question for YEC believers

[gluadys]

You are correct, some YEC appear to ignore the evidence. However, that is not to say all do. There are some very honest and brilliant minds within the YEC camp, just as there is with the OEC camp.

I would say even the honest ones are using their brilliance to find reasons to dismiss the evidence. The honest ones, are those that state forthrightly, as you have been doing, that the reason they dismiss the evidence is their theological orientation. It is not a matter of disagreeing with scientists' conclusions about the scientific meaning of the evidence.

I'll have to disagree with you when you say that it is my philosophical foundation that pressures me to ignore the evidence. I personal try my best to give proper consideration to all pieces of evidence that falls my way.

Again, we all examine and study the same body of physical evidence.

I am sure you do, but more of that below.

True, but naturalistic philosophy also allows for the idea that there is no God. This cannot be said of my philosophical position.

One has to look at the context and history of word usage. In the early 19th century the term "biologist" had not been invented yet and scientists we would now refer to as "biologists" were called "naturalists". This did not imply that they held a God-denying philosophy. (Similarly, what we would now call a Department or Faculty of Science at a university was then referred to as a Department or Faculty of Natural Philosophy, with no suggestion that this was anti-theist.) However, because we have now invented different terms ("science", "biologist") the use of "natural philosophy", "naturalism", "naturalistic" have acquired an association with the philosophical position that "Nature is all there is" or as Carl Sagan put it: "The cosmos is all there is or has been or ever will be."

My point is that a scientific or natural explanation of anything in nature does not imply adoption of this philosophy of naturalism. Every Christian is aware of natural explanations of things like rainbows for example and their acceptance of this naturalistic explanation does not mean they are kowtowing to philosophical naturalism.

The same holds true for believers who accept natural explanations of geological formations.

True, my point here was to show that we come to different conclusions of this "amount" of time based on our philosophical bias. I may see certain geological formations being formed rather quickly through a series of catastrophes, where you may see the very same geological formation and interpret it's "maturity - or wear" in another fashion, such as through some long uniform process. Or we may hold that a mixture of both occured but vary on how much of each.

And if we are geologists, we put our hypotheses to the test to see which best accords with our observations. We study various processes to see which produce similar observations.

This is what I mean by us having the same physical evidence but come to wide ranges of conclusions all based on our philosophical assumptions. The physical evidence we have is is not objective, it is subjective.

Here is a clear-cut example of why I say that fundamentally, YE creationism undermines the first principle of Christian belief: namely that God created. A physical world which God created is necessarily objective. It is external to any one person or group of people. And it will appear to any one person or group of people the same way in the same circumstances. If one really believes in creation, one must affirm the objective reality of physical evidence.

The only meaning the physical evidence has is the meaning we apply to it.

Here I agree. Interpretation of physical evidence is not necessarily objective. This is why interpretations need to be evaluated. Science is the best tool we know of by which to evaluate interpretations of physical evidence.

It's all based on biblical hermeneutics.

The decision to give priority to literal interpretation has no exclusive claim to be called "biblical" hermeneutics. That is a poisoning the well argument since it implies that a different hermeneutical approach is by definition not "biblical".

The creation story exhibits a literary style that demands a literal interpretation.

That is a matter of opinion. I have seen very good arguments to the contrary.

In fact, it is the most natural reading of the text.

Natural to whom? I cannot recall any time in my life, even as a child, when I thought of the creation stories as literal rather than literary. And what about the first audience which was much more familiar with stories than with modern prosaic reportage. The "natural reading" of a text is strongly influenced by cultural notions of what is "natural".

In this case, as with all biblical texts, the appropriate "natural reading" is the one that accords with the cultural context of the time and place it was written. That is very often not equivalent to a 21st century North American "natural reading".

You'd have to provide a logical reason to interpret the text outside its natural and plain reading. And you can't say that science or the evidence requires it, because those conclusions are assumptions based on a fragile philosophical system. You must provide something objective.

First one needs to establish the real natural and plain reading of the text. Next one needs to account for any accommodation made in inspired scripture to the knowledge base and culture in which the scripture was written. It is noteworthy for example that no scripture speaks of scientific information discovered after the time it was written. Not once, for example, does scripture speak of disease being caused by bacteria or viruses, presumably because no one to whom it was originally addressed knew such things existed. Rather, as was customary at the time, diseases are attributed to demons and healing to the casting out of demons.

Physical evidence is objective since it is provided by the creator. Scientific conclusions about physical evidence do not depend on philosophical systems. That is why science can be so trans-cultural with scientists of all sorts of different philosophical persuasions working together, replicating each others observations, and agreeing on conclusions.

Science is still an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself; scientific conclusions are probable, not definite. But the onus is on the dissenter to show how the evidence supports a different conclusion.

This happens regularly in science as we see in the relatively recent adoption of plate tectonics to explain many geological features. It took nearly 40 years of research to convince the scientific community that this was a better explanation.

I think you've misunderstood what it means when YECs say they interpret the Bible literally. When Jesus calls Herod a fox, do YEC literally think Herod was a fox? No, we notice this is a literary device that has a literal interpretation. That literal interpretation is Herod was clever.

Jig, I have been through this conversation more times than I can count. You are fiddling with the definition of "literal" in order to call an interpretation "literal" when it is not. The use of a literary device means that the expression is NOT to be interpreted literally. The literal meaning of "fox" is the animal of that name. The literal meaning of "Herod is a fox" is that Herod is the name of an animal of that species. But we correctly understand that this is not Jesus' meaning. He is using a literary device known as a metaphor, and the METAPHORICAL (not literal) meaning is Herod is clever (or more likely "sly".)

By referring to the metaphorical meaning as a literal meaning, you are taking the position of another creationist I had this conversation with when she concluded of a passage we were discussing "Well, it's literally figurative." What an oxymoron.

No, I don't misunderstand the YEC meaning of "literal". I know that a basically literal approach to scripture does not rule out the existence of literary devices. But I do find, again and again, that YECs don't understand the actual meaning of "literal". They extend the meaning in multiple directions to cover both literal and figurative meanings. They also use it to mean "plain" as if metaphors and other literary devices are not plain and easily understood. Some use it to mean "prose" as if prose never contains literary devices and poetry never contains anything but literary devices. And some even equate it with "true". None of these are legitimate meanings of "literal" as applied to a text.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with a universe being of immense age. I just don't believe in it.

The point is not whether it is problematical to hold the universe is old. The point is why is authority granted to a hermeneutical principle (which is, by definition, of human origin) to disallow consideration of physical evidence (which is, by definition, of divine origin)? Doesn't humility in the face of what God has presented to us in creation suggest we should order our hermeneutics appropriately to recognize this data?

This conclusion is based on a faulty understanding of literal interpretation.

Says the one who has just demonstrated his own misunderstanding of the meaning of "literal interpretation". Btw, I realize this is not a personal failing of yours. It is endemic to the whole YEC perspective. But the outcome is that "literal" has no longer any bounded meaning within YE interpretations. The only significant meaning it now has is "whatever YEC teachers say it means".

Wait one second. You are phrasing your comment in a way that assumes my interpretation is false. This is unfair. Truth may very well be within my position.

No, the phrasing does not contain that assumption unless you put it there. Truth may be within your position. It is still the case that it is truth one should be defending, nothing else.

But when you use a hermeneutical principle of interpreting scripture to decide that some physical evidence is to be given no weight, you are no longer defending truth, either scriptural or scientific. You are only defending the hermeneutical principle itself. If the principle of interpretation you are applying to scripture is itself valid, it ought not to have problems with any physical evidence.

I consider it weak because the text does not require a non-literal interpretation nor is it necessary. It is only applied because of ideas within naturalism and conclusions about our universe and planet that can not be known for sure.

By "naturalism" do you mean "a philosophy of naturalism that denies the reality of anything supernatural"? If that is the case, you are basically saying that science is inherently atheistic. And that is plainly false, given that so many Christians are involved in science with no impairment or compromise to their faith.

 

[Jig]

I would say even the honest ones are using their brilliance to find reasons to dismiss the evidence. The honest ones, are those that state forthrightly, as you have been doing, that the reason they dismiss the evidence is their theological orientation. It is not a matter of disagreeing with scientists' conclusions about the scientific meaning of the evidence.

And vise-versa. The reasons OECs dismiss the young Earth interpretation of the evidence is their philosophical orientation.

One has to look at the context and history of word usage.

I'm not saying that all who subscribe to OECism hold a philosophy in complete contradiction to theism. All I said was that fundamentally their philosophy easily allows the non-existence of God. The same cannot be said of the philosophical position of YEC.

And if we are geologists, we put our hypotheses to the test to see which best accords with our observations. We study various processes to see which produce similar observations.

There is a fundamental problem here. Methodological naturalism can only reference natural causes and events. If a supernatural being is the cause for an event, this methodology fails at communicating this. It is limited to natural occurrence. Since God is real and His acts can go beyond own known physical universe, its conclusions have a chance at being erroneous even when they appear solid.

Here I agree. Interpretation of physical evidence is not necessarily objective. This is why interpretations need to be evaluated. Science is the best tool we know of by which to evaluate interpretations of physical evidence.

I beg to differ. As I explained above, it is hindered by its limitations.

That is a matter of opinion. I have seen very good arguments to the contrary.

I'm sure you do. I also assume they conform to your own personal bias.

Natural to whom? I cannot recall any time in my life, even as a child, when I thought of the creation stories as literal rather than literary. And what about the first audience which was much more familiar with stories than with modern prosaic reportage. The "natural reading" of a text is strongly influenced by cultural notions of what is "natural".

Natural to the audience that received the text originally. There is no indication it was meant to be understood in another way. Even the Greeks and Vikings believed in their creation myths as literal happenings.

In this case, as with all biblical texts, the appropriate "natural reading" is the one that accords with the cultural context of the time and place it was written. That is very often not equivalent to a 21st century North American "natural reading".

This is why I applied the principal of hermeneutics.

First one needs to establish the real natural and plain reading of the text. Next one needs to account for any accommodation made in inspired scripture to the knowledge base and culture in which the scripture was written. It is noteworthy for example that no scripture speaks of scientific information discovered after the time it was written. Not once, for example, does scripture speak of disease being caused by bacteria or viruses, presumably because no one to whom it was originally addressed knew such things existed. Rather, as was customary at the time, diseases are attributed to demons and healing to the casting out of demons.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as demons?

Scientific conclusions about physical evidence do not depend on philosophical systems.

PROVE THIS STATEMENT!

Jig, I have been through this conversation more times than I can count. You are fiddling with the definition of "literal" in order to call an interpretation "literal" when it is not. The use of a literary device means that the expression is NOT to be interpreted literally. The literal meaning of "fox" is the animal of that name. The literal meaning of "Herod is a fox" is that Herod is the name of an animal of that species. But we correctly understand that this is not Jesus' meaning. He is using a literary device known as a metaphor, and the METAPHORICAL (not literal) meaning is Herod is clever (or more likely "sly".)

Maybe I should be clearer.

The literal meaning of the text is what the author meant with their words.

Better?

No, I don't misunderstand the YEC meaning of "literal".

Are you really going to play this game? Okay sure, you know more about what I believe that I do. You are mistaken.

Doesn't humility in the face of what God has presented to us in creation suggest we should order our hermeneutics appropriately to recognize this data?

No way! We the reader do not get to apply meaning to the text, the author does. That is proper hermeneutics.

Look at the Constitution as an example. Is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court Justice to interpret the document themselves or to determine what the authors meant when they originally wrote it?

Says the one who has just demonstrated his own misunderstanding of the meaning of "literal interpretation". Btw, I realize this is not a personal failing of yours. It is endemic to the whole YEC perspective. But the outcome is that "literal" has no longer any bounded meaning within YE interpretations. The only significant meaning it now has is "whatever YEC teachers say it means".

This is a direct insult to me. You've assumed too much.

it ought not to have problems with any physical evidence.

You are not listening!! It is not the physical evidence I have a problem with. It is your interpretation of that evidence!

 

[Mallon]

Jig, would you say that the objective of creation science is to test the scientific claims made by the Bible?

 

[Partaker of Christ]

If it were just a matter of how old the material is, no problem. But we still have to look at what we actually find in creation. Did God, 6,000 years ago create what appear to be ancient skeletons of animals that never existed? Did he create termites' nests and ancient river beds hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth to give the impression of a paleontological and geological history? Did he create the shells of trillions of marine animals to build chalk cliffs with even though the animals themselves never existed? What of coral atolls, made (apparently) of the skeletons of once living corals? What of ancient fossil clam shells that exhibit fine lines corresponding to the diurnal rotation of the earth, providing a time-line of ancient history that never was?

What of the archeological remains of human habitations which are more than 6,000 years old? Did God create them too?

We know materials can be older than the formations (natural or manufactured) they are found in. One reason radiometric dating is not used on sedimentary rock is because sediments are made of eroded rock which is necessarily older than the layer of sediment. But there is much more to account for than the material alone.

You ask a lot of questions with 'did God'
I honestly do not know what God did, but do you say that God cannot do those things?

Here is my stand:
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

God made the heavens and the earth in six days.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Jesus Himself said; From the beginning of creation God made them (Mankind) male and female.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

According to the generations of Jesus, Adam (the first man) was about 4,000 years before Christ.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[Mallon]

Let's not forget these scientific gems!

Job 38:13-14:
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

1 Chronicles 16:30:
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Job 37:18:
can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Mark 13:25:
the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

You're a compromised Christian if you don't believe that the earth is flat and immobile, that the sky is a solid dome, and that the stars are mere pinpricks of light fastened to the firmament and will one day fall to earth!

 

[Mallon]

Re: whether we should default to a literal/concordist reading of the Genesis creation accounts, biblical scholar Pete Enns has begun a series of blog posts over at Biologos that addresses the issue. Here's Part 1:

Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 1) | The BioLogos Forum

Pete provides some excellent Scriptural reasons why this should not be the case.

 

[crawfish]

Hope you don't mind if I horn in a bit.

And vise-versa. The reasons OECs dismiss the young Earth interpretation of the evidence is their philosophical orientation.

The reason that OEC/EC's dismiss the Young Earth interpretation is because of the physical evidence. The only reason YEC's reject the physical evidence is because of the hermeneutics.

I'm not saying that all who subscribe to OECism hold a philosophy in complete contradiction to theism. All I said was that fundamentally their philosophy easily allows the non-existence of God. The same cannot be said of the philosophical position of YEC.

I don't believe any Christian origin theory allows for the non-existence of God. All this stuff has to come from somewhere. Even as someone who accepts evolution, I do not believe that all of this could exist without God's direct intervention and purpose.

There is a fundamental problem here. Methodological naturalism can only reference natural causes and events. If a supernatural being is the cause for an event, this methodology fails at communicating this. It is limited to natural occurrence. Since God is real and His acts can go beyond own known physical universe, its conclusions have a chance at being erroneous even when they appear solid.

We are definitely in agreement here. Let me ask a question: if you study something and can find a natural method that explains it, do you believe that it is natural or can it still be supernatural?

I'm sure you do. I also assume they conform to your own personal bias.

Which, I am sure you'll admit, doesn't mean that it is wrong or even not solid (since your own personal bias leads to your conclusions).

Natural to the audience that received the text originally. There is no indication it was meant to be understood in another way. Even the Greeks and Vikings believed in their creation myths as literal happenings.

You sure about that? Because there is ample evidence that many didn't.

Funny thing, this "rational" viewpoint that modern men use to decipher truth is not a viewpoint that has existed for the majority of mankind's existence. When you demand a rational, literal reading of Genesis 1, you are actually reading with a modern eye rather than an ancient one; conversely, those who are most associated with science (TE) are actually removing the modern-rational component from their hermeneutic and thus reading it closer to the way an ancient Israelite would have.

The literal meaning of the text is what the author meant with their words.

I think we all agree here. Deciphering the original author's intention is definitely the key.

Look at the Constitution as an example. Is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court Justice to interpret the document themselves or to determine what the authors meant when they originally wrote it?

The constitution was defined to be altered as future events warranted. It set up a system of government that would (hopefully) stay true to the notions of liberty and freedom while still allowing for change that the founders could not foresee. God, who foresaw everything, completed his word in a way that could be applied to the future without alteration.

 

[gluadys]

And vise-versa. The reasons OECs dismiss the young Earth interpretation of the evidence is their philosophical orientation.

No,this is not the case. YECs don't have an interpretation of the evidence. They have reasons not to take it into account. OECs have reasons to take the physical evidence into account---the major one being that the physical evidence is God's actual creation and one cannot wave away what God has given us as evidence.

I'm not saying that all who subscribe to OECism hold a philosophy in complete contradiction to theism. All I said was that fundamentally their philosophy easily allows the non-existence of God. The same cannot be said of the philosophical position of YEC.

Those who take physical evidence into account agree that the earth/universe is very old whether they are conservative Christians, militant atheists or anywhere in between. This is what we would expect of an accurate understanding of the physical world because God did not make one physical world for the Christian and a different one for atheists. It ought not to require belief in God to observe what God made. It should require only that one has eyes to see, ears to hear, and a rational mind to understand one's observations. As scripture says "He makes the sun to shine on the good and the evil and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust."

There is a fundamental problem here. Methodological naturalism can only reference natural causes and events. If a supernatural being is the cause for an event, this methodology fails at communicating this. It is limited to natural occurrence.

It is not a problem. It is a defining characteristic of science. Science cannot take miracles into account. You will never find a scientific description of the resurrection because it was a miracle.

You are right, science cannot tell you if a supernatural being is the cause for an event. It can, however, tell you whether the supernatural being (assuming there was one) used a natural or supernatural method of producing the event. If the supernatural being worked through natural means, it is possible to describe the process without reference to a miracle. If the supernatural being did not work through natural means, there will be no natural explanation. From a scientific view it will be an unexplained event, an anomaly.

Since God is real and His acts can go beyond own known physical universe, its conclusions have a chance at being erroneous even when they appear solid.

If we have a natural explanation we have a natural explanation. We know the event can occur without resort to a miracle. If one still wants to insist that in this case it was a miracle--that God could have produced the outcome naturally but chose to do so miraculously anyway--there is no reason one can't choose to believe that. The basic position here is: "I know there is a natural scientific explanation for rainbows, but I prefer to believe every rainbow (or maybe just this one) is a supernatural miracle."

I beg to differ. As I explained above, it is hindered by its limitations.

Science is limited to its methods, yes. That is why it cannot explain supernatural events. But it can explain natural events very well. Christians have traditionally taken the position that when scientists find a natural explanation for a phenomenon of nature, we have discovered something about how God does things. After all, God is not limited to producing miracles. We believe God made a world that is not fundamentally dependent on miracles happening every day. Most events in nature have a natural cause. That doesn't mean that God is not the author of the event. This is just God's way of producing that event.


Now if we have two extremely similar events, e.g. two earthquakes and one was produced by natural seismic processes and one was produced by supernatural intervention, science cannot tell which one was produced by supernatural intervention unless God decides in some way to tell us that it was. So scientists will attribute both to natural seismic processes. In one case they would be right and in the other case they would be wrong. But even a YEC would not be able to tell them (barring special revelation) in which case they were wrong.

Furthermore, it is still the case that in some sense God produced both earthquakes, one through natural seismic processes and the other without using natural seismic processes. So it would be incorrect to say that the natural explanation is inherently God-denying.

I'm sure you do. I also assume they conform to your own personal bias.

Just as your perception conforms to your own personal bias. Since we are now dealing with a text rather than natural evidence, we can only use a preponderance of evidence from literary form, and there is much more likely to be controversy than in the case of hard, physical evidence.

Natural to the audience that received the text originally. There is no indication it was meant to be understood in another way. Even the Greeks and Vikings believed in their creation myths as literal happenings.

Given the many variations in myths, it is highly unlikely that Greeks and Vikings held them as "literal" in the way YECs hold the Genesis creation accounts as "literal". Of course, they believed their gods really existed, but they felt quite free to modify the stories about them, so that a particular event might be attributed to different gods in different versions of the story. Myth, even when held to be true, is highly variable in the telling, indicating that they knew they were dealing with stories that could be retold in many ways.

This is why I applied the principal of hermeneutics.

You applied your principle of hermeneutics. You still have no reason to use this principle of hermeneutics in preference to others.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as demons?

No, I am saying the authors of the New Testament attribute epilepsy to demons and today we attribute epilepsy to brain seizures. It is up to you whether you consider the two explanations incompatible with each other. (Maybe it's demons that cause brain seizures?) The point is that it would never occur to 1st century writers to refer to brain seizures or chromosomal anomalies (Down's Syndrome), bacteria or viruses as causes of diseases and disorders. Why? Apparently because the Holy Spirit accommodates inspiration to the culture and knowledge base of the human author.

Why would this not also be the case with the age of the earth? After all, the age of the earth is not a particularly relevant point to the issues of our relationship to our Creator; to sin and salvation.

PROVE THIS STATEMENT!

Easy. Examine the philosophical biases of all the scientists in the world and you will see that some are atheists, some agnostics, some pantheists, some panentheists, some traditional theists and among the latter some are adherents of Judaism, some of Hinduism, some of Islam, some of Christianity, and of the latter there are those who are more liberal and those who are more conservative in their theology. Yet, when it comes to science, they somehow manage to come to the same conclusions.

It is highly unlikely that this would be the case unless the physical evidence is objective because God has made the world such that everyone who looks at it honestly sees the same world.

Maybe I should be clearer.

The literal meaning of the text is what the author meant with their words.

Better?

Another misdefinition of "literal". This means that all the figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, parabolic, etc. meanings intended by the author are "literal".

So when is "literal" really "literal" and when is it "literally figurative"?
As I said, in YEC theology "literal" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever YEC teachers decide it means.


Better to stick with the conventional meaning of "literal" which is "the primary ordinary meaning of a word." i.e. a fox is an animal, and so is a snake. Herod can be a fox only metaphorically not literally. Satan can be a snake only metaphorically, not literally. And authors can intend metaphorical meanings.

The task of the exegete is not to label everything an author intends as "literal" but to discern when the author intends a term to be taken in its primary (literal) sense and when the author intends it to be taken in a figurative sense. And then to discern what the figurative meaning is.

Are you really going to play this game? Okay sure, you know more about what I believe that I do.

As a matter of fact, it would seem I do. See just above.

No way! We the reader do not get to apply meaning to the text, the author does. That is proper hermeneutics.

Absolutely we apply meaning to the text. The issue is whether we do so properly. Given that the author of nature is the God to whom scripture attests, there must surely be some consonance between scripture and creation. And creation itself must be considered, in some sense, a second and complementary text. In fact, it was very common in the 17th-19th century to refer to the two books of scripture and creation, one of words one of works and to hold that there is no conflict between them.

The task of hermeneutics is to discern the author's original intended meaning, and whether that meaning is intentionally literal or intentionally figurative. Since none of us can actually know the author's intent, this is necessarily a work of human interpretation with all its limits and propensity for error. And so there are hermeneutical controversies, just as there are scientific controversies.

Theology correlates the author's meaning into a wider framework taking account, inter alia, the possible accommodation of inspiration to the human author's cultural framework and knowledge base and of the physical evidence in nature. That is why, for instance, we no longer trouble ourselves about scriptural phrases which seem to contradict the architecture of the solar system. We accept the physical evidence for what it is, the limitations on the writer's knowledge base, and the Spirit's accommodation to those limitations. Since none of these have a bearing on the spiritual message conveyed we continue to reverence the text for its primary intent without getting hung up in unprofitable dispute over a scientifically outdated geocentric perspective.

Look at the Constitution as an example. Is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court Justice to interpret the document themselves or to determine what the authors meant when they originally wrote it?

Both. The Supreme Court Justices know that the writers of the constitution could not foresee all circumstances and their task is both to discern the original intent and to interpret it for new issues.

You are not listening!! It is not the physical evidence I have a problem with. It is your interpretation of that evidence!

No, it is not the interpretation of the evidence that is the problem. The old age of the earth/universe is the only interpretation consistent with the evidence. That is why you need reasons to declare the evidence of the age of the earth to be of no value when interpreting scripture.


OECs insist it is necessary to take the evidence of age into account when interpreting scripture. Why? Because the evidence is not invented by the human mind; it is a given of the created world; it is presented to us by God himself.

 

[gluadys]

You ask a lot of questions with 'did God'
I honestly do not know what God did, but do you say that God cannot do those things?

Yes, I am saying God cannot do these things, for God cannot do what is against his own nature and it is against the nature of God to create false history.

Here is my stand:
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

God made the heavens and the earth in six days.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Jesus Himself said; From the beginning of creation God made them (Mankind) male and female.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

According to the generations of Jesus, Adam (the first man) was about 4,000 years before Christ.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

See Mallon's post.

 

[Jig]

No,this is not the case. YECs don't have an interpretation of the evidence.

Not true. My philosophy for interpreting the physical evidence is influenced by the idea of catastrophism. While your position is influenced by thie idea of uniformitarianism which assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

Both our views are assumptions.

It is not a problem. It is a defining characteristic of science. Science cannot take miracles into account. You will never find a scientific description of the resurrection because it was a miracle.

Defining characteristic = limiting factor.

If we have a natural explanation we have a natural explanation. We know the event can occur without resort to a miracle. If one still wants to insist that in this case it was a miracle--that God could have produced the outcome naturally but chose to do so miraculously anyway--there is no reason one can't choose to believe that. The basic position here is: "I know there is a natural scientific explanation for rainbows, but I prefer to believe every rainbow (or maybe just this one) is a supernatural miracle."

There can be a variety of "natural" and "supernatural" explanations for all events.

Science is limited to its methods, yes. That is why it cannot explain supernatural events. But it can explain natural events very well. Christians have traditionally taken the position that when scientists find a natural explanation for a phenomenon of nature, we have discovered something about how God does things. After all, God is not limited to producing miracles. We believe God made a world that is not fundamentally dependent on miracles happening every day. Most events in nature have a natural cause. That doesn't mean that God is not the author of the event. This is just God's way of producing that event.

Please admit that this is an assumption.

Now if we have two extremely similar events, e.g. two earthquakes and one was produced by natural seismic processes and one was produced by supernatural intervention, science cannot tell which one was produced by supernatural intervention unless God decides in some way to tell us that it was. So scientists will attribute both to natural seismic processes. In one case they would be right and in the other case they would be wrong. But even a YEC would not be able to tell them (barring special revelation) in which case they were wrong.

The YEC would certainly not know which one was not supernatural. But here my point is exemplified. The OEC cannot know either. I have never argued that my position was correct, just that it is equal to your position in terms of foundation and possibility. Though I would say hermeneutics is on my side, you obviously don't agree.

Just as your perception conforms to your own personal bias.

Exactly! We both work under assumed philosophical and theological orientations that effect our interpretation of physical evidence and biblical text.

You applied your principle of hermeneutics. You still have no reason to use this principle of hermeneutics in preference to others.

The same to you.

Why would this not also be the case with the age of the earth? After all, the age of the earth is not a particularly relevant point to the issues of our relationship to our Creator; to sin and salvation.

This is why it doesn't matter how old the Earth is.

Easy. Examine the philosophical biases of all the scientists in the world and you will see that some are atheists, some agnostics, some pantheists, some panentheists, some traditional theists and among the latter some are adherents of Judaism, some of Hinduism, some of Islam, some of Christianity, and of the latter there are those who are more liberal and those who are more conservative in their theology. Yet, when it comes to science, they somehow manage to come to the same conclusions.

So, is not your interpretation of the evidence based largely on the philosophical assumption of uniformitarianism? You brought up theological foundations. However, you forgot to mention that it isn't only Christians who believe in a young earth. There a a number of scientists within various religions who subscribe to this idea too. This makes your point moot.

Another misdefinition of "literal". This means that all the figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, parabolic, etc. meanings intended by the author are "literal".

All those authors implied a literal meaning behind their figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic writings. Unless you'd like to say that when an author wrote figuratively he implied no true underlining meaning to it. It is this meaning I take literally.

Absolutely we apply meaning to the text.

So if you think a passage means something and Paul walks in to the room and say that he actually meant something else, who is right? You the reader or the author?

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Yes, I am saying God cannot do these things, for God cannot do what is against his own nature and it is against the nature of God to create false history.


See Mallon's post.

I think it is sad that you doubt God's word.

It is only mans opinion that it is a false history.
Do you deny that God made the heavens and the earth in six days?

So is it, 'Let every man be true, and God a liar'?
We could say:
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to have a virgin birth.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to raise the dead.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, for man to walk on water.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to still a storm by the word of command.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to spit into some clay and cause a blind man to see, by rubbing it into his eyes.

 

[Mallon]

I think it is sad that you doubt God's word.

I wonder if you take the Bible's description of the Earth and sky that I cited earlier as literal, and if not, if this makes you a doubter of God's word, too.

 

[crawfish]

I think it is sad that you doubt God's word.

It is only mans opinion that it is a false history.
Do you deny that God made the heavens and the earth in six days?

So is it, 'Let every man be true, and God a liar'?
We could say:
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to have a virgin birth.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to raise the dead.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, for man to walk on water.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to still a storm by the word of command.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to spit into some clay and cause a blind man to see, by rubbing it into his eyes.

God can cause a blind man to see, and I'm sure He can even cause you to see Mallon's post above and answer it, rather than completely ignore it like you just did.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

I wonder if you take the Bible's description of the Earth and sky that I cited earlier as literal, and if not, if this makes you a doubter of God's word, too.

Sorry but that is silly and dishonest.

Does that mean we cannot take and believe anything written in scripture as literal?

I may be old and uneducated, but even I can grasp were some scripture is literal, and were some are obviously not literal.


God made the heavens and the earth in six days.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Did God lie?

Jesus Himself said; From the beginning of creation God made them (Mankind) male and female.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Did Jesus lie?

According to the generations of Jesus, Adam (the first man) was about 4,000 years before Christ.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Did Luke lie?

 

[Partaker of Christ]

God can cause a blind man to see, and I'm sure He can even cause you to see Mallon's post above and answer it, rather than completely ignore it like you just did.

I did not ignore it.
Perhaps God can cause you not to be so arrogant.

 

[Mallon]

Does that mean we cannot take and believe anything written in scripture as literal?

No, and I'm not suggesting as much. This is not a slippery slope. Simply because one part of the Bible may be meant literally doesn't mean all of it is. Likewise, just because one part of the Bible may be meant metaphorically doesn't mean all of it is.
If you're not going to let the evidence from God's creation influence your interpretation of Scripture, though, then how can we know that the Earth isn't flat and immobile, or that the sky isn't solid? The Bible certainly suggests otherwise.

I may be old and uneducated, but even I can grasp were some scripture is literal, and were some are obviously not literal.

What makes the Bible's description of the Earth as flat and immovable and of the sky as a solid dome "obviously" not literal? Please be explicit. Did you know that Bible scholars of old used to think these descriptions were, in fact, literal?

God made the heavens and the earth in six days.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Did God lie?

Jesus Himself said; From the beginning of creation God made them (Mankind) male and female.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Did Jesus lie?

According to the generations of Jesus, Adam (the first man) was about 4,000 years before Christ.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Did Luke lie?

God also said the Earth is flat and immobile, and that the sky is a solid dome. Did God lie? Seriously, I would love an answer to this.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

No, and I'm not suggesting as much. This is not a slippery slope. Simply because one part of the Bible may be meant literally doesn't mean all of it is. Likewise, just because one part of the Bible may be meant metaphorically doesn't mean all of it is.
If you're not going to let the evidence from God's creation influence your interpretation of Scripture, though, then how can we know that the Earth isn't flat and immobile, or that the sky isn't solid? The Bible certainly suggests otherwise.


What makes the Bible's description of the Earth as flat and immovable and of the sky as a solid dome "obviously" not literal? Please be explicit. Did you know that Bible scholars of old used to think these descriptions were, in fact, literal?


God also said the Earth is flat and immobile, and that the sky is a solid dome. Did God lie? Seriously, I would love an answer to this.

God also said from the beginning that the earth is round:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So it would stand to reason that the scripture you provide as 'flat earth' are not to be taken as literal.

 

[Mallon]

God also said from the beginning that the earth is round:

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

That doesn't say the earth is spherical.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So it would stand to reason that the scripture you provide as 'flat earth' are not to be taken as literal.

That doesn't say the earth is spherical, either. It says the earth is a circle, which is a flat, 2-D object. Moreover, the passage you cite goes on to say that the earth is like the floor of a tent (read: flat), and that the skies are spread above the earth like a tent (this further reinforces what I said earlier about the Bible describing the sky as a solid dome).

So I ask again, do you actually believe what the Bible says about the earth being flat and the sky being a solid dome, or do you think God is lying? Or is there a third option? Let's really trudge through this stuff, as opposed to saying some parts of the Bible are "obviously" literal and other parts are "obviously" not. Let's think about how we know what we know.

 

[gluadys]

Not true. My philosophy for interpreting the physical evidence is influenced by the idea of catastrophism. While your position is influenced by thie idea of uniformitarianism which assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

You show your ignorance of the meaning of 'catastrophism' in geological history. It doesn't mean 'supernatural' or 'miraculous'. When you say the past was not governed by the physical laws that hold the universe together, you are appealing to miracles, not catastrophes. The catastrophism of 19th century geologists was ALSO based on the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated on the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. In fact, catastrophists like Cuvier and Agassiz were OECs. In some senses real catastrophism is making a scientific comeback in the work of paleontologists such as Niles Eldredge.

Catastrophes operate by the same natural laws as slower, more uniform processes and can be investigated by the same scientific methods. A volcanic eruption no more requires a miraculous explanation than the slow formation of a coral reef.

Miracles, as noted before, cannot be investigated by scientific means.

Having a natural explanation for the formation of a coral reef doesn't mean God could not or did not conjure up the reef overnight, but that has nothing to do with the universal reach of natural laws. After all, natural laws are part of God's creation too. Why would they not be universal?

So again, you can appeal to miracles in spite of the fact that the event can be explained naturally, but one wonders why you feel it necessary to do so. God works both with nature and bypassing nature but it is still God's work so it is not a matter of theism.

Does it not come down again to needing a reason to avoid the evidence God has provided to uphold a human-defined way to interpret scripture?

Defining characteristic = limiting factor.

That doesn't make it a problem.

Both our views are assumptions.

Yes, my assumption is that one ought not to wave away observations of God's creation. And yours is that upholding human interpretations of scripture outweighs the importance of evidence.

There can be a variety of "natural" and "supernatural" explanations for all events.

But only the natural ones can be tested for their validity. How is one to determine which of several supernatural explanations is the correct one?

Please admit that this is an assumption.

That's a fairly long paragraph. Could you be more specific in wording your question?

The YEC would certainly not know which one was not supernatural. But here my point is exemplified. The OEC cannot know either. I have never argued that my position was correct, just that it is equal to your position in terms of foundation and possibility. Though I would say hermeneutics is on my side, you obviously don't agree.

Hermeneutics, however, are human opinion and fallible. Physical evidence is God-given and incontrovertible. A hermeneutical approach that simply dismisses physical evidence it is uncomfortable with is one whose validity is questionable.

Exactly! We both work under assumed philosophical and theological orientations that effect our interpretation of physical evidence and biblical text.

Dismissing evidence is not interpreting it. But I agree that there is no scientific way to refute the proposition that something that can happen naturally actually happened miraculously. So if you choose as a matter of principle to believe all sorts of things in nature happened miraculously in spite of the fact we have perfectly adequate natural explanations for them, you are certainly free to do so. Just don't claim any theological superiority for it as you did when you claimed to "give God too much credit." Those of us who chose to believe God really did make universal natural laws and produced most of nature in concurrence with natural laws are giving no less credit to God than you do.

The same to you.

No, not the same. I do have a reason for rejecting the hermeneutic you lay out. I believe Genesis 1:1. Therefore I believe physical evidence is a valid contributor to the process of interpreting scripture.

This is why it doesn't matter how old the Earth is.

Exactly, so why make a fuss about accepting the age provided by the evidence? Why make a virtue of believing something in spite of evidence to the contrary? The only reason I can see again is a wholly unnecessary allegiance to a fallible, human interpretation of scripture.

So, is not your interpretation of the evidence based largely on the philosophical assumption of uniformitarianism?

No, as I said, it's based on taking Genesis 1:1 with all seriousness. I really believe the doctrine of creation requires us to take the material creation seriously and accept the physical evidence as a genuine guide to the history of the origin of the universe and the earth and all its inhabitants past and present.

So I need something vastly stronger than a human-devised method of scriptural interpretation to persuade me not to follow where the physical evidence leads.

You brought up theological foundations. However, you forgot to mention that it isn't only Christians who believe in a young earth. There a a number of scientists within various religions who subscribe to this idea too. This makes your point moot.

I don't know of any scientists within various religions who subscribe to this idea. I do know of an Islamic quack and a Hindu quack. Unfortunately for your point the Hindu quack holds that the scientifically-established age of the universe is far too young, not far too old.

All those authors implied a literal meaning behind their figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic writings. Unless you'd like to say that when an author wrote figuratively he implied no true underlining meaning to it. It is this meaning I take literally.

Well, all figures and symbolic speech express something the author wants to say. Jesus says "that fox Herod" and we understand him to mean Herod is crafty and sly because those are characteristics associated with a fox. That is his true meaning. That is what I meant when I said the exegete not only needs to establish that the author is using symbolic language, but also what the meaning of the symbolic language is.

But to define this as the "literal" meaning is to mis-define "literal" as "true". In fact, in this case it is the symbolic meaning that is the true meaning. The literal meaning (that Herod is a fox) is not true. So you are quite right to take the underlying meaning as the true meaning. Your error consists in labelling this as the literal meaning.

So if you think a passage means something and Paul walks in to the room and say that he actually meant something else, who is right? You the reader or the author?

Paul is, of course. Our best exegesis can be wrong, just as our best science can be wrong. But until the resurrection, we have to rely on exegesis, not Paul. I am just saying let's not tie down good exegesis with a priori assumptions about hermeneutical principles that don't have a good foundation.

 

[gluadys]

I think it is sad that you doubt God's word.

I don't doubt God's word one bit.

It is only mans opinion that it is a false history.

I am not sure what you are referring to. Say you are exploring the Burgess shale in British Columbia, site of many Cambrian fossils, and you happen to find a fossil trilobite.

Which is the false history? That trilobites lived and died on earth in a long ago era hundreds of millions of years before any animal walked on land? Or that God created the Burgess Shale 6,000 years ago with trilobite fossils already in it even though he never created trilobites?

If one of these is the word of God, the other has to be a false history.

Do you deny that God made the heavens and the earth in six days?

I don't deny that this is said in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 (by the same author). What I want to know is whether the author meant this to be understood scientifically or theologically. Around the 1st century, a Jewish scholar named Philo of Alexandria gave a very interesting summation of the symbolical meaning of "six days" and why it was that Genesis 1 sets creation in this time frame.

Of course, Genesis 2 tells us God made the earth and heavens in one day.

Is Genesis 2 denying Genesis 1?

We could say:
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to have a virgin birth.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to raise the dead.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, for man to walk on water.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to still a storm by the word of command.
I have hard fact evidence that it impossible, to spit into some clay and cause a blind man to see, by rubbing it into his eyes.

But we don't have any such hard fact evidence, do we?

Besides, scripture tells us these were all miracles, so scientific regularities don't apply anyway.