Is there a distinction? YEC/TE on Bible being final authority

XVII said:

Something i'm wondering...

What percentage of YEC do you think believe the bible to be inspired, inerrant, infallible?

What percentage of TE do you think believe the bible to be inspired, inerrant, infallible?

My guess is that most of the YEC believe the bible to be the final authority in everything, while the TE believe less of the bible being final authority to some form of degree (whatever the case may be for the individual TE)

Do you guys think this is so or not? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

My guess is that both YEC's and TE's have an equally high percentage.

Are you saying that any beliefs not agreeing with your own beliefs, are from those who have less regard for scripture than you?

Hmm, I'm very confused by the Sabbatarian / 7th day keeping arguments. Can I reboot that particular part of the discussion? I'm curious to see how YECs answer this:

Where in the Scriptures is the Saturday-Sabbath superseded?

My reasoning is simple and probably quite Scriptural. You see, within the ceremonial law there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. At any point where Scripture recommends the superseding of the ceremonial law by a new law, there are only two reasons:

1. The letter of the law is killing the spirit of the law. Good and relevant example is when Jesus asked if a Pharisee would save his donkey from a well if it was a Sabbath. To keep the letter (no load-bearing on Sabbath) would be to break the spirit (don't let life be lost unnecessarily, and don't waste God's resources) of the law.

2. The letter of the law is stifling the freedom of grace. Paul's major arguments against the law - for example, his discourses on dietary restrictions in the church.

Now, sometimes keeping the spirit of the law is even more restricting than keeping the letter of the law. Remember what Jesus said about being angry? He said if you harbour anger against someone you've as good as shot him dead in your heart. (my paraphrase) In that case, you've kept the letter of the law, but broken the spirit of the law.

We know what the spirit of the law is for a lot of cases. To look through the 10 commandments: why can't we set up idols? Because there is only one God to worship. Why must we respect our parents? Because our reaction to our first earthly authority conditions our reaction to our heavenly authority. Why can't we murder? Because God created life and therefore God has the only right (sometimes delegated, though) to take it away.

Note that all this predates the Torah. It predates the birth of the Jewish nation, predates Abraham even. Murder was as wrong for Cain as it was for the first Jewish murderer. That is why it is wrong for all today, even for me a Gentile. On the other hand, the spirit of the law of kosher food is to be separated to God. So if I am separated to God, I am keeping the spirit of the law of kosher even if I break the letter daily.

Now, question is, what is the spirit of the law of Sabbath? What YECs claim all along is that the spirit of the law of Sabbath is rooted in a particular historic day in the creation of the world: that because God rested on a particular, existent, specific, 24-hour day, Moses told the Jews to do so too. (I say this because most YECs "prove" that Creation Week was a real week by saying so.) However, we run into a problem: practically all the Christians in the world are breaking the spirit of the law of the Sabbath! After all, if the spirit of the law of Sabbath is simply "God slept in on Saturday" (to be grossly simplistic) isn't it necessary for all our sleep-in days to be on Saturday??

When Jesus and Paul "tell us not to keep the Sabbath", they are referring to the letter of the law of Sabbath. In other words, we don't have to make sure we overrun a certain quota of steps, or a certain sum quantity of carried weight, and we don't have to make sure nothing goes in and out of NYC all Sunday! But we are never exempted from the spirit of the law of the Sabbath (or of any other law) ... fill in the blanks yourself.

As for what Critias asked - do I then keep the Sabbath? - I would reply: look up the spirit of the law of Sabbath in Hebrews 4. The true Sabbath-rest is the rest of not depending on my own work for my own righteousness; it is what Rev. David Pawson calls "repenting of your good deeds" - knowing and living upon the knowledge that my deeds no longer qualify me for heaven, and therefore surrendering and trusting God for the burden of being saved. And I definitely want to do that more than just once a week! And it's just a happy coincidence that my country dislikes working on Saturdays and Sundays ...

So to recap my argument: the letter of the law may have been superseded, but the spirit of the law never is, and by YECism the spirit of the law of Sabbath is a literal resting of God on the first Saturday, so where is this superseded for Christianity?

If that is your case about the Sabbath, instead of resting on Saturday, then you have not argument against yec's.

So thanks for solving that!

Sorry for being slightly unclear. Actually, that last part is an escape route that the YECs cannot afford. Hebrews 4 cannot be relevant to YECism in that manner because the Sabbath it speaks of must be a literal, real, weekly-cycled enforced rest, not something you can enter in and exit from every moment of life. I thought one major YEC argument was that Jesus and Moses treated the Sabbath as a literal day. So, don't you all?

shernren said:

Sorry for being slightly unclear. Actually, that last part is an escape route that the YECs cannot afford. Hebrews 4 cannot be relevant to YECism in that manner because the Sabbath it speaks of must be a literal, real, weekly-cycled enforced rest, not something you can enter in and exit from every moment of life. I thought one major YEC argument was that Jesus and Moses treated the Sabbath as a literal day. So, don't you all?

Click to expand...

First, I have to ask, what do you think yecism is? Define it for me as you see it. That way I can understand your position much better.

Second, the Sabbath was a day to worship God, that day was Saturday. The Sabbath is now observed on Sunday. Keeping the Sabbath has not changed, the day on which it is observed has. The reason it has is because Jesus Christ, our hope in all things, was resurrected on a Sunday. He is the only way we can get to the Father. So, in His honor we now celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday.

Define your argument of why you think yec's do not observe the Sabbath? And then explain why, you being a te, are not held to this.

Thirdly, the Sabbath has always been more about our relationship with God and less about our works for God. The theme of the Sabbath should never be kept into one day and one day only. It should be in our every day life.

Fourth-ly, the Sabbath, as instituted by Moses, is governed under the Law. Those who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." No one is justified before God because of the Law. The Law is not based on faith because the righteous shall live by faith. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. It is also written that if one breaks one piece of the Law, they have broken every piece of the Law.

If you don't agree with my fourth point, you disagree with the Apostle Paul. Why? Because it is all a paraphrase from Galatians.

I honestly do not think you understand what yec is. Nor do I think you understand the yec hermeneutical approach to Scripture.

First, I have to ask, what do you think yecism is? Define it for me as you see it. That way I can understand your position much better.

Click to expand...

There are two components to YECism as I see it:
1. That the world was created in 6 days, approx. 6000-10000 years ago;
2. That this is the only / best by far understanding of the Scriptures relevant to origins.

Now, I could take the first by itself. But not the second.

Second, the Sabbath was a day to worship God, that day was Saturday. The Sabbath is now observed on Sunday. Keeping the Sabbath has not changed, the day on which it is observed has. The reason it has is because Jesus Christ, our hope in all things, was resurrected on a Sunday. He is the only way we can get to the Father. So, in His honor we now celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday.

Click to expand...

I hope I'm not wrong, but where exactly was the Sabbath a day to worship God? As far as I recall, the Sabbath was a day to rest. If it happened that God instituted public ceremonies of worship on Sabbath, how do those acts of worship derive significance from the Sabbath being a day of rest? In the Creation account, God did nothing other than to rest on the Sabbath.

And I would go as far to say as we don't keep the Sabbath on Sunday. If you really understood the whole concept of Sabbath as it applied to the Jewish nation, you would close all airports on Sunday, keep your TV, radio and computer off, and stone or heavily punish anyone who didn't do the same. You wouldn't touch anything that had to do with your work: no business calls, no quotations, no tax-work, no work-talk-over-dinners. That was the extent of the Jewish Sabbath. (And I'm not making it up. See Nehemiah: one of his re-institutions of the Sabbath was to close the city gates every time it was observed.)

The early Christians had no intent to observe Sabbath on Sunday. Jewish Christians observed Sabbath on Saturday as a state-granted holiday for their religion, and worshiped on Sunday. Gentile Christians had no Sabbath-rest whatsoever, and worshiped on Sunday. Both were not commemorating rest-days, but rather celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, which to me is as far from God resting as God can get.

If Jesus had done something so momentous as to change the Sabbath, He would have said so. But He never did. He did clarify its meaning; but He never changed its occurence, or banned it from happening. What modern Christianity celebrates on Sunday is not the Sabbath.

Define your argument of why you think yec's do not observe the Sabbath? And then explain why, you being a te, are not held to this.

Click to expand...

I have already explained it. If YECs observe the Sabbath, they cannot do it in the sense of Hebrews 4, in terms of a spiritual, day-to-day trust and reliance on God. They have to do it by physical cessation of work on a certain day, since that is exactly what it is: "built into creation" like the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and everything else, by the literal-6 day creation hermeneutic.

Fourth-ly, the Sabbath, as instituted by Moses, is governed under the Law. Those who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." No one is justified before God because of the Law. The Law is not based on faith because the righteous shall live by faith. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. It is also written that if one breaks one piece of the Law, they have broken every piece of the Law.

Click to expand...

Like I explained, everywhere in the NT where the letter of the law is set aside, it is so that the spirit of the law should be kept instead. That is what Ezekiel means in Ezekiel 36:7: "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." Does he mean that God will put His Spirit in His people in order that they will suffer a curse?? What he means is that God will enable His people to follow the spirit of the law, by His Holy Spirit instead of their own futile efforts.

We are not forbidden from eating unclean food: but we are forbidden from saying unclean words and thinking unclean thoughts.
We are allowed to wear garments of mixed fabrics: we are not to have lives of mixed priorities.
We are allowed to have tattoos: but we are not to worship the occult in any way.

See what I mean? The Curse of the Law is not the Law itself! Paul himself says in Romans that the Law itself is good and perfect, even though it is only a shadow: what produces the curse is not the Law itself but man's failure to fulfill it. God comes not merely to remove the requirement of the Law but to fulfill it through the justification from His Son. And, to help us to fulfill it through the Holy Spirit: for the Law does not just bring us blessings in the hereafter, but blessings here.

So what is the spirit of the law of the Sabbath? Within YECism it has to be a literal day-rest first and foremost. After all, you say the Scriptures support 6-day creation partly because everywhere it refers to the Sabbath as a literal 7th day. If that is so, why are you not practicing that literal 7th day in your lives?

shernren said:

There are two components to YECism as I see it:
1. That the world was created in 6 days, approx. 6000-10000 years ago;
2. That this is the only / best by far understanding of the Scriptures relevant to origins.

Now, I could take the first by itself. But not the second.

Click to expand...

Why can't #2 be the best understanding of Genesis 1-2 in your opinion?

shernren said:

I hope I'm not wrong, but where exactly was the Sabbath a day to worship God? As far as I recall, the Sabbath was a day to rest. If it happened that God instituted public ceremonies of worship on Sabbath, how do those acts of worship derive significance from the Sabbath being a day of rest? In the Creation account, God did nothing other than to rest on the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

You don't think the Sabbath was to worship God? Seems odd that the Jews would gather and read the Law on the Sabbath if it was not to worship God. The Sabbath was to be kept Holy. It was taught that one must deny oneself on the Sabbath. They gathered to learn and worship God.

Have you read what Jesus had to say about the Sabbath? Or are you just interested in finding fault with yec's? Jesus did not rest on the Sabbath, Jesus healed people and for that He was condemned. Now you are asking why yec's do anything on the Sabbath as if you have never read what Jesus had to say about it.

shernren said:

And I would go as far to say as we don't keep the Sabbath on Sunday. If you really understood the whole concept of Sabbath as it applied to the Jewish nation, you would close all airports on Sunday, keep your TV, radio and computer off, and stone or heavily punish anyone who didn't do the same. You wouldn't touch anything that had to do with your work: no business calls, no quotations, no tax-work, no work-talk-over-dinners. That was the extent of the Jewish Sabbath. (And I'm not making it up. See Nehemiah: one of his re-institutions of the Sabbath was to close the city gates every time it was observed.)

Click to expand...

Would you like me to follow the Jewish laws that were set in place or Jesus' example that He set in place about the Sabbaths?

Can you tell me how I would close all the airports on Sunday? Why would I stone someone on the Sabbath, today? Can you tell me why you are suggesting that I must now keep the Sabbath, being I am not Jewish, as the Jewish people did before Christ?

I understand how the Sabbath was set up originally by God and then added to by the Jews. I also understand Jesus Christ's new convenant.

Is it your intention to say yec's must be under the Law rather than under Grace?

shernren said:

The early Christians had no intent to observe Sabbath on Sunday. Jewish Christians observed Sabbath on Saturday as a state-granted holiday for their religion, and worshiped on Sunday. Gentile Christians had no Sabbath-rest whatsoever, and worshiped on Sunday. Both were not commemorating rest-days, but rather celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, which to me is as far from God resting as God can get.

Click to expand...

And now this applies to me how? What new law are you declaring for yec's?

shernren said:

If Jesus had done something so momentous as to change the Sabbath, He would have said so. But He never did. He did clarify its meaning; but He never changed its occurence, or banned it from happening. What modern Christianity celebrates on Sunday is not the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

I find Jesus' resurrection rather momentous.

shernren said:

I have already explained it. If YECs observe the Sabbath, they cannot do it in the sense of Hebrews 4, in terms of a spiritual, day-to-day trust and reliance on God. They have to do it by physical cessation of work on a certain day, since that is exactly what it is: "built into creation" like the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and everything else, by the literal-6 day creation hermeneutic.

Click to expand...

Why can't yec's enter God's rest?

I don't think you understand a yec hermeneutic. I have outlined this before in this forum about hermeneutics. It is the yec's intention to read the Bible with an Author Hermeneutic approach, which means to read the Bible and understand what the author wanted the reader to understand.

This is not "strict" literal style or figurative style but rather what ever style the Author intended, verse by verse.

I see statements like yours all the time, which makes it quite clear that you either don't understand yec's hermeneutic style or just don't understand hermeneutics at all. I don't know you, so I can't say which, but by your writing, it seems to be one of the two.

shernren said:

Like I explained, everywhere in the NT where the letter of the law is set aside, it is so that the spirit of the law should be kept instead. That is what Ezekiel means in Ezekiel 36:7: "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." Does he mean that God will put His Spirit in His people in order that they will suffer a curse?? What he means is that God will enable His people to follow the spirit of the law, by His Holy Spirit instead of their own futile efforts.

Click to expand...

So where are yec's not keeping the Spirit of the Law?

shernren said:

We are not forbidden from eating unclean food: but we are forbidden from saying unclean words and thinking unclean thoughts.
We are allowed to wear garments of mixed fabrics: we are not to have lives of mixed priorities.
We are allowed to have tattoos: but we are not to worship the occult in any way.

Click to expand...

How are the yec's violating these?

shernren said:

See what I mean? The Curse of the Law is not the Law itself! Paul himself says in Romans that the Law itself is good and perfect, even though it is only a shadow: what produces the curse is not the Law itself but man's failure to fulfill it. God comes not merely to remove the requirement of the Law but to fulfill it through the justification from His Son. And, to help us to fulfill it through the Holy Spirit: for the Law does not just bring us blessings in the hereafter, but blessings here.

Click to expand...

Where did I say the Curse of the Law is the Law itself?

shernren said:

So what is the spirit of the law of the Sabbath? Within YECism it has to be a literal day-rest first and foremost. After all, you say the Scriptures support 6-day creation partly because everywhere it refers to the Sabbath as a literal 7th day. If that is so, why are you not practicing that literal 7th day in your lives?

Click to expand...

Why does it "have" to be a literal day-rest first and foremost? Because you say so?

Again, by this last statements of yours, you really show you don't understand yec's hermeneutics or hermeneutics in general.

I am not saying that YECs should observe the Jewish law. I am saying that by making Sabbath a creation mandate they obligate themselves to observing it in a literal fashion as something bigger than the Jewish law. I don't see any doctrinal evidence of the Sabbath ever being kept on Sunday. And I'm curious to know where in the Bible does God command worship on the Sabbath - I could always be wrong.

I was raising those superseded ceremonial laws because they are good examples of where we are bound to the spirit of the law while free from the letter of the law.

I'm curious about your "author" hermeneutic. How do you know Moses intended his Genesis 1 account to be a historical-scientific-factual retelling of the origins? And since most Biblical authors believed that the earth was flat, shoudn't we also believe that whenever we read Biblical passages about cosmology?

shernren said:

I am not saying that YECs should observe the Jewish law. I am saying that by making Sabbath a creation mandate they obligate themselves to observing it in a literal fashion as something bigger than the Jewish law. I don't see any doctrinal evidence of the Sabbath ever being kept on Sunday. And I'm curious to know where in the Bible does God command worship on the Sabbath - I could always be wrong.

Click to expand...

Who is making the Sabbath a creation mandate?

Look in the Old Testament, the Gospels and Acts, you will see that the Jews gathered in the Synagogue to read the Old Testament. The Synagogue is the Temple, a place of worship. It should be easy enough to understand that if the Jews gathered in a place of worship, read the Old Testament, pray to God, that they were worshipping God.

I wasn't trying to indicate that the Jewish "Sabbath" has been changed. Rather I was saying Christians have their "Sabbath" on Sunday.

Do you think the point God was making for the Sabbath was to do no work, or to worship Him? Do you think His intent was for the focus to be on Him or on the cessation of work?

shernren said:

I was raising those superseded ceremonial laws because they are good examples of where we are bound to the spirit of the law while free from the letter of the law.

Click to expand...

Then if you are asking for yec's to keep the Sabbath, or why aren't they, then why aren't all people keeping circumcision? Why not speak out against Paul and his stance on the issue?

If you aren't keeping the Sabbath, every Saturday, why then are you going after yec's who do not keep it? Don't you need to first remove the plank from your own eye?

shernren said:

I'm curious about your "author" hermeneutic. How do you know Moses intended his Genesis 1 account to be a historical-scientific-factual retelling of the origins?

Click to expand...

Are you interested or are you just wanted something else to argue about?

shernren said:

And since most Biblical authors believed that the earth was flat, shoudn't we also believe that whenever we read Biblical passages about cosmology?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the Biblical Author's wrote "the world is flat." You will have to show me the verse that says that, please.

Wanna take it over to the new thread?

Who is making the Sabbath a creation mandate?

Click to expand...

YECs. As long as you quote Exodus 20:11 as a "proof" for 6-day creation you are saying that the Sabbath is wired into creation, and therefore is a creation mandate that has higher and more universal authority than the Law.

I wasn't trying to indicate that the Jewish "Sabbath" has been changed. Rather I was saying Christians have their "Sabbath" on Sunday.

Click to expand...

On what authority are you doing that? Where in the Bible are Christians allowed to have their Sabbath on Sunday?

Do you think the point God was making for the Sabbath was to do no work, or to worship Him? Do you think His intent was for the focus to be on Him or on the cessation of work?

Click to expand...

Intuitively you may be right; but not all that is intuitively right is Biblically sound.

Then if you are asking for yec's to keep the Sabbath, or why aren't they, then why aren't all people keeping circumcision? Why not speak out against Paul and his stance on the issue?

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the full force of my arguments. Circumcision was given strictly to the Jewish race - actually, to the descendants of Abraham. It was not meant to be universal. What was meant to be universal was the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit that Ezekiel and Jeremiah (as I remember) spoke of. In the same way, by making the Torah Sabbath point back to a literal Creation Sabbath, YECs actually make the Creation Sabbath something universal and thuse binding over all.

If you aren't keeping the Sabbath, every Saturday, why then are you going after yec's who do not keep it? Don't you need to first remove the plank from your own eye?

Click to expand...

Because my TE hermeneutic doesn't require it. I am trying to push a reduction ad absurdum argument against YECism showing that the logical consequences of it are "too hot to handle" for YECs.

Are you interested or are you just wanted something else to argue about?

Click to expand...

Seeing as this whole forum is one big messy multi-pronged argument I don't think I'm going too far out. But hey, it's a valid question, isn't it? How do you know Moses was intending his comments to be taken 6000 years later by us as something from which science can be inferred? How do you know that Moses really intended to say that "as far as I know, the sun and the moon and the stars are 4 days younger than the rest of the universe" or if he was simply making a completely beautiful story that explains man and God well even though it didn't happen? In short, how do you know that it is not a mythical-history instead of a literal-scientific-history? I'm curious to see how you see it.

I wasn't aware that the Biblical Author's wrote "the world is flat." You will have to show me the verse that says that, please.

Click to expand...

Do round earths have corners and ends?

shernren said:

Wanna take it over to the new thread?

Click to expand...

Sure, go ahead and start one.

shernren said:

YECs. As long as you quote Exodus 20:11 as a "proof" for 6-day creation you are saying that the Sabbath is wired into creation, and therefore is a creation mandate that has higher and more universal authority than the Law.

Click to expand...

Creation mandate is weird thing to call the Sabbath. Anyways, first off, Sabbath is not a "higher and more universal authority" than the rest of the Law that was given. I am not sure where you learned that the keeping of the Sabbath would be of higher importance than say keeping the first commandment. I suppose that maybe you feel it deserves higher importance than having other gods than God...? Odd.

So, I believe you are wrong on your first assumption. Your second assumption, Exodus 20:11 speaking of a 6 day creation, that everyone non-Jew alike, must keep the Sabbath is also faulty. 6 day creation is used as reference for the introduction of the Sabbath within the Law given - the Ten Commandments - "Just as God did, now so shall you."

shernren said:

On what authority are you doing that? Where in the Bible are Christians allowed to have their Sabbath on Sunday?

Click to expand...

By Authority of Jesus Christ and the Apostles that He sent out into the world. Have you not read that the Apostles worshipped on Sunday?

shernren said:

Intuitively you may be right; but not all that is intuitively right is Biblically sound.

Click to expand...

And who is making the argument that all intuition is Biblically sound?

shernren said:

I think you're missing the full force of my arguments. Circumcision was given strictly to the Jewish race - actually, to the descendants of Abraham. It was not meant to be universal. What was meant to be universal was the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit that Ezekiel and Jeremiah (as I remember) spoke of. In the same way, by making the Torah Sabbath point back to a literal Creation Sabbath, YECs actually make the Creation Sabbath something universal and thuse binding over all.

Click to expand...

I think your argument lacks force. The Sabbath Law was given strictly to the Jews. Can you provide verses that say it was for the Gentiles?

It is your faulty reasoning that is trying to make the Sabbath something universal. Either you will see this or be ignorant of it.

shernren said:

Because my TE hermeneutic doesn't require it. I am trying to push a reduction ad absurdum argument against YECism showing that the logical consequences of it are "too hot to handle" for YECs.

Click to expand...

That is rich! Your argument is reduction ad absurdum. You are assuming that because the Ten Commandments speaks of the Sabbath, with a reference to creation, that the Sabbath was not intended just for Jews - even though it was given only to the Jews to observe - but for the Gentiles as well.

Secondly, are taking the position that Jesus Christ did *not* fulfill the Law, as He said He would/did.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

shernren said:

Seeing as this whole forum is one big messy multi-pronged argument I don't think I'm going too far out.

Click to expand...

I asked the question if you are actually interested in hermeneutics and the approaches of it, or are you just more interested in arguing about how and why I am wrong.

Your following questions seem to indicate the later.

shernren said:

But hey, it's a valid question, isn't it? How do you know Moses was intending his comments to be taken 6000 years later by us as something from which science can be inferred?

Click to expand...

God inspired the what Moses wrote. God is omniscient, is He not? So, if you are going to take this route you will have to prove that either God did not inspire all that is written by Moses, or that God is not omniscient.

shernren said:

How do you know that Moses really intended to say that "as far as I know, the sun and the moon and the stars are 4 days younger than the rest of the universe" or if he was simply making a completely beautiful story that explains man and God well even though it didn't happen?

Click to expand...

Interesting theory, telling of a history that did not happen. I would say that the way it is written, is what it is meant to say.

But, please, start a thread and lets go through Genesis 1-2 and see exactly why you see it to be a myth.

shernren said:

In short, how do you know that it is not a mythical-history instead of a literal-scientific-history? I'm curious to see how you see it.

Click to expand...

You like to impute science into the equation, don't you? I see Genesis as a historical narrative because that is what appears to be what the author intended to relate. The metaphorical language is not extensive, although it is used sparingly within Genesis 1-3.

shernren said:

Do round earths have corners and ends?

Click to expand...

Well this is what you said:

"And since most Biblical authors believed that the earth was flat, shoudn't we also believe that whenever we read Biblical passages about cosmology?"

So, where are your verses that state the Biblical authors believed the world is flat? If you are going to say it is because they said the four corners of the earth or to the end of the earth, then you are saying these were intended literally. Is that what you are trying to say that the Biblical authors intended those statements literally?

Well Critias, seeing as only one of us can be right (or I have a very limited imagination) I am not convinced that you are right. I hope that I can at least get you to see what I see. The ability to introduce others to one's own worldview, to take the glasses off my eyes and put them on yours for a little while, is a very important skill in today's pluralistic world and is necessary for any Christian evangelism in the modern context. And I do hope you know what a reductio (not reduction - my bad) ad absurdum argument is or else you won't get me.

Creation mandate is weird thing to call the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

A creation mandate is any mandate that started at creation. Simple as that.

Anyways, first off, Sabbath is not a "higher and more universal authority" than the rest of the Law that was given. I am not sure where you learned that the keeping of the Sabbath would be of higher importance than say keeping the first commandment. I suppose that maybe you feel it deserves higher importance than having other gods than God...? Odd.

Click to expand...

(It might be. Modern Christianity is far more into self-righteousness than idolatry, what with "self-help spirituality"... but I digress.) What I meant was not that Sabbath is higher than the rest of the Law, but that Sabbath is higher than the Law. Circumcision of the flesh is part of the Law. Circumcision of the heart is higher than the Law. The former applies only to Jews, the latter to Jews and Gentiles. It follows logically from YEC belief-form that Sabbath is a creation mandate, not something that started within the Torah and is therefore specific to the Jewish nation.

By Authority of Jesus Christ and the Apostles that He sent out into the world. Have you not read that the Apostles worshipped on Sunday?

Click to expand...

I have not read that they kept Sabbath on Sunday. I have not read that they rested on Sunday. Have you?

So, I believe you are wrong on your first assumption. Your second assumption, Exodus 20:11 speaking of a 6 day creation, that everyone non-Jew alike, must keep the Sabbath is also faulty. 6 day creation is used as reference for the introduction of the Sabbath within the Law given - the Ten Commandments - "Just as God did, now so shall you."

I think your argument lacks force. The Sabbath Law was given strictly to the Jews. Can you provide verses that say it was for the Gentiles?

It is your faulty reasoning that is trying to make the Sabbath something universal. Either you will see this or be ignorant of it.

That is rich! Your argument is reduction ad absurdum. You are assuming that because the Ten Commandments speaks of the Sabbath, with a reference to creation, that the Sabbath was not intended just for Jews - even though it was given only to the Jews to observe - but for the Gentiles as well.

Click to expand...

Well, that shows that I am not a good enough communicator to bring my argument across. Here it is, againagainandagain.

One "biblical proof" YECism employs for its 6 literal days of creation-1 literal day of rest is passages like Exodus 20:11. Exodus 20:11 refers to the character / work of God in Gen 1-2 as a precedent. So how can a metaphorical day of rest be the precedent for a literal day of rest? So the argument goes. If a metaphorical day of rest was the precedent, the law would have also been a metaphorical day of rest for the Jews. I know you will not find it stated quite as baldly as this but this is the gist of that particular argument.

However to make such claims the YECs are actually shutting themselves in a cage. Because this literal precedent must apply to themselves Gentiles as well. Why do I say that? Because all the Law has precedents in God's character and/or God's works. For example, why the laws about ritual purification? Because God's character is holy. While we Gentiles are not bound to the Jewish ceremonial laws (being part of the specific covenant between God and the Jewish nation), we are bound by the precedents of those laws in God's character and works. The Bible says that the Law is a "shadow" of things to come: well, the things that they shadow are binding and necessary on both Jews and Gentiles.

You see where my argument leads? If the precedent of the Sabbath Torah Law is a literal Saturday rest of God's, then Gentiles are also bound by it, because it is higher than the Torah Law and thus universal across creation.

Secondly, are taking the position that Jesus Christ did *not* fulfill the Law, as He said He would/did.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Click to expand...

Jesus rested on the Sabbath, no? And His Sabbath was a Saturday, no? I don't get this little argument.

God inspired the what Moses wrote. God is omniscient, is He not? So, if you are going to take this route you will have to prove that either God did not inspire all that is written by Moses, or that God is not omniscient.

Click to expand...

Did God inspire Ecclesiastes? Did God inspire Job? Then why do we find glaring theological problems in both? Things like "everything is meaningless" (did King Solomon agree that life should be "purpose-driven"? ) and the many logical contradictions within Job's speech. God's inspiration is less heavy-handed than we assume. God could have used myths as vehicles of His truth. You yourself (or was it? definitely a YEC, when we were talking about dualism) said that Jesus may not have meant what He said about Hell in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man - that Hell may not literally be like that. I think that's a far more serious charge against "God's omnipotent inspiration" than saying Genesis was a myth.

But, please, start a thread and lets go through Genesis 1-2 and see exactly why you see it to be a myth.

Click to expand...

I'm not too well-versed in it - ANE mythology isn't exactly my strong point. You could ask Vance or Gluadys if you're actually more interested in learning about comparative mythology than arguing about how and why I am wrong.

You like to impute science into the equation, don't you? I see Genesis as a historical narrative because that is what appears to be what the author intended to relate. The metaphorical language is not extensive, although it is used sparingly within Genesis 1-3.

Click to expand...

I'm only following in the great footsteps of AiG and ICR. They don't see any problem with imputing science into the equation. I would have no problem saying Genesis 1-11 is literal-historical, with the bold big caveat that it is most definitely not scientific. I believed that very thing for a while.

So, where are your verses that state the Biblical authors believed the world is flat? If you are going to say it is because they said the four corners of the earth or to the end of the earth, then you are saying these were intended literally. Is that what you are trying to say that the Biblical authors intended those statements literally?

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. So now I could always ask about Joshua making the sun stop, when everybody knows it's the earth moving and therefore adjustment in the movement of the earth not the sun.

shernren said:

Well Critias, seeing as only one of us can be right (or I have a very limited imagination) I am not convinced that you are right. I hope that I can at least get you to see what I see. The ability to introduce others to one's own worldview, to take the glasses off my eyes and put them on yours for a little while, is a very important skill in today's pluralistic world and is necessary for any Christian evangelism in the modern context. And I do hope you know what a reductio (not reduction - my bad) ad absurdum argument is or else you won't get me.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you want me into your worldview but you don’t try and see another’s. I have been looking at and in your worldview and have expressed my opinion about it.

What you are asking me to do is look at something in the perspective that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the Law as He said He would and did do. You are asking to me see that the Jewish Sabbath is not for only the Jews but for the Gentiles as well. Yet, you have no Scriptures to back up any of your points.

If you want me to see in your eyes, you are going to have to start presenting verses that establish why your view is the “right” view. Otherwise, there are just empty words.

shernren said:

A creation mandate is any mandate that started at creation. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

So you are claiming that the Sabbath was instituted during Creation? Please give verses to support your assertion that it was not instituted with the Ten Commandments but rather before then.

shernren said:

(It might be. Modern Christianity is far more into self-righteousness than idolatry, what with "self-help spirituality"... but I digress.) What I meant was not that Sabbath is higher than the rest of the Law, but that Sabbath is higher than the Law. Circumcision of the flesh is part of the Law. Circumcision of the heart is higher than the Law. The former applies only to Jews, the latter to Jews and Gentiles. It follows logically from YEC belief-form that Sabbath is a creation mandate, not something that started within the Torah and is therefore specific to the Jewish nation.

Click to expand...

So, are you claiming that Christians are into “self-help”? Or are you just going after yec’s and claiming it of them as well as idolatry?

You seemed confused. What part of the Sabbath are you referring to as higher than the Law? Is it the actual resting or the reflecting and worshipping God?

I don’t think you understand your own argument. You see, you are saying circumcision of the heart and then the actual circumcision of the male as two different things, one being higher than the Law. Then you go to say that Gentiles must observe the Sabbath by resting, but the Sabbath is higher than the Law. If you are trying to draw a comparison between the circumcision of the heart and the resting of the Sabbath, you need to do so on the same level. One is spiritual and the other – resting – is physical.

I can go along with the argument that the Sabbath should be kept in the heart. That would mean that we should always be focused on what God has done for us and striving to live for God. I can agree to that being for all people, not just Jews.

The actual physical resting from work that was instituted by Moses in the giving of the Ten Commandments by God, was giving only to the Jews, not the Gentiles.

You seem to be presenting your argument that yec’s should be observing the physical and spiritual aspects of the Sabbath. Yet, you state only the spiritual aspects of circumcision need to be observed, even though circumcision and the Sabbath are part of the Law.

shernren said:

I have not read that they kept Sabbath on Sunday. I have not read that they rested on Sunday. Have you?

Click to expand...

I see. Here you have presented that you are concerned with the physical aspects of the Sabbath and not the spiritual aspects.

That is why I have said that with your logic you are using, you should then continue and argue against Paul for his argument in saying that the physical aspects of circumcision shouldn’t apply to the Gentiles. The physical aspects of the Sabbath were given to the Jews and the Jews only.

Christians observe their own Sabbath on Sunday. It is not the same type of Sabbath as the Jews, for Christians are not under the Law but under Grace because Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. Therefore Christians observe the spiritual aspects of the Sabbath by worshipping Jesus Christ on Sundays gathered together in Churches. If the Churches are teaching correctly, they will expect that those in their congregations continue to worship God throughout the week and not just on one day.

I am not sure why you are presenting your argument as if you are against this, unless of course that you are.

shernren said:

Well, that shows that I am not a good enough communicator to bring my argument across. Here it is, againagainandagain.

One "biblical proof" YECism employs for its 6 literal days of creation-1 literal day of rest is passages like Exodus 20:11. Exodus 20:11 refers to the character / work of God in Gen 1-2 as a precedent. So how can a metaphorical day of rest be the precedent for a literal day of rest? So the argument goes. If a metaphorical day of rest was the precedent, the law would have also been a metaphorical day of rest for the Jews. I know you will not find it stated quite as baldly as this but this is the gist of that particular argument.

Click to expand...

Well, the Sabbath was observed on one day by the Jews, Saturday. Because of what Jesus Christ did on the Cross, Christians are no longer under the Law, we are under the Grace of Jesus Christ. You seem to completely miss this in your attempt assert that all yec’s are subject to the Jewish Sabbath, instead of the fulfillment of the Law by Jesus Christ.

shernren said:

However to make such claims the YECs are actually shutting themselves in a cage. Because this literal precedent must apply to themselves Gentiles as well. Why do I say that? Because all the Law has precedents in God's character and/or God's works. For example, why the laws about ritual purification? Because God's character is holy. While we Gentiles are not bound to the Jewish ceremonial laws (being part of the specific covenant between God and the Jewish nation), we are bound by the precedents of those laws in God's character and works. The Bible says that the Law is a "shadow" of things to come: well, the things that they shadow are binding and necessary on both Jews and Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and that is why Christians keep the spiritual aspects of the Sabbath, at least we all try to – I hope. But, you insist that yec’s must keep the physical aspects of the Sabbath that were given only to the Jews. That is absurd, hence your reduction ad absurdum argument, because Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law.

shernren said:

You see where my argument leads? If the precedent of the Sabbath Torah Law is a literal Saturday rest of God's, then Gentiles are also bound by it, because it is higher than the Torah Law and thus universal across creation.

Click to expand...

No. What you are saying here makes no sense to our present day. You again seem to think that this applies to Gentiles after what Jesus Christ did. That again is an absurd conclusion.

This type of reasoning makes me wonder if you fully understand what Jesus Christ did for you. If you think we need to keep the Sabbath as the Jews did before Christ, then you better start keeping the circumcision as well. You also better call Paul into error. It is the heart God is concerned with.

shernren said:

Jesus rested on the Sabbath, no? And His Sabbath was a Saturday, no? I don't get this little argument.

Click to expand...

Was Jesus Jewish? Did Jesus also work on the Sabbath? Weren’t the leaders trying to kill Jesus because they claimed He broke the Sabbath Law? I don’t understand your argument here. It should be quite clear to you by just reading what Jesus did do on the Sabbath. “Tell me, is harder for God to forgive sins or heal a man?”

shernren said:

Did God inspire Ecclesiastes? Did God inspire Job? Then why do we find glaring theological problems in both? Things like "everything is meaningless" (did King Solomon agree that life should be "purpose-driven"? ) and the many logical contradictions within Job's speech.

Click to expand...

Yes, God inspired both Ecclesiastes and Job. You don’t understand the meaning of Ecclesiastes? The point to the book is that everything is meaningless without God. That should be clear if you have thoroughly read the book.

Please present your arguments against Job.

shernren said:

God's inspiration is less heavy-handed than we assume.

Click to expand...

You give God hardly any credit and assume when you don’t understand that it is His lack of.

shernren said:

God could have used myths as vehicles of His truth. You yourself (or was it? definitely a YEC, when we were talking about dualism) said that Jesus may not have meant what He said about Hell in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man - that Hell may not literally be like that. I think that's a far more serious charge against "God's omnipotent inspiration" than saying Genesis was a myth.

Click to expand...

It was I who said that the torment and torture may not be actually someone torturing them, but rather because they are without God. That the fire and gnashing of teeth may be a metaphor for what it will be like to be without God. I did not say Hell wouldn’t be torturous, I said the language used might not be literal in describing what Hell is like, it might rather be to present what it will be like for the individual suffering there without God.

Tell me why this is a serious charge against God’s omnipotent inspiration?

shernren said:

I'm not too well-versed in it - ANE mythology isn't exactly my strong point. You could ask Vance or Gluadys if you're actually more interested in learning about comparative mythology than arguing about how and why I am wrong.

Click to expand...

Ok.

shernren said:

I'm only following in the great footsteps of AiG and ICR. They don't see any problem with imputing science into the equation. I would have no problem saying Genesis 1-11 is literal-historical, with the bold big caveat that it is most definitely not scientific. I believed that very thing for a while.

Click to expand...

I think you might have added science in to see if I would agree so that you could then argue that point. I have seen others do the same and it seemed as if you might be trying to this as well.

shernren said:

I see what you mean. So now I could always ask about Joshua making the sun stop, when everybody knows it's the earth moving and therefore adjustment in the movement of the earth not the sun.

Click to expand...

Ok, prove that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun, if that is your claim. It seems man thinks he/she knows so much that if the sun did stop, nothing else would be altered because of its rotational stop. Another explanation is that the sun did stop from one’s perspective here on earth.

I hope you never say sun rise or sun set. If you ever have, you obviously believe in geocentrism and deny heliocentrism.

Ok, prove that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun, if that is your claim.

Click to expand...

The sun relative to the earth is stationary (it does move relative to the universe). The earth revolves around the sun and around its own access, but you can't stop something that is already stopped.

Another explanation is that the sun did stop from one’s perspective here on earth.

Click to expand...

You mean it's not meant to be taken literally? That it might be a metaphor? Wash your mouth out!

artybloke said:

The sun relative to the earth is stationary (it does move relative to the universe). The earth revolves around the sun and around its own access, but you can't stop something that is already stopped.

Click to expand...

Really? From our position here, you are claiming that it looks like the earth is moving and not the sun?

When you say "you can't stop something that is already stopped," are you suggesting that the sun never moves?

I suppose you believe that there is no rotational force causing the planets to revolve around the sun either.

artybloke said:

You mean it's not meant to be taken literally? That it might be a metaphor? Wash your mouth out!

Click to expand...

Here in lies the true problem, misrepresentation of hermeneutical style. It seems you think that if one takes a passage in the Bible literally because it was the authors intent to be so, that everything in the Bible must be literal.

Your stance above shows your lack of undertanding of hermeneutics. That is the true problem in this forum. You seem to think that a style of writing cannot change, that it must remain constant, that an author can not use comparative or figurative laguage within a literal context. Maybe a brush up on literary styles and a class on hermeneutics might help you better understand such positions istead of making mocking statements such as: "You mean it's not meant to be taken literally? That it might be a metaphor? Wash your mouth out!"

It seems you think that if one takes a passage in the Bible literally because it was the authors intent to be so, that everything in the Bible must be literal.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'literal'? If you mean that the style is plain and direct, then certainly Gen 2 is. It's written in the form of a folk myth, and I don't think it's full of metaphor, anymore than Aesop's fables are full of metaphor. That's a long way from saying that it was ever intended to be historical, though. Just because a story is told in plain simple language don't make it history; otherwise, The Cat In The Hat would be history. Though Gen 1 is much more poetic and 'choral' in form, and I don't think it was ever intended to be taken 'plainly.' It's a song to be used in temple or synagogue worship.

There's a very big leap from taking a story literally (that is, you don't start looking for hidden symbolism where none exists) and taking something as history or science in the modern sense (that is, you try and fit a very post-enlightenment view of factual truth on a text for which that would be an anachronism.) The Bible contains no science. Why would it? It was written by priests and poets not scientists.

Yes the sun moves, by the way: but it does not move relative to the earth, the earth moves round it. And no I don't think the earth stopped either; I rather think the writers were using poetic exageration (hyperbole.)

Oh, and by the way, I happen to be a poet. What I don't know about metaphor and literary devices ain't worth knowing.

Critias, what is an argument reductio ad absurdum? I hope you can tell me in your own words or I will never see just what it is that you can't see in my arguments.

Yes, God inspired both Ecclesiastes and Job. You don’t understand the meaning of Ecclesiastes? The point to the book is that everything is meaningless without God. That should be clear if you have thoroughly read the book.

Please present your arguments against Job.

Click to expand...

No, the point of Ecclesiastes is that everything is meaningless. Fullstop. Then Christian exegetes come along and figure that it has to be in the Canon for a reason. Then they notice how King Solomon says "under the sun". So they come up with your explanation. What I meant was did God verbally and directly inspire it? Did God come up to King Solomon and say "Now write this down: 'Everything is meaningless...'" In the same way would God have verbally, directly inspired the logical inconsistencies in Job's speech? Would God have verbally, directly inspired the words of his friends, and after that scolded them for being wrong about Him?

Does the fact that these probably-not-directly-inspired words are in the Bible, cast any shadow on God's omniscience? God could obviously use various forms for His eternal truth. Why not a myth-form?

It was I who said that the torment and torture may not be actually someone torturing them, but rather because they are without God. That the fire and gnashing of teeth may be a metaphor for what it will be like to be without God. I did not say Hell wouldn’t be torturous, I said the language used might not be literal in describing what Hell is like, it might rather be to present what it will be like for the individual suffering there without God.

Tell me why this is a serious charge against God’s omnipotent inspiration?

Click to expand...

Because if Jesus said there was going to be fire in hell, and there isn't, wouldn't He be lying? Especially since He is the only person who has seen it and is able to tell us about it. Now how different is that from:

If the Creation account says it was all done in six days, and it wasn't, wouldn't it be a lie? Especially since God is the only one who has seen it and is able to tell us about it.

I can't see how you can consistently reject the first argument, and uphold the second. Both are after all the direct words of God, aren't they? Unless they aren't - and which aren't?

I think you might have added science in to see if I would agree so that you could then argue that point. I have seen others do the same and it seemed as if you might be trying to this as well.

Click to expand...

Gosh, telling me what I am about to argue seems as offensive as telling me what I believe! Anyway it's my particular chip-on-the-shoulder. I've been badly burnt by creationist "scientific" evidence. I really have a lot more respect for YECs who are willing to admit that little if any of the scientific evidence is for them.

So, are you claiming that Christians are into “self-help”? Or are you just going after yec’s and claiming it of them as well as idolatry?

Click to expand...

I said "modern Christianity". There's nothing saying I was pinpointing YECs (unless it was a twang on the conscience joking.) I don't see how you can call Purpose-Driven Life and Prayer of Jabez anything else. But that's a different thread.

shernren said:

Critias, what is an argument reductio ad absurdum? I hope you can tell me in your own words or I will never see just what it is that you can't see in my arguments.

Click to expand...

You are arguing that the Sabbath should be accept and practiced by yec's because of their belief that Genesis 1-2 are literal historical accounts. You are saying that because God rested on the seventh day, which Exodus 20:11 refers to, that it is absurd to keep a literal historical view point of Genesis 1-2 without seeing the Sabbath as a mandate for all people, not just Jews.

Basically, accepting your argument because rejecting it would be an impossible position to defend. It is an absurd conclusion, like if you are right, then hell has frozen over.

shernren said:

No, the point of Ecclesiastes is that everything is meaningless. Fullstop. Then Christian exegetes come along and figure that it has to be in the Canon for a reason. Then they notice how King Solomon says "under the sun". So they come up with your explanation. What I meant was did God verbally and directly inspire it? Did God come up to King Solomon and say "Now write this down: 'Everything is meaningless...'" In the same way would God have verbally, directly inspired the logical inconsistencies in Job's speech? Would God have verbally, directly inspired the words of his friends, and after that scolded them for being wrong about Him?

Click to expand...

Maybe you might want to read the last few chapters of Ecclesiastes. It focuses on God and why we ought to do the same.

Ecclesiastes 12:13
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

I do think God showed Solomon throughout his life, when Solomon faltered in his walk with God, that being apart from God, no matter what you have, it is all meaningless.

You can see the contrast throughout the book. Take chapter five for instance. It begins talking about being in awe of God and then later in verse 10 it talks about riches being meaningless. It is a beautiful book of showing that we could have it all within this world, but without God, none of what we have means anything. That shouldn't be that hard to see within the book itself. This leads me to the conclusion that you have not spent much time reading it to really see the power and wisdom of what is being said.

So, yes, I think God did inspire these writings, because without God everything truly is meaningless.

As I said, I cannot comment on Job, when I don't know what you are specifically speaking of. So, please cite your problems with Job.

shernren said:

Does the fact that these probably-not-directly-inspired words are in the Bible, cast any shadow on God's omniscience? God could obviously use various forms for His eternal truth. Why not a myth-form?

Click to expand...

I agree God can deliver His message in any way He so chooses. I have nothing against myths, in fact I very much enjoy Egyptian mythology. I just recently started learning more about Ancient Egypt and their beliefs and writings. Their creation stories are rather interesting I think, as well as the symbols and their meaning within the cuneiform language.

It is just my opinion in studying, that the Bible should be interpreted with an Author hermeneutical approach. I do not favor a reader hermeneutical approach.

I for one, truly want to understand what is written, even if it goes against my current beliefs of what is. I have believed several things and have been corrected by the Bible upon further study. I have no problem whatsoever with being wrong; when I am, I learn, its fantastic!

I am open to being corrected, I am open to being shown wrong. I am open to you presenting verses that support your belief. Anytime you would like to do so, would be great.

One thing that is often misunderstood, is that the first recorded writings that we have are not of myths, they are of literal historical accounts. The Sumer people were the first to begin writing and the first things they recorded were economic transactions. The Philadephia Tablet is a sample of what they used to record, a land transaction between two people.

shernren said:

Because if Jesus said there was going to be fire in hell, and there isn't, wouldn't He be lying? Especially since He is the only person who has seen it and is able to tell us about it. Now how different is that from:

Click to expand...

As I have continued to say, it **could** be taken figuratively. Jesus often said about hell as it being eternal fire. If there is no fire within hell, would Jesus be lying? No, because it was then meant to be figurative of what it would be like in hell. We know that if we were set on fire, it would be tortureous, would it not? It is something we know what it would be like. So Jesus could be using it as a way for us to understand what it would be like in hell without meaning literal fire.

If you want to keep insisting that it is literal fire and it cannot be anything else, go ahead, I don't mind.

shernren said:

If the Creation account says it was all done in six days, and it wasn't, wouldn't it be a lie? Especially since God is the only one who has seen it and is able to tell us about it.

Click to expand...

If God did not create in six days, then obviously God did not lie, we misunderstood. This whole thing of God lying because we misunderstand is really from the position of pride, that we must be right in our understanding and cannot be wrong. So if we are wrong, then it is not our fault, it is God lying.

I believe the author intended six literal days of creation to be conveyed to his audience. I can also see Saint Augustine's approach to this as well. That what is written was meant to be understood as it is, because man could not fathom all things being created instantly. Man can fathom all things being created over periods of time, whatever periods they may be.

shernren said:

I can't see how you can consistently reject the first argument, and uphold the second. Both are after all the direct words of God, aren't they? Unless they aren't - and which aren't?

Click to expand...

I believe I just explained that above.

shernren said:

Gosh, telling me what I am about to argue seems as offensive as telling me what I believe! Anyway it's my particular chip-on-the-shoulder. I've been badly burnt by creationist "scientific" evidence. I really have a lot more respect for YECs who are willing to admit that little if any of the scientific evidence is for them.

Click to expand...

If you look at what I wrote, I didn't tell you what you were going to argue. I said I thought you might have added.... Notice the "I thought you might" part.

Scientific evidence is really just interpretation.

shernren said:

I said "modern Christianity". There's nothing saying I was pinpointing YECs (unless it was a twang on the conscience joking.) I don't see how you can call Purpose-Driven Life and Prayer of Jabez anything else. But that's a different thread.

Click to expand...

Why do you think the Purpose-Driven Life is idolatry? I haven't read it, I know it is used by some Churches, but I don't really know much about it.

You are saying that because God rested on the seventh day, which Exodus 20:11 refers to, that it is absurd to keep a literal historical view point of Genesis 1-2 without seeing the Sabbath as a mandate for all people, not just Jews.

Click to expand...

BINGO! Now tell me why I'm wrong.

Basically, accepting your argument because rejecting it would be an impossible position to defend. It is an absurd conclusion, like if you are right, then hell has frozen over.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you meant by that but what I was trying to get across (on second thought it isn't strictly r. ad absurdum but the style is the same) is that the logical conclusion of the YEC philosophy doesn't make sense. It's in the same vein as the proof of the irrationality of sqrt(2) : if sqrt(2) is rational then this then that then this which contradicts something we started out assuming, therefore sqrt(2) cannot be rational.

If YECs are right and Genesis 1-2 is literal-historical, then this then that then this (as you have grasped yourself) which few if any YECs believe. Therefore there's something wrong with YECism.

It is just my opinion in studying, that the Bible should be interpreted with an Author hermeneutical approach. I do not favor a reader hermeneutical approach.

Click to expand...

Then I'm tarnished in your books. But what about people like Vance and gluadys who have the conviction that the author Moses (or whichever source of the JEPD ) really did mean a myth?

What I get from your reply to my parallel between Jesus's parable and the Creation story is that Jesus could've meant a figurative fire, while Moses (or substitute) couldn't have meant a figurative six days. Am I right about what you're saying? And why do you say that?

Scientific evidence is really just interpretation.

Click to expand...

NO WAY! If it was, there wouldn't be multiple competing theories of gravity based on the same set of evidence. Are you trying to say that the evidence, viewed through young-earth-view, supports young-earth-theory? I'd agree, except that the young-earth-view makes numerous unscientific presuppositions that thus make young-earth-theory unscientific whether or not it is true.

Why do you think the Purpose-Driven Life is idolatry? I haven't read it, I know it is used by some Churches, but I don't really know much about it.

Click to expand...

I believe that "self-help" Christianity is offensive to God, like the Jews' self-righteousness which He compared to dirty linen. I can point you to this thread where it was discussed: http://www.christianforums.com/t1643639-purpose-driven-fluff.html. Have fun!