Can anything change your mind?

[mark kennedy]

All I've done is quote the Sir William Ramsay you quote so often. When you quote him you make him sound like a defender of the faith; when I quote him it is just a "satirical and pedantic rant"? My.

You highlight artistic and idealized and fail to emphasize Luke being an historian of the highest rank. You were very satirical and always are.

In any case. Yes, I do affirm the reliability of the New Testament witness, and I used to lead classes in my church based on these presuppositions (which I am currently physically unable to do, obviously).

Presuppositions? I might be less suspicious if you described them as well founded conclusions.

No, I do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be a historical narrative, and I believe that for various reasons both Scriptural and scientific, such as the clearly analogical nature of the days in Genesis 1,

The normal word for 'day' is used and there is no genuine departure for the standard expression of a 24 hour day. There is further no indication that the use of the word 'generation' is figurative or allegorical. If you want to call it analogical that's fine by me but that is not the same as figurative.

the fact that there is no mention of inheritance of the curses in Genesis 3, the clear absence of second-order process descriptions in the Bible contrasted with creationists' varying degrees of compromise in incorporating them into their pseudo-scientific frameworks, and the clear independence of the early church's hamartiology and soteriology from Adam and the Genesis account as recorded in the same Gospels and Acts.

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15)

That is a clear affirmation of the inheritance of the curse. Luke affirms that Adam was the first man and Church hamartiology and soteriology have traditionally emphasized the sin of Adam.

Again I affirm the historical veracity of the Gospels and Acts, affirm that Jesus historically died and rose from death, believe in the Nicene Creed, in a literal fulfillment of eschatology in which the present earth and universe will be destroyed and superseded by a new reality where those saved by Jesus will enjoy eternal rest while those unsaved will suffer eternal punishment.

I would say that you are affirming the historicity of an enormous number of miracles . I certainly hope that means we are both shunned in modern academic circles with regards to our epistemology. At any rate, I'm a little confused how Revelations can be taken literally and Genesis 1-11 can't but I'll put off an indepth discussion of that since I'm tired and running out of time.

By your theory that Darwinianism is nothing more than a dogmatic, pseudo-scientific presuppositionalist rejection of the historicity of the New Testament, I am either a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply non-existent. Which is it now? You've come in here with both barrels blazing; try turning some fire on me if you dare.

Darwinism is a categorical rejection of traditional theism with it's expressed purpose to attack special creation. That is not a theory, it's a fact. Darwin like Spinoza, Hegel and Tillech simply ignored God and the supernatural. The New Testament was never even considered as an historical narrative so that point is moot.

Now that we have established that you are a Biblical literalist and fundamentalist from Genesis 12 thru Revelations 22 perhaps you would like to explain why the first eleven chapters warrant special interpretations. Paul took them quite literally as did Luke, why shouldn't I?

 

[lawtonfogle]

This poll is not directed to either side. I want to know, if given enough information about a certain subject, evidence for a theory, or interpretation of a scripture, anyone would be open to changing their mind. I'm not saying you have to, I just want to know if there's any possibility of change and if there is what would make you do so?

Yes, I do realize this doesn't have that much potential to develop, but I figure it's worth a shot.

Yes, since I have changed on the topic of evolution/creation.

 

[vossler]

It's really simple.

The first part of your signature line is inconsistent with the way you read Scripture because common sense is individualistic and according to the common sense of most people, miracles do not happen and people do not rise from the dead. Therefore something has to modulate common sense, and the only remaining factor for input is context.

It's even much simpler than you make it out to be. You seem to begin with the qualifier of miracles not being commonly associated with the creation of the universe. Maybe that's not something you think of when creation is mentioned, it sure is for me.

As for rising from the dead, well given that we serve God the Creator of everything then something such as death and being able to rise from it really becomes almost mundane in comparison. It certainly would align with what we already know about God the all powerful Creator. Now of course if we didn't see God as Genesis describes Him and interpret it as allegory or symbolism then of course something like rising from the dead becomes a little more difficult to believe.

The second part of your signature line is inconsistent with the way you read Scripture because you always rely on physical evidence and their accompanying scientific interpretations to read Scripture.

If what you're saying here is the obvious physical evidence we all see and experience then yes I agree that I can, at times, rely on it, at least to a certain degree, but certainly not always. However, I don't take what I consider to be physical evidence and any accompanying scientific interpretations and use it to freely change the plain reading without some very strong reasons. One strong reason might be that the interpretation in question has no bearing on my relationship with God or how I came to this relationship. In other words, how I interpret it has no effect on anything of substance. Another strong reason might be the context of the Scripture in question.

I demonstrated this with the starlight transit time difficulty in Genesis and I can demonstrate this with any extended narrative passage of Scripture you care to name. Therefore, since any pertinent physical evidence and accompanying scientific theory must become part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture, evolution and its evidence must also be a part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture to which they are relevant, unless evolution can be shown to be scientifically wrong independent of Scripture.

I disagree, I don't for a minute believe that "any pertinent physical evidence and accompanying scientific theory must become part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture." Why do you think this is necessary?

After all, to reject evolution a priori as context of Scripture, even before opening the first page of Genesis, and then declare evolution inconsistent with Scripture is merely circular argumentation. Since you have rejected the physical evidence for evolution and its accompanying scientific explanation, you have rejected part of the rightful context of Scripture, and are thus reading Scripture neither according to common sense nor to proper context, but merely according to your own presuppositions, which you have absorbed from a culture in which creationism is culturally fashionable.

How do you reject something as context before reading it? I know of no one who has done that.

Mind you, in my critique on the other thread I had made nothing complex. It was the creationists of various shapes and stripes which had made things complex for the starlight-transit-time problem, most of whom profess to looking for the "plain meaning" of Scripture; I was just looking at their complexity and commenting on why it exists. Indeed, I proposed a very simple solution: assume that light has an infinite speed and that the stars are very close, and then there is no problem whatsoever. Unfortunately creationists don't seem to "trust the Bible" enough to reject "problematic" science!

If this is from creationist sources I would submit that they've somehow bought into the world's argument that everything in the Bible needs to be explained scientifically. I have a big problem with that, but I understand why it happens. The pressure is immense to have answers for everything.

 

[shernren]

You highlight artistic and idealized and fail to emphasize Luke being an historian of the highest rank. You were very satirical and always are.

Well for Ramsay, being a historian of the highest rank was presenting an artistic and idealized picture. And I don't think I was being satirical. I can certainly be mean, and I can be pedantic (as I am right now), but I don't think I was being satirical.

Presuppositions? I might be less suspicious if you described them as well founded conclusions.

Given our total depravity anything we believe about the Bible has to be based on some form of presupposition, no?

The normal word for 'day' is used and there is no genuine departure for the standard expression of a 24 hour day. There is further no indication that the use of the word 'generation' is figurative or allegorical. If you want to call it analogical that's fine by me but that is not the same as figurative.

The structure is poetic with repeating refrains, presenting God as a workman who rests at night and whose seventh day lasts up until right now - at least 6,000 years, by the creationist reckoning, and certainly more than twenty-four hours. Genesis 2 is ideally harmonized with Genesis 1 if the barren state of the land of Eden is caused by established climate patterns (which would require more than six days to establish!) and if geographical features relevant to the passage are still recognizable in later Biblical passages (which is completely incompatible with a typical YEC global tectonically violent flood).

Even when I work from a conservative standpoint with the text alone it is apparent that YECism alone can't capture all the complexity of the text, neither indeed can any standard creationist treatment. Even a conservative Reformed theologian like Bavinck noticed that it is inconsistent to speak of 24-hour days before the sun as arbiter of 24-hour days has been created. What more when we allow the proper context of the passage - the myriads of physical evidence surrounding us concerning God's methodology of creation - to be included in its analysis!

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15)

That is a clear affirmation of the inheritance of the curse. Luke affirms that Adam was the first man and Church hamartiology and soteriology have traditionally emphasized the sin of Adam.

How is this protoevangelium relevant? All it promises is that the spawn of the serpent will be defeated by the seed of the woman. It does not tell us that all humans will be born with original sin, that all humans will die, or that all humans will be estranged from God unless God acts in divine gracious initiative. All these things are still true but they are not spoken of in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and therefore they may not be as closely wedded to a literal interpretation of Genesis as you would like to think.

Luke affirms that Adam was the first man. Well, the first man has to have a name, and if the author of Genesis calls him Adam, why should I protest if Luke calls him Adam as well? Of course there was a first man, a first contact with God, a first sin that spread throughout subsequent humanity, and the desperate need for a Savior that arose from that. Believe me when I say there is little that is different between me and you besides your unwarranted dogmatism.

I would say that you are affirming the historicity of an enormous number of miracles . I certainly hope that means we are both shunned in modern academic circles with regards to our epistemology. At any rate, I'm a little confused how Revelations can be taken literally and Genesis 1-11 can't but I'll put off an indepth discussion of that since I'm tired and running out of time.

Of course I am affirming the historicity of an enormous number of miracles mark, it's about time you agreed with me about that! But I believe that every miracle the Bible bears witness to left behind substantial, impartially detectable physical evidence which would not have existed if the miracle had not happened (even though in most cases that physical evidence is of too small magnitude to detect today by conventional historical methods). In plain terms, if Richard Dawkins had been by the tomb come Easter Sunday and looked inside he would still have seen it empty, however he chose to explain it afterwards. I'm sure you can agree with me on that.

Darwinism is a categorical rejection of traditional theism with it's expressed purpose to attack special creation. That is not a theory, it's a fact. Darwin like Spinoza, Hegel and Tillech simply ignored God and the supernatural. The New Testament was never even considered as an historical narrative so that point is moot.

Now that we have established that you are a Biblical literalist and fundamentalist from Genesis 12 thru Revelations 22 perhaps you would like to explain why the first eleven chapters warrant special interpretations. Paul took them quite literally as did Luke, why shouldn't I?

Your neat categorical theory is falling to pieces. I firmly accept evolution as the best explanation for the generation of currently observable biodiversity. I also accept Biblical theism in its every nuance (even more than some creationists who, say, think God would not use evolution because He would get impatient waiting - what a strange conception!). What explanation do you have for me, a Darwinist Biblical theist? I am either a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply nonexistent, and I am waiting impatiently for you to tell me which I am.

As for being a Biblical literalist and fundamentalist from Genesis 12 to Revelations 22 - by no means! I am quite ironically in the same boat as vossler who endlessly has to elaborate on the meaning of "literalism" as it is applied to him. I simply read the Bible, and I read it with the knowledge that the same God who wrote it created creation, and thus everything I know to be true about creation can be brought to bear on everything I know to be true about the Bible and vice versa. Even YECs have to stretch Genesis 7-8 when they are faced with geological facts that they don't have the guts to deny. Why should I be ashamed about bringing everything I know about God's creation to the table when thinking about God's Bible?

 

[shernren]

It's even much simpler than you make it out to be. You seem to begin with the qualifier of miracles not being commonly associated with the creation of the universe. Maybe that's not something you think of when creation is mentioned, it sure is for me.

Miracles don't normally happen without evidence. Every miracle in the Bible left evidence that even non-believers could see. I don't see evidence that God disrupted scientific processes to create, so either God didn't, or God concocted some kind of Omphalos miracle that left no trace of His usage of miracles to create. Guess which alternative I like better?

As for rising from the dead, well given that we serve God the Creator of everything then something such as death and being able to rise from it really becomes almost mundane in comparison. It certainly would align with what we already know about God the all powerful Creator. Now of course if we didn't see God as Genesis describes Him and interpret it as allegory or symbolism then of course something like rising from the dead becomes a little more difficult to believe.

No, that's your common sense, and you're applying it in this situation rather differently than to the Bible. Tell me, what do we say today to people who tell us that Elvis isn't dead? We call them nutters even if they claim to have seen Elvis with their own eyes. I know plenty of hardline atheists who take David Cooper's advice to heart. They use their common sense to read the Bible and see a bunch of Jesus-groupies unable to cope with the crucifixion of their master and as a result imagine seeing Him around long after His death.

I certainly don't trust my common sense reading the Bible, at points. Common sense tells me that it's okay to sin as long as nobody gets hurt and that maybe what was wrong in a different era is okay now. I think the Holy Spirit's missing from your signature line. Don't you?

If what you're saying here is the obvious physical evidence we all see and experience then yes I agree that I can, at times, rely on it, at least to a certain degree, but certainly not always. However, I don't take what I consider to be physical evidence and any accompanying scientific interpretations and use it to freely change the plain reading without some very strong reasons. One strong reason might be that the interpretation in question has no bearing on my relationship with God or how I came to this relationship. In other words, how I interpret it has no effect on anything of substance. Another strong reason might be the context of the Scripture in question.

I disagree, I don't for a minute believe that "any pertinent physical evidence and accompanying scientific theory must become part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture." Why do you think this is necessary?

It is necessary because the only possible common ground of meaning in language must be our shared experience of the physical universe. In simple terms, you would never know what a "cat" is without having a cat pointed out to you.

Here's an example from the Gospels. Remember that saying by Jesus, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? Some scholars have proposed that there was indeed a gate in the walls of Jerusalem called the "Needle's Eye" which was just, just tall enough for a camel to pass through - if you unloaded everything off its back first. That would make Jesus' saying quite more specific and pointed than you'd think it was, wouldn't you?

So let's suppose I was absolutely convinced by the physical evidence available to me that such a gate really exists. (I'm not, by the way, but this is an example.) And I tell my friend, "Jesus was commanding us that we need to 'unload', as much as we can, before we can enter the Kingdom of God!"

"Nonsense. My plain reading of the passage tells me that Jesus was simply using hyperbole to demonstrate how difficult it is for the rich man to enter God's Kingdom."

"But have you ever heard of the Needle's Eye gate?" And I proceed to explain it, but then he says -

"Well, that changes the plain meaning of the passage if it does exist, so it doesn't."

"But it does, and to me the plain meaning of the passage is clearly different - "

"See what I mean?"

See what I mean?

How do you reject something as context before reading it? I know of no one who has done that.

Follow the logic here:

God created the physical universe.
God wrote the Bible.

Therefore, anything that must be true about the physical universe must be consistent with anything that must be true about the Bible.

As such, anything that must be true about the physical universe must form part of the context of the Bible (in the same way that we can use other parts of Scripture as context for one passage of Scripture because they must be mutually consistent).

Therefore, if evolution is true about the physical universe, then it must form part of the context of the Bible.

Notice that a text has no right to determine its context. This is true in normal Bible interpretation: if I have an interpretation of James that is inconsistent with Romans I cannot say "Well, that must mean that Romans is not in the context of James" and walk away whistling. Romans is in the context of James a priori to any reading of James (at least, if you approach both of them with normal Christian presuppositions) and that cannot be undone by any reading of James. It can be undone, however, by a reading of Romans: suppose we found out that Romans was not actually written by Paul, and not actually included in canonized Scripture, but was instead sneaked in by a bunch of drunken partying Catholics on Christmas' Eve 1492. Then obviously Romans would no longer necessarily be part of the context of James - but that is an argument from knowledge about Romans, not about James.

Therefore, if we want to determine that evolution is not valid context for Genesis, we either have to disprove the general argument above that creation is valid context for Scripture, or we have to disprove specifically that evolution is a valid scientific theory. However, you have decided a priori that since evolution disagrees with your interpretation of Genesis, it must not be permissible in the context of Genesis. That is much like the reasoning of some of the canonizers who reasoned that if James "contradicts" Romans then James must not be Scripture - in other words, letting their interpretation of Romans dictate whether or not James was part of its valid context. This was rejected by the canonizers then, and it should be rejected by creationists today.

If this is from creationist sources I would submit that they've somehow bought into the world's argument that everything in the Bible needs to be explained scientifically. I have a big problem with that, but I understand why it happens. The pressure is immense to have answers for everything.

At least they've tried!

 

[vossler]

Miracles don't normally happen without evidence. Every miracle in the Bible left evidence that even non-believers could see. I don't see evidence that God disrupted scientific processes to create, so either God didn't, or God concocted some kind of Omphalos miracle that left no trace of His usage of miracles to create. Guess which alternative I like better?

Are you saying miracles don't happen without scientific evidence? The miracles of the Bible left evidence, but certainly not anything that today would be called scientific. So what scientific process did God use to create? It would appear that if there isn't a verifiable process, in your mind, the event didn't happen. I must admit this whole discussion is a bit surreal for me.

No, that's your common sense, and you're applying it in this situation rather differently than to the Bible. Tell me, what do we say today to people who tell us that Elvis isn't dead? We call them nutters even if they claim to have seen Elvis with their own eyes. I know plenty of hardline atheists who take David Cooper's advice to heart. They use their common sense to read the Bible and see a bunch of Jesus-groupies unable to cope with the crucifixion of their master and as a result imagine seeing Him around long after His death.

Well I don't know any hard line atheists other than those I've met here in CF. Now they may believe as you so state, but I haven't come across it yet. Even if that is so, what am I to make of it? How does it apply to our conversation, I don't understand the relevance? Their common sense or more accurately, their conscience, has been probably been dulled and seared to the point that they no longer display any common sense. Now I've most certainly come across this in my daily walk more often than I'd care to say.

I certainly don't trust my common sense reading the Bible, at points. Common sense tells me that it's okay to sin as long as nobody gets hurt and that maybe what was wrong in a different era is okay now. I think the Holy Spirit's missing from your signature line. Don't you?

Of course our common sense apart from God's Word and our consciences would permit us many sins. Yet combined with it we can usually see clear enough to dicipher the Truth. Of course even that wouldn't be possible most of the time without the Holy Spirit's intervention. You're right that it is missing from my signature line, and if your purpose is to acknowledge His role in this process then I say 'Amen'.

It is necessary because the only possible common ground of meaning in language must be our shared experience of the physical universe. In simple terms, you would never know what a "cat" is without having a cat pointed out to you.

I disagree, the Word of God is first and foremost the common ground we have. It is what ties all of us directly to Him. So in simple terms, you would never know who God is without His Word pointing it out to you.

Here's an example from the Gospels. Remember that saying by Jesus, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? Some scholars have proposed that there was indeed a gate in the walls of Jerusalem called the "Needle's Eye" which was just, just tall enough for a camel to pass through - if you unloaded everything off its back first. That would make Jesus' saying quite more specific and pointed than you'd think it was, wouldn't you?

So let's suppose I was absolutely convinced by the physical evidence available to me that such a gate really exists. (I'm not, by the way, but this is an example.) And I tell my friend, "Jesus was commanding us that we need to 'unload', as much as we can, before we can enter the Kingdom of God!"

"Nonsense. My plain reading of the passage tells me that Jesus was simply using hyperbole to demonstrate how difficult it is for the rich man to enter God's Kingdom."

"But have you ever heard of the Needle's Eye gate?" And I proceed to explain it, but then he says -

"Well, that changes the plain meaning of the passage if it does exist, so it doesn't."

"But it does, and to me the plain meaning of the passage is clearly different - "

"See what I mean?"

See what I mean?

I see where you are coming from but I would submit that neither interpretation is diametrically different. They both, in a sense, are saying the same thing. Both are difficult, they just go about relating to it differently. It is here where context and the rest of the Bible, with the Holy Spirit's help, will help provide an answer suitable to the reader. Will that answer always be exactly the same, probably not, but it will always be consistent.

Follow the logic here:

God created the physical universe.
God wrote the Bible.

Therefore, anything that must be true about the physical universe must be consistent with anything that must be true about the Bible.

As such, anything that must be true about the physical universe must form part of the context of the Bible (in the same way that we can use other parts of Scripture as context for one passage of Scripture because they must be mutually consistent).

Therefore, if evolution is true about the physical universe, then it must form part of the context of the Bible.

Notice that a text has no right to determine its context. This is true in normal Bible interpretation: if I have an interpretation of James that is inconsistent with Romans I cannot say "Well, that must mean that Romans is not in the context of James" and walk away whistling. Romans is in the context of James a priori to any reading of James (at least, if you approach both of them with normal Christian presuppositions) and that cannot be undone by any reading of James. It can be undone, however, by a reading of Romans: suppose we found out that Romans was not actually written by Paul, and not actually included in canonized Scripture, but was instead sneaked in by a bunch of drunken partying Catholics on Christmas' Eve 1492. Then obviously Romans would no longer necessarily be part of the context of James - but that is an argument from knowledge about Romans, not about James.

Therefore, if we want to determine that evolution is not valid context for Genesis, we either have to disprove the general argument above that creation is valid context for Scripture, or we have to disprove specifically that evolution is a valid scientific theory. However, you have decided a priori that since evolution disagrees with your interpretation of Genesis, it must not be permissible in the context of Genesis. That is much like the reasoning of some of the canonizers who reasoned that if James "contradicts" Romans then James must not be Scripture - in other words, letting their interpretation of Romans dictate whether or not James was part of its valid context. This was rejected by the canonizers then, and it should be rejected by creationists today.

Quite a fascinating approach you take young shernren. I must commend you on the depth of analysis that you seem to take concerning most everything. I'm afraid that sometimes you allow that depth to get you so deep into the weeds that you lose sight of the bigger picture. Either that or you're too far over my head, probably the latter.

You too work under a priori that states today's scientific understanding is complete. That it is a known fact and true. So true as if to bet one's life on, because in effect that is what many do. Of course you'll never admit to that but the evidence certainly backs up this assertion. The difference between my priori and yours is that mine stays centered on God's Word while yours is centered on man's understand of the physical world around him. This then allows you to take the physical world, as you understand it, to form how the text is to be interpreted. My priori works almost exclusively within the realm of the Word of God, outside sources are minimized or eliminated whenever possible so as to keep the only known Truth as pure and unadulterated as possible. Does this always work, certainly not, but I believe it to be a far better starting point.

 

[shernren]

Are you saying miracles don't happen without scientific evidence? The miracles of the Bible left evidence, but certainly not anything that today would be called scientific. So what scientific process did God use to create? It would appear that if there isn't a verifiable process, in your mind, the event didn't happen. I must admit this whole discussion is a bit surreal for me.

It depends on what you mean by "scientific". If you mean labs and accelerators and microscopes and all, then certainly not, and that's not what I mean either. What I mean by "scientific" is simply anything that is publicly accessible because it is part of the physical universe.

If I have a cold, anyone around me will see me sniffling and coughing and spewing mucus, even if that person doesn't believe in the existence of colds and has to resort to something else to explain it. And then if a microbiologist takes samples of my cells and puts them under the right kind of microscope s/he will be able to point out the viruses in me, and anyone who looks into the microscope will be able to see those things even if they don't know what to call them or don't even believe they exist. The microscope is just an extension of the eye, and because my cold and my cold viruses are real things, anyone can see them even if they don't believe in the cold - and even though seeing cold viruses is a lot harder than seeing the cold. That's what I mean by "scientific".

So suppose I was there and a skeptic was there right after Jesus fed the five thousand. We'll both see the same twelve baskets left over. (We can't access those twelve baskets today, of course, and that's part of the issue with comparing Jesus' miracles to creation: none of them left traces on the scale that we can observe today.) I'll say "Hey, Jesus multiplied the bread and fish!" And the skeptic might say "No, miracles don't happen, so everybody must have taken out their lunches and shared, inspired by the little boy." And whichever person is right, we will both agree that the baskets are there and need to be explained. There won't be a third person who comes along and says "What baskets? I don't see any baskets. The miracle mustn't have happened."

A miracle on the scale of the rapid recent creation of the universe or the global flood must leave some kind of evidence that we can access. It should leave something to explain away even for those who categorically deny the existence of miracles, just as the skeptic who looks in the Tomb should find it empty even if s/he doesn't believe in resurrections. Miracles don't clean up behind themselves.

Well I don't know any hard line atheists other than those I've met here in CF. Now they may believe as you so state, but I haven't come across it yet. Even if that is so, what am I to make of it? How does it apply to our conversation, I don't understand the relevance? Their common sense or more accurately, their conscience, has been probably been dulled and seared to the point that they no longer display any common sense. Now I've most certainly come across this in my daily walk more often than I'd care to say.

Of course our common sense apart from God's Word and our consciences would permit us many sins. Yet combined with it we can usually see clear enough to dicipher the Truth. Of course even that wouldn't be possible most of the time without the Holy Spirit's intervention. You're right that it is missing from my signature line, and if your purpose is to acknowledge His role in this process then I say 'Amen'.

I'm just rehashing Hume's old arguments against miracles (which I don't accept, by the by). According to his reasoning, since a miracle has zero probability of occurring, one needs a witness of infinite reliability to attest to one, and since there are no such witnesses, miracles cannot be attested to accurately. If that doesn't make sense to you, think of what would happen if someone came up to you and said 9/11 was staged. You'd immediately look and see what hidden agenda s/he has, what organizations they support, etc. And that makes sense: tall claims require reliable witnesses.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that "common sense" is a weasel word. Whose common sense? Is common sense really common? Not "common" as in "easily found" but "common" as in "shared": do we really all have the same common sense? For someone who works in a biology lab evolution is common sense. Does that mean that it's right for him or her to use evolution to interpret the Bible, and then that it's not right for Ken Ham to use evolution to interpret the Bible because evolution isn't common sense to him?

What decides common sense? How do you know that "if God was good, He wouldn't have hell waiting for sinners" isn't common sense? Who's the International Deciding Body For Common Sense, and what has it decided about the Documentary Hypothesis and the Jesus Seminar and all those other things? Doesn't it, in the end, reduce to you using your common sense? And isn't that a peculiarly individualistic way to do things?

I disagree, the Word of God is first and foremost the common ground we have. It is what ties all of us directly to Him. So in simple terms, you would never know who God is without His Word pointing it out to you.

And you wouldn't know how to read the Bible without your English dictionary and your kindergarten teachers.

I see where you are coming from but I would submit that neither interpretation is diametrically different. They both, in a sense, are saying the same thing. Both are difficult, they just go about relating to it differently. It is here where context and the rest of the Bible, with the Holy Spirit's help, will help provide an answer suitable to the reader. Will that answer always be exactly the same, probably not, but it will always be consistent.

How "same" is "same"? One thinks Jesus is just making a hyperbolic comment. The other thinks Jesus is, at least on the surface of it, making an obvious command.

In my theology I believe that (as I told mark) there was a first man, a first contact with God, a first sin that spread throughout subsequent humanity, and the desperate need for a Savior that arose from that. It may be different from yours in shades, but at its core it is still the same as yours, is it not?

Quite a fascinating approach you take young shernren. I must commend you on the depth of analysis that you seem to take concerning most everything. I'm afraid that sometimes you allow that depth to get you so deep into the weeds that you lose sight of the bigger picture. Either that or you're too far over my head, probably the latter.

The higher you climb the harder you fall.

You too work under a priori that states today's scientific understanding is complete. That it is a known fact and true. So true as if to bet one's life on, because in effect that is what many do. Of course you'll never admit to that but the evidence certainly backs up this assertion. The difference between my priori and yours is that mine stays centered on God's Word while yours is centered on man's understand of the physical world around him. This then allows you to take the physical world, as you understand it, to form how the text is to be interpreted. My priori works almost exclusively within the realm of the Word of God, outside sources are minimized or eliminated whenever possible so as to keep the only known Truth as pure and unadulterated as possible. Does this always work, certainly not, but I believe it to be a far better starting point.

Then I would ask: why should you consider science to be an "outside source"? Any physical detail we learn to be true about nature is true only because God intended it to be true. And after all, you need the physical universe to define your language.

I wouldn't know what "chaff" is until I saw some. Indeed, in Malaysia we eat mostly rice and don't have much contact with the agriculture of wheat, so I only learned what "chaff" was relatively late on, in a children's book on Psalm 1. I learned there that chaff is what you shuck off a grain of wheat and that it is blown to the wind to be lost forever. That informed my interpretation of Psalm 1 immensely. Later on, though, I learned that scientists look hard at the things inside chaff, and inside humans like me, and inside rocks to find bones and inside many other animals, and discovered many facts about nature which they lumped together under a theory called "evolution", and that has informed my interpretation of Genesis 1 immensely.

When I looked at chaff, it informed my interpretation of Psalm 1; when I looked inside chaff, it informed my interpretation of Genesis 1. Where do you draw the line? When did I start using an "external source"? Was it because of the microscope? Or maybe I should have stayed with chaff and not looked at the rest of life extant on Planet Earth. Maybe I don't even need to know what chaff is to understand Psalm 1. (But what is a "scoffer"? And what's the point in walking, then standing, then sitting?)

As for thinking today's scientific understanding is complete: by no means! (I'd be out of a job!) But I do believe that the scientific understanding I have today is, well, the scientific understanding I have today. I'm not smart enough to predict what our scientific understanding is going to be 20 or 40 or 60 years from now and use that today in my interpretation of the Bible, and I don't see what the point would be in sticking with a scientific understanding 20 or 40 or 60 years old to be used today. Today is all I need today; tomorrow can worry about itself.

Might evolution be replaced? Certainly, and I'd bet that whatever replaces it will have ten times less room for creationists to maneuver around in than what we have today. But interestingly, when I have allowed my knowledge of science to affect my understandings of Scripture, I've come away thinking that my theological truths are actually separate from my scientific truths. Isn't that peculiar?

When I see that the Israelites had a scientific view of the universe utterly different from mine and yet held to the same theology - a first man, a first contact with God, a first sin that spread throughout subsequent humanity, and the desperate need for a Savior that arose from that - I have confidence that I don't need their scientific view to hold my theology; I don't even need my current scientific view to hold my theology, and I am persuaded that my theology will certainly adapt to anything that comes my way in the future without really needing to change much at all.

So to me the best science and the best theology will always walk hand in hand. God has not regretted creating His creation or writing His Bible, and I am fully persuaded that I will gain the most studying them together.

 

[vossler]

A miracle on the scale of the rapid recent creation of the universe or the global flood must leave some kind of evidence that we can access. It should leave something to explain away even for those who categorically deny the existence of miracles, just as the skeptic who looks in the Tomb should find it empty even if s/he doesn't believe in resurrections. Miracles don't clean up behind themselves.

So there should be a natural explanation, I happen to disagree.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that "common sense" is a weasel word. Whose common sense? Is common sense really common? Not "common" as in "easily found" but "common" as in "shared": do we really all have the same common sense? For someone who works in a biology lab evolution is common sense. Does that mean that it's right for him or her to use evolution to interpret the Bible, and then that it's not right for Ken Ham to use evolution to interpret the Bible because evolution isn't common sense to him?

What decides common sense? How do you know that "if God was good, He wouldn't have hell waiting for sinners" isn't common sense? Who's the International Deciding Body For Common Sense, and what has it decided about the Documentary Hypothesis and the Jesus Seminar and all those other things? Doesn't it, in the end, reduce to you using your common sense? And isn't that a peculiarly individualistic way to do things?

People decide what is common sense, it is affirmed or denied by people. It is framed by a natural and ‘common’ understanding. For Christians that framing originates in God’s Word. So it really isn’t all that individualistic. Now I would submit that the reason we as Christians can’t seem to agree on things that should be commonsensical is because we don’t know God’s Word. The more who do, the more common the sense seems to be.

How "same" is "same"? One thinks Jesus is just making a hyperbolic comment. The other thinks Jesus is, at least on the surface of it, making an obvious command.

Same enough that the truth isn’t jeopardized.

In my theology I believe that (as I told mark) there was a first man, a first contact with God, a first sin that spread throughout subsequent humanity, and the desperate need for a Savior that arose from that. It may be different from yours in shades, but at its core it is still the same as yours, is it not?

It would appear to be so. I believe though that those shades are far more important than you do. For me this is a battle for the Truth and it only has one shade.

Then I would ask: why should you consider science to be an "outside source"? Any physical detail we learn to be true about nature is true only because God intended it to be true. And after all, you need the physical universe to define your language.

Here’s the deal, nature is true, real and reliable. Man and his interpretation of what he sees in nature, especially in the past, isn’t. Like I’ve said many times before, we can’t even accurately say what happened yesterday, so how in the world can we so arrogantly claim to know the details of what occurred in the distant past.

I wouldn't know what "chaff" is until I saw some. Indeed, in Malaysia we eat mostly rice and don't have much contact with the agriculture of wheat, so I only learned what "chaff" was relatively late on, in a children's book on Psalm 1. I learned there that chaff is what you shuck off a grain of wheat and that it is blown to the wind to be lost forever. That informed my interpretation of Psalm 1 immensely. Later on, though, I learned that scientists look hard at the things inside chaff, and inside humans like me, and inside rocks to find bones and inside many other animals, and discovered many facts about nature which they lumped together under a theory called "evolution", and that has informed my interpretation of Genesis 1 immensely.

I can see exactly what you describe happening to people all the time.

Might evolution be replaced? Certainly, and I'd bet that whatever replaces it will have ten times less room for creationists to maneuver around in than what we have today. But interestingly, when I have allowed my knowledge of science to affect my understandings of Scripture, I've come away thinking that my theological truths are actually separate from my scientific truths. Isn't that peculiar?

Nothing is peculiar to me anymore concerning how people develop their views, especially when those people are TEs.

When I see that the Israelites had a scientific view of the universe utterly different from mine and yet held to the same theology - a first man, a first contact with God, a first sin that spread throughout subsequent humanity, and the desperate need for a Savior that arose from that - I have confidence that I don't need their scientific view to hold my theology; I don't even need my current scientific view to hold my theology, and I am persuaded that my theology will certainly adapt to anything that comes my way in the future without really needing to change much at all.

You say this so easily but yet can provide no true explanation on how to account for the first man, Adam. If he is a product of evolution that process took place over millions of years, yet at the same time happened in an instant. For someone who needs a scientific explanation for so many things you sure will jump onto something so very unscientific rather easily.

So to me the best science and the best theology will always walk hand in hand. God has not regretted creating His creation or writing His Bible, and I am fully persuaded that I will gain the most studying them together.

On this we can agree. Where we disagree is the importance of the science and just what is called 'legitimate' science.

I’d like to leave it at that. As I’ve stated before my role here isn’t to convince you or anyone else of anything. I’m here to defend God’s Word from attack or misuse, not my view of interpreting Scripture or common sense. The Truth, based on God’s Word, is the only thing I’m truly interested in. You and I will not change how we see this argument; if anything we’re more entrenched than ever.

 

[shernren]

Well, since you've honored me with the last word, I'll make it short.

Nothing is peculiar to me anymore concerning how people develop their views, especially when those people are TEs.

I can see exactly what you describe happening to people all the time.

Why, you make it sound like familiarity deserves contempt.

Here’s the deal, nature is true, real and reliable. Man and his interpretation of what he sees in nature, especially in the past, isn’t. Like I’ve said many times before, we can’t even accurately say what happened yesterday, so how in the world can we so arrogantly claim to know the details of what occurred in the distant past.

Fallibility is one thing. Error is another.

I believe that my interpretation of the Bible is fallible. If someone comes up to me and says "Hey, your interpretation of the Bible is fallible" I'll wholeheartedly agree. But suppose he continues: "And you believe that, based on the Bible, Jesus rose from the dead. Are you sure you aren't wrong about that?"

"Of course not! If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, what is the consistent historical witness of the gospel about? Why did the early church consistently use Jesus' resurrection as proof that He was the Messiah, and why was the resurrection of the dead so heavily on Paul's agenda in 1 Corinthians? You have a lot of explaining to do!"

Fallibility in all areas is not equivalent to error in any one area. Convincing me that I am fallible in my interpretation of the Bible does not equal convincing me that I am wrong about the historicity of the resurrection. In the same way, I will readily admit that science can be wrong and that science often is wrong. (If not, I wouldn't have a job!) But that's miles apart from showing me that any one theory is wrong.

If you want to show that evolution is wrong, then show me the evidence that proves it wrong. Evidence got me to accept evolution, and evidence will get me to reject it. It's really that simple.

You say this so easily but yet can provide no true explanation on how to account for the first man, Adam. If he is a product of evolution that process took place over millions of years, yet at the same time happened in an instant. For someone who needs a scientific explanation for so many things you sure will jump onto something so very unscientific rather easily.

You calling me unscientific? My irony-meter was in my lap at the moment. Ouchies.

It certainly isn't anything scientific, neither does it need to be. Science tells me that my biological life is the culmination of billions of years of evolution; religion tells me that my spiritual life began the instant I found God's hand reaching out to me even in my sin and rebellion. If that makes me unscientific then let me be unscientific!

You see, I believe that science does some things well and other things not at all. Where science works I will use and defend science to the fullest; where science does not work I am not ashamed to fight anyone who brings science in. Could I call myself a Christian scientist and live any differently?

 

[LittleNipper]

One day I will see CHRIST. If CHRIST says that the Genesis account really wasn't meant to be taken as 6 literal days, then I will be of a mind to say, "I'm sorry I misunderstood". Before that, I simply feel that evolutionists and uniformitarians are simply taking far too much for granted