is creation outside of science's scope?

[crawfish]

science 'discovers' the earth rotates...thatis like saying columbus 'discovered' america. it was always there. God put it there and science , along with columbus, only found what God had done.

but when they give credit to alternatives, evolution theistiv evolution, progessive creation and so on, then science errs and is wrong.

Wow...that post just DRIPS in irony.

 

[Assyrian]

i didn't cut and pasted it, i took the whole quote that was originally sent to me. i thought it was quite poignant. but then again, just because it appears ona YEC website does it mean it is invalidated or useless.

Though sadly this is par for the course with quotes on YEC websites.

You repasted a cut and paste that was sent to you by someone who got it from someone else who had read it on a website from someone who had read it in AiG. And no one checked to see if this was an honest representation of what Barr said.

so you want me to do your research and thinking for you? i would think that that would be anethma to you.

We can discuss you views on these texts if you tell me what they are, but don't expect me to have to guess what you views are in the first place.

all i did was post the context of the quote quoted to me. didn't make any assertions that it backed me up.

So you just post chunks of text with no suggestion that they support your argument? Why should I believe the scripture verses you supplied are supposed to support you case either?

right there is your reason to shun secular science. God is about truth, answers andproof or he would not say in Romans that His creative work leaves man without an excuse. He provided proof of His actions.

No he has provided evidence, but we believe by faith, not by sight.

the former-- no it isn't. it is conjecture at best as there is no proof that that is the way it took place. please provide proof, or links.

Look up any good science website for the evidence. Science goes from conjecture to finding evidence that will either support or disprove the conjecture. As scripture says, test all things hold on to what is good. Science has been building on that principle for the last few centuries.

the latter-- yes it does. no where does God say that he used an evolutionary process and i will wait for you to provide scripture to contradict me.

Why should scripture have to say God used evolution? It does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion. They don't contradict scripture either, at least they don't contradict a proper interpretation of scripture. Neither does evolution. Evolution happened over millions of years and any interpretation that says evolution did not happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old is a bad interpretation because it has got it wrong.

i will agree with you on this yet scripture itself backs henry up better than Augustine. i provided the verses which you all ignored and did not address. you all do that quite often, i might add.

You linked to a list of verses, some of which you claimed supported you without saying which verses or why. What is there to address? You have not said anything.

yet the Bible never taught either thought so where did science trump God's word or act of creation?

It just trumped people's interpretation when they believed sincerely that the bible taught a flat earth and geocentrism. Just like some people today think the bible teaches the world is 6000 years. They could quote verses they thought backed their view but their interpretation was wrong and it was science that showed this.

except science can be wrong as well since you admited it doesn't deal in proof. so how can science be the final word? it is subject to the fall of man, heir to all the corruption that entered into the world at the time of adam's sin,it is NOT immune to the wiles of the evil one AND you think it has the right to determine what the infallible, incorruptible God did or said?

Was it wrong about the earth being round and going around the sun? Has science proved this or simply provided more and more evidence to show that it is so? When these scientific theories contradicted people's interpretation of scripture should the science have been rejected as the wiles of the devil?

think about it. what better way to deceive God's people and turn people away from God than to use a field or fields, that people can see, touch, examine, theorize and so on, that provides alternatives to an account which simply requires faith, the one element that pleases God.

We can still have faith in God when our favourite interpretation has been shown to be wrong. In fact it takes more faith, and humility which God likes too. And actually, the better way to turn people against God is to insist the bible teaches something that has been shown to be wrong. It works just as well whether people claim the bible teaches a flat earth, geocentrism or YEC.

actually,yes. God made it all in 6 days.

That does not tell us anything about what he made or how it works, just the timetable you think he made it in.

science 'discovers' the earth rotates...thatis like saying columbus 'discovered' america. it was always there. God put it there and science , along with columbus, only found what God had done.

But did not tell us in the bible, he left it for us to find out about the universe he created through science.

but when they give credit to alternatives, evolution theistiv evolution, progessive creation and so on, then science errs and is wrong.

How is evolution different from gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo? They all show us the way what God created works. It is not 'giving credit' it is describing how the process works, processes God created and sustains, which we understand by faith.

 

[shernren]

Hi shernren
Isn't this what this thread is about? This thread was opened with the concept that creation was beyond the scope of science, and so I would conclude the idea being Genesis can NOT be interpreted as scientific in spite of the fact many try to explain HOW God created all things.

But on the other hand, it need not be allegorical. Those early people had no problem understanding the fact that God made the heavens and earth. There is no allegory intended. If he wanted to explain the complex structure and mechanics of a cell, yeah, he may have required some really good illustrations.

Of course, it need not be allegorical. It need not be literal either. I'm not skilled enough to take the Genesis 1-11 stories and argue from the text alone that these stories can't possibly be literal. Could God have historically and scientifically created the earth rapidly and recently? Sure.

But the evidence says He didn't. And since it does, we have to consider why He said the things He did in the Bible. And then we arrive at knowing that Genesis 1-11 need not be either allegorical, or literal. God is free to write what He wishes!

where was God when all this happened? He did not tell them they got it wrong? kind of makes God a sadist doesn't it? He doesn't provide the truth but forces people t go to secular sources to understand what he is saying. kind of contradicts what God says, don't you think?

kind of contradicts those verses i posted earlier concerning the reliability, credibility and the infallibility, don't you think?

so if God allowed His writers to lie, misrepresent then why should we believe the rest of the Bible?

what you are proposing is that even God's writers were not supposed to follow God's morality, be righteous but can be hypocritical, untruthful and serve a God who lies, is hypocritical and misrepresents what He did.

It is a far cry from writing a non-literal story to being "hypocritical, untruthful ... lying". Here are a trifecta of examples, two Scriptural and one not.

Firstly, the parables of Jesus. Now you will object that the parables were obviously parables, that nobody expected to take them literally or historically. But are they? After all, many parables begin something like this:

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
(Luke 10:30 NIV)

or

Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'
(Luke 14:16-17 NIV)

or

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
(Luke 15:11-12 NIV)

Now what makes these parables stories? Jesus begins them as straight narratives; the way the stories are told could've been taken out of a newspaper report. So what makes them stories, and what makes them fictional? And why is Jesus allowed to lie? After all, if we can't take Him at His word when He says that there was a man who had two sons - instead, we fictionalize it and pretend that the man never existed in history - how can we take Him at His word when He says that He is the Son of God and that He is the way, the truth, and the life?

Secondly, an example from parenthood. What happens when a young child asks "Where did I come from?" Which parent, hearing that from the mouth of a 6 or 7-year-old tyke, will proceed to explain the mechanics of sexual reproduction in full detail? Instead they will say that "Mommy and Daddy loved each other very much" or even better, a Christian answer, "You came from God!" But isn't it ultimately lying to not tell a child about sex when s/he asks about the origins of human life? And if my parents are wrong about how babies are made, how can I possibly trust them when they tell me to be back by 12 and don't do drugs?

Thirdly, an example from Paul:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-16 NIV)

Does your church tell women to cover their heads or shave bald, archie? I know mine doesn't. And I am going to harp on this passage with anybody who tries to suggest that taking Scripture figuratively, or not at its "face value" (whatever that is), is wrong. For how hard can it be for a woman to just obey and wear a veil? How hard can it be for a man to just obey and not have long hair? Mind you, in this passage it is connected with both creation and with the glories of God and man. Now isn't Christian living about nothing but glorifying God? And if the creationists are really so passionate about creation, should they not exercise all its implications? And yet no creationist will take 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 as plainly as they do Genesis 1-11. Why is that? After all, Paul goes right on to talk about the Lord's Supper, and you can't get more central liturgy than that. If you don't trust Paul when he tells you about gender-specific hair arrangement, why should you trust Paul when he tells you that he received from the Lord the words He used to commemorate His passion?

 

[Digit]

I don't know why this whole head-covering thing has become so prominent all of a sudden. It's like someone just discovered it. If there is a problem with this, it should be taken up in an appropriate board, if not then there is no problem. It's the whole circumcision argument again.

Digit

 

[archaeologist]

If there is a problem with this, it should be taken up in an appropriate board, if not then there is no problem. It's the whole circumcision argument again

i tried to get this back on topic a couple times, but some people are refusing to address the issue. i have quotes from another scientist in another book,thisone christian, which basically states the same thing.

creation is outside the scope of science. i would love to hear credible reasons why people think otherwise and while i am waiting, i will address the other posts which has addressed some of the things i have raised.

 

[Mallon]

i would love to hear credible reasons why people think otherwise and while i am waiting, i will address the other posts which has addressed some of the things i have raised.

Since you showed up, most of the posts in this thread have been by yourself, archaeologist, and I'm not about to wade through the flood of out-of-context quotes you posted earlier. I will address the issue of origins science, though. Before I do, though, I think we should lay some groundwork: What do you think of forensic science? Should we send murderers to jail on the basis of forensics only (i.e., DNA evidence, finger prints, etc.)?

 

[theIdi0t]

I think you have it exactly. The early writer's weren't writing allegory; they were writing what they knew, a story to illustrate certain points, wrapped around creation as they perceived it. It wasn't "allegory" to them, but neither was it "facts" as we know them. The story was very literal to them, for the purposes for which it was written.

I'm curious about this position of yours. Are you saying that you believe the writers of Genesis believed that God literally created the world in six day, in a literal garden of eden etc...?

 

[archaeologist]

assyrian:

Though sadly this is par for the course with quotes on YEC websites

yet i see the same thing from those whoadhere to alternatives. augustine for an example. but then you were not happy when i posted a quote from barr, then you were not happy when i quoted the whole context of augustine--let me know which way you would like it.

you could have quoted the whole text from barr since you thought there was a problem and saved us several pages of go-arounds.

We can discuss you views on these texts if you tell me what they are, but don't expect me to have to guess what you views are in the first place

i already stated my view--Jesus and Paul were refering to adam as literal. then i posted the link to the verses, what mopre would you like? do you disagree that they are refering to them in a literal sense? why?
after all since adam is listed in the geneaologies, one would conclude he was literal from that alone. or do you make everything allegorical just to make your theory work?

Look up any good science website for the evidence

ha ha ha. you want me to post links for statements, then provide commentary but when i question you on your position you tell me--- go lookit up. what a joke. ihave been through many debates with evolutionists, atheists, militant athiests and progressive creationists and they all say the same thing--we have proof BUT they can never provide it.

your up.

Why should scripture have to say God used evolution

because God does not lie and deceive. jesus said while talking about preparing a place for His followers, 'if it were not so, i would have told you'. the same applies for all of scripture. if anything inthe Bible were not so, God would have told us.

It does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion

i think you need to go through all the other scriptures which talk about what God did and see what is really said

Neither does evolution. Evolution happened over millions of years and any interpretation that says evolution did not happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old is a bad interpretation because it has got it wrong.

the difference between the two here is that 1. scriptures sides with a non-evolutionary thought, 2. evolution doesn't exist. never happened and is totally a construct taken from the imagination of a man. scripture doesn't back it up and those believers who adopt evolution basically have stated they do not believe God, and would rather believe a non-believer.

It just trumped people's interpretation

it trumped mistaken thinking but that does not grant science special powers nor guarantee that it is right in all matters. science has beenwrong more times than it has been right.

BUT an important point, it only showed what God had done and it could be proven, whereas with evolution, it cannot be proven nor can the process or natural selection be shown to exist or responsible for what we see today.

talking about something that happened millions of years ago is both convenient and easy as one does not have to observe what is being proclaimed, nor deminstrate it in action so others can observe it either.

THOUGH, we can see the results of creation in action, we can both observe and bring skeptics in to demonstrate how it continues. we do not have to wait millions of years or till long after we are dead to see it take place.

this is something that evolution cannot overcome and the results of creation beats it by using science's own rules.

And actually, the better way to turn people against God is to insist the bible teaches something that has been shown to be wrong.

yet science hasn't shown the Bible to be wrong. science cannot even prove Jesus existed nor provide any evidence to the fact that He was born of a virgin so by your logic, Jesus never existed and we have no salvation.

so, do you cherry pick when you use faith and when you don't? doesn't work that way. if you take by faith that Jesus existed, then you must take by faith that God created the universe in 6 days. any other way is purely hypocritical.

That does not tell us anything about what he made or how it works

the former-- doesn't matter how, if it was important we would have been told

the latter-- we are allowed to find out how things work for by doing so we see what God has done and we learn more about Him.

But to subscribe to a theory that has no divine authorship is just wrong and sin. there was no evolutionary process used, it does not exist.

and before you jump me on it, provide the evidence that shows there is such a thing as evolution and natural selection. none exist, it is all inferrence and conjecture.

But did not tell us in the bible, he left it for us to find out about the universe he created through science

you hold science up to be the only field that provides answers, guess what it isn't. we do not need science to tells us anything and we would still be able to find out about God, science is not extra-special nor is it better than anything else.

How is evolution different from gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo?

it doesn't exist.

 

[archaeologist]

Does your church tell women to cover their heads or shave bald, archie

i wish they would but i do not attend church. my town is too small where i live to have an english church. there are very few foreigners here.

with that said, people disobey all the time, i included, and i am sure there are reasons for it; just as there are reasons why 'christians' listen to science over God's word and create alternatives to what He said.

i would love to see the church get back to scripture and stop using things like culture, science, archaeology, etc., as excuses for following the world's ways and thinking.

how i would love to see the multi-million dollar churches sold and people return to humbleness and a consistency with God's word. i have no problem with church buildings, but i do when they spend millions on something that will be left behind and people are still suffering, dying and going to hell because the money was spent on a 100,000 dollar sound system.

If you don't trust Paul when he tells you about gender-specific hair arrangement

my hair is short, so i don't have a problem with it. talk to larry norman who kept long hair long after his conversion.

why should you trust Paul when he tells you that he received from the Lord the words He used to commemorate His passion?

because such inspiration is confirmed in other passages of scripture.

Now isn't Christian living about nothing but glorifying God

are you glorifying God whenyou proclaim he didn't do what He said? add a secular model to His words? look to science before God? believe secular 'evidences' over God?
{without investigating them: fossil record is so full of holes and conjecture. is that what you take God for, someone who does shoddy work and leaves faulty evidence? then doesn't tell anyone about it and leaves it for secular man to decipher?}

OR let someone believe something is literal, who writes it that way then doesn't make corrections until secular science starts fiddling around in 1600 a.d.. what kind of god is that? certainly not one a person would want to believe in.

think about it. there is a bigger picture here than science having the final say on creation or the flood. what you suggest is a God who cannot be counted on, trusted, or has integrity, character, honest and soon.

sorry but i will go with the God of gen, who did it as he said not as science dictates. science isn't infallible, it is wrong.

 

[theIdi0t]

why is it when those who believe alternatives get sshown that something isimpossible,. they get stupid and go to extremes to hold onto their way of thinking.

Well, dear brother your arguement against evolution was that we cannot go back into the past and I pointed out that the same reason why that arguement would not hold up for disproving a crime, is the same reason that arguement does not hold up for disproving evolution. You may assume that it was extreme, but I summed up your error in a sentence, and by reading the rest of the post it seems that my point was made.

even in criminal cases, there is correct evidence and wrong evidence yet all those who believe in alternatives blindly accept the evidence produced BY THE SECULAR world and think that is the only way it coul dhave happened, without even the hint of thought that they are wrong.

If you are speaking of evidence, there is only contrary evidence and supporting evidence. Perhaps you would like to present us with your contrary evidence, rather the rambling on about me being so blind that I do not see the contrary evidence. Open my eyes, present it to me.

I don't blindly accept anything. I don't even say that this is the only way it could have happened. I don't even blindly accept a belief in God. At my core I am skeptic, and I refuse to live in some type of delusion or a lie, or to live blindly. But I can tell you today that whether one is an unbeliever or a believer no one will say of me that I believe blindly in anything. I can answer for my faith well enough that no unbeliever or believer will ever question my faith, my belief, and feel some sort of victory; more often it is they that become unsettled.

Perhaps some like you will go off blindly and accuse me of such things, but those who attempt to question my faith run out of questions real quick, and find themselves huddled in a hole when I start prying their faith afterwards. So go ahead ask away, but keep your blind accusations to yourself, unless you want to back them up with support.

WHO is God here? science ? that those who say they are 'christian' would accept its word over God's? science is nothing but a fallible field deceived and being deceived yet 'christians' look to it as if all it says is perfect. yet God says there is nothing perfect except HIm.

Well I don't see you accepting a flat-earth or geocentrism now do I? Don't sit there and give me that lie that the Bible does not speak of such things, when Christians have come to believe in such things because of the Bible in the past. You take science to be true in matters of the earth revolving around the sun, and not as scripture's discription of an immovable earth. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I was a modern day Geocentrist and I attacked you for taking the word of "secular" science over the Bible.

But more importantly you're not telling me to take the Bible over science, you're telling me take literalism over science. I've addressed every single verse used to defend a literal reading of Genesis a few post back, and I have even written numerous posts that Genesis creation is written allegorically. But don't sit there and try and sell me a false Gospel that requires me to see Genesis as literal.

I find the obsession of those who do to be quite disgusting. You talk about science comprimising God, but there is no better proof of this then the dozens of creationist websites, books, lectures, sunday school songs, etc.. This whole obsession of trying to find remnants of the ark, the brimstone from Sodom and Gommora, is what I find to be a pursuit of a sign, when no sign will be given. These individuals make an idol out of science, but to me science is like the dust--something so insignifect in my relationship to God. Science does as much for my faith as Calculus does. It is the creationist who calls to the aid of science to find meaning in their faith, and asks that I join in their worship of science, but for me it is worthless.

To be honest with you, a literal reading of Genesis is something that I find bankrupt in meaning. I have not read of one literalist interpretation of Genesis that has a single iota of meaning or relevance. They have presented a Genesis void of meaning and empty. So don't try and sell me your coal, when I have already found my diamond.

19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men [mat.4:19]

I am a Gospel literalist more so than perhaps anyone else here. I believe in a literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount, to live simply and renounce worldy wealth, to be servant to all. I am accused of following and trusting in Christ too much, but never am I accused of not following him. Unless you can say you believe in the Gospels as serously as I do, implying that I am not following Christ is worthless.

 

[archaeologist]

Since you showed up, most of the posts in this thread have been by yourself, archaeologist,

so. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? this is my thread and my point, i am constantly being asked to defend my position by more than one person. what doyou think would happen?

[I'm not about to wade through the flood of out-of-context quotes you posted earlier./QUOTE]

that is a typical response from someone who who does not have an answer and labelling them out of context is another excuse to avoid the point being made; that even secular scientists see that creation is beyond science's scope.

I will address the issue of origins science

how can you address this when you refuse to rebut quotes made about how science cannot examine the origin of the universe? quotes, made from secular science's own scientist? so how can you discuss origins when you refuse to discuss origins?

I think we should lay some groundwork

sorry, this is about origin science,not forensics. besides, forensics is like any scientific field, its limited.

 

[archaeologist]

You may assume that it was extreme, but I summed up your error in a sentence

no you didn't, as your one sentence was an extreme based on the false idea we can look into the past. but we can't, all we can see is the result of past actions. finding a fingerprint is not seeing nto the past but discovering what was left, that fingerprint can no more tell us what the person did as it could tell us why they did it.

a person is murdered and the investigators find a fingerprint on the murder weapon. does that fingerprint show us the past? no. all it can say is the owner of the fingerprint touched the murder weapon. it cannot say if that owner killed the person.

WE CANNOT LOOK INTO THE PAST.

You take science to be true in matters of the earth revolving around the sun, and not as scripture's discription of an immovable earth

a lot of biblical interpretation has to do with understanding what why certainwords were used. take for example the word, 'immovable'. does it mean the earth does not move or that God has placed it in such a way that it will never change its orbits, it rotation its existence no matter whattakes place?

i have found over the years that the most non-literal people are the most literal people when it comes to translating biblical meanings. they only see what they can/want to understand and fail to see other applicable options for these words.

then they use that limited definition to try and prove their point and allit does is show that they are hypocritical in their application of biblical passages.

the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth and immediately people assume it is talking about a flat earth. they forget that such a termis used for sailors as well to describe their world wide travels. at no time does the phrase 'four corners of the world/earth' mean a flat earth.

But more importantly you're not telling me to take the Bible over science, you're telling me take literalism over science

NO. i am telling you to take the truth over science. too many people forget that science is fallible, corruptible, vulnerable to the evil one and assume it knows what it is talking about because all these scientists are intelligent and well trained.

yet know one applies the Biblical warnings tothis field. they all assume that science is immune to the results of the fallof man and that just isn't so. until you realize that science, scientists are being deceived like so many others and other fields, you will not understand how off it is.

God has said that their is a point to his patience and He will give men/women over to their sinful beliefs. so until you start factoring in all the data, you are not right.

I find the obsession of those who do to be quite disgusting. You talk about science comprimising God, but there is no better proof of this then the dozens of creationist websites, books, lectures, sunday school songs, etc..

so you are demanding perfection from them while you are asking them to allow you to be imperfect? being a creationist or YEC does not mean they have mastered following God either.

This whole obsession of trying to find remnants of the ark, the brimstone from Sodom and Gommora,

i feel such things are a waste of time as non-believers will not believe any more than they do now. the problemsuch people face is, how are they going to prove those are the actual cities or the actual ark? we have people who build them for fun now (a dutch man just did it recently). so how will they know if it is not a fake?

It is the creationist who calls to the aid of science to find meaning in their faith, and asks that I join in their worship of science, but for me it is worthless.

science has its place, there is no doubt about it but there are things out of its reach and all must realize that.

They have presented a Genesis void of meaning and empty.

why?

a literal meaning shows God at His most powerful and creative. how is that meaningless and empty?
a literal meaning provides all the answers we seek about origins. How is that void and meaningless?

to think otherwise does what you say as it empties God of all power, makes Him an after thought, subject to natural laws and reduces Him from God to god.

I am a Gospel literalist more so than perhaps anyone else here. I believe in a literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount

that is called cherry picking. hypocrisy as well as you do not have the option to pick and choose what you want to believe or believe to be literal.

Unless you can say you believe in the Gospels as serously as I do, implying that I am not following Christ is worthless.

the question is: do you believe all of God's word or do you change them to fit what you want?

if you* change Gen. what is stopping you* from changing Rev. or some other passage? what is stopping someone else, who hears you change Gen., from changing passages they do not like or want to accept?

you* have created a trend that leads people astray.

**general usage and not specific to you.

 

[shernren]

I don't know why this whole head-covering thing has become so prominent all of a sudden. It's like someone just discovered it. If there is a problem with this, it should be taken up in an appropriate board, if not then there is no problem. It's the whole circumcision argument again.

Digit

I'm making it prominent in my posts for a number of reasons.

1. A general creationist argument is that taking Genesis 1 "seriously" is necessary for taking the rest of the Bible "seriously". In other words, if you take Genesis 1 literally, you are likely to be more conservative in terms of what the Bible preaches: you will be a more Biblical Christian who will condemn the liberals who are promoting homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia, because you will "take the Biblical pronouncements on such matters seriously" - that is to say, literally. Well, here is a Biblical pronouncement which isn't taken "seriously" - oops, I meant literally - by most creationists. It isn't even a particularly strenuous or demeaning requirement. But it is quite sexist, and - "heaven forbid that we look sexist in this modern, all-knowing age, no matter how much we deny evolution!"

2. Also, Paul makes this command directly from the creation account: it is because woman is created from man, not vice versa, that women should cover their heads. Note that this is functionally very different from circumcision. Circumcision is a sign of the old covenant; but Paul here is explicitly addressing Christians and Gentiles at that. Moreover, circumcision harks back to the covenant with Abraham, which was specifically Jewish (even if meant to benefit the whole world); but creation is a universal truth (and so is creationism, according to the creationists) so that the consequences of creation should also be universal.

It's part of my way of showing how creationism can't solve the problems it claims to solve. Even the creationists have to interpret inconvenient passages figuratively. Who are they then to tell us that their literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is better than ours?

 

[Digit]

I'm making it prominent in my posts for a number of reasons.

1. A general creationist argument is that taking Genesis 1 "seriously" is necessary for taking the rest of the Bible "seriously". In other words, if you take Genesis 1 literally, you are likely to be more conservative in terms of what the Bible preaches: you will be a more Biblical Christian who will condemn the liberals who are promoting homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia, because you will "take the Biblical pronouncements on such matters seriously" - that is to say, literally. Well, here is a Biblical pronouncement which isn't taken "seriously" - oops, I meant literally - by most creationists. It isn't even a particularly strenuous or demeaning requirement. But it is quite sexist, and - "heaven forbid that we look sexist in this modern, all-knowing age, no matter how much we deny evolution!"

2. Also, Paul makes this command directly from the creation account: it is because woman is created from man, not vice versa, that women should cover their heads. Note that this is functionally very different from circumcision. Circumcision is a sign of the old covenant; but Paul here is explicitly addressing Christians and Gentiles at that. Moreover, circumcision harks back to the covenant with Abraham, which was specifically Jewish (even if meant to benefit the whole world); but creation is a universal truth (and so is creationism, according to the creationists) so that the consequences of creation should also be universal.

It's part of my way of showing how creationism can't solve the problems it claims to solve. Even the creationists have to interpret inconvenient passages figuratively. Who are they then to tell us that their literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is better than ours?

Out of interest, how do you take it metaphorically?

Digit

 

[Assyrian]

assyrian:
yet i see the same thing from those whoadhere to alternatives. augustine for an example. but then you were not happy when i posted a quote from barr, then you were not happy when i quoted the whole context of augustine--let me know which way you would like it.

I thought it was great when you posted some of the context from Augustine. But then I thought you were actually basing some sort of argument on it to support your view, rather than just posting it for show.

you could have quoted the whole text from barr since you thought there was a problem and saved us several pages of go-arounds.

YECs post this extract again and again in discussions, I thought for once it would be great if you actually went to the trouble of digging up the actual context. Apparently not.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html

Dear Mr Watson,
Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question, and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.
Perhaps I might mention that I have another book coming out soon, Escaping from Fundamentalism, SCM Press London, which has some discussion of these questions. Westminster Press in Philadelphia are doing the American edition, perhaps with a different title, I don't know. It comes out in this country on 1st June.
Thanks again for your letter and all good wishes,
Yours sincerely
James Barr [signed]

The YEC quote is in square brackets, but note the part in red.

The YEC extract is posted repeatedly presenting Barr as a Hebrew expert - which he is, telling us about the precise meaning of the language used - which he is not.

The reason for his interpretation is not based on linguistics, but is based on the sort of text he thinks Genesis is. To Barr, Genesis is not the historical narrative YECs see it as, but an Ancient Near East creation myth. In other word his whole line of reasoning is based on a view of Genesis YECs reject.

i already stated my view--Jesus and Paul were refering to adam as literal. then i posted the link to the verses, what mopre would you like? do you disagree that they are refering to them in a literal sense? why?

What is there to disagree with? You haven't said anything other than claim without any basis or argument that your list of verses refer to Adam as literal. How many of the verses even mention Adam? The name only comes up once back when you list Gen 5:1, hardly evidence Jesus and Paul took him literally.

after all since adam is listed in the geneaologies, one would conclude he was literal from that alone. or do you make everything allegorical just to make your theory work?

Lets see why you think these verse support Jesus and Paul taking Adam literally first, you made the claim, you back it up.

You mention Adam in the genealogies, though oddly, that isn't even in the list you posted. Nor does it tell us what Jesus and Paul thought of Adam. It is Luke who gives us the genealogy and it isn't even what Luke thought, he tells us it is what people supposed was Jesus genealogy. Luke 3:23 Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was (so it was thought) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli...

Look at where Adam come up in the genealogy. Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Was Adam the literal son of God? David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz is literal enough, but Adam son of God? I am afraid literal genealogy has left the building here.

ha ha ha. you want me to post links for statements, then provide commentary but when i question you on your position you tell me--- go lookit up. what a joke. ihave been through many debates with evolutionists, atheists, militant athiests and progressive creationists and they all say the same thing--we have proof BUT they can never provide it.

your up.

If you are still talking about proof you have probably misunderstood what they are saying. Proof is for mathematics philosophy and alcohol. Science deals in evidence supporting or contradicting a theory. I asked you for support for a single claim, Barr's letter. You want me to provide all the evidence supporting the age of the earth and common descent.

because God does not lie and deceive. jesus said while talking about preparing a place for His followers, 'if it were not so, i would have told you'. the same applies for all of scripture. if anything inthe Bible were not so, God would have told us.

What has that got to do with evolution?

It does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion

i think you need to go through all the other scriptures which talk about what God did and see what is really said

Such as?

the difference between the two here is that 1. scriptures sides with a non-evolutionary thought, 2. evolution doesn't exist. never happened and is totally a construct taken from the imagination of a man. scripture doesn't back it up and those believers who adopt evolution basically have stated they do not believe God, and would rather believe a non-believer.

Apart from you jaundiced view of your brothers and sisters in Christ, scripture does not 'side' with with non evolutionary thought. There are many way to interpret Genesis, there always have been.

There is a literal interpretation, that ignores what the bible tells us about God's days, that is anti evolutionary, just as there is have been literal interpretations that were flat earth or geocentric. Scientific evidence has shown that these interpretations were wrong.

it trumped mistaken thinking but that does not grant science special powers nor guarantee that it is right in all matters. science has beenwrong more times than it has been right.

And interpretations have been wrong too. Lets stick with new science that has been tested and got rid of old misunderstandings, and get rid of old interpretations that have been shown to be wrong too.

BUT an important point, it only showed what God had done and it could be proven, whereas with evolution, it cannot be proven nor can the process or natural selection be shown to exist or responsible for what we see today.

Science does not deal in proof, just in evidence. The evidence we have for evolution is much stronger than the evidence available for a round earth and heliocentrism when the church accepted them.

talking about something that happened millions of years ago is both convenient and easy as one does not have to observe what is being proclaimed, nor deminstrate it in action so others can observe it either.

Astronomers observe events in stars that happend millions of years ago and geological layers can be dated again and again. The radioactive decay used to measure the rocks can be observed in supernova explosion from millions of years ago. It hasn't changed

THOUGH, we can see the results of creation in action, we can both observe and bring skeptics in to demonstrate how it continues. we do not have to wait millions of years or till long after we are dead to see it take place.

this is something that evolution cannot overcome and the results of creation beats it by using science's own rules.

yet science hasn't shown the Bible to be wrong. science cannot even prove Jesus existed nor provide any evidence to the fact that He was born of a virgin so by your logic, Jesus never existed and we have no salvation.

Not my logic. You have just said science hasn't shown the Bible to be wrong, how can it say Jesus never existed.

so, do you cherry pick when you use faith and when you don't? doesn't work that way. if you take by faith that Jesus existed, then you must take by faith that God created the universe in 6 days. any other way is purely hypocritical.

Science does not say anything about whether Jesus existed or not. It does tell us the universe is billions of years old. As the bible is about the truth, I don't think any interpretation which is contradicted by the truth can be the correct interpretation. Besides We have multiple witness in the bible testifying to Jesus existence, to his death and resurrection. Remember every issue is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses 2Cor 13:1. But with a six day creation, we only have Moses. No one else in the entire bible mentions the world being created in six days, and if you read Psalm 90 Moses himself did not take God's days literally

the former-- doesn't matter how, if it was important we would have been told

the latter-- we are allowed to find out how things work for by doing so we see what God has done and we learn more about Him.

But to subscribe to a theory that has no divine authorship is just wrong and sin. there was no evolutionary process used, it does not exist.

Copernicus and Newton were not diving authors, but they still told us how God's creation works. How is that any different from evolution?

and before you jump me on it, provide the evidence that shows there is such a thing as evolution and natural selection. none exist, it is all inferrence and conjecture.

There is a good summary here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

you hold science up to be the only field that provides answers, guess what it isn't. we do not need science to tells us anything and we would still be able to find out about God, science is not extra-special nor is it better than anything else.

No we just learn about the universe through science. It is very good at that, but it cannot tell us about the God who created the universe. The bible tells us that, though it often does so through metaphor symbols parables and allegory.

it doesn't exist.

So the problem is you think evolution doesn't exist, not that it explains processes (gives credit as you put it) the same way as gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo?

 

[shernren]

Out of interest, how do you take it metaphorically?

Digit

Context. The Corinthian church was essentially ripping itself apart with factious discords, with people claiming to follow different Christian leaders, overemphasis on flashy demonstrations of spiritual power, and a quiet forgetting of the gospel itself. Into that breach Paul steps in and reminds them about church discipline and about the unity of the body of Christ in orderly worship. His image for that is based on the idea of submission between members of the church, which can be found in Paul's "house rules" of church fellowship, laid out in general in passages like Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3. The same idea of "house rules" is apparent here, but Paul takes it in a specific direction instead of the more general expositions in Ephesians and Colossians. There may well have been some sort of sexual tension present in the church, given chapters 5 and 7 of the same letter.

Any passage of Scripture has specific lessons for its specific readers. We are only privileged eavesdroppers, as it were, and must work hard with the Spirit's guidance to distill the general lessons applicable for all believers, further finding the specific lessons for ourselves today. For me the problem with literalism is that it short-cuts this process: the specific lesson for the contemporary readers, the "obvious" or the "plain" meaning, must de facto be the specific lesson for us today. With some passages this works: commands to not murder, not commit adultery, and love God with our whole being are general and universal enough. But how do we know (as creationists widely agree) that the specific lesson of 1 Corinthians 11 for us isn't about head coverings? And by the same token, can we not know (as creationists vehemently disagree) that the specific lesson of Genesis 1 for us isn't about how long God took to create the universe? What is the difference?

And more subtly, why is there any difference? If there is any reason to modify the "plain meaning" (whatever that means) of a Bible passage, does that not open up the possibility (though not the certainty, granted) that this same modification must be made anywhere else? And does that not mean that de facto something else has to be added on to "plain meaning" to make sense of the Bible?

 

[Mallon]

sorry, this is about origin science,not forensics. besides, forensics is like any scientific field, its limited.

"that is a typical response from someone who who does not have an answer"

As it turns out, forensics is relevant to the question of origins science because, like origins science, it uses clues to reconstruct past events. And scientists are so confident in the power of forensics that we put people in prison on the basis of forensic evidence alone! So again, I ask you whether you feel murderers found guilty on the basis of forensic evidence should be released from prison.
I would also like to ask you whether you feel astronomy is a valid science, because starlight inevitably takes time to reach our eyes. For example, when I observe the sun, I am actually seeing the sun as it was 7 minutes ago, because that's how long it takes for the sun's light to reach our eyes. In other words, we are looking into the past. For that matter, it takes time for light from any source to enter our eyes and travel to our brains via action potentials. It is therefore impossible to see anything in real-time, and all observational science is thus done in the past.

Please post your quotes again and I'll have a go at 'em.

 

[archaeologist]

I thought it was great when you posted some of the context from Augustine. But then I thought you were actually basing some sort of argument on it to support your view, rather than just posting it for show

i was doing neither just providing a public service.

The YEC quote is in square brackets, but note the part in red.

i don't see how that sentence changes the point of the letter or that it proves that YEC"ers are using it wrong. technical or not, the point is all those scholars saw it as literal and they are experts in the language.

Science deals in evidence supporting or contradicting a theory

then science is of no value, is it? if it cannot provide answers, or solve problems, what good is it? also such thinking underscores and proves the title of this thread...creation is outside the scope of science and holds no authority to declare what is or isn't right.

What has that got to do with evolution

if God had used evolution, he would have written genesis in a way that would have told us that is what He did. he certainly wouldn't let people believe it tobe one way, write it that way when he used some other process. you make God out to be deceitful and a conniver who has no interest that His creation knows the actual truth.

also you show Him to be someone who could careless if subsequent generations of multiudes of people were left deceived because he let the Biblical writers do what they want.

sorry but the literal way is the correct way as it shows God to allpowerful, creative, caring and careful that there is a true witness to the world for all time and that no one was left out from hearing it.

Apart from you jaundiced view of your brothers and sisters in Christ, scripture does not 'side' with with non evolutionary thought. There are many way to interpret Genesis, there always have been

the first sentence i will not respond to as i do not want tooffend anyone. just be thankful i donot have a say in who is or isn't saved.

actually, scripture is quite clear that the truth is that God created in 6 days as stated in Gen. to say other wise, invalidates the whole Bible.

interpretations are not truth and Jesus said we shall know the truth, so i would do away with interpretations if i were you and seek the truth and it isn't found in a non-literal version of the gen. anything that changes what God has said, is not true.

Scientific evidence has shown that these interpretations were wrong.

you are assuming that science is always right and it does no wrong. sorry but science cannot prove its alternatives to the iteral creation. they need conjecture to fill in the blanks, and can offer no corroboration from any point in history.

what you are saying is, it is true because science says its true and science is correct because science says it is correct.

evrything science stands on for alternatives, comes only from non-believing scientists, so i guess circular reasoning is only good when science needs it for its credibility.

astronomers cannot prove such time frames and they are making judgments about God based upon a format that was created by God that describes probably what it would take NOW to accomplish not what it would take God to do.

creative work is not limited by the created process.

The radioactive decay used to measure the rocks can be observed in supernova explosion from millions of years ago. It hasn't changed

so science says the rocks are old because science has said that science's dating systems are correct. basically all dating systems are based upon assumptions which cannot be verified at any point in time because the so-called half-lifes are too long.

they are also based upon, ideals and not reality as the reality is an unknown. i wouldn't trust them either.

whati meant by my statement that creation beats evolution by its own rules is: science looks toobservation and testibility. well evolution's time frame excludes it from being subjective to such pronciples while the results creation can be both observed and tested, any day you would like.

It does tell us the universe is billions of years old

and yo believe science over god...is that the type of christianity you want for all men? i sure don't. i want a christianity that believes God over man and his research fields.

who would believe in a God that is trumped by science? people need help with their problems, need comfort, answers and yo have just removed thene hope they had by saying that God is a liar and that science needs to correct Him. who can take comfort in that scenario or hope to get answers for their problems?

So the problem is you think evolution doesn't exist,

i know it doesn't exist. it is a product of an unbelieving mind and has no origin or foundation in God.

No we just learn about the universe through science

again you are assuming science has it right.

 

[archaeologist]

For example, when I observe the sun, I am actually seeing the sun as it was 7 minutes ago

in an article i posted in the other thread, this idea of time frame has been challenged . read it and get back to me.

 

[Mallon]

in an article i posted in the other thread, this idea of time frame has been challenged . read it and get back to me.

Can you please provide a link to that post? If you can't find it, I'm afraid I won't be able to either.