Ham's Creation Museum

[Dannager]

You are operating under the assumption that it is indeed a lie, which is not known at this stage and therefore that statement is presumptious and false.

No, we know it is. The people on the other side of the fence just haven't admitted it yet.

 

[Digit]

No, we know it is. The people on the other side of the fence just haven't admitted it yet.

Holy mother of safety pins Dannager!

Sometimes you seem reasonable, and just when I am thinking that, you make me want to brick you. Stop posting here and go answer my other question anyhow, I think we can both agree that neither of us is going to accept the other's belief and in addition, neither of us is going to move on our own.

Digit

 

[Dannager]

Holy mother of safety pins Dannager!

Sometimes you seem reasonable, and just when I am thinking that, you make me want to brick you.

Hehe, welcome to the world of opposed viewpoints.

Stop posting here and go answer my other question anyhow, I think we can both agree that neither of us is going to accept the other's belief and in addition, neither of us is going to move on our own.

That doesn't mean that debate is pointless. I don't debate under the assumption that the person I'm arguing with will ever budge. I debate because antagonistic discussion is a good way to demonstrate the validity of a certain point of view. It's all about the lurkers.

 

[Digit]

Hehe, welcome to the world of opposed viewpoints.

That doesn't mean that debate is pointless. I don't debate under the assumption that the person I'm arguing with will ever budge. I debate because antagonistic discussion is a good way to demonstrate the validity of a certain point of view. It's all about the lurkers.

I'm not sure I understand the lurker point, but I can happily debate something until I realise there is a core issue which, until understood or reconciled, the debate is effectively moot. As such, please see my new post (same forum) about Genesis. As really, that's what it all comes down too.

Cheers! XD
Digit

 

[Dannager]

I'm not sure I understand the lurker point

Ah, well the explanation goes something like this: at any given point usually 50% or more of the people on an individual forum are guests. You can see this just by looking at the stats on the front page. Currently, guests are about 75% of the total users accessing the site right now. Now, some of these are active members who simply have not signed in yet. The rest, however, are what are called lurkers - people who read the forums without participating in the discussions themselves. These people are usually the ones who are curious about the debate and haven't made up their minds yet one way or the other. A bunch of people on the CvE forum realized this a good way back and have since then used that rationale as a way to get themselves through particularly stubborn debates. Once we realized that we don't necessarily need to convince the person we're debating in order to do something productive it became a lot easier to deal with. At the same time, though, that acknowledgment meant that we couldn't ignore creationists' posts no matter how many times we've dealt with the topic before, because letting an argument go unaddressed could give lurkers the false impression that no refutation existed (should you visit the CvE board, you'll notice that creationist posts never go by without being addressed; this is why).

We've gotten a lot of encouragement over the years from lurkers who have made accounts later and thanked us for helping them become knowledgeable.

 

[Digit]

I would wager the reason Creationists posts don't go unchallenged is other and maybe additional to that, but fair enough. That's a good point and I agree it's a good idea.

Digit

 

[Mallon]

Ok, I understand that and find it quite acceptable. I do not believe he is saying if it contradicts his belief, he is saying if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

There are many scientific theories that contradict Scriptural record, but AiG manages to downplay those by pulling the same stunt that evolutionary creationists do: reinterpret the Scriptures as allegory. Ham's no better than the very people he derides.

That is different though, from what you said and I read their site regularly and find their scientific approaches to be quite good. They actually don't claim to know everything, but they do often point out where modern science has been accepted as fact despite heavy inconsistencies and holes.

Most (all?) of the supposed "inconsistencies and holes" of evolution are of Ham's own doing. AiG's understanding of evolution is full of holes, so it's no wonder they find it to be inconsistent. If there's a particular inconsisteny or hole you're worried about, we would be more than happy to discuss it here. There's a reason why 99.9% of scientists find evolutionary theory to be completely consistent, and it has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, as Ham would have you think.

At the end of the day, what would happen for you, if secular science said that something happened a certain way, and there was no room for Biblical leniancy? That is, no room to make a passage figurative/literal to fit that new find into your belief?

Science can't make that argument. The Bible was written to bring us closer to God and to introduce us to our Saviour. Science could say nothing to discredit that much.
Perhaps if you could provide a more specific example, we could ruminate over that...

Edit: I also do not believe it to be circular reasoning.

Of course it's circular reasoning, Digit. What AiG is saying is this: We reject evidence that contradicts Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is supported by the evidence. It's circular. There's no other way around it.

 

[gluadys]

We base these things on flawed radio-cardbon dating systems.

No we don't. RAdio-carbon dating can't say anything about events that occurred 65 million years ago. It is only good for dating recent events.

(We could use it on dinosaur fossils if their extinction was as recent as creationists claim. Ever wonder why we don't find C-14 remnants in dinosaur fossils?)

Quite simply put, that is impossible, as where do you learn about God, if not from the Bible?

From the church. And no, the church did not learn about God from the bible. The church learned from the testimony of the apostles and then people in the church wrote the New Testament. And other people in the church sorted through all the stuff Christians wrote to determine what teaching was most apostolic and that is how we got the bible in the first place.

You might say the bible learned about God from the church.

A religious museum, is telling a religious account of things. You need to stop saying that the message is wrong, as you cannot back that up and prove otherwise.

In this case we can and should say that the message is wrong, and, relative to the science, we can back that up. I would say it is wrong scripturally and theologically as well, but that is more interpretive.

Oddly, I stumbled upon an Atheist run site the other day, that derided TE's for believing in both God and evolution as they couldn't understand what in Genesis prompted this figurative view of it.

Sure. Atheists love the literal interpretation of Genesis because it is so easy to show how wrong it is. Also many atheists were raised in homes and churches that taught the literal interpretation is the only correct one. That was the belief that sent them into atheism in the first place. If the only choice is literal Genesis or atheism, many find atheism the better choice.

That is why it is important to show that this is a false dichotomy.

The reason upholding a literal telling of Genesis is important to Creationists, is because it upholds the very authoratiy that the Bible lays down.

The authority of the bible does not depend on it being interpreted literally.

If we can decide ad-hoc what is figurative and what isn't, there will be chaos. If something in the Bible is untrue, then who's to say any of it is true?

"figurative" does not mean "untrue".

 

[crawfish]

Oddly, I stumbled upon an Atheist run site the other day, that derided TE's for believing in both God and evolution as they couldn't understand what in Genesis prompted this figurative view of it. The reason upholding a literal telling of Genesis is important to Creationists, is because it upholds the very authoratiy that the Bible lays down. If we can decide ad-hoc what is figurative and what isn't, there will be chaos. If something in the Bible is untrue, then who's to say any of it is true? That's where the witnessing issues come into it, because all of a sudden, it's no longer a complete picture, it's half of this and half of that.

An interesting point - it would seem that many atheists are "fundamentalists", in that they hold to the more literal worldview of the religious fundamentalist. They reject the bible on the same grounds you reject evolution - you hold a more literalist view of the Bible and thus must choose to believe in either it or science. There is no middle ground.

I've been on many atheist boards, and this is a common occurrence. When I present my beliefs, they accuse me of "not being a real Christian", or trying to create my own religion. They can't handle that faith can exist outside of a literal reading.

 

[Galle]

It appears we disagree with their method, and that's ok.

We aren't disagreeing about their methods, you are ignoring their methods and uncritically repeating their claims. The single reason you're praising AIG is that AIG is reinforcing your own beliefs. You won't find their authors publishing any creationist science in peer-reviewed journals. You won't find AIG presenting even a tentative theory of creationism. AIG simply has no interest in science. You're not looking for an organization that uses the scientific method, you're looking for a perceived authority whose method is to repeat your preconceived notions so as to give those notions the image of validity.

I think in reality, we can relate it to the moral absolutes that God has provided for us, and expects us to live by.

We're not talking about the morals that God has provided, we're talking about the creationism that humans believe in. Please do not confuse God's words with humans claiming to speak for God.

You didn't actually answer my question. Let me clarify. If you found something that blatantly contradicted the Bible, and there was no room to modify your belief and remain Christian, what would you do?

I did answer the question. If I learn that my beliefs are inaccurate, I change them. Stubbornly holding onto beliefs I know are false or refusing to alter beliefs that I know to be incomplete is not in my self-interest and is massively dishonest as well.

I can answer that without hesitation. I would reject that new find,

We know. We can see this in your attitude toward AIG's statement of faith.

 

[keyarch]

But the question remains, keyarch: How do you know that "warehouses" and "fountains" and "foundations" were meant figuratively, while "snow" and "deep" and "earth" were meant literally???

Some are more obvious than others. I can't tell anyone else how to interpret the Bible. But for me, when it describes such things as "fountains of the deep" I interpret that to be the mid-ocean ridges (fountains) of the seas/oceans (deep). I consider the "foundations" to be the earth's core mass before it was reshaped to have dry land. In other words, it's still something real, but described in a general or figurative way. Also, if one really wants a better understanding of the words used, they should go to the original language and compare to other passages. This process helps illuminate the intended meaning.

Jesus told many parables that many could not understand, but when He broke them down to the disciples had real meaning behind them.

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

 

[Deamiter]

Hey Deamiter,

The moral absolutes example was a simple one to highlight that we need to stick to the absolute basic presented facts. If we were to read into the laws, and start taking them figuratively we would end in chaos. In fact, it's a risk I fail to see the benefit in taking. God speaks with absolute truth.

Therefore we must read every passage in the Bible literally (even creationists don't claim that!) There's a significant difference between laws that were directly spoken by God and written down immediately and a series of stories that were passed down orally for thousands of years before being collected and recorded as part of the Hebrew culture. When you start treating the entire Bible as the same genre, you're making a HUGE hermeneutical mistake!

Where does the Bible claim the earth sites on pillars as it's foundation? Last I read, God hung the Earth upon nothing...

Job 9:6 and 26:11, and Psalms 75:3. If you claim that Genesis is just as literally factual as the direct words of God (hint, most of the Bible is NOT the words of God) I don't see why you'd take these passages any differently. They certainly don't indicate that the foundation of the Earth is LIKE a pillar...

A time machine I feel is a somewhat golden-bullet to the argument. As that constitutes 100% gain in knowledge, which is not what anything we can do today allows us to gain. If we were able to do that, then the outcome is obvious, Christianity would not be true and as soon as that fails to be so, everything else falls down too. Which is why Genesis, and Biblical truths are so important, because if you look into the Outreach forums, people are picking apart the Bible and asking questions based on it's events. They need to feel and know that is one hundred percent true, without flaw. That's an incredible thing, and testifies to God's greatness.

As soon as one thing can be bent, it's seen as a weakness, because then so can another... and another... until really, there is no absolute truth.

So in your mind it's all about our need to convince people of Christ? This sounds very Islam to me -- they claim that their Quran was dictated to Muhammad directly and thus is beyond question. The Bible only claims in passing that the Bible has been inspired by God. Now if you think we need to lie to new converts because the Holy Spirit isn't powerful enough to show them how truth can be conveyed in myth and poem then I'm afraid you've deviated far from the message of the Bible! If you think that the Bible must be inerrant in all details to be able to compete with the quran, you're similarly doubting the power of the Holy Spirit.

And if you fall into the modernist assumption that only factual accounts can hold truth, you're making the same modernist mistake in your interpretation of early Hebrew literature that these non-Christians seem to be making! Their misunderstanding of the genre should not be addressed by misrepresenting the Bible as a modernist newspaper-style account but by educating them as to the styles and literary techniques of the period and culture (including well-documented methods like using sacred numbers in place of factual ages to convey more meaning).

 

[Digit]

Hi Deamiter, thanks for the reply.

Therefore we must read every passage in the Bible literally (even creationists don't claim that!)

That's correct, and neither did I claim that, in fact.

You do seem to wish to take me out of context, I often get the feeling I am debating in the GA forum again... which is odd as I am amongst believers I am lead to believe.

Anyhow, I was specifically talking about God's Laws, which are literal and absolute. Should evidence arise, where we find that, for example, adultery is actually good for us. It improves our lifespawn, makes everyone happy around us and cures cancer, we cannot simply decide God's Law about adultery was a figurative account, and in actual fact it means something else, allowing us to read in a meaning that FITS into our new real world evidence.

There's a significant difference between laws that were directly spoken by God and written down immediately and a series of stories that were passed down orally for thousands of years before being collected and recorded as part of the Hebrew culture.

No, there actually is no difference. The entire Bible is God-Breathed, or inspired by God and in regards to...

(hint, most of the Bible is NOT the words of God)

... that is also untrue.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "

I'm afraid that this is the problem I am concerned about. When you begin to give yourself the power to decide what is figurative and what is not, you can read in to everything in the Bible.

Job 9:6 and 26:11, and Psalms 75:3. If you claim that Genesis is just as literally factual as the direct words of God I don't see why you'd take these passages any differently. They certainly don't indicate that the foundation of the Earth is LIKE a pillar...

They also don't talk about the foundation of the Earth AT ALL. In fact, Job specifically tells us that:

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

The pillars are in fact not talking about the foundation of the earth. If you do a search for “pillars” you can find it being used in Hannah’s prayer (in Sammuel), in the Psalms and Proverbs (it is also used of Heaven), the thing is, that in context, these are not relating to a cosmological account but are dealing with spiritual issues talking about spiritual pillars.

These passages have nothing to do with describing the actual physical earth and how it is constructed.

So in your mind it's all about our need to convince people of Christ?

Not entirely, but yes a very large part of it is because it becomes increasingly hard to witness to people, when Christianity is being misrepresented like this, and other Christians, are giving people giant holes in the Bible.

The Bible only claims in passing that the Bible has been inspired by God.

There are actually six specific passages that mention it, and that is not 'in passing'.

Now if you think we need to lie to new converts because the Holy Spirit isn't powerful enough to show them how truth can be conveyed in myth and poem then I'm afraid you've deviated far from the message of the Bible!

Please do not feed me words, if I do not say it, I do not think it.

If you think that the Bible must be inerrant in all details to be able to compete with the quran, you're similarly doubting the power of the Holy Spirit.

See above.

And if you fall into the modernist assumption that only factual accounts can hold truth, you're making the same modernist mistake in your interpretation of early Hebrew literature that these non-Christians seem to be making!

See above... above.

Their misunderstanding of the genre should not be addressed by misrepresenting the Bible as a modernist newspaper-style account but by educating them as to the styles and literary techniques of the period and culture (including well-documented methods like using sacred numbers in place of factual ages to convey more meaning).[/quote]
Our modern day issues should not be placed over higher priority of God's own account of Creation, in His Holy Word.

When you take it out of context, you have problems.
When you can arbitrarily decide what is figurative and what is not, you have problems.
When you change your interpretation of scripture based on modern day information, you have problems.

Each one of these, introduces new holes into the Bible, and the picture becomes less and less whole, and more susceptible to cracks and eventual breakdown.

I am not sure I can put it more plainly that than.

All the best, God bless,
Digit

 

[Deamiter]

You do seem to wish to take me out of context, I often get the feeling I am debating in the GA forum again... which is odd as I am amongst believers I am lead to believe.

You might avoid the same thing -- you continually tell people that they're calling God a liar when they disagree with your interpretation of Genesis.

Anyhow, I was specifically talking about God's Laws, which are literal and absolute. Should evidence arise, where we find that, for example, adultery is actually good for us. It improves our lifespawn, makes everyone happy around us and cures cancer, we cannot simply decide God's Law about adultery was a figurative account, and in actual fact it means something else, allowing us to read in a meaning that FITS into our new real world evidence.

Of course I and everybody here agrees with you about God's laws! I brought up the difference because you started talking about the corruption of moral absolutes when we were talking about the genre and interpretation of Biblical passages that are not God's laws! Why you'd bring up interpretation of God's laws in discussion of interpretation of the creation accounts is well beyond me!

No, there actually is no difference. The entire Bible is God-Breathed, or inspired by God and in regards to...

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "

What confuses me is that you seem to want "inspired" or "God-breathed" to mean "dictated." God inspired certain truths to be written in the Bible and that he used fallable humans who had a flawed pre-science view of the universe in no way detracts from the spiritual truths that were inspired! Furthermore, pointing out that the authors were wrong about rabbits chewing their cud (they don't) or about God opening windows in a firmament that's described as "pounded out" (as in a brass bowl) in no way calls God a liar as nothing in ANY Biblical passages suggests that God inspired not only the universal truths in the Bible but the cultural misunderstandings of the world around them.

I'm afraid that this is the problem I am concerned about. When you begin to give yourself the power to decide what is figurative and what is not, you can read in to everything in the Bible.

This is utter nonsense. You yourself decide what is figurative and what is not. I pray daily, read scriptures and have lengthy conversations with other Christians and am lead by the Holy Spirit just as every other Christian should be! To claim that you do NOT interpret scripture, however, is to claim that the Holy Spirit (or some other authority?) has given you a perfect understanding of all scripture -- a rather pompus and unbiblical claim!

They also don't talk about the foundation of the Earth AT ALL. In fact, Job specifically tells us that:

I'll concede the point, though I might point out windows in the pounded out firmament of heaven was a wide-spread belief in the ancient near east as was belief that the sun moved around an unmovable Earth. In fact, the passage you yourself cited uses (if I'm not mistaken) the Hebrew word for "pounded out" (translated here "spreads out") which is used to invoke the idea of pounding brass into a thin bowl -- again suggesting a solid firmament and not some infinite space as we are now fully aware.

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Our modern day issues should not be placed over higher priority of God's own account of Creation, in His Holy Word.

When you take it out of context, you have problems.
When you can arbitrarily decide what is figurative and what is not, you have problems.
When you change your interpretation of scripture based on modern day information, you have problems.

Ah, but you're taking Genesis 1 and 2 quite out of context by claiming it's a factual account and as you've been told many times in this thread, our understanding of its genre is hardly arbitrary! As for the final point, why is it that we changed our interpretation of scripture with the scientific understanding that the Earth moves around the Sun? As Martin Luther put it, "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

A much better hermeneutical method is to consider both our understanding of the universe and historical Biblical interpretations along with a healthy dose of prayer. As St. Augustine put it in AD 408, "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"

 

[Deamiter]

Another quote of Augustine (again from The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 408 AD, emphisis mine:

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

 

[Digit]

You might avoid the same thing -- you continually tell people that they're calling God a liar when they disagree with your interpretation of Genesis.

Please can you quote me where I called someone a liar because they disagree with me. I have not, as it is not Christ-like, yet others have called Creationists liars.

Of course I and everybody here agrees with you about God's laws!

Awesome!

I brought up the difference because you started talking about the corruption of moral absolutes when we were talking about the genre and interpretation of Biblical passages that are not God's laws! Why you'd bring up interpretation of God's laws in discussion of interpretation of the creation accounts is well beyond me!

You are a smart guy, so I request you stop feigning ignorance here. I will explain though - I brought it up because there is a very real danger when we can decide ad-hoc what to take literally and what is figurative, and if you consider God's Laws and apply this ad-hoc decision to them, it can become extremely dangerous because we lose the absolutes which Christianity resides on.

What confuses me is that you seem to want "inspired" or "God-breathed" to mean "dictated." God inspired certain truths to be written in the Bible and that he used fallable humans who had a flawed pre-science view of the universe in no way detracts from the spiritual truths that were inspired!

That is completely incorrect I am afraid.

The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When something is God-breathed, it comes from the mouth of God, it is His Words.

Even in 1 Corinthians which was written by Paul, and contained his name as the author of the book he clarifies this for us.

1 Corinthians 14:37
37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

It wasn't His interpretation of events, it was exactly what God had commanded Him to write.

Jeremiah 1:9
Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth.

There are many of areas that talk of this, and drive home the fact that these things must be taken with the utmost of seriousness, because they come from God, not man. These people were not news-reporters relaying things as they thought they occurred, they were divine instruments of God.

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

And again later in that passage, it is further clarified for us:

2 Peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

My dear friend, the Bible is most accurate in it's recordings, and as such it's a wonderful tool and record of our world, if you look on it with open eyes. Moses didn't sit down and write about how he was the most humble of men, that's not really humility is it? It was God telling him that. *laughs*

Furthermore, pointing out that the authors were wrong about rabbits chewing their cud (they don't)

Yes, they do.

Ruminents are animals that we today understand to chew their food hardly at all when first eaten, and swallow it into a special stomach, which partially digests it. It is then regurgitated, chewed again and swallowed down into a different stomach.

Rabbits go through a very similar motion called refection. Now before you get on your high-horse about this, let me just say that Hebrew verb that is used to denote this action of brining something up, or recovering it, is a verb that is used extremely commonly throughout the Old Testiment and literally has dozens of meanings. It does not specifically mean regurgitate. It is a verb of general movement, and a more accurate translation of that text, would be to 'recover food.'. Rabbits do this through refection, they pass out the food, in the form of a special pellet (dropping) and then they eat it again. *feels ill* The same verb is used in reference to retrieving money, getting burnt offerings, fetching the Ark of the Lord and a whole host of things.

To conclude, our present day meaning of 'chewing the cud' is far more restrictive than that of Moses' day, and as such, the Bible is still 100% intact, God-breathed (yes dictated) and correct.

... or about God opening windows in a firmament that's described as "pounded out" (as in a brass bowl) in no way calls God a liar as nothing in ANY Biblical passages suggests that God inspired not only the universal truths in the Bible but the cultural misunderstandings of the world around them.

I think I've covered this, but if you really wish I can go and research more, but I would really like to play some computer games now if that's all good with you?

This is utter nonsense. You yourself decide what is figurative and what is not. I pray daily, read scriptures and have lengthy conversations with other Christians and am lead by the Holy Spirit just as every other Christian should be! To claim that you do NOT interpret scripture, however, is to claim that the Holy Spirit (or some other authority?) has given you a perfect understanding of all scripture -- a rather pompus and unbiblical claim!

*sigh* It's not utter nonsense, and please stop making me out to be some other freakish kind of Christian. I do all the things you do, and we both interpret things differently, I however can back my interpretations up scripturally, and I am trying to help those who have not taken this view.

I think Dannager was right earlier, when he said my comfort level has something to do with it, because really, I've never felt quite so peaceful as I do when talking about these things, and I should have searched the Bible for answers earlier, rather than simply putting out my opinion, which is what I feel others in this thread are doing.

I'll concede the point...

Thank you, lets not diverge into other areas of debate here, if you wish to talk about the firmament issue, make a new thread for it.

Ah, but you're taking Genesis 1 and 2 quite out of context by claiming it's a factual account

First of all, I don't see how my factual account means I need to take it out of context. Can you provide an example? Perhaps some scripture that when taken out of context supports my position, yet when placed in context does not? For I cannot find any.

I have used the entire of Genesis in my belief, and it all coincides nicely together in one epic revelation of how God created everything.

As for the final point, why is it that we changed our interpretation of scripture with the scientific understanding that the Earth moves around the Sun? As Martin Luther put it, "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

There is some quite strong evidence of what has become known as the long-day. In addition primitive tribes have myths and stories of a long day and long night at the opposite sides of the worlds, which collaborate this evidence too. I would prefer not to get off track here, but I will say that it seems those wishing to change their views have done so, others like me, have stuck true to God's Word and believe He is capable of anything, and as such have no issue with that account.

A much better hermeneutical method is to consider both our understanding of the universe and historical Biblical interpretations along with a healthy dose of prayer. As St. Augustine put it in AD 408, "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"

I would agree with some elements of that, I do indeed recommend some research before you make such erroneous claims like that of God-breathed scripture, rabbits and their cud and I am sure more will follow from you or others.

You are not, contending with me afterall, because all I do is reference the Bible, you are contending with God's Word, which I believe is infallable, and I will stand firm on that, as I believe our time on this planet is fleeting at best, and compared to eternity it is the mereist flicker of an eye, and nothing to get so worked up about.

God bless,
Digit

 

[Deamiter]

Please can you quote me where I called someone a liar because they disagree with me. I have not, as it is not Christ-like, yet others have called Creationists liars.

That's clearly not what I said. Read my post again -- you have repeatedly said that those who do not agree with your interpretation of Genesis are calling God a liar (just as I claimed in the post you quoted).

You are a smart guy, so I request you stop feigning ignorance here.

Wait a second -- if I am not to assume you think things you don't write, please refrain from assuming my feigning ignorance! I'm doing nothing of the sort as a matter of fact.

I will explain though - I brought it up because there is a very real danger when we can decide ad-hoc what to take literally and what is figurative, and if you consider God's Laws and apply this ad-hoc decision to them, it can become extremely dangerous because we lose the absolutes which Christianity resides on.

Fancy that -- I always thought our individual sin and Christ's death and resurrection as atonement for that sin was the basis of Christianity, not a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11!

That is completely incorrect I am afraid.

The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When something is God-breathed, it comes from the mouth of God, it is His Words.

First of all, there is only one place in ALL of my Bibles that capitalizes "Word" and it refers to Jesus himself. Every other reference to words of God is not capitalized. Are you claiming that the Bible is Jesus? Secondly, it seems you've built this entire "dictated by God" doctrine on this single use of a single word found nowhere else in the Bible. Don't you think it would be more accurately translated as "dictated" or do you disagree with every Bible translation to date? Having been inspired or "theopneustos" in no way suggests that it was controlled or dictated but that certain truths were laid on the hearts of some of God's followers.

Even in 1 Corinthians which was written by Paul, and contained his name as the author of the book he clarifies this for us.

1 Corinthians 14:37
37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

It wasn't His interpretation of events, it was exactly what God had commanded Him to write.

There are indeed many passages that were given directly from God. They are always labeled as such like this passage in 1 Corinthians and the revelation given to Moses in the Torah. To claim that because these passages were not simply inspired but directly spoken by God the entire Bible must have been dictated is a huge and unjustified leap of logic!

As an aside, the "Lord's command" Paul is discussing here is that women should NEVER speak in church and should only ask their husbands at home if they have questions about theology. Does your family and church follow this command that was given to us by God through Paul?

Jeremiah 1:9
Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth.

This passage clearly uses the term "word of the Lord" not as something Jeremiah was commanded to write but as God's words directly to Jeremiah and through Jeremiah. As before, it in no way suggests that everything Jeremiah said or wrote (though the book was certainly not written directly by him) was somehow God's words though I have no doubt that in many of Jeremiah's teachings he was directly passing on the words that God had sent him!

There are many of areas that talk of this, and drive home the fact that these things must be taken with the utmost of seriousness, because they come from God, not man. These people were not news-reporters relaying things as they thought they occurred, they were divine instruments of God.

And yet, as records of these peoples' actions attest, these people were not controlled by God. God did not force them to repeat God's words nor can we claim that every word these people uttered was directly from God!

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

And again later in that passage, it is further clarified for us:

2 Peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Surely you are not claiming that every passage in the Bible is prophecy? If so, we've got quite a long discussion of prophecy ahead of us before we can focus more closely on which bits of the Bible were spoken by God through men!

My dear friend, the Bible is most accurate in it's recordings, and as such it's a wonderful tool and record of our world, if you look on it with open eyes. Moses didn't sit down and write about how he was the most humble of men, that's not really humility is it? It was God telling him that. *laughs*

Isn't it much more likely -- as the vast majority of theological experts agree -- that Moses did not write the Torah? He may certainly have collected many of the writings (thus the label "books of Moses" but you're in the fringe minority if you claim that the traditional attribution to Moses translates direction into knowledge of authorship!

I think Dannager was right earlier, when he said my comfort level has something to do with it, because really, I've never felt quite so peaceful as I do when talking about these things, and I should have searched the Bible for answers earlier, rather than simply putting out my opinion, which is what I feel others in this thread are doing.

Insinuating that I haven't searched for answers in the Bible? You've caught me on a couple of passages (incidentally I knew about both of your explanations but preparation for an impending marriage has made me sloppy) so I can understand how it might look through the impersonal internet as if I'm just babbling nonsense, but I must admit that I too feel extremely comfortable with my interpretation of scripture. I was actually very conflicted in the years that I accepted your factually inerrant/YEC interpretation of scriptures and it was only after a whole lot of prayer and study of God's revelation in the Bible and in creation that I finally came to peace in the truth of both.

First of all, I don't see how my factual account means I need to take it out of context. Can you provide an example? Perhaps some scripture that when taken out of context supports my position, yet when placed in context does not? For I cannot find any.

I have used the entire of Genesis in my belief, and it all coincides nicely together in one epic revelation of how God created everything.

There is some quite strong evidence of what has become known as the long-day. In addition primitive tribes have myths and stories of a long day and long night at the opposite sides of the worlds, which collaborate this evidence too. I would prefer not to get off track here, but I will say that it seems those wishing to change their views have done so, others like me, have stuck true to God's Word and believe He is capable of anything, and as such have no issue with that account.

I have no problem believing that God could have stopped the Earth spinning for a day -- you entirely missed the point that the Bible says that the Sun, not the Earth stopped moving. Being a well-read person yourself, I'm sure you know that the concept of a long-day being found by scientists is a hoax (quite simply, no fixed ancient observations are accurate enough to support such a finding in the first place so there's no reference point from which to make such a discovery). As for cultural myths, that is indeed a matter for another thread.

I would agree with some elements of that, I do indeed recommend some research before you make such erroneous claims like that of God-breathed scripture, rabbits and their cud and I am sure more will follow from you or others.

Meh, I've already done the research on rabbits, pillars and theopneustos and I do apologize for being sloppy here (it actually bothers me greatly and I'll be much more careful in the near future). Your interpretation of God-breathed as 'dictated' is certainly not supported by any Bible translation so you might consider doing some research on that detail.

You are not, contending with me afterall, because all I do is reference the Bible, you are contending with God's Word, which I believe is infallable, and I will stand firm on that, as I believe our time on this planet is fleeting at best, and compared to eternity it is the mereist flicker of an eye, and nothing to get so worked up about.

I wouldn't think of getting worked up over a theological disagreement with a fellow follower! I do disagree that I am contending with God's Word however. For one thing, God's Word is Jesus, not the Bible (if you want to be accurately quoting the Bible anyway) and for another, I have never disagreed with the Bible but with what I see as your flawed interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Digit]

That's clearly not what I said. Read my post again

Ok

*reads*

you continually tell people that they're calling God a liar when they disagree with your interpretation of Genesis.

-- you have repeatedly said that those who do not agree with your interpretation of Genesis are calling God a liar (just as I claimed in the post you quoted).

Umm... no, I don't tell them that, and again, please show me where I have or retract that as I don't believe it's true.

Wait a second -- if I am not to assume you think things you don't write, please refrain from assuming my feigning ignorance! I'm doing nothing of the sort as a matter of fact.

I am sorry if it seems as though that was unwarranted, yet I didn't honestly believe when I read your reply, that you truly didn't understand why I brought up the absolute laws, and the implications of taking them figuratively.

Fancy that -- I always thought our individual sin and Christ's death and resurrection as atonement for that sin was the basis of Christianity, not a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11!

Aaaah, ok I see where our misunderstanding is coming from. Right, I don't believe that it's all or nothing based on Genesis. What I wish to eliminate is the uncertainty about whether the Bible is true, in every sense of the word. To do this, I feel we need to examine the claims of it, and assess them. For me, and for many other YECs, we can claim it is wholly true, because we can take the Bible for it's literal word, even in the areas that seem conflicting based on our current world and the constantly shifting claims of mankind, and upon deeper research, find it still relevant and true. We will not change our views of God's unchanging word, based on mans constantly changing viewpoints and theories.

That is why I will rebuke and claims as to the validity of the Bible, especially those based on favourite Atheist/non-believer points of contention, like the rabbits, the flat earth, the long day, and etc etc.

In order for me to be a successful witness, and in order for me to present a religion that is uncompromising, I feel it's important to have a wholly complete picture of the Bible and it's teachings. I do not believe science and the Bible are mutually exclusive, I believe that some people have placed science as their god, and feel that's wrong.

First of all, there is only one place in ALL of my Bibles that capitalizes "Word" and it refers to Jesus himself. Every other reference to words of God is not capitalized. Are you claiming that the Bible is Jesus?

That was probably just me capitalising things as I like to do. If it's in error, then I will agree that was a mistake I made. My spelling and grammar are not so crash hot. >_>

Secondly, it seems you've built this entire "dictated by God" doctrine on this single use of a single word found nowhere else in the Bible. Don't you think it would be more accurately translated as "dictated" or do you disagree with every Bible translation to date? Having been inspired or "theopneustos" in no way suggests that it was controlled or dictated but that certain truths were laid on the hearts of some of God's followers.

I'll quote again.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Have a read of this, and note the end section as that is why it's important to me and others to take a literal account of these things, as God's word... also note he capitalises Word. I guess that's just good habit when talking of our Father.

There are indeed many passages that were given directly from God. They are always labeled as such like this passage in 1 Corinthians and the revelation given to Moses in the Torah. To claim that because these passages were not simply inspired but directly spoken by God the entire Bible must have been dictated is a huge and unjustified leap of logic!

Not when you look at all these things in context, and when you realise that theopneustos means God-breathed, not inspired. I too only just discovered that, and it certainly supports my view well additionally.

As an aside, the "Lord's command" Paul is discussing here is that women should NEVER speak in church and should only ask their husbands at home if they have questions about theology. Does your family and church follow this command that was given to us by God through Paul?

No, yet I am sure there is a reason for this. Just like anything out of context, it can seem odd, until we find it's real meaning. I haven't researched this at all, so in that regard I don't have a response ready.

This passage clearly uses the term "word of the Lord" not as something Jeremiah was commanded to write but as God's words directly to Jeremiah and through Jeremiah. As before, it in no way suggests that everything Jeremiah said or wrote (though the book was certainly not written directly by him) was somehow God's words though I have no doubt that in many of Jeremiah's teachings he was directly passing on the words that God had sent him!

Awesome, me too.

And yet, as records of these peoples' actions attest, these people were not controlled by God. God did not force them to repeat God's words nor can we claim that every word these people uttered was directly from God!

We can claim that, because of teh quote from Timothy as above, it's even more true now that I understand the real meaning of theopneustos to not mean inspired.

Surely you are not claiming that every passage in the Bible is prophecy? If so, we've got quite a long discussion of prophecy ahead of us before we can focus more closely on which bits of the Bible were spoken by God through men!

No, I re-read that afterwards and wondered if it was wrong to include it, but I was tired after writing a long reply so left it in. In hindsight, you are right and I agree, this is not relevant in regards to all scripture.

Isn't it much more likely -- as the vast majority of theological experts agree -- that Moses did not write the Torah?

Please provide support for this claim, as I do not subscribe that they believe this. In addition, just because a great many people believe in something, does not make it right or true. We are told to adhere to God, not to the world of men. Lots of people enjoy piracy, and don't think it's a crime or stealing in any way, yet that still doesn't change the fact that it is, and is wrong.

Insinuating that I haven't searched for answers in the Bible? You've caught me on a couple of passages (incidentally I knew about both of your explanations but preparation for an impending marriage has made me sloppy) so I can understand how it might look through the impersonal internet as if I'm just babbling nonsense, but I must admit that I too feel extremely comfortable with my interpretation of scripture. I was actually very conflicted in the years that I accepted your factually inerrant/YEC interpretation of scriptures and it was only after a whole lot of prayer and study of God's revelation in the Bible and in creation that I finally came to peace in the truth of both.

I think all I will say here is, congratulations! \o/ I mean, if I will admit I am a young Christian, yet coming from nothing to everything and finding a very whole and complete account of creation, is a tremendous gift, and a very welcome answer to many years of doubt and concern over our origins and meaning to our lives.

Wait, I am assuming that it is you who are to be married right?

I have no problem believing that God could have stopped the Earth spinning for a day -- you entirely missed the point that the Bible says that the Sun, not the Earth stopped moving.

Me neither, afterall He is omnipotent. How can I have issues with him stopping either, on that note like I mentioned I didn't look into it a great deal, but we can do so if you wish. I am confident there is an explanation, in that I see no call to worry over it.

Being a well-read person yourself, I'm sure you know that the concept of a long-day being found by scientists is a hoax (quite simply, no fixed ancient observations are accurate enough to support such a finding in the first place so there's no reference point from which to make such a discovery). As for cultural myths, that is indeed a matter for another thread.

Yes, the whole NASA finds the lost day thing, is a complete hoax.

Meh, I've already done the research on rabbits, pillars and theopneustos and I do apologize for being sloppy here (it actually bothers me greatly and I'll be much more careful in the near future).

Well that's understandable, afterall we are not above mistakes. *glances at his scripture quote*

Your interpretation of God-breathed as 'dictated' is certainly not supported by any Bible translation so you might consider doing some research on that detail.

Perhaps not directly translated as dictated no, but in essence I feel God has left us with an infallable account of history and His work, and it's that which I am standing for, because I feel and find it more complete than one with human interpretations of events.

Let me put it this way, which I do often, so forgive me if you've read me posting this before.

Lord of the Rings. Great trilogy. Thousands of people made it, millions of dollars to create it over several years. Quite an epic feat, and a wonderful work of media was the outcome. Now, the thing here, is that it was all man-made. God never directed any account in it, which of course, we all know. The thing is, that you watch it for just a couple of hours and you can begin to see continuity errors. I hate stuff like this, and have a keen eye for them, so they were quite obvious to me, but one example is the scene when Boromir dies, each cut has the arrows in his chest in different places.

Now take the Bible, it's substantially more epic and took way longer to create and covers in far more detail and great many Earth-altering events. I cannot believe that God would leave it up to man to record these events, and inspire their recordings through, I dunno, a pretty sunset or something. That to me seems ludicrous, especially when as I showed earlier, all the prophecies are those that are worded by God himself. They need to be exact and correct, how are the historical accounts of our creation different, and heres my main issue, especially when they are so heavily contested with modern-day, ever-changing man-made views and theories. For Christians, who already have a relationship with God, no problem. Like I said, if my position is proven incorrect, I don't think it would effect my faith one iota, yet for those who have not found Christ, it has really huge implications.

I wouldn't think of getting worked up over a theological disagreement with a fellow follower!

Yay for that!

I do disagree that I am contending with God's Word however. For one thing, God's Word is Jesus, not the Bible (if you want to be accurately quoting the Bible anyway)

What I was saying was that I am simply looking at scripture, which I believe to be God's Word, and in that case, of course you do not believe you are contesting it, as you don't believe it's His Word, naturally.

and for another, I have never disagreed with the Bible but with what I see as your flawed interpretation of the Bible.

Aaaaand snap.

Digit.

 

[Melethiel]

*pops in to post some probably irrelevant clarifications*
In traditional theology, "Word" is usually used to refer to Christ, as per John 1:1. Ex: St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word
"Scriptures" (writings) is used to refer to the written word.
Helps to avoid confusion and talking past one another.
*pops out*

 

[Deamiter]

Aaaah, ok I see where our misunderstanding is coming from. Right, I don't believe that it's all or nothing based on Genesis. What I wish to eliminate is the uncertainty about whether the Bible is true, in every sense of the word.

You do realize, right, that no sense of the word "true" is "factual?"

To do this, I feel we need to examine the claims of it, and assess them. For me, and for many other YECs, we can claim it is wholly true, because we can take the Bible for it's literal word, even in the areas that seem conflicting based on our current world and the constantly shifting claims of mankind, and upon deeper research, find it still relevant and true. We will not change our views of God's unchanging word, based on mans constantly changing viewpoints and theories.

You will never change your view of the Bible? Surely you don't have a perfect understanding of scripture and are thus open to new interpretations!

Further, science is indeed constantly changing but it is never utterly rewriting itself. Every new theory must first explain what was explained by the older theories before it can attempt to explain new data. In science, it isn't a matter of constantly flipping but building upon earlier work.

That is why I will rebuke and claims as to the validity of the Bible, especially those based on favourite Atheist/non-believer points of contention, like the rabbits, the flat earth, the long day, and etc etc.

Because you believe, based solely on your interpretation of theopneustos that the Bible not only contains truth but is immune to factual error? I've seen Christians bend over backward to explain how exactly Judas died but a straightforward reading of the Bible presents contradictory accounts

In order for me to be a successful witness, and in order for me to present a religion that is uncompromising, I feel it's important to have a wholly complete picture of the Bible and it's teachings. I do not believe science and the Bible are mutually exclusive, I believe that some people have placed science as their god, and feel that's wrong.

Indeed, and yet others have placed their personal interpretation of scriptures as their god and I feel very strongly that that is wrong.

That was probably just me capitalising things as I like to do. If it's in error, then I will agree that was a mistake I made. My spelling and grammar are not so crash hot. >_>

I don't think it was just a spelling error. It's a common practice in churches today to call the Bible "God's Word." The use drives home the idea that the Bible was dictated by God though it's utterly unbiblical (and has even driven some to claim that the Bible is Jesus based on the passage Menethiel mentioned).

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Have a read of this, and note the end section as that is why it's important to me and others to take a literal account of these things, as God's word... also note he capitalises Word. I guess that's just good habit when talking of our Father.

Not really, it's neither good grammar nor is it Biblically justified as I've pointed out. Your article is a pretty short summary of Warfield's position. You might read the following critique of inerrancy -- it's long but quite complete and well supported:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1979/JASA6-79Phillips.html
In particular:

By elucidating the oversights and distortions in Warfield's exegesis, it becomes evident that the presupposition of foundationalism and not Scripture's own selfwitness is the basis for the inerrantist's eonstrual of the problem of biblical authority. Once this ground is revealed, a more precise and fundamental critique of the various inerrancy defenses is possible. For in many eases the inerrantist's rationale is simply not compatible with the logic of foundationalism.