A Theological Catastrophe

[Starcrystal]

Quote from the poll categories:

"@11-20 billion years. Scientific evidence does not really conflict with the Bible, since the scriptures are intended to be read figuratively instead of literally. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its creation account is to say that Ghod created the universe and cares about our spiritual needs. Its creation story is not intended to be an accurate depiction of creation."

This theory got 16 votes - more than any other cataegory, but just slightly ahead of @6,000 years which had 15.

The problem I find as a believer whose been saved 19+ years is that there is denial of the obvious. the Scriptures were written thousands of years ago, and in them we find some amazing scientific facts: discussion about the circuits of the wind, the cycles water goes through from rain, to sea, to evaporate into cloud, info about the stars, the many creatures of the earth (See Jobs last few chapters, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes...) Scripture speaks of the "Circle of the Earth" long before Columbus' day when many people believed the earth to be flat.

We must remember there were no instruments of science like we have today - yet ancient people had a great understanding of it. it was far more pronounced than the "science" of say the 1400's or 1500's.

No, the Bible is not a science book, but its pages contain scientific fact. If we deny the Creation account and even begin to insinuate that monkeys may have been our ancestors, and that there was death prior to the fall - we tear apart the sacredness of scriptures, we take something sanctified, and instead of it being set apart for our Lord usage, we toss it in with the filth of the world. By saying we believe in billions of years, and by that we imply evolution, we are agreeing with atheists and agnostics who deny God. We have then fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, running along with them rather than reproving them.

In order to walk in Gods grace and holiness, how can we cast in our lot with the diabolical teachings of the world?

 

[Macca]

Starcrystal.
Beautifully put. If you cannot literally believe the first 6 chapters of Genesis, ther is a question on your true Christianity.
What else is brought into question when you disbelieve the account of creation that Jesus believed and quoted from?
Keep telling the truth.
Macca

 

[seebs]

The theological catastrophe, I think, is the idea that we must throw away four thousand years of theological study and commentary in favor of a simplistic interpretation based on hermeneutics less than a century old, and that anyone who is unable to do this honestly is then driven away from the faith.

The catastrophe, it seems to me, comes from trying to make everything in the world other than salvation into an issue which determines your salvation, in the hopes that most people will be denied salvation on the various technicalities, and perhaps convinced to leave the faith entirely.

Are we to drive them away? Apparently, nowadays.

That's a catastrophe.

 

[artybloke]

I see there's another person trying to make the Bible fit into a worldview for which it has no relevance.

The Earth is not a circle, it's a sphere (well, near enough): and as for that stuff about the winds, there's nothing in the Bible which tells us anything more than would have been known by an ex-nomadic people now settled into an agricultural world.

And the people who wrote the Bible were good writers: they had imagination, which is why they could talk of the doors of the wind, the four corners, talking animals and such like....

The Bible is not a work of science. It's a work of religious literature.

 

[Dracil]

Interesting, so just because a random science fiction novel I pick up has a few scientifically accurate parts makes the fictional parts non-fiction? Of course not. And similarly, just because the Bible have some parts that *may* be construed as scientifically accurate doesn't make the scientifically implausible parts real.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

The theological catastrophe, I think, is the idea that we must throw away four thousand years of theological study and commentary in favor of a simplistic interpretation based on hermeneutics less than a century old, and that anyone who is unable to do this honestly is then driven away from the faith.

What do you mean seebs? The ECF were all YECs, I believe.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Starcrystal.
Beautifully put. If you cannot literally believe the first 6 chapters of Genesis, ther is a question on your true Christianity.
What else is brought into question when you disbelieve the account of creation that Jesus believed and quoted from?
Keep telling the truth.
Macca

I agree with you Macca. The Lord makes it plain: "Man does not live on bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD." If we can't trust "inspired" scripture, then how can we believe that indeed Jesus was raised from the dead? The next thing we will hear will be that that was just a parable too, because science can't prove the resurrection actually occured.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I agree with you Macca. The Lord makes it plain: "Man does not live on bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD." If we can't trust "inspired" scripture, then how can we believe that indeed Jesus was raised from the dead? The next thing we will hear will be that that was just a parable too, because science can't prove the resurrection actually occured.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Wow, a praising comment about Macca's strawman charicature that a 'true' Christian cannot have Genesis be an allegory. Rubbish!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I always find it amusing to point out the reference at the bottom of my message to people who say that you cant be a true christian without being a YEC. It usually starts a tirade about "liberal" clergy and vitriol about homosexual marriages in the church. But nobody ever addresses the issue.

Why is it that the vast majority of mainstream clergy don't believe in a literal/historical adam and eve?

 

[Dracil]

I've used that poll too. The argument given (by an atheist, no less, the one who was claiming that "true Christians" could not accept evolution) was that Britain was an atheistic nation (implying those people are not "true Christians" I guess). I challenged him to give me statistics from the rest of the world, and he gave up. But then he came back with the ABC poll showing how 60% of Americans believe in a literal Genesis.

 

[lucaspa]

What do you mean seebs? The ECF were all YECs, I believe.

Most of them were Flat Earthers, too, based on a literalistic interpretation of scripture. For instance, the verse from Isaiah has the earth being a circle (flat) and not a ball (round).

The ECF are not the last word in theology. Tertullian, for instance, was a Manichean -- which was then and is now considered a heresy. They simply lacked the evidence from God's second book to know that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the wrong interpretation.