is creation outside of science's scope?

[ForumMonk]

I think that's something which we understand, however evolution speaks about the mechanics that God used to create, and it's more about how responsible evolution is in our creation. TEs think God flipped the switch to start the evolution machine up, YECs think that God created everything unique and whole, and from there, creatures have evolved within their species and non-believers think it all occured by chance.

Hi Digit,
Thanks for the summary. I am pretty familiar with the arguments and science in origins theories. I wonder at the terminology applied to the divisions in thought. For example why are 6 day creationists called "creationists" while others, such as TE are not? Surely the TE claim God created except he used a process.

But in my view, I often see OEC and YEC making the same errors in trying to use science to explain the unexplanable. This is why I really support neither view in so far as science theories go. As I have already stated, creation is outside of the scope of science. For the most part, the arguments are important but non-cardinal in nature. In my opinion, however, it gets very serious when someone claims the scripture needs to be reinterpreted in order to harmonize it with scientific discovery. Its precisely that kind of thinking which led to the so-called geocentric/Galileo fiasco when the dominate church tried to harmonize the scripture with the prevailing idea of geocentrism. Most scriptural revisionists today do not understand that are walking into the same trap.

Regards,
FM

 

[gluadys]

Its precisely that kind of thinking which led to the so-called geocentric/Galileo fiasco when the dominate church tried to harmonize the scripture with the prevailing idea of geocentrism. Most scriptural revisionists today do not understand that are walking into the same trap.

Regards,
FM

Of course, at the time, it was Galileo who was the "scriptural revisionist".

 

[gluadys]

Well yes and no. Yes, I do not consider many things as they are based off of assumptions but they also conflict with scripture.

And you are so confident in your infallibility as an interpreter of scripture that you can know the "assumptions" are in conflict with scripture without consideration of the facts.

Marvellous ability that.

That some things are based off of assumption and slotted into a secular theory, makes me wary.

Wariness is ok. But wariness should lead to investigation, not a priori rejection without examination.

 

[ForumMonk]

Of course, at the time, it was Galileo who was the "scriptural revisionist".

Hi Gluadys,
Actually I think Galileo could be called a "science revisionist" if there is such terminology. Geocentrism had been the prevailing point of view since the 4th century B.C. and practically everyone believed it was true. The church leaders found, what they believed to be, scriptural support for the concept. When Galileo began declaring the science of heliocentrism (first described by Copernicus who never published his theory until late in life out of fear of church reprisal) the church asked Galileo to cease since it went against the proclamations of the church leadership. After some years of silence, Galileo began criticizing the church and its archaic interpretation of the scripture.

Today, they are many who are willing to take the prevailing scientific views (big bang, evolution, uniformatarianism, etc) and declare scriptural support for these ideas by claiming the so-called "english" translations are flawed and are correctly interpreted in other ways which allow a harmonization with the accepted scientific paradigms. Don't forget, geocentrism stood for many centuries as the scientific "truth". If todays church accepts that scripture supports todays science what will they say later when the scientific paradigm changes as it seems to do every hundred years or so? This is why I say, the parallels between church and scriptural support for geocentrism and church and scriptural support for modern science theory are bound to lead to the same embarassing result if allowed to continue.


Regards,
FM

 

[crawfish]

Please... TE is a 'i want my cake and eat it' mentality. it is so far from the truth that it is heretical at best. basically you are doing what the progressive creationists do, call God a liar. exodus cannot be clearer--God created everything in 6 days and there was no process.

by the way, that insulting remark just convinced me not to review your posts i did not answer. i do not accept being insulted.

Wow. You say that I, as a TE, am a heretic and that I am "not a Christian", yet you take offense at this simple little remark. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have my intelligence questioned than my faith in God. The old grade-school adage "you can dish it out but you can't take it" seems to apply here.

Which, for the record, I wasn't saying. My implication was more about desire than ability. I can make no judgement as to your level of scientific knowledge or intelligence, but I think I can gain a clear view of your desire to comment on the more elaborate replies from the TE crowd.

not at all, you do not know what God has revealed to me or what i have gone through to learn what i know. just let it suffice that God did it in a manner that left no doubt He is God and that there is no other and that act did not follow man's requirements or way of doing things.

Nor do you know what God has revealed to me, or to ANY TE. Perhaps we are those granted foresight into God's longer-term plan, and God is guiding us to ease the transition from a literal view to the more correct metaphorical view.

Again, it's presumptuous for you to judge my heart and faith because of a difference of opinion. That is God's territory. We will BOTH face God on all matters big and small. I choose to worry about my own path and not yours.

 

[crawfish]

This is commonly called a magic-bullet theory, that is, something which when proved completely disproves all following things. Atheists like to find these to help convince themselves there is no God, there is a whole list of them and they are all completely false. The speed of light is no exception and it is based off of assumptions, not facts. It also conveniently omits that God created light before he gave it a source, the sun.

Digit

I mentioned one item because the "speed of light" is hardly put to question. It is a measured item, testable and reproducible. You don't have to apply it universally to be able to use it to show the universe has to be >6000 years. It is one item that makes YEC highly improbably.

There are many more items brought forth in this forum that fall under the same level of evidence as c. The scientific claims of YEC, even if some are true, still cannot account for every one. In the puzzle metaphor, the pieces are coming together looking very different from the one on the cover of the "bible box"...you simply can't change enough pieces to make it fit.

 

[ForumMonk]

Perhaps we are those granted foresight into God's longer-term plan, and God is guiding us to ease the transition from a literal view to the more correct metaphorical view.

Hi Crawfish,
I do not want to judge your faith or position with God, but I am a bit alarmed by the quoted statement. You assume a metaphorical view is correct, however, who is the arbitrator of correct interpretation. What if some suggest, that Jesus' miracles should be taken metaphorically because God revealed it to them. What about the idea that Christ's death was a metaphore for the sacrifices we must make? Who decides how to rightly divide the Word of Truth and where does the metaphore end?

Regards,
FM

 

[Mallon]

Hi Crawfish,
I do not want to judge your faith or position with God, but I am a bit alarmed by the quoted statement. You assume a metaphorical view is correct, however, who is the arbitrator of correct interpretation. What if some suggest, that Jesus' miracles should be taken metaphorically because God revealed it to them. What about the idea that Christ's death was a metaphore for the sacrifices we must make? Who decides how to rightly divide the Word of Truth and where does the metaphore end?

Or, additionally, what about those who would suggest that the earth taking shape like clay under a seal (Job 38:14) was just a metaphor? Or what about those who would suggest that the pillars upon which the earth rests (1 Sam 2:8) aren't actually real? Or how about those infidels who inject metaphor into Genesis and suggest the snake was actually representative of Satan?!

The slippery slope argument works both ways.

 

[ForumMonk]

The slippery slope argument works both ways.

Hi Mallon,
I agree absolutely!
That is why good exegesis is so important. The first arbitrator must be the scriptures and its context, followed by the considerations of the intent of the text and cultural and historical analysis. It certainly does not begin with an external construct.

Regards,
FM

 

[crawfish]

Hi Crawfish,
I do not want to judge your faith or position with God, but I am a bit alarmed by the quoted statement. You assume a metaphorical view is correct, however, who is the arbitrator of correct interpretation. What if some suggest, that Jesus' miracles should be taken metaphorically because God revealed it to them. What about the idea that Christ's death was a metaphore for the sacrifices we must make? Who decides how to rightly divide the Word of Truth and where does the metaphore end?

Regards,
FM

Well...it only goes to say that if God is the arbiter of those rules that he'll inspire people to express them. God has often depended on radicals - i.e. Martin Luther, Galileo - to make changes when necessary. It doesn't change the true meaning of his scriptures, but it does change our view of how that scripture is to be truly read. If you get my meaning.

And no, I'm not comparing myself to the people mentioned above. Just in case somebody objects.

An excellent way to judge metaphor/reality is to look at how close to the actual events the scripture was written. Genesis was written hundreds-thousands-of years after the supposed events by people who had no personal experience with them. The gospels were written by contemporaries who lived with Jesus and the early Christians.

Creation is a different type of event than the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, parting of the Red Sea, etc. It is a historical event that can be verified through science. The others are one-time miracles designed to work AGAINST the prevailing natural law. Surely you can see the difference?

 

[ForumMonk]

Hello crawfish,

An excellent way to judge metaphor/reality is to look at how close to the actual events the scripture was written.

Based on this criteria, you may deem the entire book of Genesis as non-literal, including Adam and Eve, the geneaologies, the flood, Abrahamic story, Isaac, Jacob, even to some extent, perhaps the stoy of Joseph and his dealings in Egypt as they preceded the exodus by at least 215 years (and maybe 430 years depending on your interpretation).

Creation is a different type of event than the resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, parting of the Red Sea, etc....

I disagree. Creation was also a miracle in my view. True, it can be verified, after the fact, but it can not be explained.

Cheers,
FM

 

[crawfish]

Based on this criteria, you may deem the entire book of Genesis as non-literal, including Adam and Eve, the geneaologies, the flood, Abrahamic story, Isaac, Jacob, even to some extent, perhaps the stoy of Joseph and his dealings in Egypt as they preceded the exodus by at least 215 years (and maybe 430 years depending on your interpretation).

My faith certainly doesn't depend on them being ultimately factual. I have little doubt all the characters - including Adam - had grounding in real people, but the events were the result of oral traditions told over dozens of generations. The theological points remain solid, but the details have probably been altered.

I disagree. Creation was also a miracle in my view. True, it can be verified, after the fact, but it can not be explained.

Depends on what you mean by "creation". Even TE's believe that at some point God instigated creation through divine means, and instilled it with the laws that govern it. I do not believe God has given us the "hows" - only the "whys". And he had no need to do otherwise.

 

[archaeologist]

including Adam - had grounding in real people, but the events were the result of oral traditions told over dozens of generations

so you are saying that God is lying to us? how can we convert anyone if we do not believe what God has said? why would they accept and believe our faith?

Even TE's believe that at some point God instigated creation

but that is in direct contrast to what the Bible says. anytime you add secular models or constructs to what God has said, you have erred and are being led away from God not to Him. again, i refer you to 1 John.

 

[crawfish]

so you are saying that God is lying to us? how can we convert anyone if we do not believe what God has said? why would they accept and believe our faith?

IT IS NOT A LIE!!!

Only the YEC model demands a lie. Either God is lying through His literature, or he created the sun blue, told you it was blue, but made you so you'd see it as yellow.

Many people have gained faith through the TE-like belief; they find they can throw away the silliness or literalism and focus on the true beauty and glory of Christianity.

but that is in direct contrast to what the Bible says. anytime you add secular models or constructs to what God has said, you have erred and are being led away from God not to Him. again, i refer you to 1 John.

It is in direct contrast to what YOU think the bible says. To your human interpretation.

 

[archaeologist]

IT IS NOT A LIE!!!

answer the question. i did not say talk about the merits of YEC i asked if God is lying to us?

becuase if you say something different than what was said in genesis then you invalidate what God said in exodus where He clearly states it all was created in 6 days.

so where is God lying?

by the way i analyze theistic evolution in a new work i am preparing, i am well aware of the beliefs of theistic evolutionists and it is a 'i want my cake and eat it to ' mentality.

i am also not a OEC nor a YEC person. i am strictly a creationist who knows that God only said...in the beginning... 'when' is not important, not germane to the issue but adding in secular models, thoughts, methods, conclusions is not of God and is wrong.

 

[archaeologist]

It is in direct contrast to what YOU think the bible says. To your human interpretation

that is where you are wrong. the interpretation game only allows people to continue to pursue their desires and stay in their comfort zones.

the Bible says, 'ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free' that eliminates interpretation quite nicely. plus you forget the Holy Spirit factor which guides us into truth.

so i would not throw interpretation as if that is the only game in town, it isn't. it is an escape clause to avoid dealing with the fact that alternatives to Gen 1 are altering what God did and said and are headed the wrong direction.

i am not questioning your salvation but i am saying those who are subscribe to these alternatives are not following God but are allowing the evil one to lead them astray and not accomplish what God would like.

 

[archaeologist]

i am also not saying you cannot use science, i am saying when you use it you shun secular models,thinking, methods and theories for they are not of divine origin.

just like evolution. if you believe in God, you believe He created it but at no time was evolution a creation of God. if it were, God would have said it was.

it has no divine origin, but has its beginnings in sinful man who did not believe in God. adopting such thinking is not adopting God's way or what He said and a believer must reject such things.

the catholics christianized many pagan festivals ealy in their history to make christianity more appealing (something God did not say to do). it did not work and christianizing evolution will meet with the same failure.

believers are to follow God not man, that is why God says, 'why do ye call me Lord, Lord but do not do the things I say?...'

 

[Tinker Grey]

if you believe in God, you believe He created it but at no time was evolution a creation of God. if it were, God would have said it was.

How about this:

if you believe in God, you believe He created it but at no time was gravity a creation of God. if it were, God would have said it was.

 

[archaeologist]

How about this:

no, because that is looking for justification to pursue secular methods, ideas and thoughts and to include them in a presentation meant to imply that God did it the secular way when all Biblical references says differently.

people who adhere to alternatives always seek excuses or justifications to make them feel better about turning to options that are not of God nor supported in the Bible.

making scriptures allegorical when they are not is one such device and it calls God a liar and undermines the message of the Bible, its call to salvation, salvation itself and the final judgement among other things.

when one has to change the word of God to fit their theory then they are the ones in error not those who believe God's word.

 

[Deamiter]

Um... archaeologist -- what exactly do you think an interpretation is? Any determination of the meaning of a text is by definition interpretation. You like to pretend that you're not interpreting the Bible but even if you're doing it with the help of the Holy Spirit (as I am) you are still interpreting the texts.