Handing the enemy a weapon

[Mallon]

When that theory isn't based solely on science but also conjecture and speculation.

ALL science involves some amount of conjecture and speculation, vossler. Not just evolutionary science. You would be hard-pressed to come up with any field of science that does not involve these things. Science could not progress if we could not test conjecture and speculation. We would still be in the dark ages, killing witches.

 

[shernren]

I don't know, if something is a lie doesn't that also qualify it as being wrong?

Exactly. What I said is that evolution, if it is a science, can be at worst wrong. It isn't godless. Take this into perspective for a moment. If your mechanic thinks the problem with your car is a faulty alternator, and replaces it with a good one only to have it break down on the way out of the mechanic bay, he wasn't a godless heretic. He was just wrong. If evolution is science, then at worst it can be wrong. It can't be godless.

I think you're finally getting to the main point. Science is objective and built on solid evidence, evolution is built on weak evidence sprinkled with conjecture and speculation. So, yes I do love science, just not evolution which is pseudo-science.

So put yourselves in our shoes for a moment. Assume that we start out with the same fundamental attitude towards science as you. Now, many of us have spent at least two to three years examining the evidence for evolution. We've tried every way to explain it without evolution and every other hypothesis either simply doesn't predict the data or doesn't allow us to predict anything else. Evolution, on the other hand, systematically explains multiple lines of evidence and has had no credible competitor in its 150 years of history. It may have gray areas where we are decades, even centuries away from knowing it fully, but where we know it we know that it works spectacularly.

Would you agree that to us, the evidence for evolution is solid?
So that for us, it is entirely legitimate to think that evolution is science, and therefore that it should be loved as part of God's creation along with all other science?

Not if the science includes conjecture and speculation, it now no longer qualifies solely as science but it has become a belief system.

Cute, given that you earlier agreed with me that evolution is science, right or wrong. Pray tell, what do evolutionists believe?

Note that you didn't say a word about evolution being a belief system earlier. You just said:

b. This isn't very complicated. If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

(emphasis added) In other words, evolution affects the Bible simply because it offers a natural explanation of our origins.

Now, I happen to believe that the conception of a human child is a process that is entirely natural. And I can demonstrate it scientifically. Does that now qualify as something that affects the truth of the Bible? (The Psalmist said that I was "knit together in my mother's womb"; will you now interpret that metaphorically?)

I also happen to believe that the formation of lightning is a process that is entirely natural. (And believe me, you would be surprised to know how much we have yet to learn about it!) Does that now qualify as something that affects the truth of the Bible? (Job said that God hurls lightning from His hands; will you now interpret that metaphorically? And when most creationists interpret Behemoth and Leviathan literally?)

So how's about it? Does evolution affect the bible's truth because it tries to be a theory that is "entirely natural"? Or because of something else?

 

[vossler]

It is nice to hear you talk about the context, history, language etc. playing a role in any interpretation. Unfortunately there seem to be a multiple personality thing going on here. When we talk about scripture interpretation in general, the Vossler I chat with is a level headed mature bible scholar who understands and appreciates the way the bible has different styles and the importance of context and language.

That’s good to know that you feel that way (except for the multi-personality thing ). Thanks!

Then when the topic switches to Genesis he has a sip of Dr YECyll's potion and suddenly we have a tub thumping hyperliteralist claiming 'God told us' and 'do we take him at his word' as if the idea of God speaking in metaphor or parable was just an excuse for calling God a liar.

Ahh…the dreaded Dr. YECyll’s, they’ll get you everytime. I think you’ll find they tend to believe what they read unless there is some clear contextual reason not to do so. I believe it helps to approach Scripture this way and most other level headed mature bible scholars seem to agree.

I cannot understand the inconsistency. With the geocentrist passages, (as long as you are not hiding behind 'it's not doctrinal so it doesn't matter, and I don't care'), your approach seems to be one where it is perfectly fine to adopt a non literal interpretation even when it isn't indicated in the text, that even though it says the sun moves and the earth is still, it doesn't really mean the sun moves and the earth is fixed.

Could it be that from those passages which you cite the point of discussion, with relation to the sun, is never how the sun moves, just that it does? Wouldn’t that also be the same way we today would describe it? In other words the lesson in those passages has nothing to do with the sun or earth itself, but there is always another unrelated point being made?

Apply your 'God told us' and 'His Word is clear and unambiguous' approach to the geocentrist passages and they plainly teach geocentrism. But you don't, you reserve it for Genesis.

I think if you approach this from a different perspective you might understand what I’m attempting to translate or bring out.

I think the writers were geocentrists and some of their statements are clearly geocentrist, but I do not think that this is what the bible is teaching. The truth God is teaching and inspiring goes much deeper than the cosmology of the people he is communicating to us through.

I don’t have a problem with you thinking the writers were geocentrists, it’s your personal theory and you’re entitled to it. So now as long as we both agree that the Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism then this topic should never be raised again.

Interpreting the texts as observation language is another very good non literal approach to the geocentrist passages. But you need to realise it is not the literal meaning. The literal meaning of the earth not moving and the sun rushing around the earth is, well, the earth not moving and the sun rushing around us every day. Adopting a observational interpretation is done with out any suggestion in scripture that this is the approach to take. While you reconcile these passages with science on the basis of an unsupported nonliteral interpretation, you demand strong biblical exegesis before adopting a literal interpretation.

I see where you’re coming from but let’s not forget one of the reasons we can take an observational approach like that is because the purpose or meaning of those passages is something unrelated to the sun or earth. Remember this isn’t a teaching you are applying this conclusion on, it is an insignificant side issue.

I can understand why someone might interpret those passages to say that the sun rotates around the earth because that is what we see. But those passages have never been something to base a teaching from, at least not with regard to science.

Our investigations into matters such as creation should always start with the Bible as our foundation, sadly it rarely does. Once again the Bible gives us the universal truth and we’re to find the particulars, it’s not the other way around. What is affected by this revelation? Nothing really, we just have a better understanding of our environment. Genesis clearly doesn’t fit that mold.

With the creation days in Genesis and Exodus, you insist on a literal interpretation that contradicts the science, although like the geocentrist passages, there are other non literal interpretations that fit quite well. And unlike your non literal interpretation of the geocentrist passages that has no biblical support, the non literal interpretation of the creation days has support in the texts themselves, and in the words of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation.

That’s quite some assessment. So are you now saying that geocentrism is biblically supported because earlier I thought you said it wasn’t?

What we learn from the bible goes beyond what is being taught in a verse. It is also very important to learn learn how God speaks to us. Your whole YEC interpretation is built on a human idea of how God speaks in the bible and how we should interpret what he says. The geocentrist passages test our hermeneutics against God's word. They also show us how we should approach the problem of a conflict between science and our interpretation of scripture.

So then am I correct to say there are not any Scriptures that you’ve found where I dismissed or rejected their teaching?

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that evolution is a human idea of what has transpired in history? I find it difficult to justify that a literal reading of Genesis is somehow a human idea, especially given the simple and straight-forward manner that it was written.

It’s interesting how you use those geocentric (as you see them) passages to test your hermeneutic. I guess this is one of those to each is own type of things.

 

[vossler]

Exactly. What I said is that evolution, if it is a science, can be at worst wrong. It isn't godless. Take this into perspective for a moment. If your mechanic thinks the problem with your car is a faulty alternator, and replaces it with a good one only to have it break down on the way out of the mechanic bay, he wasn't a godless heretic. He was just wrong. If evolution is science, then at worst it can be wrong. It can't be godless.

But I already said it was more than just science.

So put yourselves in our shoes for a moment. Assume that we start out with the same fundamental attitude towards science as you. Now, many of us have spent at least two to three years examining the evidence for evolution. We've tried every way to explain it without evolution and every other hypothesis either simply doesn't predict the data or doesn't allow us to predict anything else. Evolution, on the other hand, systematically explains multiple lines of evidence and has had no credible competitor in its 150 years of history. It may have gray areas where we are decades, even centuries away from knowing it fully, but where we know it we know that it works spectacularly.

That’s just it you don’t have the same fundamental attitude towards science that I do. If you did you’d never allow conjecture and speculation to change the basic interpretation of God’s Word. I realize many of you have thoroughly examined and studied the evidence and found it sufficient. I also believe that if you were truly honest with me you couldn’t tell me that this evidence, specifically man evolving from a simple cell, is in any way conclusive or solid.

Would you agree that to us, the evidence for evolution is solid?

So that for us, it is entirely legitimate to think that evolution is science, and therefore that it should be loved as part of God's creation along with all other science?

Without a doubt I would agree that to you the evidence for evolution is solid and that you see it as part of God’s creation. This is why I advocate separating or dissecting the term evolution. The term will forever be associated with the idea that man came up from some primordial soup and evolved into his present form. I don’t, for a minute, believe that there is solid evidence to support that. However, I will admit that there is solid evidence for adaptation. I have no problem with that.

I personally believe that you and most other evolutionists unknowingly have allowed yourselves to be swayed by evidence, which through the wiles and craftiness of the enemy, you consider solid but actually is very speculative. You’ve been swayed because the evidence for adaptation is very strong and so therefore you don’t have any difficulty extrapolating that out and coming up with the conclusions that you do. I don’t for a minute believe you intentionally have set out to do this, rarely does that ever happen, however that doesn't change the fact it happened. I also personally believe you’ve closed your mind to the idea that you may be wrong.

Cute, given that you earlier agreed with me that evolution is science, right or wrong. Pray tell, what do evolutionists believe?

Think of it like this, much of the Catholic belief system can be considered Christian, but there are elements of it that I believe are not. The sum of the two gives you something I would also call pseudo-Christian. I see evolution much in the same way, most of what you believe evolution to be is true science, it’s that small part made up of conjecture and speculation that tosses it into pseudo-science.

Note that you didn't say a word about evolution being a belief system earlier. You just said:

b. This isn't very complicated. If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

(emphasis added) In other words, evolution affects the Bible simply because it offers a natural explanation of our origins.

I apologize for omitting the belief portion of my view, I should have included it. As for the natural explanation of our origins, well that was meant to convey that no outside force was a part of the process at any given time.

Now, I happen to believe that the conception of a human child is a process that is entirely natural. And I can demonstrate it scientifically. Does that now qualify as something that affects the truth of the Bible? (The Psalmist said that I was "knit together in my mother's womb"; will you now interpret that metaphorically?)

No, because that doesn’t change how God said we got here. I’ve always interpreted Psalm 139:13 metaphorically.

I also happen to believe that the formation of lightning is a process that is entirely natural. (And believe me, you would be surprised to know how much we have yet to learn about it!) Does that now qualify as something that affects the truth of the Bible? (Job said that God hurls lightning from His hands; will you now interpret that metaphorically? And when most creationists interpret Behemoth and Leviathan literally?)

Again, no it doesn’t because it makes no claims against Scripture. I’ve always interpreted Job 36:32 metaphorically.

So how's about it? Does evolution affect the bible's truth because it tries to be a theory that is "entirely natural"? Or because of something else?

Quite simply, it affects the Bible because it completely changes what God told us in the Bible.

 

[shernren]

Think of it like this, much of the Catholic belief system can be considered Christian, but there are elements of it that I believe are not. The sum of the two gives you something I would also call pseudo-Christian. I see evolution much in the same way, most of what you believe evolution to be is true science, it’s that small part made up of conjecture and speculation that tosses it into pseudo-science.

So in your views, there is something non-Christian mixed into Catholicism that makes it pseudo-Christian, and there is something non-scientific mixed into evolution that makes it pseudo-scientific. I won't pursue the Catholic bit here, but pray tell. What do you think is non-scientific about evolution?

Note that I said non-scientific. I didn't say wrong. A wrong statement can be absolutely scientific and a right statement can be absolutely non-scientific. "Apples fly upwards when their stems break off" is a scientific statement, and can be tested scientifically, and which most apple farmers alone will tell you is wrong. Whereas "I love God" is a non-scientific statement, and cannot be tested scientifically, but is true to me and to you (to the extent that you trust me). So which bits of evolution as TEs accept it are non-scientific?

No, because that doesn’t change how God said we got here. I’ve always interpreted Psalm 139:13 metaphorically.
Again, no it doesn’t because it makes no claims against Scripture. I’ve always interpreted Job 36:32 metaphorically.

Do you interpret those whole chapters metaphorically? Or just those verses?

 

[juvenissun]

Those are the supposed YEC "scientists" you were referring to earlier, right?

EDIT: Scientists indeed.

In the Lord's army, there are generals as well as foot soldiers. They fight in a different capacity. I would say the YouTube clip you used is an example of foot soldier fight. We need a lot more soldiers like him. The generals could provide them needed amo such as his demos. As a part of the army but of different nature, you SHOULD NOT ridicule them as they are disqualified soldiers. You SHOULD NOT be embarrassed by the braveness of soldiers who fight for the Lord. If you can provide a better knowledge for them, why don’t I see some of them? I have NEVER see a person who fights for the Lord at a foot soldier level and is a TE. Have you ask yourself what is the reason?

 

[Mallon]

I have NEVER see a person who fights for the Lord at a foot soldier level and is a TE. Have you ask yourself what is the reason?

Yes. Here's the answer:

You cannot use natural science to prove a supernatural God.

Evolutionary creationists seem to know as much. I suppose they would rather attest to Christ via the gospel message, rather than via stories of "explosive lizards" as your foot soldiers might. We fight Christ's cause as Christians, not as YECs/TEs.

 

[Assyrian]

That’s good to know that you feel that way (except for the multi-personality thing ). Thanks!

Looks like we can add 'sense of humour' to the list too. I wasn't sure how you would take the Dr YECyll bit.

Or maybe I got you on a good day.

Ahh…the dreaded Dr. YECyll’s, they’ll get you everytime. I think you’ll find they tend to believe what they read unless there is some clear contextual reason not to do so. I believe it helps to approach Scripture this way and most other level headed mature bible scholars seem to agree.

This is Tweety Vossler I'm talking to isn't it?

Could it be that from those passages which you cite the point of discussion, with relation to the sun, is never how the sun moves, just that it does? Wouldn’t that also be the same way we today would describe it? In other words the lesson in those passages has nothing to do with the sun or earth itself, but there is always another unrelated point being made?

Saying the sun stops, or hurries around to the place it rises seems plain a straightforward to me. Just let Dr YECyll loose on those verses and you will have a raging geocentrist on you hands, but no, when Granny is near, it is just sweet little Tweety again.

But seriously, there is no 'clear contextual reason' to abandon the plain literal meaning of the geocentrist passages, While all the reasons and justifications from context and from other scripture for nonliteral creation days are dismissed out of hand.

I think if you approach this from a different perspective you might understand what I’m attempting to translate or bring out.

It is called 'reinterpret'.

I don’t have a problem with you thinking the writers were geocentrists, it’s your personal theory and you’re entitled to it. So now as long as we both agree that the Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism then this topic should never be raised again.

Of course it should.

I may not think the bible teaches geocentrism, but the exegetical rules you insist on for Genesis do not allow you to reinterpret the Geocentrist passage. They don't allow you to say the bible doesn't teach it. The Geocentrist passages show up the problems and inconsistency in your interpretition.

You can have an exegesis that allows both Genesis and the Geocentrist passage to be non literal. Or you can have an exegesis that is both Young Earth and Geocentrist. It is completely contradicted by science, but at least it is consistent.

What you cannot do is insist on exegetical rules that give a young earth while blithely ignoring them for the Geocentrist passages.

I see where you’re coming from but let’s not forget one of the reasons we can take an observational approach like that is because the purpose or meaning of those passages is something unrelated to the sun or earth. Remember this isn’t a teaching you are applying this conclusion on, it is an insignificant side issue.

He told us... His Word is clear and unambiguous... Do we trust ourselves and our abilities over what God has said... do we call into question His simple and easy to understand Word... Why should God deceive us with such simplicity...

I can understand why someone might interpret those passages to say that the sun rotates around the earth because that is what we see. But those passages have never been something to base a teaching from, at least not with regard to science.

He told us... His Word is clear and unambiguous... Do we...

Our investigations into matters such as creation should always start with the Bible as our foundation, sadly it rarely does. Once again the Bible gives us the universal truth and we’re to find the particulars, it’s not the other way around. What is affected by this revelation? Nothing really, we just have a better understanding of our environment.

How do you decide what is universal truth and what is particulars we can look into ourselves? How do you decide anything the bible seems to say is not part of the foundation? I do not see how you come to the conclusion that the motion of the sun and moon God placed in the firmament is not foundational but the timetable he used placing them there is foundational. It seem totally arbitrary to me. You approach the bible with a preconceived idea of which sciences to allow reinterpret scripture and which sciences to reject as 'trusting in ourselves and our abilities over what God has said'.

Genesis clearly doesn’t fit that mold.

No because in Genesis we have people from Moses to Revelation giveing us allegorical and figurative interpretations of the creation accounts.

That’s quite some assessment. So are you now saying that geocentrism is biblically supported because earlier I thought you said it wasn’t?

No I am saying it is right to reinterpret passage where science has show our literal interpretation has given us a wrong understanding of the world God created. I am saying we should reinterpret these passages even if there is no exegetical reason to do so from scripture itself. That is what you do with the Geocentrist passages and it is quite justified. God created the world the scientists study.

Now just apply the same principle to Genesis and stop demanding, not just some exegetical basis but overwhelming exegetical proof, stop rejecting every single exegetical reason out of hand because it is vastly more than you have for the Geocentrist passages. Psalm 90 on its own would give you more reason to adopt non literal days than you have for the Geocentrist verses.

So then am I correct to say there are not any Scriptures that you’ve found where I dismissed or rejected their teaching?

There are passages where you have refused to look at what they teach us.

What we learn from the bible goes beyond what is being taught in a verse. It is also very important to learn learn how God speaks to us. Your whole YEC interpretation is built on a human idea of how God speaks in the bible and how we should interpret what he says. The geocentrist passages test our hermeneutics against God's word. They also show us how we should approach the problem of a conflict between science and our interpretation of scripture.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that evolution is a human idea of what has transpired in history? I find it difficult to justify that a literal reading of Genesis is somehow a human idea, especially given the simple and straight-forward manner that it was written.

The human idea put to the test by the geocentrist passage is written in your sig 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."

You cannot apply that to the Geocentrist passages, not if you want to hold onto the science Copernicus discovered. If Cooper's rule cannot get the right answer with Geocentrism, when we both know the right answer, how can you trust it with modern controversies about science and interpretation?

Evolution is a human scientific discovery that tells us the way the world God created works. Just as Copenicus's heliocentrism does.

It’s interesting how you use those geocentric (as you see them) passages to test your hermeneutic. I guess this is one of those to each is own type of things.

Yours being sticking to a hermeneutic you cannot apply to passages where know and accept the science, while insisting it shows science is wrong with Genesis

 

[shernren]

I have NEVER see a person who fights for the Lord at a foot soldier level and is a TE. Have you ask yourself what is the reason?

Maybe it's because you don't know any mature TEs in real life? Most people who have known me in real life at some point or another as a Christian, have never actually figured out that I'm a TE. Then they ask me what I think about origins (and they always do it online), and I tell them. And I can always see the cogs whirring in the back of their heads: He's an evolutionist? I thought they were all liberal heretics!

TEs are as ready for the battle as anyone else. In fact, since it takes a lot more thinking carefully about the Bible to get from creationism to TEism, I'd dare say that as a TE I'm far more ready for the battle than I was as a creationist. Don't forget that we read the Bible too. We don't read it less - we happen to read a bit of it a bit differently from you.

 

[vossler]

So in your views, there is something non-Christian mixed into Catholicism that makes it pseudo-Christian, and there is something non-scientific mixed into evolution that makes it pseudo-scientific. I won't pursue the Catholic bit here, but pray tell. What do you think is non-scientific about evolution?

I thought I’ve made that point by now, it's when conjecture and speculation are made to look like facts. If you just tell it like it is, presto, problem solved.

Note that I said non-scientific. I didn't say wrong. A wrong statement can be absolutely scientific and a right statement can be absolutely non-scientific. "Apples fly upwards when their stems break off" is a scientific statement, and can be tested scientifically, and which most apple farmers alone will tell you is wrong. Whereas "I love God" is a non-scientific statement, and cannot be tested scientifically, but is true to me and to you (to the extent that you trust me). So which bits of evolution as TEs accept it are non-scientific?

The same bit I keep coming back to, man initially coming out of the soup and becoming...

Do you interpret those whole chapters metaphorically? Or just those verses?

I can't think of a single chapter in the Bible I either interpret only literally or only metaphorically, as far as I know all have multiple ways of being interpreted.

 

[vossler]

Looks like we can add 'sense of humour' to the list too. I wasn't sure how you would take the Dr YECyll bit.Or maybe I got you on a good day.

[FONT=&quot]I’d like to think I have a sense of humor, most people who know me I believe would concur. Sadly, when discussing Scripture it’s not prone to be exposed all that often. I thought using Dr. YECyll was not only cute but also appropriate, given the viewpoint you were starting from.
[/FONT]

This is Tweety Vossler I'm talking to isn't it?

[FONT=&quot]If only I had that type of influence around here. [/FONT]

But seriously, there is no 'clear contextual reason' to abandon the plain literal meaning of the geocentrist passages, While all the reasons and justifications from context and from other scripture for nonliteral creation days are dismissed out of hand.

Let me ask you, if someone 50 years from now were to look at the transcripts or video of a weather forecast from today, would they believe that we thought the sun rose in the east and then set in the west or would they understand that was a form of speech?[FONT=&quot]

I may not think the bible teaches geocentrism, but the exegetical rules you insist on for Genesis do not allow you to reinterpret the Geocentrist passage. They don't allow you to say the bible doesn't teach it. The Geocentrist passages show up the problems and inconsistency in your interpretation.

If you believe those exegetical rules should be the same then I’m afraid you haven’t a clue how YECs exegetically look at Scripture. How that can be deduced is well beyond my comprehension. In order to be as clear and forthright as I can possibly be, let me say this as emphatically as I can. I am not a literalist, never have been nor do I wish to ever become one. If this is where we’re going I’m sorry but I don’t wish to participate. I see no purpose in attempting to go into an in-depth of explanation requiring me to show how this is true. No fruit will come from this and it will be just a waste of everyone’s time. If this isn’t already known, I don’t believe it ever will be.

How do you decide what is universal truth and what is particulars we can look into ourselves? How do you decide anything the bible seems to say is not part of the foundation? I do not see how you come to the conclusion that the motion of the sun and moon God placed in the firmament is not foundational but the timetable he used placing them there is foundational. It seem totally arbitrary to me. You approach the bible with a preconceived idea of which sciences to allow reinterpret scripture and which sciences to reject as 'trusting in ourselves and our abilities over what God has said'.

I find this line of questioning way beyond my comprehension level. This truly isn’t in the slightest an issue for me. I see absolutely no contradictions or areas (within this subject) where I’m torn or unsure of myself. Somehow you see it as arbitrary and presumptuous of me to approach the subject as I do. God’s timetable for creation is very specific and direct, there is no doubt as to what He’s telling us, geocentric notions are anything but specific and direct. What’s so difficult to understand?

No I am saying it is right to reinterpret passage where science has show our literal interpretation has given us a wrong understanding of the world God created. I am saying we should reinterpret these passages even if there is no exegetical reason to do so from scripture itself. That is what you do with the Geocentrist passages and it is quite justified. God created the world the scientists study.

Not to say I agree with this, but in an effort to play along with your line of questioning. Your point might have some credibility if you could demonstrate how either geocentrism or heliocentrism play any role whatsoever in my walk with God. The thing is they don’t and therefore this is a mute point and shouldn’t be a difficult lesson to apply.

Now just apply the same principle to Genesis and stop demanding, not just some exegetical basis but overwhelming exegetical proof, stop rejecting every single exegetical reason out of hand because it is vastly more than you have for the Geocentrist passages. Psalm 90 on its own would give you more reason to adopt non literal days than you have for the Geocentrist verses.

I’ve seen the TE exegetical support for their position and I’ll have to be perfectly honest, not only did I find it lacking, I thought it had no credibility whatsoever. There isn’t a single biblical source of support for evolution. Not one![/FONT]

There are passages where you have refused to look at what they teach us.

Please share.

You cannot apply that to the Geocentrist passages, not if you want to hold onto the science Copernicus discovered. If Cooper's rule cannot get the right answer with Geocentrism, when we both know the right answer, how can you trust it with modern controversies about science and interpretation?

I happen to believe Cooper’s rule, without any difficulty, does get us to the right answer. That’s the beauty of God’s Word, even when there are apparent contradictions or paradoxes; an answer always exists if one is willing to look hard enough to find it. The heart of the matter is do you approach this from the perspective that what the Bible says is the universal truth or is the universal truth what scientific theories tell us? What’s your foundation, mine is the Bible and yours is apparently science.

Evolution is a human scientific discovery that tells us the way the world God created works. Just as Copenicus's heliocentrism does.

The big difference is evolution directly contradicts the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, yet heliocentrism doesn’t.

 

[theFijian]

I have NEVER see a person who fights for the Lord at a foot soldier level and is a TE. Have you ask yourself what is the reason?

The reason is you are stuck in a Creationist enclave and don't know enough Christians.

 

[Assyrian]

I’d like to think I have a sense of humor, most people who know me I believe would concur. Sadly, when discussing Scripture it’s not prone to be exposed all that often. I thought using Dr. YECyll was not only cute but also appropriate, given the viewpoint you were starting from.
If only I had that type of influence around here. Let me ask you, if someone 50 years from now were to look at the transcripts or video of a weather forecast from today, would they believe that we thought the sun rose in the east and then set in the west or would they understand that was a form of speech?

You know I wouldn't expect the meteorologists to come out an say 'Well it looks we're in for a pretty cold weekend folks, the weather satellites have been monitoring those storehouses and they are full of snow and hail.

You are referring to phrases like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' in our English language. But these are leftover from a time when people really did believe the sun went round the earth. Are you saying phrases like the sun rising in the bible are left over from a time when people were geocentrist? Who were these original geocentrists? Adam? Abraham?

But the geocentrist passages go beyond simple idiom. The writers describe a geocentrist universe. Psalm 93:1 The world is established; it shall never be moved. This is not just idiom. It appears to be a categorical statement describing the earth as fixed and unmoving. It certainly appeared literal to Calvin when he wrote his commentary on the passage. The writer of Ecclesiastes says 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, Ok maybe that is just idiom, but them he goes on to say: and hastens to the place where it rises. He really does take the sun's movement literally. He thinks the sun has to hurry around behind the earth to get back to the place it rises from again. Josh 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it stopped for a whole day and then hurried to set again. This is not just idiom, it reads as a literal description of an astronomical event, telling us what the sun and moon actually did and how their movements changed. To Luther this plain text clearly contradicted the foolish views of Copernicus.

If you believe those exegetical rules should be the same then I’m afraid you haven’t a clue how YECs exegetically look at Scripture. How that can be deduced is well beyond my comprehension. In order to be as clear and forthright as I can possibly be, let me say this as emphatically as I can. I am not a literalist, never have been nor do I wish to ever become one. If this is
where we’re going I’m sorry but I don’t wish to participate. I see no purpose in attempting to go into an in-depth of explanation requiring me to show how this is true. No fruit will come from this and it will be just a waste of everyone’s time. If this isn’t already known, I don’t believe it ever will be.

I understand all that. I know you don't take everything absolutely literally, that you don't have one narrow method of reading every passage.

What you do have is an exegetical rule that claim to tell you how you should interpret different passages. It is a meta rule that claims to apply to the whole bible, not saying to take everything literally, but telling you when to take things literally. 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."

This is the rule that tells you to interpret the days of Genesis literally, and it is the rule that simply does not work when dealing with the geocentrist passages.

This rule is the reason you demand absolute exegetical proof the days are non literal. You feel justified in demanding in demanding such proof because that is the way you should interpret all of the bible isn't it? Except you don't. The rule you use to demand a literal Genesis does not work with the geocentrist passages and you simply don't apply it there.

I find this line of questioning way beyond my comprehension level. This truly isn’t in the slightest an issue for me. I see absolutely no contradictions or areas (within this subject) where I’m torn or unsure of myself. Somehow you see it as arbitrary and presumptuous of me to approach the subject as I do. God’s timetable for creation is very specific and direct, there is no doubt as to what He’s telling us, geocentric notions are anything but specific and direct. What’s so difficult to understand?

I really don't see how you can come up with the idea that God's timetable is 'very specific and direct' but not the detailed descriptions of the movement of the earth and sun.

I can understand why you do, because you accept the heliocentric solar system as incontrovertible fact, but reject evolution and geological age. So you have a motivation from outside scripture for viewing one as 'specific and direct', but not the other. But I don't see anything in scripture that would make you distinguish between them. If anything the scriptural evidence is that the timetable is non literal one.

Not to say I agree with this, but in an effort to play along with your line of questioning. Your point might have some credibility if you could demonstrate how either geocentrism or heliocentrism play any role whatsoever in my walk with God. The thing is they don’t and therefore this is a mute point and shouldn’t be a difficult lesson to apply.

Isn't it enough that God said it? Isn't it as much part of his inerrant word as the passages you do think play a role with you walk with him?

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable. The biggest role these passage should play in you life is teaching you how God speaks in his word.

I’ve seen the TE exegetical support for their position and I’ll have to be perfectly honest, not only did I find it lacking, I thought it had no credibility whatsoever. There isn’t a single biblical source of support for evolution. Not one!

Do you have any to support heliocentrism?

It contradicts the geocentrist passage just as much as evolution contradicts the days of creation and Adam made from dust. Both contradict a literal interpretation of these passages. The one difference is we have plenty of biblical reasons to interpret the days and the made of dust figuratively. There is not the slightest suggestion that the geocentrist passages are not to be taken literally.

Biblical reasons for a non literal interpretation of geocentrist passages:

1. ...
2. ..
3. .

Biblical reasons for a non literal interpretation of creation days:

1. The words 'day' 'evening' 'morning' can be used figuratively in the bible.
2. 'Day' is use three or four different ways in just the first two chapters of Genesis.
3. Moses told us in Psalm 90, immediately after looking at the creation and the fall that God's perspective of a day is very different to ours.
4. Peter repeats this in the NT, again in a discussion of God's timetable spanning the creation to the end of the world, and tell us 'do not forget this one thing'.
5. From the early church, Christian writers have had difficulty with the idea of literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun in the firmament.
6. From the early church Christians interpreted the day in Gen 2:17 figuratively as a thousand years.
7. Again the early church thought that both literal and the day/thousand years interpretations could apply to the creation days.
8. Genesis is a prophetic revelation from God of his creation rather than a history that comes from human witnesses, albeit inspired accounts of the history. Such prophetic revelations are often given in figurative language and use the word day non literally: 'the day of the Lord', 'the day of Vengeance'.
9. Genesis 'days' do not fit biblical calendar days which begin and end in the evening, even though the evening to evening Sabbath is supposed to be based on the seventh day of creation.
10. Every detail of the seventh day is interpreted figuratively in the NT, its literal meaning is contradicted. Hebrews tells us God's seventh day rest is still going on and we can, we must, enter into it today.
11. Instead of the Sabbath being a commemoration of the seventh day of creation, Paul say the Sabbath is a shadow of the reality to come but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17.
12. Jesus tells us his Father never ceased working, this was in the context of a discussion about the Sabbath. My Father is working until now, and I am working John 5:17.
13. Instead of the Sabbath being instituted because God made that day holy when he rested on it, Jesus tells us the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.
14. There isn't a single instance in the NT where the days of creation are interpreted literally. They are not even mentioned outside Genesis and Exodus in the OT either.
15. If we look at the reference to the creation days in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 we find they are in the middle of an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God as a weary labourer who is refreshed after a having a day's rest (compare with 23:12). But this cannot be literal. God does not get tired.
16. But he does use anthropomorphic metaphors, we even find them when the Sabbath command is repeated in Deuteronomy. God does not have literal arms and hands (Deut 5:15)
17. Adam being 'made of dust' comes from a story where one of the main characters if an allegory. We are told elsewhere in scripture (Revelation) that the snake was Satan.
18. If the snake was literal Jesus did not fulfil the very first Messianic prophecy, he did not step on the snake's head. If the snake can be figurative, or the promise of a saviour to crush it's head, why can't 'made from dust' be figurative too?
19. God as a potter, or making people from clay is a very common metaphor in scripture. Why is Gen 2 the only time where this description contradicts science?
20. There are other descriptions of God making people that contradict science if we take them literally, knitting me together in my mothers womb, God creating (bara) the blacksmith.
21. Adam means 'man' or 'mankind'.
22. Gen 1:26 and 5:2 tell us Adam was actually God's name for the people he created rather than a single individual.
    Additions to list:
23. In Genesis 6 God repeats the language of the creation account describing the creation of Adam, but Adam, the man, is interpreted as the human race God created. Genesis 6:5-7 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man (h'adm) was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made (asah) man (h'adm) on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man (h'adm) whom I have created (bara) from the face of the land, man (adm) and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
24. The completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 (plants; birds; animals; man and woman) and Genesis 2 (man; plants; animals and birds; woman) tells us that one or both of the accounts are not meant as a literal history.
25. Allegory (or myth as some TEs like to describe it) was a common and well understood literary form from the earliest parts of the OT Gen 49:9-27, Judges 9:8-15. Note as well how the people telling these allegories would simply launch into them without any labels or any indication they were not speaking literally.

Please share.

The geocentrist passages.

I happen to believe Cooper’s rule, without any difficulty, does get us to the right answer. That’s the beauty of God’s Word, even when there are apparent contradictions or paradoxes; an answer always exists if one is willing to look hard enough to find it. The heart of the matter is do you approach this from the perspective that what the Bible says is the universal truth or is the universal truth what scientific theories tell us? What’s your foundation, mine is the Bible and yours is apparently science.

You do not apply cooper's rule to the geocentrist passages, if you did you would be a geocentrist, but that contradicts you knowledge of science. But the only contradiction is with science. There is no paradox or contradiction with in scripture that even suggest taking the Geocentrist passages at anything other than face value.

The big difference is evolution directly contradicts the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, yet heliocentrism
doesn’t.

So you claim but you haven't been able to justify that from scripture.

There are abundant scriptural reason to look at a non literal interpretation of the days of creation and the creation of Adam. Some of these reasons I have listed simply tell us that other interpretations are possible, some show us that the writer was speaking metaphorically, that other writers in the bible interpreted it non literally, and even that the literal interpetation simply does not work. In contrast there is nothing ambiguous in the geocentrist passages. The only reason to reinterpret them comes from the outside, from science. And it is a very good reason too. We should reinterpret scripture if our interpretation is contradicted by science.

 

[Servant222]

This is a very enjoyable discussion- I am learning a lot from all points of view, which is important if we are to understand these issues and intelligently discuss them with others in the context of our faith.

I am very happy that the discussion is as civil as it is- I find this most gratifying.

One interesting point on geocentrism which has been made before is that it was the dominant (only?) theory in Jesus's time. So despite it being wrong, this point was never brought up by Jesus or any of his disciples, which suggests that it was not all that important to them in the context of their faith.

 

[Assyrian]

The same could be said for a six day creation or a global flood which are not mentioned either.

 

[Servant222]

The flood is referenced at least four times in the New Testament (Mathew 24:38 and 39, Luke 17:27, and 2 Peter 2:5).

2 Peter 2

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[c] 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, but there is no reference to a global flood. 2Pet 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. Peter talks of the formation of the earth (ge), and the destruction of the earth by fire. But right in the middle he uses a different word to describe the flood, not the earth, ge but the world kosmos. The choice seem deliberate, and he uses the same word in the passage you quote.

2Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. Kosmos is used in a range of different contexts, but 'world of the ungodly' seems to refer to sinful society/the order of civilisation rather than describing a global flood, especially when in chapter 3 the word is used in contrast to the earth.

 

[Servant222]

I figured you would point that out and, of course, you're right!

 

[Assyrian]

Worth a try

 

[Assyrian]

I have been editing post 93 to add to the list of reasons for a non literal interpretation of Genesis.