Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

[archaeologist2]

seems someone ran home to mommie and cried becausethey did not like being told that they can't get grace till the give up their sin. i cannot change the truth and i do not change anything i dsaid in that post.

if you want grace, thenyou have to repent and give up pursuing sin, grace is not their to support or legitimize evil behavior or disobedience to God.

too many people want the blessing/benefits but do not want the cross. well to get the blessings/benefits, you must do what Christ said 'pick up your cross and follow me'

which means you have to dump evolutionary and secular teachings and follow God's words, you have to give up listening to secular science and listen to the Bible.

there is no middle ground with God.

i am not alone when i said this or what i said in my deleted post. If you turn to the book Learning Theology with the Chruch Fathers by Christopher A. Hall, pg. 217, you have the author talking about Irenaeus:

"Irenaeus leads his reader through the gospels one by one, demonstrating from matthew, mark,luke and john that gnostic teachingcannpt bear the weight of the gospel in its full presentation. He does so because of the tendancy of heretical teachers to individualistically pick and choose which texts they will treat as authoritative"

this happens with augustine as well, as many who choose alternatives take one thing he saidout of context to justify their choice against ther Bible and its accounts.

I think it is pretty clear where the grace of God is to be seen in these two posts

you forget what paul said, about sinning and grace. Romans 6:1 & 2.

Sorry archie, it is not up to you to set conditions on God's grace.

i am not the one setting the conditions, God has and you are wrong. it is amazing how people who disobey God distort scripture to justify their continual disobedience.

 

[mindlight]

Thanks for the sermon, archaeologist. I get what you're saying and I've heard it before: I'm a lying, godless heathen because I do not accept your preferred concordist interpretation of the Bible. In fact, it seems you don't even recognize your interpretation for what it is, so you equate a rejection of your position as a reject of God Himself. Forgive me if I think that's a slightly more arrogant take than my own. Suffice it to say, I don't think biblical interpretation is quite as black-and-white as what you would have us believe, and I think the very existence of 40-odd Christian denominations in the world attests to that. Believe it or not, my stance is that it's entirely possible to serve God while practicing good science that in some cases might even contradict the literal context of the Scriptures. This is, after all, a lesson taken from the Galileo Affair, the prosecutors of which used the very same arguments as yourself.
I understand you're not going to agree with everything that I say, but I'm not asking you to. All I ask is that you recognize that you might be wrong yourself, and that a rejection of your interpretation is not the same as rejecting our perfect God. Galileo didn't reject God by reinterpreting Joshua 10:12, and I am in no way doing the same by looking at the Genesis creation account in a different light. My heart goes out to gluadys who seems to be putting up with the same accusations of heresy and godlessness (from a geocentrist, no less) here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49812586&postcount=244. Her words echo my sentiments exactly.

Creation testifies to God so the proper study of it cannot be agnostic but you make some good points here

 

[yeshuasavedme]

This is not a distraction from God -- so where is it from?

?

From your own old, dead Adam nature, of course. -that's why the Apostles slept while He prayed in the Garden, and that's why Paul wrote of the struggle of the old dead Adam nature we all have [ Rom 7:18 -25], who have been regenerated in Spirit and wait for the adoption of the body in the regeneration of it, too, in the resurrection of it.

When we are born again in Christ we are from that moment dual natured: old man and new man.
But we are to die daily after the manner of the old Adam nature. Jesus said to take up our cross and follow Him; and that means to crucify the old man, dying "daily" to his inherent nature.
Jesus is dual natured since the incarnation, too. YHWH in Spirit and Israel in New Man nature. We get the best deal since He adopts us from Adam and gives us regeneration in His own Living Spirit.

 

[Assyrian]

i am not alone when i said this or what i said in my deleted post. If you turn to the book Learning Theology with the Chruch Fathers by Christopher A. Hall, pg. 217, you have the author talking about Irenaeus:

"Irenaeus leads his reader through the gospels one by one, demonstrating from matthew, mark,luke and john that gnostic teachingcannpt bear the weight of the gospel in its full presentation. He does so because of the tendancy of heretical teachers to individualistically pick and choose which texts they will treat as authoritative"

this happens with augustine as well, as many who choose alternatives take one thing he saidout of context to justify their choice against ther Bible and its accounts.

So it is all right to pick and chose references references Irenaeus, but not Augustine? What has the gnostic rejection of the Old Testament and most of the New got to do with TEs? It is your interpretation of scripture we reject, not God's inspired word. Unless you equate your interpretation with the word of God and think anyone who dares disagree with you is rejecting God.

you forget what paul said, about sinning and grace. Romans 6:1 & 2.

The Pharisees made up loads of rules and pour out their hatred and condemnation on everyone who did not follow them. Jesus grace was much more loving and accepting. He called people to a higher standard than even the Pharisees and told them to sin no more. but he did not condemn them. John 8:11 Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more. Because we have received mercy and grace we are expected to show mercy and grace to others. Matt 18:33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? If you understood the grace mercy and love God has shown you, you would show a lot more grace and mercy to others.

Instead of you make up your man made rules about having to rejecting evolution and pout out your hatred and condemnation on everyone who does not agree with you. Matt 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

i am not the one setting the conditions, God has and you are wrong. it is amazing how people who disobey God distort scripture to justify their continual disobedience.

Nah. Your rules and conditions. Your claim than any interpretation of scripture that disagrees with yours is a sin. Your distortion of scriptures that warn against following the lusts and passions of the world into a claim we must reject science. Which hypocritically you type out on a computer.

 

[mindlight]

So it is all right to pick and chose references references Irenaeus, but not Augustine? What has the gnostic rejection of the Old Testament and most of the New got to do with TEs? It is your interpretation of scripture we reject, not God's inspired word. Unless you equate your interpretation with the word of God and think anyone who dares disagree with you is rejecting God.

The Pharisees made up loads of rules and pour out their hatred and condemnation on everyone who did not follow them. Jesus grace was much more loving and accepting. He called people to a higher standard than even the Pharisees and told them to sin no more. but he did not condemn them. John 8:11 Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more. Because we have received mercy and grace we are expected to show mercy and grace to others. Matt 18:33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? If you understood the grace mercy and love God has shown you, you would show a lot more grace and mercy to others.

Instead of you make up your man made rules about having to rejecting evolution and pout out your hatred and condemnation on everyone who does not agree with you. Matt 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Nah. Your rules and conditions. Your claim than any interpretation of scripture that disagrees with yours is a sin. Your distortion of scriptures that warn against following the lusts and passions of the world into a claim we must reject science. Which hypocritically you type out on a computer.

The Pharisees were denounced by Jesus for their hypocrisy, judgmentalism, selfrighteousness and external material focus. But he did not say they were wrong about the resurrection, angels, Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or creation for instance.

Is it possible the Pharisees were closely to the truth than the more worldly Saducees but were a greater afront to it also because of the way they lived and communicated it.

It is possible that many of us YECs argue in the wrong way and do not live up to many of things we say. BUt that by itself does not invalidate what we say.

There is a Marcionite tendency in many TEs in that they seem to accept the NT hook line and sinker and then reinterpret the difficult OT passages on Creation, war and women for instance.

 

[archaeologist2]

It is your interpretation of scripture we reject, not God's inspired word. Unless you equate your interpretation with the word of God and think anyone who dares disagree with you is rejecting God.

people who want to follow the secular world or other sinful ways, always hide behind this idea of 'interpretation' it is their escape clause to ensure that they can feel good about what they pursue and reject.

'interpretation' is not a subjective thing as there is only 1 truth not multitudes of truths. Jesus said 'I am the way , the truth...' He affirmed Gen 1 thus evolution and its variants are not true.

The Pharisees made up loads of rules and pour out their hatred and condemnation on everyone who did not follow them

this is another great hiding place for those who reject the Bible. they forget that God has rules, if He didn't then He could not sit in judgment in the end. everyone would be allowed to get to heaven.

those who reject much of scripture and hang to the parts they like hate this fact because it means they cannot do whatthey want. thus they charge those who follow God with being pharisees which allow them to continue pursuing disobedience to God.

He called people to a higher standard than even the Pharisees and told them to sin no more. but he did not condemn them

try reading your Bible again and you willsee many places where God condemns people. one such NEW T. passage is 'if they do not accept the message you bring....take off your sandals and knock the dust of that village from them...and it will be worse for them at the judgment' God does condemn those who reject His salvation and His ways.

Because we have received mercy and grace we are expected to show mercy and grace to others.

the misapplication of that portion of scripture is astounding. the women repented and received a warning not to sin, you are looking for mercy and grace to CONTINUE IN SIN AND DISOBEDIENCE. there is a big difference between TEs and that accused woman.

If you understood the grace mercy and love God has shown you, you would show a lot more grace and mercy to others.

i am not the one who misunderstands mercy and grace. one does not go to God and receive salvation then turn around and declare you can do what you want, even calling God a liar and destroying His word. if you want mercy and grace thenyou repent of your sins, reject any form of evolution and live for God. until then you are under judgment as paul so brilliantly explained.

Instead of you make up your man made rules about having to rejecting evolution and pout out your hatred and condemnation on everyone who does not agree with you

no one is making up man made rules, these are the rules of God. you have to reject sin and turn from it if you want to be with God--his rules, evolution is sin and not of God.

God does the condemning not me, i do not have that authority. if you want God, salvation, and heaven then you give up pursuing sin, you give up disobeying God and you give up listening to the devil. those are God's rules and it is stated very clearly throughout scripture.

evolution is the powerful delusion mentioned in scripture which many, many people will believe. sound doctrine is that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour day. what secular scientists say is not the truth and God is very clear about the devil and his work. if you reject that God given fact thenyou will never find the truth and continue to be deceived.

 

[marlowe007]

There is a Marcionite tendency in many TEs in that they seem to accept the NT hook line and sinker and then reinterpret the difficult OT passages on Creation, war and women for instance.

Actually, Marcion was a YEC. For him, neither the creation story of Genesis nor the OT as a whole was to be reinterpreted on their grounds of their accuracy but rather in terms of the God portrayed in them. He concluded that the Christians God was a completely different, benevolent deity, and not at all the same as the one in the OT.

Conversely, TE's reinterpret Genesis in light of its accuracy, and they don't deny that the Christian God is the same one portrayed in the OT.

 

[artybloke]

The Pharisees were denounced by Jesus for their hypocrisy, judgmentalism, selfrighteousness and external material focus. But he did not say they were wrong about the resurrection, angels, Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or creation for instance.

Did it ever come up in conversation? And Jesus was a 1st century Jew, so why would he have known any more than they?

 

[Mallon]

Creation testifies to God so the proper study of it cannot be agnostic but you make some good points here

Thanks, mindlight. I agree that creation testifies to God's creative prowess (e.g., Rom 1:20), but by definition, this isn't something that science can tell us. I think the conclusion that God designed the universe is outside of science. That doesn't mean it is somehow less pertinent or powerful a conclusion, only that we cannot come to it using a tool designed specifically to tell us about the natural world. I think there is instinctual, gut-feeling evidence for God, but nothing empirical. After all, if we could prove God's existence empirically, we wouldn't need faith. And if there's one thing the Bible stresses, it's the need for faith.

 

[Assyrian]

The Pharisees were denounced by Jesus for their hypocrisy, judgmentalism, selfrighteousness and external material focus. But he did not say they were wrong about the resurrection, angels, Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or creation for instance.

Is it possible the Pharisees were closely to the truth than the more worldly Saducees but were a greater afront to it also because of the way they lived and communicated it.

It is possible that many of us YECs argue in the wrong way and do not live up to many of things we say. BUt that by itself does not invalidate what we say.

Of course. Though is must be said it was encountering the hatred in anti evolution preaching, and recognising that it was not the Spirit of Christ, that caused me to question if it really was what the bible taught. I agree the Pharisees really had a lot good going on in their theology and that the theology of the early church was built on that of the Pharisees. But do you know that the Pharisees took Genesis literally? Josephus was a Pharisee and while he took the six days literally, he though the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical. Other Jews at the time like Philo thought all of the creation account allegorical. So while allegorical interpretation of the Creation account were current even among the Pharisees, Jesus never took issue with them. Instead when he did refer to Genesis it was to give an allegorical reading of Gen 2 as a lesson about marriage.

There is a Marcionite tendency in many TEs in that they seem to accept the NT hook line and sinker and then reinterpret the difficult OT passages on Creation, war and women for instance.

I learned the importance of metaphor from Jesus, the way the disciples did, trying to grapple with the meaning of his metaphors and parables. What is wrong with reinterpreting passages in scripture when you find the old interpretation was wrong? Isn't that what the church did during the Reformation when science discovered the earth went round the sun and they learned old geocentrist interpretation held for a millennium and a half were wrong? How is what TEs do any different, except that there are scriptural grounds to reinterpret Genesis?

 

[Assyrian]

people who want to follow the secular world or other sinful ways, always hide behind this idea of 'interpretation' it is their escape clause to ensure that they can feel good about what they pursue and reject.

'interpretation' is not a subjective thing as there is only 1 truth not multitudes of truths. Jesus said 'I am the way , the truth...'

So unless you want to elevate yourself to the position of Christ, you are neither the way, the truth, nor the life. There is absolute truth. But you are not it. All you have is you limited and fallible understanding of the truth, your interpretation.

He affirmed Gen 1 thus evolution and its variants are not true.

When did Jesus affirm a literal six day creation, or is it just that because he mentions Genesis you think he affirmed you interpretation of Genesis? Jesus held Genesis to be the authoritative word of God, I agree totally. I just don't take your interpretation as authoritative.

this is another great hiding place for those who reject the Bible. they forget that God has rules, if He didn't then He could not sit in judgment in the end. everyone would be allowed to get to heaven.

those who reject much of scripture and hang to the parts they like hate this fact because it means they cannot do whatthey want. thus they charge those who follow God with being pharisees which allow them to continue pursuing disobedience to God.

Except we are not rejecting God's rules, we are rejecting your man made rules. Just because God had rules, it did not excuse the Pharisees making up their own and condemning those who did not follow them.

try reading your Bible again and you willsee many places where God condemns people. one such NEW T. passage is 'if they do not accept the message you bring....take off your sandals and knock the dust of that village from them...and it will be worse for them at the judgment' God does condemn those who reject His salvation and His ways.

So which are you when condemn people for not accepting your anti evolution message, a message very different from the good news Jesus sent the disciples out with? If you bring you own message and your own rules and condemn those who do not accept you, are you a disciple or a Pharisee?

Even if you are a disciple looking for scriptural excuses to judge and condemn, remember what Jesus said when James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan village. Luke 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them, "You don't know of what kind of spirit you are.

the misapplication of that portion of scripture is astounding. the women repented and received a warning not to sin, you are looking for mercy and grace to CONTINUE IN SIN AND DISOBEDIENCE. there is a big difference between TEs and that accused woman.

What sin and disobedience? Oh I am well aware of my faults, but the things you condemn TEs for are not sins and disobedience because we are only refusing to follow your rules.

But lets say you are right and evolution is wrong, do you stand up in you own righteousness and condemn everyone who disagrees with you, or do you try to show them gently where they are wrong? If you knew the grace God shows you, forgiving the sins you confess as well as those you remain stubbornly blind to, you would not be so fast to condemn fellow believers who do not interpret scripture the way you do, even if you are right and they are wrong.

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

2Tim 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

But seeing as all you have are your own man made rules about having to reject evolution as a condition for God grace, then the verse that really applies is Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

i am not the one who misunderstands mercy and grace. one does not go to God and receive salvation then turn around and declare you can do what you want, even calling God a liar and destroying His word. if you want mercy and grace thenyou repent of your sins, reject any form of evolution and live for God. until then you are under judgment as paul so brilliantly explained.

Rejecting evolution as a condition of the gospel was not the message Jesus gave the disciples. I am afraid that is a false gospel you are preaching there archie.

no one is making up man made rules, these are the rules of God. you have to reject sin and turn from it if you want to be with God--his rules, evolution is sin and not of God.

There you go with you man made rules. We only have your opinion that evolution is a sin.

God does the condemning not me, i do not have that authority. if you want God, salvation, and heaven then you give up pursuing sin, you give up disobeying God and you give up listening to the devil. those are God's rules and it is stated very clearly throughout scripture.

I am sure the Pharisees would have claimed it was actually God's law that condemned the disciples. Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." What had the Pharisees done? Had they set up a court and judges the disciples? Had they claimed they had the authority to condemn not God? No they just told Jesus his disciples were doing what is unlawful. Yet Jesus said that the Pharisees had condemned the innocent. Jesus idea of what it means to condemn people seems a bit different from yours. Don't hide behind claims you are not condemning people, if you are going to judge people and condemn them, at least admit that is what you are doing.

evolution is the powerful delusion mentioned in scripture which many, many people will believe. sound doctrine is that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour day. what secular scientists say is not the truth and God is very clear about the devil and his work. if you reject that God given fact thenyou will never find the truth and continue to be deceived.

The only delusion I see here is your claim evolution is a delusion mentioned in scripture.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

When did Jesus affirm a literal six day creation, or is it just that because he mentions Genesis you think he affirmed you interpretation of Genesis? Jesus held Genesis to be the authoritative word of God, I agree totally. I just don't take your interpretation as authoritative.
.

When Jesus did affirm a literal six day creation, from the beginning;
Jesus is God the Word, now come incarnate, who in the beginning said; "Let there be Light", and there was light".
In fact; from the beginning to the end the Word of God affirms that God the Word is YHWH in the second Person, and is the only Person in YHWH whom any created being has ever, does ever, or shall ever see.

Jesus said this, in the beginning; Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were echad/one day.

Jesus said this, post incarnation; Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?

Affirmed indeed!

 

[archaeologist2]

So unless you want to elevate yourself to the position of Christ, you are neither the way, the truth, nor the life. There is absolute truth. But you are not it. All you have is you limited and fallible understanding of the truth, your interpretati

attacking the messenger to justify one's ignoring of the truth

When did Jesus affirm a literal six day creation, or is it just that because he mentions Genesis you think he affirmed you interpretation of Genesis? Jesus held Genesis to be the authoritative word of God, I agree totally. I just don't take your interpretation as authoritative

looking for loopholes to continue to practice sin

Except we are not rejecting God's rules, we are rejecting your man made rules. Just because God had rules, it did not excuse the Pharisees making up their own and condemning those who did not follow them.

redefining definitions and using the pharisees as a comparison to continue to disobey God.

So which are you when condemn people for not accepting your anti evolution message, a message very different from the good news Jesus sent the disciples out with? If you bring you own message and your own rules and condemn those who do not accept you, are you a disciple or a Pharisee?

poor application of scripture to suport one's sinful desires.

But lets say you are right and evolution is wrong, do you stand up in you own righteousness and condemn everyone who disagrees with you, or do you try to show them gently where they are wrong?

now using the limitations of binary to attack the other person and falsely accuse them so you can dismiss their words. as i wrote to the moderator, you cannot read my mind nor can you judge my attitude or emotions from the printed words on the screen

But seeing as all you have are your own man made rules about having to reject evolution as a condition for God grace,

false labeling of what a person is saying so one can continue toignore God's word. you have been told over and over gently and you have ignored the warnings and continued down your sinful path. evolution is not of God, it is sin and until you reject sin, you get no grace

Rejecting evolution as a condition of the gospel was not the message Jesus gave the disciples. I am afraid that is a false gospel you are preaching there archie.

you are wrong again, as one is to repent from sin. each issue does not have to be mentioned by name to be sin and Christ did not have to be mention everything by name either for it to be sin. such things like evolution are covered in other verses.

There you go with you man made rules. We only have your opinion that evolution is a sin.

false labeling to practice avoidance of reality

I am sure the Pharisees

equating people with the pharisees because they won't allow you to have your cake and eat it, is lying and looking for an escape route to justify your continuance in sin.

what you forget is that you have been told gently over and over about evolution and it has been carefully explained to you that evolutionis not of God. but because you keep mis-applying scriptures or ignore the warnings to continue to excuse your disobedience and practice of sin, the time for gentleness and explanation has past.

you use the lackof specific words in scripture to excuse your disobedience and that is wrong and the impression i get is that God is tired ofyou making a mockery of Him and His words. you follow after the world like God does not exist or hasn't spoken and that is very wrong. then you only look at the scriptures which you like or tell you what you want to hear and are not honest with them or yourself. you ignore those passages which tell you to alter your ways because it means giving up something you want--- the world's ways

here is your last warning:

friendship with the world is emnity with God
what fellowship does darkness have with light.

 

[mindlight]

Did it ever come up in conversation? And Jesus was a 1st century Jew, so why would he have known any more than they?

The discussion in Matthew 19 alludes to the creation account. Also silence is affirmation in this case. This was the assumed view of his audience and Jesus saw no reason to challenge it.

Jesus did know more than his audience on many occasions in the gospels e.g. the prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem. Or when he healed people without even seeing them and said go your faith has made him/her well. Or that he would rise after 3 days.

If we accept a supernatural origin to his views on these things why not on creation also. The TE hermeneutic is inconsistent.

My answer to the OP would be YECs do not need to do science focused only on the natural order, nor accept the naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions of such science because the primary source evidence appears to be ignored by this method.e.g. the Bible (the eyewitness account of events)

 

[mindlight]

Thanks, mindlight. I agree that creation testifies to God's creative prowess (e.g., Rom 1:20), but by definition, this isn't something that science can tell us. I think the conclusion that God designed the universe is outside of science. That doesn't mean it is somehow less pertinent or powerful a conclusion, only that we cannot come to it using a tool designed specifically to tell us about the natural world. I think there is instinctual, gut-feeling evidence for God, but nothing empirical. After all, if we could prove God's existence empirically, we wouldn't need faith. And if there's one thing the Bible stresses, it's the need for faith.

I can respect that you understand and play the science game according to it rules and still honestly consider that you have been misled. Not by this or that statement but by the underlying assumptions of the science colossus whose rules you follow.

if the natural order testifies to God as the bible says then doing the kind of science that ignores the relevance of this to what is studied must be flawed in its basic premises. it can proiduce good fruit up to a certain point because of its rigour and consistency. But with its uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions it will get it wrong on stuff that the empirical method is of little use for e.g explaining origins and remote features of the universe

 

[mindlight]

Of course. Though is must be said it was encountering the hatred in anti evolution preaching, and recognising that it was not the Spirit of Christ, that caused me to question if it really was what the bible taught.

Christians should hate sins and errors not sinners.

I agree the Pharisees really had a lot good going on in their theology and that the theology of the early church was built on that of the Pharisees. But do you know that the Pharisees took Genesis literally? Josephus was a Pharisee and while he took the six days literally, he though the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical.

Yes the Jewish calendar even dated creation and was accepted by all religious Jews.

Josephus is not the best example of a Pharisee but like most jews of his day believed in young earth 6 day creation.

Other Jews at the time like Philo thought all of the creation account allegorical. So while allegorical interpretation of the Creation account were current even among the Pharisees, Jesus never took issue with them. Instead when he did refer to Genesis it was to give an allegorical reading of Gen 2 as a lesson about marriage.

The quote makes no sense if it was not a literal adam and eve being discussed. Philo was Greek in his thinking and lived in Alexandria not Jerusalem

I learned the importance of metaphor from Jesus, the way the disciples did, trying to grapple with the meaning of his metaphors and parables. What is wrong with reinterpreting passages in scripture when you find the old interpretation was wrong? Isn't that what the church did during the Reformation when science discovered the earth went round the sun and they learned old geocentrist interpretation held for a millennium and a half were wrong? How is what TEs do any different, except that there are scriptural grounds to reinterpret Genesis?

Jesus symbols always connect with literal historical realities that were apparent to his audience e.g being robbed on way to jerusalem.

Geocentricism is something that science can disprove, the origins of the universe or its remote places remain inaccessible to the methodology.

 

[Assyrian]

When did Jesus affirm a literal six day creation, or is it just that because he mentions Genesis you think he affirmed you interpretation of Genesis? Jesus held Genesis to be the authoritative word of God, I agree totally. I just don't take your interpretation as authoritative.

When Jesus did affirm a literal six day creation, from the beginning;
Jesus is God the Word, now come incarnate, who in the beginning said; "Let there be Light", and there was light".
In fact; from the beginning to the end the Word of God affirms that God the Word is YHWH in the second Person, and is the only Person in YHWH whom any created being has ever, does ever, or shall ever see.

Jesus said this, in the beginning; Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were echad/one day.

Of course Jesus is the incarnate word of God and inspired all the scriptures, including Genesis and the OT. But when creationists talk of Jesus affirming Genesis, they are usually claiming that the words of Jesus in the gospels, God incarnate, supports their view of Genesis. And Jesus did open up the OT scriptures for his disciple to understand and he did teach his disciples to interpret the OT. What he did not do was affirm the YEC interpretation of scripture. Personally I think it is really important to learn how to understand scripture from Jesus Christ, rather than man like Ken Ham.

Jesus said this, post incarnation; Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?

Affirmed indeed!

So, was Jesus talking about the Genesis creation days here? If he wasn't talking about Genesis and showing us its meaning, you can hardly claim he is affirming a literal six day creation.

Look at the rest of Jesus' statement. John 11:9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him." Do you really think Jesus is continuing to talk about a literal day and night here?

What do you think Jesus meant by the light of the world?
John 9:4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Was Jesus really just talking about safety out walking after sunset when he talked about walking in the night?
John 12:35 So Jesus said to them, "The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.

It is interesting that such an apparently literal statement "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" is not actually teaching about literal day and night at all.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus said this, post incarnation; Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?

Well then, Jesus was wrong, because there are 24 hours in a day. Of course, there were 12 hours in a Roman day, so he was also right and maybe he was accomodating himself to the customs of the day. Not unlike the writers of Genesis, eh?

 

[shernren]

Horrifying exegetical misuse of Scripture. And what Jesus said isn't even universally true. In Brisbane where I was not too long ago, the sun rose at 5:30am and set at 7:30pm. That's a 14-hour-day.

Was Jesus wrong?

 

[Mallon]

if the natural order testifies to God as the bible says then doing the kind of science that ignores the relevance of this to what is studied must be flawed in its basic premises.

I wouldn't say science is basically flawed. I would say it's limited.
Science is rooted in what we can experience with our five senses. As such, it can tell us that the universe appears ordered and designed (something even Dawkins agrees with), but it cannot tell us whether there is, in fact, a designer and who that might be. There will always be a leap of faith involved with coming to God. If there weren't, we could never freely choose to love God because God would be an inescapable conclusion of nature. As the Bible says, you can't have faith in something you can see.
So I agree that the creation attests to God, as the Bible says. But the scientific study of it does not. We must be able to recognize the limits of what science can tell us and to step beyond them before we can comment about the existence of a creator. And given that science, by definition, can only get us so far, there's nothing wrong in doing that.
Interestingly, it's the fundamentalist creationists and atheists who opt to ignore the limitations of science, and who want to use science to comment on God's existence. The former say science can be used to prove God; the latter say science can be used to disprove God. I see this as a fundamental abuse of science, much like trying to use a hammer to connect to the internet. We can't blame a hammer for not being able to get us online, and we can't blame science for not being able to inform us about God's existence -- that's simply not what these things were designed to do. Again, there comes a point when we must recognize the limitations of what our tools can do, and then pick up different tools (like a modem or theology) in order to reach the end we seek.