Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, the underlying assumption is that the correction is true to begin with.Yes, I agree with both of your options, if by "understandable" you mean "convincing to someone willing to hear the evidence objectively". And, of course, assuming that the correction was, indeed, correct. As in my example, the creationist position has been explained to me many times, I just don't find it convincing. If we assume that we are talking about a correct position, then yes, I would think your two options are the only ones.
Busterdog and Vossler,
I think you are both honest and committed and not at all like some of the creationist yahoo's we seeing doing serious damage to Christianity over in the Creation and Evolution forum. You are convinced that the way you read Scripture is the correct way to read it, and that way entirely contradicts what modern science is saying.
I don't know that I am doing a better job that AIG or people like that, with whom I sometimes disagree. In fact, I would presume not. However, I think some folks here have done a good job in being clear about the value of a literal word.
What I would suggest is that you consider that we are not talking about pitting God's Word up against Man's Science (a battle we would ALL agree that God's Word wins, hands down). No, the battle is between fallible Man's interpretation of God's Word up against fallible Man's interpretation of God's Nature. Either of these could be wrong, and that truth must be the starting point for any true analysis.
I appreciate what you are saying. However, I will disagree in part. Disagreeing with you, I will at the same time address my alter ego that lives inside of my head at times and tells me to compromise on a host of issues, like giving, day-to-day trust, etc.
If you look at modern religion, particularly with evangelicals, we talk incessantly about Jesus coming back. Well, that certainly begs a big question about what it is that we would do in his presence. Do we act like we want him back? Considering that we are already promised the presence of the Lord and the Holy Spirit, does it not seem that we are operating at what is perhaps an unnecessary deficit?
At some point it seems perfectly logical that the presence of the Christ is sufficient for where we are. We routinely miss this obvious point.
2Cr 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now, I may not avail myself of the presence as I should. Clearly. But, when you question the sufficiency of a literal Word, it seems to me that you are questioning the sufficiency of the Lord's presence. What this Word means is that he meets us and is sufficient for us. I certainly see questioning whether we are doing with that, but I cannot question whether this Word is sufficient. I am sure I am making errors with the Word, but the literal, surface text is there for us, for our needs and deficits. He has come all the way. I dare not reject Him, even if my faith is only as the size of a mustard seed.
Yes, there is a place for hermeneutics and theologians. Often, however, it is to fix men's mistakes, not explain the literal Word. This is part of your confusion, that other function of theologian, dealing with human mistakes. It really only begs the question about whether the basics are just right there, clear as day, in the Word. That is what I see.
With geocentrism, it turned out that it was the fallible human interpretation of Scripture that was wrong, and the fallible view of Nature (science) which was correct. And, so we all just adjusted our view of how a number of Scriptures should be read and went on our merry way, with no damage to Christian thinking at all.
He also corrected Jerusalem with seige engines and tyrants. That didn't make the tyrants theologically accurate. I have seen the argument that science fixed theology. I buy that only in part. Not everyone was deceived. I am sure it happens. God restored national Israel into the hands of secular, nonbelieving Jews as well.
But, Busterdog, one thing you said was telling. You said that you think it is courageous to refuse to submit to consensus. There are a couple of things I would ask about this:
1. What is the consensus view in your church? Your denomination? Is it courageous to submit to that consensus?
2. Do you think it was courageous for the Christians to dig in their heels at the concept of heliocentrism? If so, at what point did that courage become prideful stubbornness?
My Church is probably a split decision in favor of YEC. It will shortly leave the denomination over its nonbiblical view of sexual matters and the authority of the literal word. (See New Wineskins movement of Presby Church) Most cosmology issues don't take courage for the laity like me. Quitting a denomination (PCUSA) will. Other applications of the literal Word will.
Geocentrism is not a Biblical concept, nor is the flat earth. Probably this is not the place to get into that.
But, when you question the sufficiency of a literal Word, it seems to me that you are questioning the sufficiency of the Lord's presence.
Geocentrism is not a Biblical concept, nor is the flat earth. Probably this is not the place to get into that.
What is odd is hearing modern-day geocentrists talk about their fellow YEC creationists. They use exactly the same arguments against them that the YEC's use against the TE's. Trusting Man's science over God's Word, compromising with the atheistic world. Being taken in by mere scientific propositions that have not been proven, etc. It is very deja vu.
And why should a literal approach to the Bible be equated with the Lord's presence? Plenty of people who trust the Lord daily approach the Bible figuratively. Plenty of atheists approach the Bible literally and mock the many errors they perceive; are they, too, "trusting the Lord"?
That is entirely another study. It seems clear enough that everyone could use "more" of the presence. Probably quite a lot.
Let's leave the flat earth aside, I agree that this certainly was never a mainstream view within Christianity.
Wow. Good.
But you have to recognize that geocentrism, through its long intellectual history, was constantly supported by Biblical references (even among anti-Aristotelians), and was never dethronend by Biblical references alone. And yet you say that it is not a Biblical concept. I have shown you time and time again that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject geocentrism.
I think I agree with that.
Therefore, even should I admit that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject YECism (which I don't), or that YECism is constantly supported by Biblical references (which I do), I have every right to declare YECism unbiblical, by the same rights that you have to declare geocentrism unbiblical under the exact same circumstances. And if I believe that YECism is not Biblical, and you are not able to convince me otherwise, you will not begrudge me the view that I should not hold it as a Christian, will you?
I think my job is to do as the Lord does and meet you with grace. Would I begrudge it? I guess. But, its not as if I am asking that you be kicked out of CF as a nonChristian. We're all just talking here, right? I have more pleasure in your salvation than disappointment that you reject the literal word.
I think some of the modern approachs to science (speculation and conjecture) contradict Scripture and should therefore not be legitimately considered. Real science never contradicts Scripture.You are convinced that the way you read Scripture is the correct way to read it, and that way entirely contradicts what modern science is saying.
I'm glad to hear that, but I don't believe this is nearly as universal as you imply.Vance said:What I would suggest is that you consider that we are not talking about pitting God's Word up against Man's Science (a battle we would ALL agree that God's Word wins, hands down).
See, I have a serious problem with this premise. Why should God's Word be held up against anything other than God's Word? I believe the only time God's Word can only be reinterpreted is when the Word itself allows it. In other words, there has to be sufficient evidence within Scripture itself to allow for an extra-biblical interpretation.Vance said:No, the battle is between fallible Man's interpretation of God's Word up against fallible Man's interpretation of God's Nature. Either of these could be wrong, and that truth must be the starting point for any true analysis.
True, but this meant nothing to most people. My life isn't any different knowing we live in a heliocentric system.Vance said:With geocentrism, it turned out that it was the fallible human interpretation of Scripture that was wrong, and the fallible view of Nature (science) which was correct. And, so we all just adjusted our view of how a number of Scriptures should be read and went on our merry way, with no damage to Christian thinking at all.
I think some of the modern approachs to science (speculation and conjecture) contradict Scripture and should therefore not be legitimately considered.
Everything would be different if we lived in a world that was governed by evolution.
These may have been illegitimate speculation to you, but for me it is very legitimate.All science involves speculation, but also tests speculation against evidence. Do you remember that you were unable to identify illegitimate speculation in reference to transitional fossils when we discussed this earlier?
Nothing is different than it is because evolution isn't true. The world hasn't changed one iota since the theory of evolution came out. The only thing that changed were many peoples view of the world.gluadys said:Actually, if evolution is true, nothing would be different than it is.
These may have been illegitimate speculation to you, but for me it is very legitimate.
Nothing is different than it is because evolution isn't true. The world hasn't changed one iota since the theory of evolution came out.
The only thing that changed were many peoples view of the world.
I don't recall a single example that in any way passed the smell test (in other words can be proven empirically) for me.It was you who disputed what you called "speculation", but when I showed you actual examples, you could not identify them as speculation, or at least not as untestable and untested speculation.
You're right about one thing, heliocentricism didn't change our world one iota. The thing to remember in the whole geo vs. helio debate, it never really mattered which one was right. Neither contradicts any doctrines or teachings of the Bible. The same can't be said for evolution.gluadys said:The world hasn't changed on iota since the theory of heliocentrism came out either. That is because heliocentrism was always true, long before it was theorized. Heliocentricty changed our view, but the theory did not change the reality.
Same with evolution. It takes the theory to change our view. But if evolution is true, it was always true, so it doesn't change the world one iota.
I don't recall a single example that in any way passed the smell test (in other words can be proven empirically) for me.
The same can't be said for evolution.
If I remember correctly, I didn't have a problem with the fossils or measurements, just the conjecture and speculation used to formulate or support evolution.It was a while ago and I did not save the thread, but you agreed that many things were empirical such as fossils, the measurements taken of fossils, the intermediate characteristics of fossils, etc.
I know.gluadys said:This is where we disagree. I do say that evolution does not contradict any doctrines or teachings of the Bible.
If I remember correctly, I didn't have a problem with the fossils or measurements, just the conjecture and speculation used to formulate or support evolution.
It is my mantra for anything that calls itself 'science' and bases it's findings on conjecture and speculation. I will not have God's Word called into question using the modern definition of science that allows far too many things to be brought under its umbrella. Pure empirical science is built on self evident truths that can be repeatedly tested. The results of which are not ever called into question. This is in many ways similar to mathmatics."comjecture and speculation" is just a mantra until you show which scientific hypotheses have been accepted without observation and testing.
"Repeatability" - in the sense you talk about it - is not a requirement of science!Evolution isn't even remotely repeatable
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?