80%

[Vance]

The problem is that YEC's have a tendency, when unable or unwilling to answer questions, to resort to insinuations (or sometimes outright statements) that those who don't buy into the YEC doctrine are not truly devoted Christians. They insinuate (or state outright) that failing to conform to the YEC dogma is a sign of a compromising Christian, or a lack of Faith, or being "liberal" and all kinds of other derogatory assertions.

Rather than address the issues directly, all YEC arguments eventually boil down to "you are not as good of a Christian".

I hold the Bible in as great a reverence as any YEC on this board, and it is highly offensive that someone would insinuate (much less come right out and say) that anyone who believes in evolution or an old earth does not believe the Bible. This is a bald-faced lie, and the YEC's somehow feel justified and attacking the validity or depth of others' Christian beliefs.

 

[Ark Guy]

No vance, the YEC are just quoting..rather than like you, twisting scriptre.

 

[Josh1]

Vance, you are the one hurling accusations right now. I am not going to respond about what I think about OEC's. But, Lord willing, they trusted in Jesus and are going to heaven. It won't matter then, because Jesus knows all the answers. God Bless.

 

[Vance]

If the YEC's just quoted Scripture, that would be fine. But they (including you) do not stop there. You do, indeed, do the things I describe above.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

josh, you only responded by focusing on catholics. What about anglicans and other protestant denominations?

 

[Ark Guy]

The Theistic Evo sect like vance seems to be suggesting that if you are a YEC...you have no salvation.

 

[Ark Guy]

What a sorry group of ...so-called christians.

[noflame]

Next remark like this will result in an official warning.

 

[Josh1]

Late: josh, you only responded by focusing on catholics. What about anglicans and other protestant denominations?

I don't know as much about them as I do catholics. But you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what denomination your in, you can still be saved by trusting Jesus Christ as your Saviour. I am not downing the denomination, I am just disagreeing with some stuff they believe. My whole point earlier was that your statistics had no bearing in that discussion. We shouldn't base our beliefs on what man says. That was my whole point and THEBEAR went off accusing me of all kinds of things. God Bless. I mean this sincerely.

 

[Vance]

Yes, we should not base our beliefs on what man says. The problem is that man also interprets Scripture, including Genesis 1.

 

[Ark Guy]

Most people interpret scripture by using scripture...not evolutionISM vance

 

[Vance]

Is that how we learned that the sun does not revolve around the earth, by using Scripture alone to interpret those Scriptures implying geocentrism?

 

[Vance]

What a sorry group of ...so-called christians.

In case you inclined to edit this.

 

[Ark Guy]

Like the local weather it's obvious that the presentation was form an earthly position.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is one proper interpretation. Very good. That would, indeed, show that the Bible was not ACTUALLY teaching geocentrism.

But that was never the issue. But that is not at all what most Christians interpreted it to mean when faced with a scientific theory that the earth revolved around the sun. When that was proposed to them, they made it clear that it was NOT obvious to them that it simply referred to a "perspective", but that it did literally mean that the sun and and stars revolved around the earth. Literally, based on the plain reading of the text and their theological extrapolations. The Church made the clear statement that heliocentrism clearly violated the Scripture.

All you are saying is that they were wrong, and I agree. But they definitely did NOT find your interpretation "obvious". Were it not for scientific evidence, we would still, to this day, be interpreting those Scriptures to mean that the sun and stars LITERALLY revolve around the earth. But, because of scientific discoveries, we can see that this is wrong and we adopt more correct possible interpretations like the one you presented.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Most people interpret scripture by using scripture...not evolutionISM vance

Correct. And most of them do not take it literally, as illustrated by the survey in the OP.

You have finally seen the point.

 

[Ark Guy]

Yes, that is one proper interpretation. Very good. That would, indeed, show that the Bible was not ACTUALLY teaching geocentrism.

snip

Vance you fail to recognize one major big time point....they didn't present this earth sun relationship as myth such as you present the creation of the world.

Do you see the differance?

To continue,
The sun-earth was written from the viewpoint of standing on the earth. There was no claim of geocentrism. From my house the sun moves across the sky. The biblical authors presented Joshua in the same light.

Geocentrism is just another term used by the anti-bible crowd to try and create problems with in the scriptures.

 

[Ark Guy]

Correct. And most of them do not take it literally, as illustrated by the survey in the OP.

You have finally seen the point.

Sure check this out...

The original..
GEN 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Backed up by the New Testament

1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

The bible ...Old and New Testament clearly teaches man was made from the dust....Not apes.

The New Testament confirms the Old Testament.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

What part of circular reasoning do you not understand?

 

[Vance]

The point is that they abandoned an old interpretation for a new one based on what they learned from science. This is the essential point. Allowing extra-biblical evidence to inform how you interpret Scripture is perfectly acceptable.

And, yes, once again, the Bible did not teach geocentrism, MAN INTERPRETED the Bible in such a way that they believed it taught geocentrism. MAN WAS WRONG. Christians traditional reading of the Bible to indicate that the sun revolved around the earth was just wrong. Now we all read these verses different, as you point out.

THe point is that millions of Christians think that the say is true of a young earth and a six literal day creation. Our original, traditional interpretation that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and over a six literal day period was wrong and that we need to read these scriptures differently.

Differently how? SOme like Ross read it as still literal, but meaning very long periods. Others read it less literal, but still truth.

Either way, the point is that it is absolutely false to say that it is improper interpretive methodology to allow extra-biblical evidence, even if presented by scientists, and even if presented by atheists, to inform how we interpret Scripture. If the evidence is true, it does not matter where it comes from.

 

[Ark Guy]

The point is that they abandoned an old interpretation for a new one based on what they learned from science. This is the essential point. Allowing extra-biblical evidence to inform how you interpret Scripture is perfectly acceptable.

Sounds like it's time to abandon the resurrection...considering that we have learned from science that once your dead you stay dead.
Certainly there must be some spiritual truth in this myth. Yes?

And, yes, once again, the Bible did not teach geocentrism, MAN INTERPRETED the Bible in such a way that they believed it taught geocentrism. MAN WAS WRONG. Christians traditional reading of the Bible to indicate that the sun revolved around the earth was just wrong. Now we all read these verses different, as you point out.

People interpretates the bible wrong all the time..point and case...The Theo-Evo sect.

Of course we still speak in thoose terms...BTW vance..did you contact the weather station and complain yet?

THe point is that millions of Christians think that the say is true of a young earth and a six literal day creation. Our original, traditional interpretation that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and over a six literal day period was wrong and that we need to read these scriptures differently.

Just like how wrong the christians are on the resurrection. Remember SCIENCE SAYS NO!

Differently how? SOme like Ross read it as still literal, but meaning very long periods. Others read it less literal, but still truth.

Ross has his own problems.

Either way, the point is that it is absolutely false to say that it is improper interpretive methodology to allow extra-biblical evidence, even if presented by scientists, and even if presented by atheists, to inform how we interpret Scripture. If the evidence is true, it does not matter where it comes from.

Once again, lets do away with the resurrection...your scientist tell us it was impossible. Remember..."If the evidence is true, it does not matter where it comes from".