Calling Oneself a Christian But Calling God a Liar about Creation?

[yeshuasavedme]

So why the confusion among those who call themselves Christians but who believe the evolutionists ever changing words and theories? An examination of what God says in Genesis 1 leaves no room for theistic evolution, and so those who say "I am a Christian", yet who deny God is clear in what He says are calling God a liar, and they are calling fallen men truthteachers.
It doesn't make sense, does it?

No matter how the evolutionists who claim they are just telling you how God did it, spin it, the facts of Genesis 1 remain:
There was no heaven created before the light was brought into being, and light was not brought into being until day 2.
The sun is not the light of day 1, and there was no heaven "stretched out" between the waters below and the waters above, until day 2.
Until day 3, the globe was water.

There was no land mass until day 3, when the land was brought forth out of the half of the waters remaining below the stretched out heaven.

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

 

[kiwimac]

As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the Bible as true. In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor. When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.

It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,

"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, The Age of the Earth .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son.

None of those New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols.

Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US. Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-scientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place.

Once we realize this, we can see there are no contradictions, can be no contradictions between the findings of science and God's word to us in Genesis. Let us happily give up our insistence on a literal Genesis and seek the deeper, religious truths that await us there

 

[Dark_Lite]

So why the confusion among those who call themselves Christians but who believe the evolutionists ever changing words and theories? An examination of what God says in Genesis 1 leaves no room for theistic evolution, and so those who say "I am a Christian", yet who deny God is clear in what He says are calling God a liar, and they are calling fallen men truthteachers.
It doesn't make sense, does it?

No matter how the evolutionists who claim they are just telling you how God did it, spin it, the facts of Genesis 1 remain:
There was no heaven created before the light was brought into being, and light was not brought into being until day 2.
The sun is not the light of day 1, and there was no heaven "stretched out" between the waters below and the waters above, until day 2.
Until day 3, the globe was water.

There was no land mass until day 3, when the land was brought forth out of the half of the waters remaining below the stretched out heaven.

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

There are two books: the Bible and the creation. One is directly verifiable with empirical evidence. They cannot contradict each other.

 

[gluadys]

So why the confusion among those who call themselves Christians but who believe the evolutionists ever changing words and theories? An examination of what God says in Genesis 1 leaves no room for theistic evolution, and so those who say "I am a Christian", yet who deny God is clear in what He says are calling God a liar, and they are calling fallen men truthteachers.
It doesn't make sense, does it?

No matter how the evolutionists who claim they are just telling you how God did it, spin it, the facts of Genesis 1 remain:
There was no heaven created before the light was brought into being, and light was not brought into being until day 2.
The sun is not the light of day 1, and there was no heaven "stretched out" between the waters below and the waters above, until day 2.
Until day 3, the globe was water.

There was no land mass until day 3, when the land was brought forth out of the half of the waters remaining below the stretched out heaven.

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

The only people who insist God is a liar are those (both Christians and atheists) who insist the Genesis accounts of creation are scientific accounts.

Since created nature itself conflicts with this interpretation of Genesis, upholders of this view have to insist that God is either lying in Genesis or lying in creation.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The only people who insist God is a liar are those (both Christians and atheists) who insist the Genesis accounts of creation are scientific accounts.

Since created nature itself conflicts with this interpretation of Genesis, upholders of this view have to insist that God is either lying in Genesis or lying in creation.

When you used the word "science" above, you were not making sense, nor were you making sense to state that created nature conflicts with "this view".
Created "nature" is subject to nature's God, and is not in rebellion against Him, as fallible men in league with demons and the satans, is.

All creation longs for the deliverance which will come to it at the "manifestation of the sons of God" -when Jesus removes the curse and His peace reigns over the earth for the millennium and His sons are "manifested in glory with Him".
.

 

[wayseer]

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

As far as I'm aware the only thing God wrote was destroyed by Moses in a fit of temper. Jesus never wrote anything. The Bible was written by men who, in their own limited capacity, endevoured to explain those age old questions - where have we come from, where are we going and how do we get there.

The Bible is not the text book for Biology 101. You are defacing the word of God by suggesting that it should.

 

[Mallon]

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

I don't think you understand evolutionary creationism. It isn't that God didn't know how to describe the process of creation, it's that He didn't care to. That wasn't His intertion. He didn't care to correct the Hebrews about geocentrism, either. You're not a geocentrist, too, are you?

 

[laconicstudent]

So why the confusion among those who call themselves Christians but who believe the evolutionists ever changing words and theories?

Science changes and develops as more data becomes available.

An examination of what God says in Genesis 1 leaves no room for theistic evolution,

Yes, it does, if you don't take it as being totally literal.

and so those who say "I am a Christian", yet who deny God is clear in what He says are calling God a liar, and they are calling fallen men truthteachers.
It doesn't make sense, does it?

No, it doesn't. Although to be a YEC would be to call God a liar, since his Creation clearly shows the earth is very old. Ironic.

No matter how the evolutionists who claim they are just telling you how God did it, spin it, the facts of Genesis 1 remain:
There was no heaven created before the light was brought into being, and light was not brought into being until day 2.
The sun is not the light of day 1, and there was no heaven "stretched out" between the waters below and the waters above, until day 2.
Until day 3, the globe was water.

those aren't "facts". Its a belief. Beliefs have to fit reality. If our theology and obvious reality contradict, we've done our theology wrong.

There was no land mass until day 3, when the land was brought forth out of the half of the waters remaining below the stretched out heaven.

So choose to deny the Word, but don't ever claim that God didn't know how to explain it. It's very plain.

By your own statement then, God is a liar.


Interesting belief. God is Truth, but you are calling him a liar.

 

[gluadys]

Created "nature" is subject to nature's God, and is not in rebellion against Him.

That's right. That is how we know not to read the Genesis accounts literally, because the natural world created by God and obedient to God doesn't match a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts.


God is not a liar, but those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 have to believe that he lies--either in scripture or in creation.

 

[laconicstudent]

That's right. That is how we know not to read the Genesis accounts literally, because the natural world created by God and obedient to God doesn't match a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts.


God is not a liar, but those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 have to believe that he lies--either in scripture or in creation.

QFT

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Nobody has to believe either that Genesis is literally true or that Genesis is instead a metaphor.

The "God is a liar" argument, though, stinks. It amounts to claiming that if God does any miracle, then he is a liar, because in the models of reality given by science, there are no miracles. So, to get to the nub of things, by this argument, if Christ rose from the dead three days after he was crucified to death then God is a liar, because biology tells us it couldn't have happened.

Let me repeat that.

If it is true that "things being different than can be included in the models of science makes God a liar" then a God who does any miracle is a liar!

Claiming that if Genesis is literally true then God is a liar is practising "case settled, move on" dogmatism, which anyone who claims to respect the open mindedness of science should be ashamed of. Science is able to revise its models all the time.

If someone wishes to believe that the literal truth of Genesis implies that God is a liar, they are welcome to believe it. I would hope, though, that they could understand that it is utterly uncompelling to others. That it was "settled" 157 years ago is irrelevant to anyone but a casuist. A lot of things were "settled" in science 157 years ago, but they have been overturned since. That was possible because scientists are not casuists. A casuist who feels he has a scientific kind of mind really doesn't.

Come up with something better, my casuist friends, if you want to make the case that Genesis could not be literally true.

OTOH, anyone who thinks that "evolutionists" are the the "enemy of Christianity" because evolutionary science is inconsistent with a literal reading of Genesis is just playing the role of the Catholic Church denouncing Galileo. Science doesn't find miracles. Are you going to denounce every science because every miracle is contradicted by some science? The miracle of the fishes and loaves violates conservation laws of physics, for example?

Why don't you leave science alone? You do not understand what it is.

 

[gluadys]

Nobody has to believe either that Genesis is literally true or that Genesis is instead a metaphor.

Agreed.

The "God is a liar" argument, though, stinks. It amounts to claiming that if God does any miracle, then he is a liar, because in the models of reality given by science, there are no miracles. So, to get to the nub of things, by this argument, if Christ rose from the dead three days after he was crucified to death then God is a liar, because biology tells us it couldn't have happened.

This is not actually true. Science does not rule out miracles. Biology cannot say that Christ (or Lazarus or any one else) never rose from the dead. What biology can say is that there is no scientific explanation for a resurrection. What biology can say is that under normal circumstances, natural processes never lead to resurrection. So any resurrection from the dead is ipso facto not a normal biological event. It has no biological explanation.

Furthermore, since each resurrection (if there are any) are local events which have left no enduring evidence, there is no way to test the evidence and come up with a different version of the event. The only sufficient evidence for a resurrection would be to see the person who died walking around afterward alive. This, of course, is what the apostles claimed in the gospels. But even then, this would only show that a resurrection happened. It would still leave science without a means to explain how it happened.


Creation is a different matter. One is not dealing with a local event; one is dealing with the whole universe. The whole universe provides solid evidence that it is much more than a few thousand years old. Of course, one can still appeal to miracles that disguise the allegedly young age of the earth.

The problem here is not that science rules out miracle---because it doesn't.

The problem is that there is no scriptural witness to these miracles; they are invented out of whole cloth with neither a scriptural testimony that they ever happened nor a reason for God to prevent creation from revealing its actual age. In theological terms, there is no proper exegetical foundation for conjuring up the necessary miracles.

In fact, the lengthy list of miracles needed is invoked only to support a fallible human choice to read scripture literally. IMO that is not a good enough reason to set scripture and creation at odds with each other over the age of the earth. When one does that one implicitly does call God a liar, because if scripture and creation --which both come ultimately from God--do not agree, it can only be because God has not revealed the truth in both.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Science does not rule out miracles.

gluadys, I did not say that science rules out miracles. I said something very different. I said "in the models of reality given by science, there are no miracles".

It's very simple. Every miracle is a violation of a science model. If a miraculous six day creation makes God a liar because it violates a geology model, then a miraculous rising from death makes God a liar because it violates a biology model.

The problem here is not that science rules out miracle---because it doesn't.

Actually, that is correct. It can't rule out any miracle and the truth of any scriptural miracle, including the scriptural version of creation, cannot be ruled out by science. It has nothing to do with science.

In theological terms, there is no proper exegetical foundation for conjuring up the necessary miracles.

We are fallen. That's a pretty central exegetical reason. Who is "conjuring", btw?

In fact, the lengthy list of miracles needed is invoked only to support a fallible human choice to read scripture literally.

Invoked by who?

IMO that is not a good enough reason to set scripture and creation at odds with each other over the age of the earth.

Scripture and science are at odds, not scripture and creation unless you make the assumption that what is not allowed in a science model is not allowed period - i.e. no miracles. I would quote Neils Bohr and say don't tell God what he can do.

When one does that one implicitly does call God a liar, because if scripture and creation --which both come ultimately from God--do not agree, it can only be because God has not revealed the truth in both.

When you insist, as you imply in the phrase 'scripture and creation do not agree', you are assuming from the outset that the case you wish to make is true. It's called circular reasoning.

If creation happened as given in scripture, then scripture and creation agree. If creation happened as given in the current received science model, then scripture and creation do not agree. You use the word creation asan identity for the science model.

It is odd that if creation happened as given in Genesis that that implies God is a liar. The obvious retort would be that if creation didn't happen as given in Genesis, then God is a liar. You don't have to believe that the Bible is the word of God if you don't want to, but many people do. Furthermore, as I have been learning, by reading Confessions, Augustine and by implication, others in the ancient church, did indeed take the Bible to be God's word. He analyzed every single word of the creation account in great detail. As Wikipedia says, he did indeed think that "the heaven and the Earth" were created in an instant, but as he makes very clear in Confessions by that he meant "the heaven and Earth" of Genesis 1:1. He means that which was "without form, and void". He takes, in Confessions,
the six days following, as described in Genesis, to be the truth.

I will sum up.

1. There is no more case that God is a liar if Genesis is literally true than if it is not.

2. If you assume that scripture and creation are at odds with each other then you assume what you wish to demonstrate, which is circular reasoning.

3. If the literal truth of the Genesis creation miracle would make God a liar because it conflicts with a science model, then the literal truth of each other biblical miracle would similarly make God a liar, because every one of them conflicts with a science model.

4. An exegetical reason for creating the world in such a way that it conflicts with science would be that we are to find God through faithful seeking, not through skeptical inquiry. We cannot put God to the test, so we will be unable to demonstrate, through scientific enquiry, the truth of any miracle. That it is possible to create a geological model of Earth's history, whether or not it happened according to the model, is an example of God's goodness, as scientific models help us to understand the world we live in today. Every succesful scientific model is a simplification of previously disparate facts. Models organize these facts in a way that makes using them easier. For that reason, that the facts support these models is a gift from God whether or not the models (which are not the word of God) are literally true. It is their utility that makes them good, not some putative, fundamental, insdisputable truth they supposedly possess.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

As far as I'm aware the only thing God wrote was destroyed by Moses in a fit of temper. Jesus never wrote anything. The Bible was written by men who, in their own limited capacity, endevoured to explain those age old questions - where have we come from, where are we going and how do we get there.

The Bible is not the text book for Biology 101. You are defacing the word of God by suggesting that it should.

Biology 101 textbooks still teach the fraudulent myth invented by Haeckel even though it was exposed soon after it was presented. They reword it, but the lie was in my own daughter's college biology 101 text, and she was told by the teacher of that class that they would not discuss it except as it was presented in the book, when she challenged it as a lie, because she had already had Biology 101 at home [in Homeschool], using excellent texts which were Christian oriented and which exposed the lie of Haeckel!
-How's that for "science" taught in the public schools? -it is not science, but pure propaganda at taxpayers expense -http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-embryology-earnst-haeckel-biogenetic-law.htm.
``
You are misinformed on what the YHWH in the Person of God the Word wrote. He wrote the Decalogue on tablets a second time, with His own "finger", and His words were dictated to Moses and the prophets who scribed them in His name.
He also wrote the "Scripture of Truth" in heaven, which the angels read so as to know His will and obey His will as concerning themselves and the seed of Adam on earth. Enoch told of that Scripture of truth in heaven, written on tablets there for the angels to read, for he saw them and read them there; and the angel in Daniel chapter 10:21 told Daniel that he would show/reveal to Daniel what was written/noted/inscribed in that "Scripture of Truth" which the angels read, and which Michael "bound" with himself, on earth [they warred with the heavenly prince of Persia, in the heavenlies, over releasing Israel in fulfillment of that Word in that Scripture of Truth written by God the Word]. What the angel showed Daniel as concerning Daniel's people was written by Daniel and compose Daniel chapters eleven and twelve.
Jesus also writes the decalogue on the hearts of each born again in Spirit Believer, as He said He would do, in the OT, speaking through the prophet as YHWH the Word; and He also wrote with His finger on the ground and convicted the wicked hypocrites who wanted to catch Jesus by a trap.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, I did not say that science rules out miracles. I said something very different. I said "in the models of reality given by science, there are no miracles".

It's very simple. Every miracle is a violation of a science model. If a miraculous six day creation makes God a liar because it violates a geology model, then a miraculous rising from death makes God a liar because it violates a biology model.

You changed your wording somewhat. This is more accurate.

We are fallen. That's a pretty central exegetical reason.

No it isn't because the text gives us no foundation to support the premise that our fallen nature robbed us of the capacity to make correct observations of physical fact. Nor of the capacity to draw the sorts of conclusions from the evidence that are the stock in trade of forensic investigation. Scripture often appeals to creation and to reason. When observation and reason are properly used (i.e. with multiple checks) there is no basis for saying they normally provide us with false information.

Who is "conjuring", btw?



Invoked by who?

Depending on which creationist you are speaking to, you get a wide variety of proposals--many to do with the flood more than with the creation story per se. Water canopy as source of flood water, hydroplates, decaying speed of light, complete change in the laws of physics, break-up of Pangaea within human history (sometime after the Flood), super-speed plate tectonics. An extreme example is the poster who calls himself 'dad' with his "split" universe. According to him no observation of events more than 4,000 years ago is accurate because the whole of physics was changed when the material world was split away from the spiritual world.

None of these ideas comes from scripture. They are ad hoc "miracles" invented solely to support a young-earth interpretation of scripture. They are add-ons (in techical terms "eisegesis" = "read into") to scripture. They have no exegetical (="read out of" the text) foundation.

Scripture and science are at odds, not scripture and creation unless you make the assumption that what is not allowed in a science model is not allowed period - i.e. no miracles. I would quote Neils Bohr and say don't tell God what he can do.

I said "creation" and I meant "creation". But scripture and science are not at odds either, unless one insists on interpreting the scripture as if it were science.

When you insist, as you imply in the phrase 'scripture and creation do not agree', you are assuming from the outset that the case you wish to make is true. It's called circular reasoning.

If creation happened as given in scripture, then scripture and creation agree. If creation happened as given in the current received science model, then scripture and creation do not agree. You use the word creation asan identity for the science model.

No, I use "creation" to refer to the actual physical world of nature from which the data for the science model comes from. It is the actual data from creation which young-earth creationists attempt to explain away with the premise that our fallen state means we can no longer make accurate observations of reality and/or that reality itself has completely changed in ways unknown and unknowable so that we can have no reasonable model that goes back more than 6,000 years. Neither explanation, as already noted, has any sound exegetical foundation. It misrepresents the text of scripture.

It is odd that if creation happened as given in Genesis that that implies God is a liar. The obvious retort would be that if creation didn't happen as given in Genesis, then God is a liar.

It is not a matter of whether creation happened "as given in Genesis" but whether what is given in Genesis is intended to be a scientific model of the origin of the universe. Of course creation happened "as given in Genesis"---but what that means depends on your hermeneutic principle.

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the word of God if you don't want to, but many people do.

Gee, isn't it interesting how it always comes down to "if you don't interpret scripture literally, you don't believe God's Word."?

Well who invented the rule that God always speaks literally?

As Wikipedia says, [Augustine]did indeed think that "the heaven and the Earth" were created in an instant, but as he makes very clear in Confessions by that he meant "the heaven and Earth" of Genesis 1:1. He means that which was "without form, and void". He takes, in Confessions,
the six days following, as described in Genesis, to be the truth.

Of course, he did. But unlike modern YECs he wasn't pretending that observed evidence is either illusory or has drastically changed since creation week.

I will sum up.

1. There is no more case that God is a liar if Genesis is literally true than if it is not.

2. If you assume that scripture and creation are at odds with each other then you assume what you wish to demonstrate, which is circular reasoning.

To 1. yes, there is. In fact this is the only mode of interpretation in which one must assert that some facet of God's revelation to us is not true. To hold to the YEC interpretation, one must deny the weight of creation as revelation, a staple of Christian theology for nearly two millennia.

To 2. I am not the one making that assumption.

3. If the literal truth of the Genesis creation miracle would make God a liar because it conflicts with a science model, then the literal truth of each other biblical miracle would similarly make God a liar, because every one of them conflicts with a science model.

First: "literal" does not mean "true". And "non-literal" does not mean "false". The equivocation of "literal" and "true" implies that non-literal is necessarily false.

Second: the literal reading of Genesis is not merely at odds with a scientific model. Scientific models exist to explain actual observed evidence. It was actual observed evidence that convinced devout Christian geologists of the 18th-19th century that there had been no global flood in Noah's day or at any other time in earth's history. YECs themselves try to explain the observed evidence and show that it is not contradictory to their reading of scripture. But they have to rely on ad hoc hypotheses both in science and in their reading of scripture. And when that fails, they revert to unfounded assertions that God withdrew from us the power to observe correctly and to reason correctly. The very fact that YECs from Morris and Gish to Ken Ham and Woodmorappe have spent so much effort on their hypotheses indicates that they themselves see the discrepancy between observed facts and their preferred interpretation of scripture and feel a need to explain it.


Finally, biblical miracles are not a problem. What I am objecting to are the plethora of non-biblical miracles (see above) that have been generated in YEC theology to explain the discrepancy between observed creation and literal interpretations of Genesis creation accounts.

4. An exegetical reason for creating the world in such a way that it conflicts with science would be that we are to find God through faithful seeking, not through skeptical inquiry. We cannot put God to the test, so we will be unable to demonstrate, through scientific enquiry, the truth of any miracle. That it is possible to create a geological model of Earth's history, whether or not it happened according to the model, is an example of God's goodness, as scientific models help us to understand the world we live in today. Every succesful scientific model is a simplification of previously disparate facts. Models organize these facts in a way that makes using them easier. For that reason, that the facts support these models is a gift from God whether or not the models (which are not the word of God) are literally true. It is their utility that makes them good, not some putative, fundamental, insdisputable truth they supposedly possess.

We don't need conflicting accounts of creation (one in scripture and another one in the creation itself) to bind us to seeking God through faith. The priority of faith does not need to depend on such tactics. In scripture, the only time deceit is used by God is to confirm someone in their unbelief.

I agree, we cannot test God scientifically (nor should we test God in any other way either). However, if a successful scientific model has no foundation in actual created reality, it is worthless both scientifically and theologically. A successful model need not be complete, nor 100% accurate, but if God actually created a real world and a scientific model is based on observations of that created world, there has to be a significant connection between the world God created and the world science models.

Scientific models are not the word of God, but the factual observations of nature on which they are based are the handiwork of God and both scripture and two millennia of Christian theology (not to mention Jewish theology) holds that the work of God's hands is a form of revelation---the one form of revelation given to all (hence: general revelation). It is not to be swept aside because one prefers an interpretation of scripture that does not accord with it.

 

[shernren]

4. An exegetical reason for creating the world in such a way that it conflicts with science would be that we are to find God through faithful seeking, not through skeptical inquiry. We cannot put God to the test, so we will be unable to demonstrate, through scientific enquiry, the truth of any miracle.

And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!" But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.

And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Seriously, guys, you need to find me through faithful seeking, not skeptical inquiry. A spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have, but remember, I created the entire freaking world in such a way that there was no physical evidence left that it's six thousand years old. It's what I do. So why should I pander to you bums of little faith by letting you touch me?"
[Luke 24:33-39, the Tom Cohoe Version]

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."

But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."

Then he said to Thomas, "You skeptical bum! You have to learn to trust in miracles that have no physical evidence whatsoever. Sure I've got holes in my hands and my side, but you know what? You're going to have to take my word for it. I'm not going to show them to you, just the same way I didn't leave behind any evidence that the universe is six thousand years ago. And if you don't have the faith to believe without physical evidence, well, sucks to be you. Do not disbelieve, but believe."
[John 20:24-27, the Tom Cohoe Version]

... some "exegetical principle" this is if it conflicts with the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Shernren, what is your point? You are always saying things indirectly. I don't want to try and figure out what your point is. Why not make it directly?

Do you actually think you've got it all figured out? My whole point is that I know I don't, and I really doubt that all the others who do think they've got it all figured out really do.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

My point being, Shernren, that I can guess what your point is, and if my guess is right, I've already answered it elsewhere. But who knows? I can only guess. So how about it. Spit it out. What are you saying?

 

[Tom Cohoe]

You changed your wording somewhat. This is more accurate.

I did not change my wording. I quoted myself exactly. What follows the quotation is an amplification completely consistent with the quotation.

No it isn't because the text gives us no foundation to support the premise that our fallen nature robbed us of the capacity to make correct observations of physical fact.

The foundation is not that we were 'robbed' of something. It is that we ceased to be in communion with God and it became a requirement that we seek God through faith. From that foundation, one uses reasoning (if it is allowed). So: If we need faith to find God, then we cannot find Him through science. Therefore miracles as given in the Bible can only be known through faith, except when God, for His own reasons, reveals Himself through a miracle. Therefore, the creation miracle, if it occurred as given in Genesis, could not be discovered by science.
Bible exegesis is not an exact 'science' but history is full of people who thought they had it all figured out and who hurt Christianity through intolerance of others whose "making sense" of the Bible in this world differed in some sometimes very small degree. It is one thing to be intolerant of attacks on science. Science has nothing to do with theology, so anyone using the Bible or some religious dogma to attack science should be opposed. But it is quite another thing to be intolerant of someone else's interpretation of the Bible.
I do not claim to have 'proved' anything with the 'we are fallen' justification I just gave. I do understand that nothing is proven with the 'God is a liar' argument either. I am capable of understanding that anyone who insists that the 'God is a liar' argument can be used as a rock solid justification for a position is just being dogmatic. You insist, by this dogmatism, that there is no room in the Christian faith for anyone who believes Genesis is literally true. By doing this, you only increase the pressure on literalists, increase their paranoia, and ultimately, indirectly contribute to the attack on science.
I am a person who comes from an agnostic stance. Having made the leap of faith to believing in God and Christ and the simple religion taught by Christ, I am far from convinced of the importance in our faith of large parts of the Bible. Is Genesis important to me? Not really. Revelations? Not one bit. Pauline letters? I can even live without them.
All of the Bible I read to find what makes sense to me, but far from having 'stepped down the slippery slope' with this attitude as so many would say who cling to the Bible and pore over it to bolster their insecurity, with complex arguments like, "God is a liar", I recognize that I could throw away the whole Bible and still have the infinite thing, which is God. Infinity minus the Bible is still infinity.

Depending on which creationist you are speaking to, you get a wide variety of proposals--many to do with the flood more than with the creation story per se. Water canopy as source of flood water, hydroplates, decaying speed of light, complete change in the laws of physics, break-up of Pangaea within human history (sometime after the Flood), super-speed plate tectonics. An extreme example is the poster who calls himself 'dad' with his "split" universe. According to him no observation of events more than 4,000 years ago is accurate because the whole of physics was changed when the material world was split away from the spiritual world.
None of these ideas comes from scripture. They are ad hoc "miracles" invented solely to support a young-earth interpretation of scripture. They are add-ons (in techical terms "eisegesis" = "read into") to scripture. They have no exegetical (="read out of" the text) foundation.

I was speaking of biblical miracles when I said the liar argument can be applied to all the miracles.

I said "creation" and I meant "creation". But scripture and science are not at odds either, unless one insists on interpreting the scripture as if it were science.

Since we are talking about the act of creation, if you use the same word to denote what is created, you are making your writing less clear than it could be. Why not use a different word for "what is created".

... no longer make accurate observations of reality [emphasis mine - TC]
There you go. You used the word "reality". Much better.

Neither explanation, as already noted, has any sound exegetical foundation.

Oh the fallen nature certainly does. You can't just sweep it away with a wand of authority.

It misrepresents the text of scripture.

The fallen state argument exactly represents the text of scripture. What follows from it is not scripture, but reasoning.

It is not a matter of whether creation happened "as given in Genesis" but whether what is given in Genesis is intended to be a scientific model of the origin of the universe.

Nothing I have ever said indicates Genesis is a scientific model. It couldn't possibly be a scientific model.

Gee, isn't it interesting how it always comes down to "if you don't interpret scripture literally, you don't believe God's Word."?

I'm sorry, but I never said anything like that. You read above just how important Genesis actually is to me personally. Not very. But you are the one coming up with the 'liar' argument, that is, if God actually made the world the way it is given in scripture then God is a liar. To see the absurdity of it, you have to assume first that the world was made as in Genesis. It would follow that Genesis, the written word of God, tells the truth. But then, God is supposed to be a liar because science models, which are not the word of God, give a different account?
I truly hope that you will begin to see how absurd, even outrageous, the "God is a liar" dogma actually is. If I were you, I'd just be thankful I wasn't the one who made it up.

"literal" does not mean "true". And "non-literal" does not mean "false". The equivocation of "literal" and "true" implies that non-literal is necessarily false.

Where did you ever get the idea that I think 'literal' means 'true'?

Second: the literal reading of Genesis is not merely at odds with a scientific model. Scientific models exist to explain actual observed evidence. It was actual observed evidence that convinced devout Christian geologists of the 18th-19th century that there had been no global flood in Noah's day or at any other time in earth's history. YECs themselves try to explain the observed evidence and show that it is not contradictory to their reading of scripture. But they have to rely on ad hoc hypotheses both in science and in their reading of scripture. And when that fails, they revert to unfounded assertions that God withdrew from us the power to observe correctly and to reason correctly. The very fact that YECs from Morris and Gish to Ken Ham and Woodmorappe have spent so much effort on their hypotheses indicates that they themselves see the discrepancy between observed facts and their preferred interpretation of scripture and feel a need to explain it.

I would have thought that I had made it clear by now that everything I have been doing here has been in opposition to the slightest tinge of creation 'science'. Creation 'science' is an abomination as science, and it is an abomination as faith. But faith in the literal truth of Genesis does not have to be stamped out in order to stamp out creation 'science'.

Finally, biblical miracles are not a problem. What I am objecting to are the plethora of non-biblical miracles (see above) that have been generated in YEC theology to explain the discrepancy between observed creation and literal interpretations of Genesis creation accounts.

I mentioned biblical miracles because the "God is a liar" argument is as valid or invalid against every one of them as it is against a single one of them, including six day creation.

deceit

Yeah, right. If Genesis is literally true then God is a deceitful liar. Black is white too.

if a successful scientific model has no foundation in actual created reality, it is worthless both scientifically and theologically. A successful model need not be complete, nor 100% accurate, but if God actually created a real world and a scientific model is based on observations of that created world, there has to be a significant connection between the world God created and the world science models.

There always is, if the model is any good. A good scientific model helps us to organize the facts we observe about the world we live in. That it tells us "the truth" about reality has nothing to do with its utility.

Scientific models are not the word of God, but the factual observations of nature on which they are based are the handiwork of God and both scripture and two millennia of Christian theology (not to mention Jewish theology) holds that the work of God's hands is a form of revelation---the one form of revelation given to all (hence: general revelation). It is not to be swept aside because one prefers an interpretation of scripture that does not accord with it.

Actually, theology should stay out of science, period. That includes telling us that models of science are revelations of God. The models of science are the works of humans.

 

[shernren]

Shernren, what is your point? You are always saying things indirectly. I don't want to try and figure out what your point is. Why not make it directly?

Do you actually think you've got it all figured out? My whole point is that I know I don't, and I really doubt that all the others who do think they've got it all figured out really do.

I like saying things indirectly; to me it is a more artistic form of discussion. Nevertheless, if you must have it directly, I will oblige you. I was objecting to this "exegetical reason" you gave:

4. An exegetical reason for creating the world in such a way that it conflicts with science would be that we are to find God through faithful seeking, not through skeptical inquiry. We cannot put God to the test, so we will be unable to demonstrate, through scientific enquiry, the truth of any miracle.

I was giving you two examples from the Bible itself in which God "puts Himself to the test", so to speak, through skeptical inquiry.

In the Luke 24 passage, the apostles are not convinced that Jesus has been raised from the dead - until Jesus shows up in their meeting room! The disciples are naturally very afraid and think that He is a ghost or a spirit, but He convinces them that He has been bodily resurrected - by letting them touch Him, and (later in the passage) eating in front of them.

In the John 20 passage, Thomas (who didn't make it to the previous meeting) is still not convinced that Jesus has been raised from the dead - until Jesus shows up right in front of Him! This time, Jesus actually asks Thomas to put his hands into the scars in His hands and side.

In both cases, Jesus asks His followers to authenticate the miracle of His resurrection by physical observation. They were asked to watch and to touch. They weren't asked to squeeze their eyes shut and scrounge up faith and accept that there wasn't going to be physical evidence for this very physical act of God. And thank God, too, because judging by their performance on Good Friday (when they all fled, and Peter denied Christ three times) their faith was never really all that solid to begin with!

If God was willing to authenticate the resurrection with irrefutable physical evidence, why would He not authenticate a recent creation with irrefutable physical evidence?