an official renunciation.

[Vance]

But, SBG, you know already that almost everything you just wrote does not apply to almost every TE in this group. How is that not, then, a strawman?

You know none of us deem Scripture incorrect or in error.
You know that we do NOT think that Jesus or the Apostle's taught Genesis the way YEC's think they taught it.
You know that we do NOT think that science is above God at all, but merely the study of God.
You know that we do not place our own wisdom above anything God has told us, we are just attempting to determine WHAT God has told us.

You have been told these things over and over. While you may disagree with the conclusions we reach, when you continue to make statements about what we think, what we believe, etc, when we have told you specifically that we do NOT believe that, then you are basically just calling us liars. That, indeed, is a wicked thing to do to a fellow Christian.

 

[Calminian]

You claimed that there are only contradictions in the Bible if we want there to be (implication being, if we're stubborn about a literal reading). So I asked, why can't others do the same with their religious books (the Koran for instance)? To this you said,

Simple. Because the God I believe in wrote the Bible, and I also believe He is the same God who created the world which we deal with in science.

But this dodges the question. I asked, why aren't others just a justified as you for doing the same with their religious books? If your book needs to be made figurative to be true, why is it better than another book that needs to be figurative to be true? A simple, "because I believe it" doesn't seem to be a good foundation.

I look around outside and I see YEC theories getting rebutted left right and center. So I ask around here... I'm not expecting anybody here to directly quote science at me. I'm asking if anybody even knows of any credible YEC science and where it is. Now, I don't normally subscribe to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but...

From my experience on boards like this, the best organization far and away is AIG. Their website right now is probably the best YEC resource available.

They publish two journals (technical and nontechical). As I mentioned before, I talked with someone at AIG a while back and found out you can actually go to their website and post a question for their technical journal. Apparently they will respond and even publish it at times. I don't know all the details on this but you might want to give it a browse or even give them a call.

They also are very critical of their own past arguments. When a YEC argument is proven flawed, they admit it and get rid of it. You may want to check out the following article:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Sadly I still see many of the above arguments being used by many in the church today. It really does hurt the credibility of YE creationism.

The passer-by is not the biblical writer: he is the YECist. (Oops. I just had to let it out.) The Biblical writer doesn't prescribe a scientific theory. The YECist does. Guess who I'm hitting at here?

But if you exclude a representative of a biblical writer from your analogy, it proves nothing. You have to explain where the passer-byer got his information.

In the analogy, the Biblical writer would have to be someone who answers: "Well, the gardener does take good care of the stadium..." which is a rather irrelevant answer whether or not it is true.

The analogy doesn't even come close. The bible doesn't simply say "God took good care of His creation" and then a bunch of YEers decided to interpret that as "He created the world in 6 days and sent a global flood." Surely you can put a little more effort into this.

Oh that's good. Because a lot of YECists can't. That's one of the things that scared me.

Some YECs scared you?

Alright then. Jesus had reason to create the wine that looked 5 years ago in a few minutes. The reason is simple: He only had a few minutes to do it.

What do you mean he only had a few minutes?? Give me one good reason why he couldn't have started on the project years before the wedding. He is God and He knew ahead of time there would be a need.

But what reason does God have to create a 6000-year-old universe that looks a few billion years old? Of course He may have His own reasons... but this would cast severe doubt, in my opinion, on the character of God.

This is what your objection is boiling down to?? Boy this is really telling. You can't understand why God wanted to do it in a short period of time therefore you don't believe Genesis is literal? Wow! How dare God do anything without giving you all of His reasons first.

You keep asserting the universe looks old simply for the sake of looking old. But no YEC out there believes this. Let me ask, BTW, what would a naturalistic young universe look like? Would it have life? Complex echo systems? Sustaining atmospheres and soils? If God did want to create an instantaneous environment for a complex organism like man, wouldn't it be necessary for Him to not only create a mature man, but also a mature environment from the atmosphere to the soils to the echo-systems?

Your very own bigshot Humphrey has said about as much in his treatment of the "created young to look old" philosophy in Starlight and Time.

Hmmm. There’s the bitterness again. Sounds like emotion is playing a bigger role in this than it needs to.

Yes I've read Starlight and Time (a few times actually). There is absolutely nothing in it to support what you are saying. There are no YECs out there who claim God created things mature and fully functioning, just to make them appear old. You may be referring to his criticism of the light-in-transit theory (which YECs no longer believe). But that’s not at all related with the mature creation issue.

 

[Vance]

The first question YEC's need to answer is whether they think the earth DOES look older than 10,000 years? Does it really test older? Does it have the same features that an earth billions of years old would have?

 

[Remus]

While you may disagree with the conclusions we reach, when you continue to make statements about what we think, what we believe, etc, when we have told you specifically that we do NOT believe that, then you are basically just calling us liars. That, indeed, is a wicked thing to do to a fellow Christian.

Oh good grief Vance. You really shouldn't write things like this when it is you that constantly posts things about what you say YEC's believe even when you've been told over and over again that it is not true. Why is that?

The first question YEC's need to answer is whether they think the earth DOES look older than 10,000 years?

What does an earth that is older than 10k years look like?

Does it really test older?

By what standard?

Does it have the same features that an earth billions of years old would have?

What features does an earth that is billions of years old have?

 

[Vance]

Remus, what have I said about any YEC here after I have been told by that YEC that it is not correct?

As for the age questions, use whatever would be convincing to you one way or the other. Do you think that, absent any presumption that it is young based on an interpretation of Scripture, you would conclude that the earth is young or old?

 

[Remus]

Remus, what have I said about any YEC here after I have been told by that YEC that it is not correct?

Any YEC here? probably none. That's because you generalize to the point that you end up talking about some mythical "them" and try to make what you say meaningful. It's your special way of trying to put YEC's in a bad light that we've all grown to love about you.

As for the age questions, use whatever would be convincing to you one way or the other. Do you think that, absent any presumption that it is young based on an interpretation of Scripture, you would conclude that the earth is young or old?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that in the absence of the clear teachings of Scripture, I'd most likely conclude that the earth was old.

 

[Vance]

Any YEC here? probably none. That's because you generalize to the point that you end up talking about some mythical "them" and try to make what you say meaningful. It's your special way of trying to put YEC's in a bad light that we've all grown to love about you.

If there is any characterization I make of YEC's in general that you believe is not justified, let me know. But the point is that I do make a distinction between the various things YEC's are saying. When it is only some that say it, I say "some YEC's". But again, if there is a particular characterization that bothers you, let me know and we can talk about it.

But what is annoying is when someone makes a series of characterizations about what TE's believe when they have been told dozens of times that we DON'T believe it. It just doesn't make any sense.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that in the absence of the clear teachings of Scripture, I'd most likely conclude that the earth was old.

OK, that is important. AiG and other groups would have you believe that an objective scientific study would lead to the conclusion of a young earth.

 

[Remus]

If there is any characterization I make of YEC's in general that you believe is not justified, let me know. But the point is that I do make a distinction between the various things YEC's are saying. When it is only some that say it, I say "some YEC's". But again, if there is a particular characterization that bothers you, let me know and we can talk about it.

When it is only some, why do you bother? Why not deal with the majority? I can find people in any group that says just about anything. Does it make any sense for me to say "some such-and-such says this"?

But what is annoying is when someone makes a series of characterizations about what TE's believe when they have been told dozens of times that we DON'T believe it. It just doesn't make any sense.

Oh, I understand completely. I experience something similar all the time here.

OK, that is important. AiG and other groups would have you believe that an objective scientific study would lead to the conclusion of a young earth.

Do they? I always had the impression that they believe that scientific study through a Biblical world view would lead to this conclusion? Kind of like using all the information at hand instead of disregarding some information because it doesn't fit in the popular definition of 'science'.

 

[Vance]

Why deal with what only "some" YEC's say? Because what they are saying is dangerous and a stumbling-block to the Gospel. And those some include posters on this very forum. But again, if there is any particular characterization which you think is not warranted, I would be happy to hear it and discuss it.

As for groups like AiG, their premise is that even secular scientists would come to the young earth conclusion and would see that evolution is false, just from the physical evidence itself, if they were able to view that evidence objectively, without the bias and indoctrination they have been subjected to.

But if your position is that, in the absent of your particular reading of Genesis, you would agree that the evidence from God's Creation is that it is old, then your entire belief about this subject is tied to your particular reading of Genesis 1 and 2. Basically, the conclusions reached by hundreds of thousands of scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, over the last 200 years, who are in 99.94% agreement against a young earth, on the one hand, and one particular manner of reading Genesis 1 and 2 which is not even held by a very large majority of Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians, on the other.

At that point, I would probably be humble enough in my opinion of my ability to properly read Scripture to strongly consider that maybe it is my reading of Scripture that is incorrect.

 

[SBG]

But, SBG, you know already that almost everything you just wrote does not apply to almost every TE in this group. How is that not, then, a strawman?

First Vance, you will have to point out where I said my statement is directly at all theistic evolutionists exclusively. Secondly, you will have to point out where I said all or most of whatever group you are inferring. Thirdly, it is not a strawman if there are people in this forum who have claimed in some way that God's Word is in error, or if someone has claimed Jesus was wrong on anything.

You know none of us deem Scripture incorrect or in error.

You or anyone here has never once said God's Word is in error in any type of case?

You know that we do NOT think that Jesus or the Apostle's taught Genesis the way YEC's think they taught it.

So you don't think Jesus taught of an actual Adam and Even?

You don't think Jesus taught of the world created rather than a world evolved?

You don't think Jesus taught that this universe wasn't a random chance as evolution shows it to be?

You don't think Jesus Christ taught of an actual world wide flood?

You know that we do NOT think that science is above God at all, but merely the study of God.

So no one here uses science as guideline to interpreting scripture?

No one here has changed their interpretation from literal to allegorical because of science?

Mind you the OP.

You know that we do not place our own wisdom above anything God has told us, we are just attempting to determine WHAT God has told us.

So people here don't use science, logic, and their wisdom to change their interpretation of the Bible?

By saying you are attempting to determine what God has told you, is to admit that you will use your wisdom to understand. It is not your wisdom or mine that brings understanding of God and His Word, it is the Holy Spirit.

Your statement shows how you interpret God's Word, through your own wisdom.

You have been told these things over and over. While you may disagree with the conclusions we reach, when you continue to make statements about what we think, what we believe, etc, when we have told you specifically that we do NOT believe that, then you are basically just calling us liars. That, indeed, is a wicked thing to do to a fellow Christian.

Yes, I have been told over and over by you. And yet I see statements here such as this made here:

I think the point is that Jesus was wrong about this from a purely scientific frame of reference - there is no death of the seed.

You yourself claim Jesus couldn't be all knowing, He couldn't be all powerful, and He couldn't be everywhere at once while here on earth. And many others here agree with you. Yet you and them discount God's Word where Peter says Jesus is all knowing, where Jesus was pinned by the leaders of the law, about to be stoned, but walked through them, where Jesus was pushed to the edge of a cliff by those who hated Him, but walked through them. Where Jesus at will did many miracles, raising the dead, controlling the weather, walking on the water, healing the sick, and casting out demons.

Even the demons knew who He was.

Then there is the claim that Jesus wasn't conceived of the Holy Spirit, when the Bible says He was. Furthermore stating He need not be, when the Psalmists say sin is inherited upon conception.

I didn't make up these, you and others here have freely shared these beliefs that do not coincide with what the Bible teaches. Then when these statements are present, people here try to justify it or claim they didn't say it. They try to claim that the Son of God wasn't really God here, but just a man sent from God who then became the Son of God later. That is what is said when you or another states that Jesus couldn't do something or anything while here on earth. The only thing Jesus Christ laid aside was His right to be sitting upon the throne and be seen in all His Glory taking a guise of human form, humbling Himself.

Is it more humble to not be able to do something and not do it? Or is it more humble to be able to do something and not do it? If I am forced by God to follow Him, have I humbled myself? Or if I have free will and choice to follow His will, have I humbled myself?

Show me where I call you or others here liars? Or do you prefer to put words in my mouth and then claim I have misrepresented someone?

This forum has a diverse set of beliefs, many of which that do not stem from Biblical teachings. And when one stands up for the truths within the Bible, another will call them a Bible idolator. This is the flesh rising up to war with God, for they wallow in their pride and smugness that their wisdom is greater than God's.

Woe to the man to who rises up and takes the seat of judgement against the Almighty God. May they be blessed while here on earth for eternity will be lost. It is not the world that calls judgement on God, it is the people God entrusted with His Word that calls judgement upon Him. Just as the days of Christ when the leaders of Church condemned the Son of God, so shall today be when the body uses Jesus' name to preach their wisdom and give to what their ears yearn to hear.

 

[Ben_Hur]

If science seems to contradict the Bible, there can only be these choices:
1. Science is of the devil, and the Bible is of God.
2. Science is of God and/or right, and the Bible is inaccurate and/or wrong.
3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.
4. Science and the Bible are both of God - I don't know how and I don't care to know!

If you substitute the phrase "The Creation" for the word "Science" in the above statements, you get to what the real question is.

Does God lie through His creation? The CREATION and the BIBLE are BOTH from God; we need to understand how they fit.

Might I suggest (to Shernren) the following reading:

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

 

[Calminian]

The first question YEC's need to answer is whether they think the earth DOES look older than 10,000 years?

No it does not. Neither did the wine Christ created. The only ones fooled by Christ's wine would be those with faulty assumptions. Our world looks exactly like a fully functioning, recently miraculously created world is supposed to look like.

Does it really test older?

Depends on the test. If one were relying on alcohol content to determine the age of the created wine, it would test similar to that of older wine.

Does it have the same features that an earth billions of years old would have?

It may well have a many of the same features a billion year old universe might have. Just as Christ's wine shared many of the same features of 5 year old wine. Don't you see how meaningless that argument is?

 

[Remus]

But again, if there is any particular characterization which you think is not warranted, I would be happy to hear it and discuss it.

I'll make an attempt to point it out next time I see it. For future reference and in case I don't get a chance to point it out, it's probably safe just to assume that it'll be your next sentence that starts out with "YEC's say/believe".

As for groups like AiG, their premise is that even secular scientists would come to the young earth conclusion and would see that evolution is false, just from the physical evidence itself, if they were able to view that evidence objectively, without the bias and indoctrination they have been subjected to.

'On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.'

‘... I believe [the Bible] gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’ - Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

As you can see, what you say is not true.

But if your position is that, in the absent of your particular reading of Genesis, you would agree that the evidence from God's Creation is that it is old, then your entire belief about this subject is tied to your particular reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

Actually it isn't limited to just the first two chapters, as has been pointed out to you many times in the past.

Basically, the conclusions reached by hundreds of thousands of scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, over the last 200 years, who are in 99.94% agreement against a young earth, on the one hand, and one particular manner of reading Genesis 1 and 2 which is not even held by a very large majority of Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians, on the other.

so? What makes you think they are right.. this time?

At that point, I would probably be humble enough in my opinion of my ability to properly read Scripture to strongly consider that maybe it is my reading of Scripture that is incorrect.

I've expressed why I believe what I do and why I reject what comes from parts of the scientific community. I'm sorry, but I don't trust them.
Also, have I not said over and over that I'm not dogmatic? Have I not said that I'm willing to reconsider my opinions? You are attempting to misrepresenting me... again. That would be a "particular characterization which think is not warranted".

 

[Remus]

You know none of us deem Scripture incorrect or in error.

You or anyone here has never once said God's Word is in error in any type of case?

Wow, how did I miss Vance saying that. I guess that's what I get for just skimming. Are you thinking of the thread that I'm thinking of SBG? Something to do a staff or no staff? I believe that I'll have to dig up the link to it.

 

[Vance]

First Vance, you will have to point out where I said my statement is directly at all theistic evolutionists . . .

The point is that you were not distinguishing among the various people here. Your post was a general statement about those who believe in TE, and the statements made apply to VERY few of those here. This is, then, a strawman. You can not make blanket statements in order to argue against a general position (like TE) when that blanket statement fits very few of those who hold that position.

You or anyone here has never once said God's Word is in error in any type of case?

Me? No, I have never said that the Scripture is in error. For a text to be in error, it has to be attempting to state something as strictly factual, and then get the facts wrong. A text that does not have that as its purpose will not be in error if it turns out that some of the details are inaccurate. So, no, in that sense (which is the important sense) I and most TE's here would say that the Scripture is not in error.

Others don't hold to Biblical inerrancy. But the point is already made. People don't believe in TE because they think the Bible is in error. The fact that some TE's might hold that view does not make it a foundation of the viewpoint since many, many others DON'T believe that.

So you don't think Jesus taught of an actual Adam and Even?

No.

You don't think Jesus taught of the world created rather than a world evolved?

No.

You don't think Jesus taught that this universe wasn't a random chance as evolution shows it to be?

Mistatement of evolution, but I don't think Jesus taught anything contrary to evolutionary development, no.

You don't think Jesus Christ taught of an actual world wide flood?

No.

So no one here uses science as guideline to interpreting scripture?

As a factor in the proper understanding of Scripture? Sure, just as you do, whether you know it or not.

No one here has changed their interpretation from literal to allegorical because of science?

I don't know, it might be that some have. But that would not be placing the study of science over the Bible. It would be recognizing that their interpretation of Scripture was based on human error. Think of all those Christians after Galileo who had to change their reading of Scripture based on the new information of science. The Bible still predominates, but often the information that comes from the study of God's Creation can be a factor in determining exactly what God is telling us in Scripture. Ask Augustine.

So people here don't use science, logic, and their wisdom to change their interpretation of the Bible?

Not to "change their interpretation" but to determnine the proper interpretation, sure. See above. That is NOT placing those tools God has given us above Scripture. You would not even have a Bible to read if it were not for the human wisdom of linguistics, for example.

By saying you are attempting to determine what God has told you, is to admit that you will use your wisdom to understand. It is not your wisdom or mine that brings understanding of God and His Word, it is the Holy Spirit.

Can you read? Is that a human ability? Was that translator using just the Spirit's guidance, or was he using a human ability? Do you really think God does not expect you to use the brain and logic he has given you to properly read the Bible? Yes, we are to seek the Spirit's guidance, but even the Westminster Confession points out that not all Scripture is easy to understand. Tell me what the gift of "teaching" is for, or the gift of "knowledge" if everyone could just read the Scripture and grasp it all with the Spirit's guidance?

Yes, I have been told over and over by you. And yet I see statements here such as this made here:

Yes, Karl has the most liberal view of any TE here (as he readily admits), but you can not make generalizations about TE based on what one person has said. Further, I think Karl would point out that while Jesus may have made a statement that was scientifically incorrect, this is only an "error" if he meant it as a scientifically accurate statement.

You yourself claim Jesus couldn't be all knowing . . .

I think you need to do some research on Apollonarianism. This was a heresy that was condemned back in the early Church days. It is based on the idea that Jesus was a human with the mind of God. We have gone over all this before. I think Jesus was fully God and fully Man while here on earth. I think he was fully capable of doing every miracle described in Scripture.

But this has nothing to do with a belief in Theistic Evolution. I think that is where you get confused.

Then there is the claim that Jesus wasn't conceived of the Holy Spirit, when the Bible says He was. Furthermore stating He need not be, when the Psalmists say sin is inherited upon conception.

Again, this has nothing to do with Theistic Evolution.

I didn't make up these, you and others here have freely shared these beliefs that do not coincide with what the Bible . . .

Again, this has nothing to do with theistic evolution. People have debated over these Christological issues since the very first decades of the Church. Some TE's hold these views, some do not. Some who hold these views are TE, some are not. There are YEC's who believe in infant baptism, and some do not. Should I characterize YEC beliefs by one or the other?

Is it more humble to not be able to do something and not do it? Or is it more humble to be able to do something and not do it? If I am forced by God to follow Him, have I humbled myself? Or if I have free will and choice to follow His will, have I humbled myself?

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. No matter what, you are interpreting Scripture, and that is a human process and subject to fallibility. It is a matter of pride to insist that your interpretation can not be wrong.

First Vance, you will have to point out where I said my statement is directly at all theistic evolutionists exclusively. . . .

The point is that you were not distinguishing among the various people here. Your post was a general statement about those who believe in TE, and the statements made apply to VERY few of those here. This is, then, a strawman. You can not make blanket statements in order to argue against a general position (like TE) when that blanket statement fits very few of those who hold that position.

You or anyone here has never once said God's Word is in error in any type of case?

Me? No, I have never said that the Scripture is in error. For a text to be in error, it has to be attempting to state something as strictly factual, and then get the facts wrong. A text that does not have that as its purpose will not be in error if it turns out that some of the details are inaccurate. So, no, in that sense (which is the important sense) I and most TE's here would say that the Scripture is not in error.

Others don't hold to Biblical inerrancy. But the point is already made. People don't believe in TE because they think the Bible is in error. The fact that some TE's might hold that view does not make it a foundation of the viewpoint since many, many others DON'T believe that.

So you don't think Jesus taught of an actual Adam and Even?

No.

You don't think Jesus taught of the world created rather than a world evolved?

No.

You don't think Jesus taught that this universe wasn't a random chance as evolution shows it to be?

Mistatement of evolution, but I don't think Jesus taught anything contrary to evolutionary development, no.

You don't think Jesus Christ taught of an actual world wide flood?

No.

So no one here uses science as guideline to interpreting scripture?

As a factor in the proper understanding of Scripture? Sure, just as you do, whether you know it or not.

No one here has changed their interpretation from literal to allegorical because of science?

I don't know, it might be that some have. But that would not be placing the study of science over the Bible. It would be recognizing that their interpretation of Scripture was based on human error. Think of all those Christians after Galileo who had to change their reading of Scripture based on the new information of science. The Bible still predominates, but often the information that comes from the study of God's Creation can be a factor in determining exactly what God is telling us in Scripture. Ask Augustine.
[/QUOTE]

So people here don't use science, logic, and their wisdom to change their interpretation of the Bible?

Not to "change their interpretation" but to determnine the proper interpretation, sure. See above. That is NOT placing those tools God has given us above Scripture. You would not even have a Bible to read if it were not for the human wisdom of linguistics, for example.

By saying you are attempting to determine what God has told you, is to admit that you will use your wisdom to understand. It is not your wisdom or mine that brings understanding of God and His Word, it is the Holy Spirit.

Can you read? Is that a human ability? Was that translator using just the Spirit's guidance, or was he using a human ability? Do you really think God does not expect you to use the brain and logic he has given you to properly read the Bible? Yes, we are to seek the Spirit's guidance, but even the Westminster Confession points out that not all Scripture is easy to understand. Tell me what the gift of "teaching" is for, or the gift of "knowledge" if everyone could just read the Scripture and grasp it all with the Spirit's guidance?

Yes, I have been told over and over by you. And yet I see statements here such as this made here:

Yes, Karl has the most liberal view of any TE here (as he readily admits), but you can not make generalizations about TE based on what one person has said. Further, I think Karl would point out that while Jesus may have made a statement that was scientifically correct, this is only an "error" if he meant it as a scientifically accurate statement.

You yourself claim Jesus couldn't be all knowing, He couldn't be all powerful, and He couldn't be everywhere at once while here on earth. And many others here agree with you. Yet you and them discount God's Word where Peter says Jesus is all knowing, where Jesus was pinned by the leaders of the law, about to be stoned, but walked through them, where Jesus was pushed to the edge of a cliff by those who hated Him, but walked through them. Where Jesus at will did many miracles, raising the dead, controlling the weather, walking on the water, healing the sick, and casting out demons.

I think you need to do some research on Apollonarianism. This was a heresy that was condemned back in the early Church days. It is based on the idea that Jesus was a human with the mind of God. We have gone over all this before. I think Jesus was fully God and fully Man while here on earth. I think he was fully capable of doing every miracle described in Scripture.

But this has nothing to do with a belief in Theistic Evolution. I think that is where you get confused.

Then there is the claim that Jesus wasn't conceived of the Holy Spirit, when the Bible says He was. Furthermore stating He need not be, when the Psalmists say sin is inherited upon conception.

Again, this has nothing to do with Theistic Evolution.

I didn't make up these, you and others here have freely shared these beliefs that do not coincide with what the Bible teaches. Then when these statements are present, people here try to justify it or claim they didn't say it. They try to claim that the Son of God wasn't really God here, but just a man sent from God who then became the Son of God later. That is what is said when you or another states that Jesus couldn't do something or anything while here on earth. The only thing Jesus Christ laid aside was His right to be sitting upon the throne and be seen in all His Glory taking a guise of human form, humbling Himself.

Again, this has nothing to do with theistic evolution. People have debated over these Christological issues since the very first decades of the Church. Some TE's hold these views, some do not. Some who hold these views are TE, some are not. There are YEC's who believe in infant baptism, and some do not. Should I characterize YEC beliefs by one or the other?

Is it more humble to not be able to do something and not do it? Or is it more humble to be able to do something and not do it? If I am forced by God to follow Him, have I humbled myself? Or if I have free will and choice to follow His will, have I humbled myself?

Show me where I call you or others here liars? Or do you prefer to put words in my mouth and then claim I have misrepresented someone?

When I, and many other TE's on these forums, say that we DON'T believe something, and then you say that this is what TE's believe, you are saying that we are lying when said we didn't believe it, no?

This forum has a diverse set of beliefs, many of which that do not stem from Biblical teachings. And when one stands up for the truths within the Bible, another will call them a Bible idolator. This is the flesh rising up to war with God, for they wallow in their pride and smugness that their wisdom is greater than God's.

You are standing up for what YOU believe to be the truths within the Bible. I am equally standing up for what I believe the Scripture to be teaching, and this involves disputing those who I believe are misreading Scripture to add in false doctrines due to over-literal readings. I believe that those false doctrines, like YEC'ism, are tools of Satan, and based on pride and smugness and a belief that their wisdom in interpreting Scripture is infallible.

I believe your beliefs are at much at war with God as you believe mine are. I believe your interpretation of Scripture is as false and damaging as you believe mine are.

 

[vossler]

Using your wine analogy, wouldn't we all agree that God created Adam fully formed? If we agree on that then would it be so far fetched to say he created the earth the same way?

Vance,

When I posted this a while back neither you or anyone else addressed it. Did this question not warrant a response, was it too elementary?

 

[SBG]

The point is that you were not distinguishing among the various people here. Your post was a general statement about those who believe in TE, and the statements made apply to VERY few of those here. This is, then, a strawman. You can not make blanket statements in order to argue against a general position (like TE) when that blanket statement fits very few of those who hold that position.

Oh, I have distinguished among the people here and it wasn't as general as your like to make it to be. Neither was it directed at theistic evolutionists entirely nor was it directed at individuals who don't hold to the beliefs that I stated are promoted here.

It is your assertion that I have directed my comments exclusively at theistic evolutionists. It is one of the things you do quite well here, assert to your hearts desire.

The statements I presented are not held by very few here, but by many here. I have not polled this forum nor calculated the exact percentage, but there are more than few here that believe what I stated.

It would be a blanket statement if I declared that all people here believed what I stated. I did not do this, but you have asserted and put words in my mouth to say I have so you can make your own strawman.

Me? No, I have never said that the Scripture is in error. For a text to be in error, it has to be attempting to state something as strictly factual, and then get the facts wrong. A text that does not have that as its purpose will not be in error if it turns out that some of the details are inaccurate. So, no, in that sense (which is the important sense) I and most TE's here would say that the Scripture is not in error.

So, no one here, not you or anyone else has ever said, in any way or in any circumstance that the Bible is in error?

So you silently admit that there are details in the Bible that are inaccurate?

What is the purpose of the Bible according to you and your wisdom? Why is there 3 chapters and numerous other parts of the Bible to talk of creation if it didn't happen as written?

Others don't hold to Biblical inerrancy. But the point is already made. People don't believe in TE because they think the Bible is in error. The fact that some TE's might hold that view does not make it a foundation of the viewpoint since many, many others DON'T believe that.

So you now admit that there are people in this forum that do believe the Bible has errors and untruths?

What point is made, other than stating God's Word is incorrect at times?

But people who do believe in theistic evolution largely see more parts of the Bible, other than creation, to be in error.

The fact that any theistic evolutionist holds the Bible to be in error disproves your assertion that I have created a strawman.

Tell me, who would hold the larger percentage of believing the Bible to be in error, in any type of case, theistic evolutionists or young earth creationists?


"So you don't think Jesus taught of an actual Adam and Even?"

No.

So you disagree with Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6?

"You don't think Jesus taught of the world created rather than a world evolved?"

No.

So you disagree with John 17:4 where Jesus speaks of the world as created and the many other verses where create is spoken of rather than slowly developed or evolved?

Mistatement of evolution, but I don't think Jesus taught anything contrary to evolutionary development, no.

Misstatement? I didn't say evolution says this. Have you seen the mathematical probability for non-life to evolve to life? Have you seen the mathematical chances of evolution actually happening as it is currently taught? It is beyond a random chance, so small that it is considered impossible by mathematical standards.

The Bible speaks of purpose and creation, not random chance and chaos.

"You don't think Jesus Christ taught of an actual world wide flood?"

No.

So you disagree with Luke 17:26-27?

As a factor in the proper understanding of Scripture? Sure, just as you do, whether you know it or not.

And here it comes again, the geocentrism argument. This is becoming rather ridiculous and repetative. Even you don't believe that the verses talk of geocentrism and yet you will still use it.

I don't use science to dictate interpretation of Scripture as you and many others here.

What if science didn't exist, do you think you could understand the Bible?

I don't know, it might be that some have. But that would not be placing the study of science over the Bible. It would be recognizing that their interpretation of Scripture was based on human error. Think of all those Christians after Galileo who had to change their reading of Scripture based on the new information of science. The Bible still predominates, but often the information that comes from the study of God's Creation can be a factor in determining exactly what God is telling us in Scripture. Ask Augustine.

You don't know, yet you are posting in a thread where someone has done this very thing??

So if we change our interpretation of the Bible to fit with science, each and everytime science changes, we aren't holding science over the Bible?

Does human error exist in science? And is it possible that science thinks to be true today can be wrong tomorrow? And if this is so, why do you feel we must change our understanding of God's Word each time science admits it is wrong?

Do you think God's Word changes or remains the same?

Are you interested in understanding the true meaning of God's Word, or only the meaning of God's Word under science's jurisdiction?

Are you saying Augustine said we must read the Bible according to what science says? And tell me what if science lies, shall we still believe anyways?

Scientists have lied before, as recently we have seen with the dating of human fossil that was said to be extremely old, but turned out to be no older than 40,000-10,000 years old.

And when science is proved wrong, in such a case, shall you still hold to the previous belief or change? And if you change, shall you be a child thrown to and fro in understanding?

Not to "change their interpretation" but to determnine the proper interpretation, sure. See above. That is NOT placing those tools God has given us above Scripture. You would not even have a Bible to read if it were not for the human wisdom of linguistics, for example.

Oh, so you think that the OP here didn't change their interpretation?? He said he was a yec, but now believes in theistic evolution. Has he not changed his interpretation to fit his belief?

You seem to think that before one is either a yec, te, oec, gap, pc or whatever they never had a previous belief, but were rather in search for one. This may be true in a few cases, but certainly not all, as this thread shows.

So if one allows an outside source that is corrupt to dictate how they should understand the Bible, instead of the Holy Spirit, this is not placing the source above God's Word?

Now you want to widen the spectrum with a useless example of linguistics. We would not have the Bible if God did not reveal to man what is written, period. You again have placed human ability, reason, logic, and and human wisdom above the higher source.

Can you read? Is that a human ability? Was that translator using just the Spirit's guidance, or was he using a human ability? Do you really think God does not expect you to use the brain and logic he has given you to properly read the Bible? Yes, we are to seek the Spirit's guidance, but even the Westminster Confession points out that not all Scripture is easy to understand. Tell me what the gift of "teaching" is for, or the gift of "knowledge" if everyone could just read the Scripture and grasp it all with the Spirit's guidance?

I think you are well aware if I can read or not. It is a human ability that God gave me. Again I know the source and do not credit myself for such a thing. It is by God's grace that I have this ability, not by my power.

Again, it seems you fail to recognize where these abilities have come from, and that it is man who uses them for purposes which they were not intended for.

I attributed nothing to myself, because I realize it is GOD who has given me all that I have.

You do you really think God wishes us to use our reasoning to reason out God in the equation? Man does it everyday.

I believe God wants me to submit to His will and call upon Him for understanding rather than lean on my own wisdom, logic and reason to understand what is written. You write as if you assume God gave these abilities so we won't need to lean on Him for understanding.

The gift of teaching is to teach what we have been taught. I don't teach myself, God teaches me through the Holy Spirit. I do not rely on myself for understand, I beg God for understanding and wisdom.

The gift of knowledge or wisdom is given so that we might understand God's Will for our lives and follow it.

Do you really think that you cannot grasp Scripture with the Holy Spirit's guidance? I see why you have a hard time understanding what is written by this statement you have made:

"Tell me what the gift of "teaching" is for, or the gift of "knowledge" if everyone could just read the Scripture and grasp it all with the Spirit's guidance?"

You have shown here that you don't believe you can understand all that is written with the Spirit's guidance. If one has faith, true faith, then one can move mountains. You shouldn't lack faith in the strength of the Holy Spirit, He is the teacher.

Yes, Karl has the most liberal view of any TE here (as he readily admits), but you can not make generalizations about TE based on what one person has said. Further, I think Karl would point out that while Jesus may have made a statement that was scientifically incorrect, this is only an "error" if he meant it as a scientifically accurate statement.

What I have shown is a path that one individual has taken that holds to theistic evolution. Many times you and others have said the slipperly slope doesn't apply, but by his statements consistently made regarding Jesus Christ, I think it does apply.

You will find that theistic evolutions as a whole do not hold strictly to Biblical teachings as yec do. Rather they seem to silently claim special revelation and declare the Bible to be in error, or wrong, or inaccurate as you have put it.

There are of course exceptions to this. There are some who only believe that evolution happened, but everything else is true in the Bible. Whether this is where they have stopped or just begun is only know to them and God.

Again, even you will point out that the Author of Creation could be scientifically wrong. How do you do this?

How do you believe that Jesus Created all things yet can be wrong about His understanding of all things?

I think you need to do some research on Apollonarianism. This was a heresy that was condemned back in the early Church days. It is based on the idea that Jesus was a human with the mind of God. We have gone over all this before. I think Jesus was fully God and fully Man while here on earth. I think he was fully capable of doing every miracle described in Scripture.

You think that Jesus was fully God and fully man while here on earth, but He could not, even if He wanted to, express His attributes in the fullest as God Himself.

You only think that what is written is what He was able to do. Do forget what John says that if everything that Jesus did were to be written, this world could not contain the volumes written.

Apollonariansim has its flaws that lie in their ability to presume they can understand to know exactly how Jesus did what He did. Paul speaks of this clearly saying Jesus knew we would understand how He could still be equal with God. Paul even states Jesus was in the very nature God. Paul goes on to say Jesus was equal to God which means in quality and quantity.

 

[SBG]

But this has nothing to do with a belief in Theistic Evolution. I think that is where you get confused.



Again, this has nothing to do with Theistic Evolution.

Trust me, I am not confused but seeing clearly. It has everything to do with theistic evolution for this has been the first for many to use to change the meaning of God's Word. It can be seen in the theistic evolutionists camp that this changing of God's Word is not exclusive to just creation, but goes on into other area's of God's Word. Again, showing that a slipperly slope just might exist in this camp.

Again, this has nothing to do with theistic evolution. People have debated over these Christological issues since the very first decades of the Church. Some TE's hold these views, some do not. Some who hold these views are TE, some are not. There are YEC's who believe in infant baptism, and some do not. Should I characterize YEC beliefs by one or the other?

Tell me where the Bible conflicts with infant baptism.

These beliefs have everything to do with theistic evolutionists since it is widely seen on these forums that this camp in particular holds the most liberal of views concerning God's Word. Often times claiming it is incorrect, inaccurate, or just plain wrong. Even to the point of declaring Jesus Christ is wrong.

I have not said all theistic evolutionists believe all these things. I have rather pointed out how liberal this camp really is and how wide their (your) beliefs are. The point is that you cannot even declare theistic evolutionists as whole to anyone particular belief other than the simple truths. And even some of these simple truths are debatable for some.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. No matter what, you are interpreting Scripture, and that is a human process and subject to fallibility. It is a matter of pride to insist that your interpretation can not be wrong.

You do not understand what humbling yourself is?

I am completely fallible, and this I freely admit. Furthermore I freely admit that I will change my beliefs if you can correct me with God's Word.

The only thing you can do is try to correct me with modern man's wisdom, which you have been trying to do on these boards. You do not take an active approach using God's Word, but rather use science as your reason for all people to re-evaluate their interpretation. You have turned God's Word around when it says test everything against Scripture to say test everything against science. If science dictates one thing, then interpret the Bible accordingly.

By this one has shown that they hold to science as the greater truth because they allow it to dictate their interpretation of God's Word. Creation is taken to be on par with God's Word and the interpretation of creation given by many people who do not believe there is a God.

God's Word is then subjected to be understood according to those who don't believe there is a God.

I have not insisted that my interpretation is not wrong. I have rather stated that allowing science to dictate one's interpretation is foolish. I have further show how liberal theistic evolutionists are with God's Word.

By all means, show where my interpretation of God creating in six days is wrong using God's Word. And if you can successfully show me where in the Bible I am wrong with this belief, I will change my beliefs.

When I, and many other TE's on these forums, say that we DON'T believe something, and then you say that this is what TE's believe, you are saying that we are lying when said we didn't believe it, no?

I have not stated what theistic evolutionists believe, but have rather quoted what they have written. Then you or another will come and try and say they didn't write that or didn't mean that, or whatever.

I guess by your standard that if I present what theistic evolutionists have said, I am calling them liars. I am not sure how that works, but it is your choice to assert what you wish about me.

You are standing up for what YOU believe to be the truths within the Bible. I am equally standing up for what I believe the Scripture to be teaching, and this involves disputing those who I believe are misreading Scripture to add in false doctrines due to over-literal readings. I believe that those false doctrines, like YEC'ism, are tools of Satan, and based on pride and smugness and a belief that their wisdom in interpreting Scripture is infallible.

You have not stood up for what you believe Scripture is teaching, but you have rather stood up for what science has said and thus inferred one must interpret Scripture in light of science.

You have yet to prove with God's Word that evolution has happened, you have yet to prove with God's Word that Adam and Eve did not exist, you have yet to prove using God's Word that a global flood is incorrect, you have yet to prove using God's Word that Jesus wasn't born of the Holy Spirit, you have yet to prove using God's Word that Jesus was in the posistion of He couldn't do something while here on earth, you have yet to really prove anything against yecism using God's Word. All you have to use is science and then assert that creation and man's interpretation of creation is on par with God's Word.

Explain over-literal please.

Explain how using God's Word to test everything is a tool of Satan please.

Prove that I have relied solely on my own wisdom and understanding to understand God's Word.

Show where I have stated my interpretation is infallible.

Can you do these without putting words in my mouth and asserting something I have not said to create a strawman?

I believe your beliefs are at much at war with God as you believe mine are. I believe your interpretation of Scripture is as false and damaging as you believe mine are.

I can see how you believe that my beliefs are at war with God. For I believe God's Word as written above all things in this world. I hold to the belief that God is ruler over all and will confound the wise of the world. I also believe God created in six days as the Bible states, and that Jesus is the Son of God, true God, born of the Holy Spirit, God incarnate, was and is all knowing, all powerful, ability to be everywhere at once, was raised from the dead, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge this world.

I can completely understand how you believe my beliefs are damaging to you and your ministry. I can see how you feel that what I believe is false compared to what you believe. I can see we are at odds and how you see that I am a tool of Satan.

For I submit to God's Authority in all area's and realize that I have done nothing on my own, but only have used what God has given me. I realize that my abilities are God given and will not give into pride and claim I have gained my abilities on my own. Nor will I exalt science over God's Word, or say science must dictate how God's Word should be read.

We can see now how you and I are at odds. We can see now how you believe I am Satan's tool being used to damage Christianity with my beliefs.

With your statements made publically, I ask either prove me wrong with Scripture or change your ways. For you can publically make me out to be whatever is your choosing, but God knows the real truth in all matters. I do not fear your insults, nor do I care, I fear the wrath of God for not taking His Word seriously or allowing pagan man to dictate what He truly says. I will not attribute the the teachings of God or the holding to them as tools of Satan.

You have made it very clear to me how you view my beliefs. May God Bless you.

 

[seebs]

Just a point of pedantry: The only "Word" in orthodox Christian theology is Jesus. If you want to talk about the Bible, call it the Bible.

We have a real problem on this BBS of people seeing the Bible called the "Word" who then come to believe that it is an eternal part of the trinity, etc... This is bad.

 

[seebs]

Vance,

When I posted this a while back neither you or anyone else addressed it. Did this question not warrant a response, was it too elementary?

To go into the analogy: Do you think God created Adam with scars from childhood accidents?