an interpretation of scripture which does not concur with the reality of God's creation. The truth of scripture must concur with the truth of creation and vice versa. Clinging to an interpretation of scripture that does not hinders a person from seeing biblical truth as it ought to be seen. And clinging to such an interpretation leads, as I have said, to effectively rejecting the truth of creation.

Good except I would add that the Scriptural account of an issue that is in both realms should take precedence

I think what you really mean here is that your interpretation of the scriptural account should take precedence and be allowed to decree the truth of creation untrue.

There is no need to determine precedence among truths that are all equally true because they are all derived from the same ultimate source of truth which is God himself.

 

[vossler]

However, the evidence supporting biological evolution is just as solid and extensive as the evidence supporting an old age for the earth. I notice you even mention a mechanism of the process of evolution. I thought your beef was with common ancestry, not the process of evolution. There are a number of examples of natural selection cited in the literature.

Yes, I made the mistake of saying natural selection when I meant common ancestry. Oops!

What I see is you closing your eyes to the evidence, refusing to allow the truth of creation to affect your interpretation of scripture. This is always what YEC comes to in the end: a denial of creation.

If you wish to believe that YECs deny creation, you’re more than welcome to do so.

However clearly it is stated, it doesn't follow that it must be interpreted literally. That only follows from the hermeneutical (human-derived) principle that the literal reading must be the default reading.

That’s also the one that applies in most instances and is the easiest to understand, which makes it the best one for us to follow.

That is circular reasoning as long as you decide what counts as biblical support. After all, the other side holds that it does have biblical support. They are also interpreting the scriptures, just using a different hermeneutic. Just ask them what the bible says. They will be quick to cite the scriptures which they believe support their case.

How can anyone determine if something came from Scripture or not? It’s either in there or not, I can’t just make stuff up. Sure people, like homosexuals as an example, can cite all sorts of Scriptures to support their claims but in the end its selective hearing that determines the way. It’s context within the paragraph, chapter, book and finally the Bible as a whole that will always win the day. All that’s required from us is a humble heart and open mind mixed in with a good dose of Holy Spirit.

Indeed, the case for the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine is based precisely on taking Jesus' clear statement at face value. In this case, it is you who must defend a hermeneutic that goes against a literal reading.

That answer came from Scripture itself, no where else.

Irrelevant. While we may be willing to trust some sources more than others, all that means is that we may subject some claims to more rigourous testing than others.

For me this is very relevant, it is what separates the wheat from the chaff.

And no, that is not relativism. I am not saying that everyone's perception of truth is true. Only those perceptions that agree with reality--with God's truth--are true.

Yes but who determines what perceptions agree with reality, you, me and everyone else, that's who. Relativism.

It is not science that is equal to scripture. It is the reality of God's creation which is just as true as scripture. But when we have very solid reasons to believe science is true to that reality, we should accept the truth of the science.

At the expense of God’s Word no less.

There is no need to determine precedence among truths that are all equally true because they are all derived from the same ultimate source of truth which is God himself.

I was going to go back and show you where we’ve already covered this ground but this thread is far too long for that. I distinctly remember you stating that Scriptural truth and scientific truth are not on the same level, are you now recanting?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, I made the mistake of saying natural selection when I meant common ancestry. Oops!

Unfortunately for you, the evidence for common ancestry is also very strong.

If you wish to believe that YECs deny creation, you’re more than welcome to do so.

Well, I have seen enough examples. They generally fall into one of two categories. The appearance of age argument, or the laws of nature were changed argument. Both are entirely conjectural and put forward solely for the purpose of rejecting the evidence which we really find in nature. As I see it that is a rejection of the truth of creation.

That’s also the one that applies in most instances and is the easiest to understand, which makes it the best one for us to follow.

Being easiest to understand is no good reason to consider it the best, nor is there any good reason to believe it applies the most often. Even if it did, that doesn't mean it applies in Genesis 1.

How can anyone determine if something came from Scripture or not? It’s either in there or not, I can’t just make stuff up.

No one is quibbling with the text. The words say what they say. But how one understands the words will depend on the hermeneutic one applies to them. You rely heavily on a textual context. A textual context is important, but it is not the only important context. You claim to rely only on the internal context of scripture (a silly position in itself) but you apply that inconsistently, accepting as true certain interpretations of scripture that can only be accepted if one applies the context of creation as well as the internal context of scripture. The long and short of it is that you really start with what you believe, and interpret scripture to fit. And that makes you no different from the majority of Christians.

Most of us accept with little question the hermeneutical position we were taught in our denomination. That is why interpretations which forbid baptism of children make sense to you, while interpretations which sanction baptism of children make sense to me. We learned the position first, and learned what our church taught about the scriptural defence of that position, and so that is how scripture seems to read to us. Because we are inoculated, so to speak, against alternative interpretations, we reject them out of hand.

The same applies to the creo-evo debate. Churches committed to a YEC position indoctrinate their members in that position with canned interpretations of scripture, so that those who have been nurtured in that tradition have immense difficulty reading anything else in scripture. It just doesn't make sense to them to read it any differently. The unfortunate thing is that this reading requires them to be blind to what is real in creation.

Sure people, like homosexuals as an example, can cite all sorts of Scriptures to support their claims but in the end its selective hearing that determines the way.

Your reading of scripture could be equally called selective, and in fact the selectivity with which you apply your proclaimed hermeneutic has already been demonstrated more than once.

It’s context within the paragraph, chapter, book and finally the Bible as a whole that will always win the day. All that’s required from us is a humble heart and open mind mixed in with a good dose of Holy Spirit.

Yet those who disagree with your reading of scripture would also claim to be considering the paragraph, chapter, book and the bible as a whole and to be reading it with a humble heart and an open mind and with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. How can you demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong?

That answer came from Scripture itself, no where else.

Indeed, that is what the Catholics would say. So when are you going to convert?

For me this is very relevant, it is what separates the wheat from the chaff.

Not really. It is not the source which determines what is true and what is false. It is the truth which determines which source is reliable and which is not.

You basically have it backwards about. You cannot say that any truth-claim is false because it comes from a certain source. But if you show that the truth-claim is not valid, you have shown that the source is mistaken. If most of the truth-claims from a certain source are mistaken, you can say that source is unreliable. But the first task is to investigate the truth-claim.

Only falsifying the truth-claim can cast doubt on the source. It is not appropriate to reject the truth-claim because it comes from a certain source. The claim itself must be investigated for its truth. If it proves false, then you can say that the source is, at best, mistaken or even, at worst, a source of falsehood.

OTOH, if it is not proven false, it must be accepted as at least provisionally true, even if it comes from a source you would not normally consider trustworthy. It is the truth itself that must be trusted. Because no matter what the secondary source of our knowledge, all truth resides ultimately in God.

Yes but who determines what perceptions agree with reality, you, me and everyone else, that's who. Relativism.

No. As Deamiter explained, relativism is the claim that everyone's perception of the truth is correct i.e. that there is no single reality which they are perceptions of. The perceptions are the reality and so reality really is different for different people. If you remember the story of the blind men and the elephant, relativism is saying there is no elephant. Only the perceptions, and all of them are right.

But I take it as a given of Christian faith and the doctrine of creation that there is an elephant. There is a single reality grounded in the single reality of God. Like the perceptions of the blind men, our perceptions of that reality are partial and incomplete, but as we keep exploring we will develop increasingly complete and accurate descriptions of that reality.

In the meantime, it is true that we will have disagreements from time to time about the nature of reality. A reason to remain humble about the veracity of our perceptions and our interpretations of those perceptions. Whether we are speaking of creation, scripture, morality or anything else.

At the expense of God’s Word no less.

Far from it. At the reward of a better understanding of God's Word. I hope you have taken notice of the new addition to my signature.

I was going to go back and show you where we’ve already covered this ground but this thread is far too long for that. I distinctly remember you stating that Scriptural truth and scientific truth are not on the same level, are you now recanting?

Not at all. That is why I just corrected you.

To refresh your memory, I said we have four items in play:

scripture
creation
interpretations of scripture (various hermeneutical schools, principles and methods)
interpretations of creation (science)

Scripture and creation are both expressions of the Word of God and stand side-by-side. Both are ultimately and equally true.

Interpretations of both sorts are partial, incomplete and sometimes mistaken. Both can be fallible.

However, a good interpretation, a correct interpretation, or at least one that, after a reasonably exhaustive and rigourous process of testing, is very likely to be correct, is one we can rely on with almost as much certainty as scripture or creation itself. At the very least we can say it is pointing us in the right direction.

Science has a somewhat simpler process of testing than hermeneutics does, in that it can be and is tested against physical evidence which is objectively accessible to all who choose to investigate it. So it is easier to come to a consensus of what is true in creation than to come to a consensus of what is true in scripture. On a physical level, a scientist does not even need to believe in God to see in nature what a Christian scientist sees.

But expecting an unbeliever to see in scripture what a Christian theologian sees is laughable. We know that we cannot understand the spiritual truths of scripture apart from faith in God and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And even then we have immense difficulty establishing a consensus on interpretation in some areas.

However, since all truth is true, the context of scientific truth is a valid context for considering the validity--not of scripture--but of interpretations of scripture. It is never a matter of setting science against the Word of God. It is a matter of establishing a context of truth in which we may correctly interpret the Word of God.

 

[vossler]

No one is quibbling with the text. The words say what they say. But how one understands the words will depend on the hermeneutic one applies to them. You rely heavily on a textual context. A textual context is important, but it is not the only important context.

That’s good to know, I was beginning to wonder.

You claim to rely only on the internal context of scripture (a silly position in itself) but you apply that inconsistently, accepting as true certain interpretations of scripture that can only be accepted if one applies the context of creation as well as the internal context of scripture. The long and short of it is that you really start with what you believe, and interpret scripture to fit. And that makes you no different from the majority of Christians.

Yes I start with what I know to be true, is that so strange? God’s Word is the only thing I absolutely know to be true and you’d ask me and others to lower it to something that we don’t know as absolute. I won’t do it! I only wish that, as you say, the majority of Christians actually did that too. Oh they may claim to but their actions don’t back up their claim.

Most of us accept with little question the hermeneutical position we were taught in our denomination. That is why interpretations which forbid baptism of children make sense to you, while interpretations which sanction baptism of children make sense to me. We learned the position first, and learned what our church taught about the scriptural defence of that position, and so that is how scripture seems to read to us. Because we are inoculated, so to speak, against alternative interpretations, we reject them out of hand.

I don’t have the restrictions of denominational stances or early childhood teachings of which you elude.

The same applies to the creo-evo debate. Churches committed to a YEC position indoctrinate their members in that position with canned interpretations of scripture, so that those who have been nurtured in that tradition have immense difficulty reading anything else in scripture. It just doesn't make sense to them to read it any differently. The unfortunate thing is that this reading requires them to be blind to what is real in creation.

I actually don’t know what my churches position on creation is, I suspect it corresponds with mine, but I truly don’t know. If it didn’t I’d be shocked and concerned though. My point here is that I haven’t been indoctrinated by any church on this issue, even in my previous church experiences, sadly it’s never really come up.

Your reading of scripture could be equally called selective, and in fact the selectivity with which you apply your proclaimed hermeneutic has already been demonstrated more than once.

If the hermeneutic only takes into account the whole of Scripture then yes I’m selective.

Yet those who disagree with your reading of scripture would also claim to be considering the paragraph, chapter, book and the bible as a whole and to be reading it with a humble heart and an open mind and with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. How can you demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong?

I can claim to be a Christian because I go to church, but that no more makes me a Christian than claiming to be a car because I’m in the garage. It’s all in how we live it out that matters, not what we say.

Indeed, that is what the Catholics would say. So when are you going to convert?

Catholics are full of extra biblical doctrine so it would appear that they would embrace the TE theology; guess what they already do.

Not really. It is not the source which determines what is true and what is false. It is the truth which determines which source is reliable and which is not.

Boy, I couldn’t disagree more. God is the source of all truth and He determines what is true and what is false. It’s no wonder we disagree so much.

No. As Deamiter explained, relativism is the claim that everyone's perception of the truth is correct i.e. that there is no single reality which they are perceptions of. The perceptions are the reality and so reality really is different for different people. If you remember the story of the blind men and the elephant, relativism is saying there is no elephant. Only the perceptions, and all of them are right.

But I take it as a given of Christian faith and the doctrine of creation that there is an elephant. There is a single reality grounded in the single reality of God. Like the perceptions of the blind men, our perceptions of that reality are partial and incomplete, but as we keep exploring we will develop increasingly complete and accurate descriptions of that reality.

If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim. Truth becomes relative and therefore meaningless. Anyone standing for the truth becomes a target and those seeking it disillusioned. Just because you see an elephant doesn’t mean that you can tell us much about that elephant, like its personality, history, family, etc. The same concept holds true for creation.

In the meantime, it is true that we will have disagreements from time to time about the nature of reality. A reason to remain humble about the veracity of our perceptions and our interpretations of those perceptions. Whether we are speaking of creation, scripture, morality or anything else.

For the most part I agree, except that when we know something to be true we should be proclaiming it loudly.

Far from it. At the reward of a better understanding of God's Word.

Scientific theories hardly gives us a better understanding of God’s Word, they confuse and divide us further.

I hope you have taken notice of the new addition to my signature.

I like the first one a lot, I’m not enthralled with the latter.

To refresh your memory, I said we have four items in play:

scripture
creation
interpretations of scripture (various hermeneutical schools, principles and methods)
interpretations of creation (science)

Scripture and creation are both expressions of the Word of God and stand side-by-side. Both are ultimately and equally true.

How could I forget?

I feel like we’re just going round and round this same mountain and not getting anywhere. This is where we were countless pages back.

However, a good interpretation, a correct interpretation, or at least one that, after a reasonably exhaustive and rigourous process of testing, is very likely to be correct, is one we can rely on with almost as much certainty as scripture or creation itself. At the very least we can say it is pointing us in the right direction.

Scripture does the pointing and we should be always going in the direction it points, not science or anything else. I will never hold science up to measure Scripture, it will always be the other way around.

But expecting an unbeliever to see in scripture what a Christian theologian sees is laughable. We know that we cannot understand the spiritual truths of scripture apart from faith in God and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And even then we have immense difficulty establishing a consensus on interpretation in some areas.

But God always gives us enough to sustain us if we only believe and trust.

However, since all truth is true, the context of scientific truth is a valid context for considering the validity--not of scripture--but of interpretations of scripture. It is never a matter of setting science against the Word of God. It is a matter of establishing a context of truth in which we may correctly interpret the Word of God.

It may not be intended, as you say, to set science against the Word of God, but that is exactly what happens.

 

[Deamiter]

If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim.

So... you claim to see everything (what you see is complete) and therefore know everything? Your understanding of truth IS incomplete -- so by your logic, how can you use it at all?

Or do you just understand as best you can and do your best to apply your understanding?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes I start with what I know to be true, is that so strange? God’s Word is the only thing I absolutely know to be true and you’d ask me and others to lower it to something that we don’t know as absolute. I won’t do it! I only wish that, as you say, the majority of Christians actually did that too. Oh they may claim to but their actions don’t back up their claim.

The real question though, on what do you base your "knowledge" that what you think of as God's word is ACTUALLY God's word, and completely true?

I can claim to be a Christian because I go to church, but that no more makes me a Christian than claiming to be a car because I’m in the garage. It’s all in how we live it out that matters, not what we say.

great analogy!

Catholics are full of extra biblical doctrine

We are???

Scientific theories hardly gives us a better understanding of God’s Word, they confuse and divide us further.

Science isn't about understanding God's word, its about understanding his creation

Scripture does the pointing and we should be always going in the direction it points, not science or anything else. I will never hold science up to measure Scripture, it will always be the other way around.

So, if there is a clear contradiction between scripture and creation... what, you'll say it is creation that is in error?

 

[gluadys]

That’s good to know, I was beginning to wonder.
Yes I start with what I know to be true, is that so strange? God’s Word is the only thing I absolutely know to be true and you’d ask me and others to lower it to something that we don’t know as absolute.

Since you know God's Word is absolutely true, you know that creation is absolutely true, right?

What you are failing to say here is that you do not have absoute knowledge of God's Word. You have partial knowledge of God's Word, whether you are looking at creation or scripture.

So, even though God's Word is absolutely true, you, as an individual, do not possess absolute knowledge of God's Word. You have, at best, probable and incomplete knowledge which must be open to correction.

So I am not asking you to lower your standards at all. I am asking you raise them, to open yourself to a more complete and correct understanding of God's Word.

I don’t have the restrictions of denominational stances or early childhood teachings of which you elude.

Sure you do. You may not have come to Christianity in your childhood, but at some time you were a child in Christ, relying on your teachers to explain it to you.

I actually don’t know what my churches position on creation is, I suspect it corresponds with mine, but I truly don’t know. If it didn’t I’d be shocked and concerned though. My point here is that I haven’t been indoctrinated by any church on this issue, even in my previous church experiences, sadly it’s never really come up.

Actually, I think that is great, that it has never come up. That means it is not taking a doctrinal stance on the issue, and I don't think churches should be taking a doctrinal stance on matters of science.

It doesn't mean you have escaped indoctrination on the issue though. It just means you have found other Christians, who do take a stance, to be your teachers.

If the hermeneutic only takes into account the whole of Scripture then yes I’m selective.

But you also take into account extra-biblical information as well. You just don't do it consistently. That is one place you get selective.

I can claim to be a Christian because I go to church, but that no more makes me a Christian than claiming to be a car because I’m in the garage. It’s all in how we live it out that matters, not what we say.

Is this more poisoning of the well? What do you make of those who do live out a model Christian life but still disagree with your interpretation of scripture? Sure living it out is what matters, but to use that in this discussion implies that all those Christians who disagree with your interpretation of scripture are failing to live as Christians ought. Do you want to try and sustain that logic? Or do you want to go back to the issue at hand and deal with the problem of interpretation?

You meet those who interpret scripture differently than yourself. They demonstrate that they know scripture, that they know how to take into account the context, from paragraph to chapter to book to the whole bible. They give every evidence of being humble and open-minded and they are seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet they think differently about what scripture means than you do.

How do you demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong?

Catholics are full of extra biblical doctrine so it would appear that they would embrace the TE theology; guess what they already do.

So? Is not "This [bread] is my body" in scripture? How is that extra-biblical?

Boy, I couldn’t disagree more. God is the source of all truth and He determines what is true and what is false. It’s no wonder we disagree so much.

Actually, this is where we are in agreement. All truth comes ultimately from God. God is the ultimate source of all truth.

However, in practice, we have to rely on secondary sources of truth. It is the truth, which comes from God, which assesses the reliability of that secondary source. I am sorry I did not make clear that I was referring to secondary sources only.

If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim.

Bad logic. You are touching on a real issue. Even if absolute truth exists, we have no absolute knowledge of it. All of our knowledge is partial. Scripture itself tells us this. We know in part. We can only know in part.

But it is bad logic to say that because we can only know it in part, that absolute reality cannot exist. Certainly it can exist.

It is also bad logic to say that because we know only in part that we know nothing of value. Or that we cannot distinguish truth from error. What knowledge we do have can be true knowledge as far as it goes, and we can grasp enough of reality to distinguish truth from error.

The gap between absolute reality and our partial knowledge of that reality should be an incentive to increase our knowledge, not a reason for throwing up our hands in despair and renouncing the knowledge we do have.

But it should also keep us humble about what we think we know and open to correction as necessary.

Just because you see an elephant doesn’t mean that you can tell us much about that elephant, like its personality, history, family, etc. The same concept holds true for creation.

Actually, continued observation of the elephant can tell us much about its personality, history, family, etc. The same holds true for creation.

Scientific theories hardly gives us a better understanding of God’s Word, they confuse and divide us further.

Only when we persist in pitting them against an incorrect interpretation of God's Word.

I feel like we’re just going round and round this same mountain and not getting anywhere. This is where we were countless pages back.

Well, you still don't appear to have got your head around it. Hence the necessary repetition.

Scripture does the pointing and we should be always going in the direction it points, not science or anything else. I will never hold science up to measure Scripture, it will always be the other way around.

But if we are interpreting the scripture incorrectly, we will end up heading in the wrong direction. Remember, science does not correct scripture. And no one is asking you to hold science up to measure scripture. But good science can correct bad interpretations of scripture. In that respect, it can help us go in the right direction.

But God always gives us enough to sustain us if we only believe and trust.

Now you are contradicting what you just said above. You contended that:

If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim. Truth becomes relative and therefore meaningless.​

Now you are saying that it is possible to have incomplete knowledge that is enough.

So which is it?

It may not be intended, as you say, to set science against the Word of God, but that is exactly what happens.

From what I see, the so-called conflict of science with the Word of God relies on misinterpreting both.