Ham's Creation Museum

[PostIndustrialist]

If Creationism weren't true, they wouldn't have built a museum about it.

 

[shernren]

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 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.

And do you see that quote in the middle by a guy named Warfield? Well, BB Warfield was a strong proponent of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy ... and he accepted Darwinism and an old earth. Want to know how?

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.

But the Bible itself states:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
(1 Peter 1:10-12 ESV)

(emphasis added) If Scripture was really so clearly revealed and explicitly dictated to men, why on earth would they have had to "search and inquire carefully" what God meant? Does Microsoft Office 2007 have to search and inquire carefully when I type something into it?

Furthermore, the Bible is essentially a witness to God's workings. Would God leave it to man to record them? Of course He would - whenever we witness today, do we ever feel as if words are tumbling out of our mouth straight from God without being generated by our brain? Once in a while, certainly, but that's no normative experience for anybody witnessing today of what God has done. So why should it have been a normative experience for anybody witnessing back then?

 

[Beccs]

I'm really disappointed with this forum. This is my first post and people here are just as blindly sure of themselves as anywhere else, regardless of reality. I visited the creation museum the day it opened, and it is awesome. It's historically and scientifically accurate and well-designed. It is a great place for not only bringing new people to Christ but reaffirming the faith of existing believers.

I'm tired of being ridiculed for my beliefs. I was looking for a cool forum with nice people and it looks like this one isn't it.

Scientifically accurate? How do you figure that if it contradicts what the majority of reputable scientists say?

And if you don't like the forum, leave. It's not a puzzle.

 

[Deamiter]

Scientifically accurate? How do you figure that if it contradicts what the majority of reputable scientists say?

And if you don't like the forum, leave. It's not a puzzle.

That's a bit harsh -- we're not interested in driving people away or anything! It IS a bit weird that out of all the forums at ChristianForums, benonymous would choose to post in a particular debate forum and mention that because people don't agree with creationism, we're mean and uncool... I mean there are dozens of forums where the slightest suggestion that creationism is wrong will get a member banned and even on ChristianForums, they're perfectly welcome to stay in the creationist-only forum if they can't stand to have their beliefs questioned.

 

[Digit]

And do you see that quote in the middle by a guy named Warfield? Well, BB Warfield was a strong proponent of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy ... and he accepted Darwinism and an old earth. Want to know how?

Hi, sorry for the late reply. Sure, fire away.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
(1 Peter 1:10-12 ESV)

(Note the bold) They were filled with the spirit it says, it sounds like the were searching for the person that they had been told about, or the time at which he would come. It doesn't sound like they were clue-hunting as to the meaning of what they were told.

Furthermore, the Bible is essentially a witness to God's workings.

Nuh-uh! That's what we are talking about now it's it?

Would God leave it to man to record them? Of course He would - whenever we witness today, do we ever feel as if words are tumbling out of our mouth straight from God without being generated by our brain? Once in a while, certainly, but that's no normative experience for anybody witnessing today of what God has done. So why should it have been a normative experience for anybody witnessing back then?

Actually, after a little thought on this, I can't see God leaving it to man as an impossibility. As it's not like we make mistakes all the time. However to craft 66 inerrant books is a fairly tall undertaking, and as such I feel it's improbable.

Digit

 

[Digit]

That's a bit harsh -- we're not interested in driving people away or anything! It IS a bit weird that out of all the forums at ChristianForums, benonymous would choose to post in a particular debate forum and mention that because people don't agree with creationism, we're mean and uncool... I mean there are dozens of forums where the slightest suggestion that creationism is wrong will get a member banned and even on ChristianForums, they're perfectly welcome to stay in the creationist-only forum if they can't stand to have their beliefs questioned.

I concur. For some reason I feel I need to reply to every single post here... do I?

I do.

Digit

 

[Digit]

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

Yeah I know that. In fact I've just read a few articles about theopneustos. As I think this is our main point about contention, espcially now that we have come to the point where true != factual.

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!

No, you misunderstand. My view is that it is God's inerrant word. My interpretations will of course change, as I learn more about it, yet I feel my current interpretation is correct in that it is God's word.

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.

I find nothing unusual about that. However you must acknowledge that some theories are completely discarded as inaccurate, and others, for example evolution, have changed dramatically since Darwin's original theory.

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

After some more reading, I've found that theopneustos was translated as "inspired" but it's actual meaning is God-breathed. Which leads me to conclude that the origin of scripture is God, not man.

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

Well I'm not one to judge other's actions, but I'm not entirely sure they have indeed done this. I would like to reaffirm that I have not done this, I just feel this area is very important, because (and I think I communicated this poorly earlier) so many other things rely on it, and many questions I've had from people have been about it. Yet once you take time to investigate the issue, you can find a very real and simple answer. I feel that if I take such a writing as Genesis as a story, and no more, then I will have to rely on present-day science and evidence, which as we have discussed and agreed upon, is constantly changing. Why would I do that, or want that for someone else, when there is a very real and firm foundation waiting for them in literal truth? I can think of no reason, and indeed see none present in this day.

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).

Well of course it wasn't a spelling error. "Word" and "word" are both spelt 100% correctly. I don't think the Bible is Jesus, that's just silly to be honest. I do believe it is God's Word though, and I capitalise that to show respect and honor, just as when I say "Him" or "He" in reference to God.

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:

My confusions arises from this: Why, when you have a Bible that can be proven to be inerrant, do you wish to say it is not? Surely a solid foundation, is better than one which isn't?

Digit

 

[shernren]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. Sure, fire away.

Well to be fair, here's a site which both documents BB Warfield's views on evolution and then disagrees with it:

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/evolution.htm

We could discuss starting from there.

(Note the bold) They were filled with the spirit it says, it sounds like the were searching for the person that they had been told about, or the time at which he would come. It doesn't sound like they were clue-hunting as to the meaning of what they were told.

Well it does, to me. I see the prophets as messengers of God, communicating from God on two levels:

1. addressing the current sin of Israel and its surrounding world;
2. addressing the total sin of humanity as a fallen race.

The prophets were very clear on how their prophecies directly related to Israel, and to its invaders, and to its allies. It was very clear to them that what they were speaking had direct relevance to the current political and moral situations they saw. They saw this nation or that nation doing something, and at the same time God told them something else, and they correlated what they heard with what they saw and recorded those as prophecies. Note that prophecy is not simply tomorrow's news today; it's God's news about human doings, whether it happens in the past, present or future.

At the same time, however, the prophets could see that sin was a universal and fundamental problem. What was going to be done about that? Here the prophets never saw anything concrete, for the simple reason that they would have been theologically unable to comprehend the Incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew, of course, about the Messiah promised in Deuteronomy. But then there were the little hints that kept dropping that just didn't make sense. What was this, for example, about Gentiles being saved? Or about a light dawning on the people of the shore (IIRC)? They certainly knew what an eternal king in the line of David meant - it meant that Israel after all its persecution would finally reign supreme and all the world would be both politically and spiritually subjugated to it. But who would this Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 be? And I bet Isaiah himself must have scratched his head in bewilderment even as he wrote down that God's sign that Ahaz would defeat his enemies was going to be a child born to a young maiden. How could that possibly be a sign of anything?

Sure, all the signs were there. But they would only have made sense after the fact of Jesus Christ. I think that they knew about the coming Incarnation only on a gut level, on an instinct that something was supposed to be coming together in all their disparate prophecies, never ferreting out exactly what. So they searched and inquired carefully, never really getting a hold of what they were searching for, only knowing that what they were writing was going to be significant in the far future ("revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you") as well as right there and then.

Actually, after a little thought on this, I can't see God leaving it to man as an impossibility. As it's not like we make mistakes all the time. However to craft 66 inerrant books is a fairly tall undertaking, and as such I feel it's improbable.

Oh no, even as a TE I don't see God "leaving it" to man. The Bible is God's book as much as it is man's book. For me, I express this personally in two analogies: in the Incarnation, and in authorization.

For Jesus Christ, as God Incarnate, was also fully and perfectly and merely* man. He was certainly God; He had to be nothing less to do what He came to do. And yet we believe that He got hungry, thirsty and tired like any other man; He was tempted to the fullest that we are tempted. And He was somehow still fully God in and through these limitations. He had to be fully man to redeem man in full; "whatever is not assumed [by Jesus] is not redeemed".

Suppose that the Bible is part of God's message. But to be read by man in full, it has to be fully human, has it not? If a Frenchman writes a book for me, it has to be fully translated into English - both linguistically and culturally - before I can make sense of it. How much more so when God deigns to speak with man! So God's message also has to be fully human. It has to take on the limitations of the culture and times to which it was written, in order to reach those it has intended to reach. Does that sound strange to you? It is no stranger than believing that Jesus had to eat and sleep to be fully human and thus ensure full salvation for man.

How then can one hold the Bible's divine nature and human nature in tension? For me, my personal view is through the device of authorization: man writes, but God authorizes, and enlivens human words (warts and all) with His Spirit so that they can communicate everything He wants them to communicate. It is David who writes a psalm about when God helped him as he feigned insanity before Abimelech; but it is the Holy Spirit who pulls it into the Psalms, and then canonizes it as part of Scripture, and then helps us when we read it to relate it to our situation with an inhumane boss or whatever. We should not be surprised that David's writing is uniquely limited to David's perspective and culture and frame of mind; at the same time, the Holy Spirit overcomes all those limitations and uses David's limited writing to enlighten us.

That is my doctrine of inspiration.

*I use "merely" as slang here, in the same way that one might say "I was merely telling the truth!"; the theological shock of hearing that word should remind you how shocking it is to realize that Jesus is 100% man as well as 100% God. It is a very dangerous way to communicate the point, but I believe the point is worth the danger.

 

[gluadys]

My confusions arises from this: Why, when you have a Bible that can be proven to be inerrant, do you wish to say it is not?

In the first place, the bible has not been proven inerrant. In fact it contains many inconsistencies and contradictions that would show the opposite. Best known here would be the differing orders of creation in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.

Here's another example. When and by whom was Goliath killed? And after giving the obvious answer, read 2 Samuel 21: 15-22 especially v. 19

One has to resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics to "reconcile" such instances. And usually the reconciliations are ad hoc with no grounding in evidence that they are factual.

So "inerrancy" is "proven" by circular reasoning and specious re-interpretation.

Secondly, inerrancy is an meaningless doctrine, as without an equally inerrant interpretation of scripture there is still no certainty about what it means. Catholics logically declare the official interpretation of the church inerrant. But Protestants cannot resort to this dogma as we set the church under the authority of scripture.

It may be comforting in some sort of abstract way to assume the original documents were inerrant, but we have neither the original documents nor an inerrant interpretation of them, so it is not of much concrete benefit.

Surely a solid foundation, is better than one which isn't?

Absolutely. But an inerrant scripture is not a solid foundation. It would not be a solid foundation even if it existed and, in any case, it doesn't.

One of the basic problems with inerrancy is that it promotes a false understanding of faith. The certainty and assurance of faith does not rest and should not rest on a non-errant scripture, but on the firm foundation of God himself.

The doctrine of inerrancy assumes that faith can be certain only if knowledge is certain. But the certainty of faith is not a certainty of knowledge; it is a certainty of belief that freely acknowledges the uncertainty of one's knowledge. The Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard summed it up well when he noted that faith always couples subjective certainty (I am certain in my belief) with objective uncertainty (I do not have certain knowledge of the truth of my belief.)

 

[Digit]

In the first place, the bible has not been proven inerrant. In fact it contains many inconsistencies and contradictions that would show the opposite. Best known here would be the differing orders of creation in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.

Here's another example. When and by whom was Goliath killed? And after giving the obvious answer, read 2 Samuel 21: 15-22 especially v. 19

Do you really want me to look these up? I would have figured by now, we have established that nearly all these issues come from either one of two things:

• A poor translation - or...
• Taken out of context.

One has to resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics to "reconcile" such instances. And usually the reconciliations are ad hoc with no grounding in evidence that they are factual.

What, you mean like the pillars of the earth? It was hardly anything at all to figure out that they were spiritual pillars, as defined by the actual word used. Again, a poor translation.

So "inerrancy" is "proven" by circular reasoning and specious re-interpretation.

Or, as I like to think of it, by going and researching the originals. Rather than simply acception what is handed to you, and adjusting everything around it.

Secondly, inerrancy is an meaningless doctrine, as without an equally inerrant interpretation of scripture there is still no certainty about what it means.

Wait, what?

You mean, flawless instructions, are useless, because we cannot be sure of what they mean? So for example, when I open my computers instruction manual and it tells me to pair up some DIMMs in memory banks 0 and 1, I will be confused because I won't know what it's talking about. Whereas if it weaved a poetic story, with lots of metaphors and similies, I would be better equipped to fathom out where I can plug in my 'pulsing knowledge banks', and where I find the 'recepticles of history'.

Erm... no, sorry I disagree in the most comprehensive way possible.

Absolutely. But an inerrant scripture is not a solid foundation. It would not be a solid foundation even if it existed and, in any case, it doesn't.

I believe it does and I find it to be a great foundation. That's simply my word vs yours at this point.

One of the basic problems with inerrancy is that it promotes a false understanding of faith. The certainty and assurance of faith does not rest and should not rest on a non-errant scripture, but on the firm foundation of God himself.

What is the foundation of God you talk about?

The doctrine of inerrancy assumes that faith can be certain only if knowledge is certain.

Absolutely incorrect.

I had faith in God before I realised the Bible was without flaw. The fact that it was inerrant, brought me closer to Him and I found that very comforting, true. The reason that I feel it is important, is because if there was something which is in error, or directly contradicted, how is it we can assume other things are correct? It's not to do with my faith, I will still believe, but it's to do with how we live and by what rules.

But the certainty of faith is not a certainty of knowledge; it is a certainty of belief that freely acknowledges the uncertainty of one's knowledge. The Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard summed it up well when he noted that faith always couples subjective certainty (I am certain in my belief) with objective uncertainty (I do not have certain knowledge of the truth of my belief.)

That's a good quote. To be honest I there are areas I find that true, so I really don't have much issue with it, other than the definite article. But I still support inerrancy. In fact, I can relate speaking to people about possible issues in the Bible, where they feel it's incorrect or wrong, and to see their eyes light up when I point out the real truth, is quite reassuring for them. Suddenly it all becomes possible. That would never happen if I had to agree with them, and still try and relate faith. It is of the utmost importance in sharing God with others.

Digit

 

[Markus6]

After some more reading, I've found that theopneustos was translated as "inspired" but it's actual meaning is God-breathed. Which leads me to conclude that the origin of scripture is God, not man.

What about the Psalms?

Surely if the origin of a song of praise to God is God that cheapens it a bit?

Well of course it wasn't a spelling error. "Word" and "word" are both spelt 100% correctly. I don't think the Bible is Jesus, that's just silly to be honest. I do believe it is God's Word though, and I capitalise that to show respect and honor, just as when I say "Him" or "He" in reference to God.

Why does a book need respect and honour?

If you want to show respect to everything created by God why don't you capitalise 'Tree' or 'Hill'?

Could I ask any more rhetorical questions?

My confusions arises from this: Why, when you have a Bible that can be proven to be inerrant, do you wish to say it is not? Surely a solid foundation, is better than one which isn't?

Digit

The bible isn't my foundation. God is (well should be if I was better at this being a christian malarky).

 

[Digit]

What about the Psalms?

Surely if the origin of a song of praise to God is God that cheapens it a bit?

Depends, I am not sure about this and how it relates. I could look in to it.

Why does a book need respect and honour?

That makes no sense, and where did I say it did? I said I use it to show respect to God, as I believe it's His Word. Whether I am right or wrong in this, is of exactly zero consequence.

If you want to show respect to everything created by God why don't you capitalise 'Tree' or 'Hill'?

I thought I was showing respect to a book not God? I think you are confused.

The bible isn't my foundation. God is (well should be if I was better at this being a christian malarky).

Same question I asked another user. How do you about God?

Digit

 

[theFijian]

I feel that if I take such a writing as Genesis as a story, and no more

TEs do not take Genesis as a story and no more, there is a lot more to Genesis than 'just a story'. This is a common misconception, so common in fact that you'd think people would know better by now.

 

[Digit]

TEs do not take Genesis as a story and no more, there is a lot more to Genesis than 'just a story'. This is a common misconception, so common in fact that you'd think people would know better by now.

Ok, please explain further as you have me interested then.

Digit

 

[theFijian]

Ok, please explain further as you have me interested then.

Digit

How about you ask a slightly more specific question rather than ask for a complete exposition of Genesis.

 

[Digit]

How about you ask a slightly more specific question rather than ask for a complete exposition of Genesis.

Obviously you feel there is a common misunderstanding that people make, what is it? Where does it stem from? Why do you feel it's misunderstood?

Digit

 

[theFijian]

Obviously you feel there is a common misunderstanding that people make, what is it? Where does it stem from? Why do you feel it's misunderstood?

Digit

The common misunderstanding is that you (and others) seem to think that TEs regard Genesis as 'just a story'. I have no idea why you have that misunderstanding, and no idea where it comes from apart from probably undue care on your part. Ask a vague question get a vague answer.

 

[keyarch]

The common misunderstanding is that you (and others) seem to think that TEs regard Genesis as 'just a story'. I have no idea why you have that misunderstanding, and no idea where it comes from apart from probably undue care on your part. Ask a vague question get a vague answer.

This is NOT a misunderstanding. TEist on this site are referring to Genesis 1 as "allegory" all the time!

Noun1.allegory - a short moral story (often with animal characters) apologue, parable, fable
story - a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines"

 

[Melethiel]

There is a difference between a "story" and "just a story."

 

[Scotishfury09]

This is NOT a misunderstanding. TEist on this site are referring to Genesis 1 as "allegory" all the time!

Noun1.allegory - a short moral story (often with animal characters) apologue, parable, fable
story - a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines"

One of the synonyms listed there is Parable.

Parable: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

A story containing allegory yet still contains truths.