Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[tyronem]

Hey, no skin off my back - it was your number I was using.

In a misconstrued manner, you leaped to a conclusion that was not there

I know of a scientific theory about the nature of the universe which claims that matter is being continually created from nothing. Its founders explicitly state that they came up with this theory precisely because the notion of a universe with a beginning in time sounds too much like the creation story of Genesis 1. Therefore, despite the fact that it contradicts the conservation of matter and energy, and despite the fact that it explains no significant astronomical fact discovered after about 1995, this theory states that the universe is eternal in time, and the only reason things look older the further away they are from us is because the very matter they were made from was poofed into existence earlier.
What would you think of someone who supports such a theory? Would you say the same harsh things about them?

I don't really get where you are coming from, if it's in reference to people choose to walk after their own lusts being willingly ignorant of creation and the flood then that position is not only correct it is biblical.

 

[tyronem]

Hey, it's not called a miracle for no reason, right?

If you get to ignore the laws of physics when invoking a Flood, I get to ignore the laws of physics when describing the creation. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Miracles can transcend the natural universe, hence the raising of the dead, however I don't think it is a miracle that the sea is where it is, it is the result of the land where the sea volume is encompassing being lower than the land.

Fascinating, what laws of physics do I get to ignore when invoking a flood, do tell ?

 

[Zeena]

No, not quite. Here are his words:

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

So he's basically expressing his feelings towards;

James 3:2
For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

And;

Acts 4:20
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

He is making several points here

First, there are several legitimate ways to interpret scripture; the literal meaning is not the only allowable meaning.

There is only One Legitimate Way to interpret Scipture;

Zech 4:6
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

1 Cor 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Second, in some cases, our actual experience of creation tells us the literal meaning is unreasonable.

What experience are you speaking about?

Third, since the actual experience of creation is open to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, many unbelievers know that some statements, taken literally are nonsense.

Job 38:21
Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Finally, if a believer insists on a literal interpretation of scripture which is nonsense given our experience of creation, that believer is setting up a roadblock to conversion.

If conversion is a matter of head knowledge, yea. But it's not, thank God. It's a matter of LOVE!

1 Cor 8:1b
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

We might add that in modern times, the problem is not only one of bringing people to Christ. It is also one of keeping people in the faith. Any university chaplain can tell you of the agonies of young people who have been misled by trusted Christian leaders on various matters of science when they discover that their Christian teachers were wrong. The leaders are likely innocent of any ill intent, but their focus on a particular interpretation of scripture that conflicts with actual experience of creation is a source of genuine problems for students who go on to learn more about creation.

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead?

I think this verse of Scripture might be relevant here becuase there be many a Christian who search everwhere else except to God. I believe they are thoroughly rebuked for peering into things which are not of God.

2 Chron 18:21
And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

That they [we] may learn;

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps if you have read more of your godandscience website which believes in a local flood you would realise the word translated earth here erets, can just as easily be translated land and in fact refers to a region or a land much more often than it means the whole planet.
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss it but read what it says and understand how God is speaking to us.

First off the Psalms is poetry, Genesis is Literal, this has already been confirmed by prose analysis of these chapters

You seem to be picking up on another point godandscience raised, God setting a boundary to the waters, not the one I mentioned that the word erets translated 'the earth' could just as easily refer to the land Noah lived in being flooded and not the whole planet. That is an assumption people read into the flood account not something the bible ever actually teaches. Nevertheless their point about Psalm 104 is a good one too.

I think you are confusing two different issues here the genre of the writing and how literal it is. The psalms are certainly poetry, but that doesn't mean you don't get psalms that speak literally as well as more metaphorical ones. Genesis 2 is narrative, but not all narratives are literal, just look at the parables throughout the bible. Genesis 1 has a style all of its own unlike anything I have seen anywhere else in scripture, combining both prose and poetic features.

Secondly GodandScience.org has it wrong, Psalm 104 does not specify that the waters it talks about is creation week or flood week.

If you compare Psalm 104 with Genesis 1 you will see the writer is basing the psalm on the creation story and following the order of creation from Genesis 1 in the psalm, creating the heavens and the earth, the earth being covered with water and dry land appearing, creating grass and trees, the heavenly bodies, the sun and the moon, all the life teeming in the seas and the giant sea creatures.

Interestingly, the writer treats the order of creation in Genesis 1 as a framework describing creation and sets his description of creation in the present day, the grass God causes to grow is for livestock and the tree are for birds to build their nests, when the sun God has made comes up the lion steal away to its den and man (Adam) goes out to work, the Leviathan God has formed is swimming in the sea with ships sailing past.

But even though the writer interprets Genesis as a description of creation now, he still follows the order of creation in Genesis 1. So where does the earth being covered with water and God removing it to create dry land on Psalm 104 come in this study of Genesis? Right where the waters covered the deep and God separating dry land in Genesis 1:2-10.

There are a number of facts that preclude he is talking in fact about the flood in that passage.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

The waters stood above the mountains. In creation week there was no mountains, God caused the earth to rise up above the water, not the water cover the mountains. - Don't believe it? re-read genesis.

Where does the bible say there were no mountains or hills? This is an idea creationists read into the story to try to explain where all the water from Noah's flood went. It is not anything the bible teaches.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

In reference to Genesis flood the Bible clearly says the waters asswaged - that means they rushed out once the flood was finished. - Again in Genesis

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

The waters receded into the valleys - Again in Genesis

It would be better if you gave the scripture references because we are discussing three different passages here, Genesis 1, the flood and Psalm 104.

However I don't see how the way the water flowed shows we are dealing with the flood rather than the creation since Genesis 1 doesn't describe the event simply saying God commanded the waters to be gathered into one place and it was so Gen 1:9.

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

God promised to never flood the earth again, and therefore set a bound that they may not pass over. - Again in Genesis

It makes absolutely perfect sense this in fact is reference to the Genesis Flood and not creation week.

Unfortunately the psalm is describing the creation, just because you think it fits your understanding of the flood doesn't mean that is what it is speaking about. You need to look at the context of the psalm where the waters covering the earth follows immediately after setting the earth on its foundations.

Interestingly we find the very same thing in the other great creation accounts in Job 38 and Proverbs 8

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors,
11 and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
God lays the foundations of the earth, the waters burst forth and then God set their limits.

Pro 8:25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
When did God set these limits to the sea? Way back in the time when the foundations of the earth were laid.

You only come to any other conclusion by denying scripture. Scripture isn't hard, it is what it is and as such is undeniable.

Who is denying scripture? I am trying to understand it properly. Creationists tent to take Genesis 1 and their global flood interpretation and then taking everything else like Genesis 2 and Psalm 104 and forcing them to fit. That is not a good way to approach scripture.

Genesis 1, Job 38, Psalm 104 and Proverbs 8 all discuss the waters covering the deep in the beginning of creation. To appreciate what the bible is a saying about this you need all four passages. Now if that happens to undermine a particular interpretation of the flood, that it was global flood, then it is a problem for the flood interpretation, not a reason to take the order of Psalm 104 apart.

 

[Assyrian]

There is only One Legitimate Way to interpret Scipture;

Zech 4:6
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That is not actually the case, scripture can have multiple meanings. The Passover Lamb was an OT sacrifice held every year commemorating the Israelites' liberation from slavery. That is completely literal. It was also a metaphorical picture of Christ "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world".

You can also have literal and metaphorical interpretations where the literal meaning is the wrong interpretation. Jesus was not a literal Vine and didn't work as a shepherd laying down is life for sheep.

There are literal and metaphorical interpretations for when Jesus took the bread and said "This is my body", and the church hasn't come to a conclusion on that, most protestants happily accept it is figurative that the broken bread is a symbol of Christ's broken body on the cross, yet in doing so they are in disagreement with a large portion of the church believes today and what the church as a whole has believed through most of its history.

 

[gluadys]

So he's basically expressing his feelings towards;

James 3:2
For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

And;

Acts 4:20
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

That's right. Augustine, like James, was concerned about offending others needlessly, for if Christians offend it brings the gospel into disrepute and keeps others from hearing the good news.

Now there is an "offence of the gospel" itself. Paul spoke of it as foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling-block to the Jews. Since we know that the gospel itself can offend, yet we cannot but speak of things we have seen and heard, it is all the more important that it not be linked to needless error and offense clung to in ignorance and for the sake of stubbornness rather than faithfulness.

If people reject our message, let it be the gospel message. If what they are really rejecting is some nonsense about the age of the earth (for example), and we have let that stand in the way of them hearing the gospel, then it is we who have set up a barrier to them hearing the message we have been commissioned to bring to them. They have not rejected the gospel because they have not heard the gospel. They have rejected foolishness as they have every right to. But if we insist the foolishness is true revelation, and fact, when they know it is not, they will dismiss everything we say as foolishness. So they are made deaf to the gospel by our own ignorance and foolishness.

There is only One Legitimate Way to interpret Scipture;

Who says so? Every great Christian teacher in the first 1500 years of Christian history as well as most since then would disagree with you.


I don't wish to imply that there are no false interpretations, but that doesn't mean that there is only one legitimate interpretation.

What experience are you speaking about?

Everyday experience of what we see, touch, smell, hear, taste. Especially a careful and systematic exploration of such experience.

If conversion is a matter of head knowledge, yea. But it's not, thank God. It's a matter of LOVE!

Right. But if one is presented with head knowledge one knows to be wrong as if it were a teaching of scripture, then that head knowledge is going to get in the way of conversion.

1 Cor 8:1b
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead?

I think this verse of Scripture might be relevant here becuase there be many a Christian who search everwhere else except to God. I believe they are thoroughly rebuked for peering into things which are not of God.

No, its not really relevant because we are speaking of Christian witness to unbelievers. Of course, unbelievers have not sought God yet. But that doesn't make them stupid. They have eyes and ears and powers of observation. As Augustine says, there are things about the natural world they know by reason and experience. So if a Christian who is ignorant of nature tells them that our scripture says foolish things about it, why would they then have any interest in studying the scriptures?

Better that the Christian should first learn to understand the scriptures properly.

 

[Assyrian]

Statistics, damned lies and statistics. It all depends on which university is surveyed / who answers / whether people think their jobs are in danger depending on how they answer.

Yet science has always worked by new ideas gathering evidence and overthrowing the old consensus, how would that happen if scientist never questioned the establishment and never challenged old idea with new evidence. That is just a conspiracy theory to explain why creationism has never been accepted, it is not that it challenges the status quo, it is because it has never been able to do it with good arguments that convince the other scientists. If creationism was true the evidence would support it.

Surveys don't mean jack. In 2001 alone there was over 5000 registered scientists with PHD's all of whom signed up on the institute for creation research for belief in creation.

You should have stuck to your conclusion "Surveys don't mean jack." Your 5000 scientists sounds like the "Dissent from Darwinism" con the discovery Institute pulled in 2001, which involved an ambiguous statement scientists who understand evolution would actually agree with but sounds to people who don't understand evolution as though it is rejecting evolution. Back in 2006 the discovery institute was claiming "Over 5000 Scientists Proclaim their Doubts about Darwin‘s Theory, Scientific Dissent from Darwinism Continues to Grow, Say Experts."
You can read more in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Needless to say most of these scientists did not think they were signing up for belief in creation.

The fallacy of appeal to authority whereby evolutionists think only evolutionists can have an opinion, there are lots of scientists in relevant fields such as geology and biology that disagree with evolution. Never mind that you agree with people who have exactly the same unrelated qualifications and think evolution is a fact, and you would never question them on their qualifications for having expressed a beleif in evolution.

Keep in mind it was a creationist who came up the statistics and it is his appeal to authority you are criticising. However if you are going to appeal to authority, you should at least appeal to authorities who know the subject.

Everyone has presuppositions when it comes to evaluating the evidence. And most evolutionists come to the table with atheist presuppositions that the world evolved by natural means, which is a way of excluding God.

And yet Christians see the evidence point to the same conclusion as their atheist colleagues. Maybe 'presuppositions' is an excuse creationists use to explain away their inability to come up with a coherent explanation of the evidence.

You can't see the evidence in favor of creation if you spend all your time ignoring that evidence and trying to interpret everything in an evolutionary world view.

Sorry I used to be a creationists, I know the hand waving and the misrepresentation they call evidence. The creationist claims don't work.

There are plenty of good arguments for creation, both Biblical and Scientific. The Koran on the other hand is completely wrong as it talks about 7 heavens and a flat earth.

So if how do you explain that the scientists who believe in creationism are the ones who interpret the bible or the koran literally? How does a bible literalist find himself in the same anti-science boat as a fundmentalist muslim?

Earth is like a carpet, held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs, so that it won't move or shake (Surah 71:19-20, 78:6-7, 31:10)

Job 38:12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it
Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Quite wrong, I just finished reading the Biographies of fifty scientists who beleive in creation and the great majority believe in creation because there is evidence for creation, and deny evolution because of many scientific reasons including the unprovable assumptions that are accepted as fact when they should not be. There are some that just believe because that is what the Bible teaches, but they are the minority.

Given that all the creation scientists interpret either the Bible or the Koran literally, it seems very likely that there is some connection here, they have a very strong motivation to want to believe the supposed evidence for creationism. But the fact as you admit yourself there are creationist who realise the creationist evidence doesn't hold up and the case for evolution is sound but still believe in creationism because of their interpretation of scripture, should show you how weak the evidence for creationism really is.

All the examples you have given are the results of incorrect interpretation of scripture that completely deviates from the written word and includes pagan ideaology. Flat earthers, geocentrists, all borrowed from sumerian cosmology, Greeks, Koran and the Jews in the Talmud

So how can you tell an incorrect interpretation of scripture that is contradicted by science from a correct interpretation that is contradicted by science? You may think your interpretation is the correct one and that the science that contradicts it has got it wrong, but so did the geocentrists and and the flat earthers. How do you know you are different?

Cosmas indicopleustes rejected the round earth precisely for the reasons you give here, that the church had bought into pagan Greek philosophy when it said the earth was round. Which is true. There is no mention of the earth being a sphere in the bible, a spherical earth was a Greek philosophical idea later demonstrated by pagan Greek scientist Eratosthenes calculating the diameter the earth. It may have been pagan but it was also true. So the church was quite right holding onto sound Greek science and rejecting Cosmas's bible interpretation that claimed the earth was flat.

Geocentrism may have been an idea shared by all ancient civilisations, but that is how the sun actually appears to move in the sky it is no wonder everyone thought that way. It is also the plain literal reading of a number of bible passages like the Joshua's miracle or Ecclesiastes 1:5 and there is nothing in scripture to suggest we shouldn't take them literally or that it is really the earth that goes round the sun. It was only when this interpretation, universally held by every church writer who mentioned the subject, was show to be wrong by science that the church had to go back and find a better way to understand the passages than the plain literal meaning. It wasn't hermeneutics or systematic theology that showed them the interpetation was wrong, it was science. Though good theology and hermeneutics did show them that when this happens they need to find a better interpretation.

Correct interpretation of scripture through correct systematic theology and heumenutics only gives room for creation not evolution. Anything else is unbiblical.

Calvin was a geocentrist so hermeneutics and systematic theology don't always help. He was however quite willing to revise his interpretation of scripture when science showed an interpretation was wrong, Saturn was much larger and brighter than the moon, though Genesis describes the sun and moon as the two great lights God placed in the firmament. It seems a minor issue but it was an astronomical foreshock of the geocentric controversy about the shake the church, and it was Calvin's approach to the question that God wasn't teaching science, but that it was an accommodation, God speaking in simple terms ordinary people could understand, that provided the church with the key to handling geocentric controversy.

 

[tyronem]

Yet science has always worked by new ideas gathering evidence and overthrowing the old consensus, how would that happen if scientist never questioned the establishment and never challenged old idea with new evidence.

Evolutionary scientists work with 3 incumbents,
1. they regard evolution as fact
2. they make large, unprovable and untestable assumptions.
3. they cannot observe the past

You should have stuck to your conclusion "Surveys don't mean jack." Your 5000 scientists sounds like the "Dissent from Darwinism" con the discovery Institute pulled in 2001, which involved an ambiguous statement scientists who understand evolution would actually agree with but sounds to people who don't understand evolution as though it is rejecting evolution.

I'm familiar with that survey where an ambiguous question was used. I found it quite repulsive that the authors of that survey even thought it up, let alone used it. Like I said, lies lies lies and damned statistics.

The 5k I'm talking about are scientists who have registered as creationists who believe in a literal 6 day creation.

And yet Christians see the evidence point to the same conclusion as their atheist colleagues. Maybe 'presuppositions' is an excuse creationists use to explain away their inability to come up with a coherent explanation of the evidence.

Not really, Homology is a classic example, similar structures different genes. Evolutionists still claim today it is evidence for evolution when in fact utilizing different genes to produce similar structures is in fact proof negative of evolution and proof positive of design.

Everyone has presuppositions, it is not an excuse, it's a fact.

Sorry I used to be a creationists, I know the hand waving and the misrepresentation they call evidence. The creationist claims don't work.

Interesting I see little handwaving today in serious creationist circles.

So if how do you explain that the scientists who believe in creationism are the ones who interpret the bible or the koran literally? How does a bible literalist find himself in the same anti-science boat as a fundmentalist muslim?

Creationists are not anti-science, I love science, I have a science degree.
You're quoting the same fallacy that every atheist quotes.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it
[/COLOR]

Poetry, and metaphorically yes, I can spread something out around a sphere, by your bolding you also imply that the heavens were flat because they were stretched out, a rather silly notion. Applying correct heumenutics and systematic theology to this verse(s) does not end you up with a flat earth.

Given that all the creation scientists interpret either the Bible, it seems very likely that there is some connection here, they have a very strong motivation to want to believe the supposed evidence for creationism. But the fact as you admit yourself there are creationist who realise the creationist evidence doesn't hold up and the case for evolution is sound but still believe in creationism because of their interpretation of scripture, should show you how weak the evidence for creationism really is.

I didn't say they realise the evidence doesnt stack up. Some choose to believe just because they believe while the majority believe because the evidence does stack up in favor of creation.

So how can you tell an incorrect interpretation of scripture that is contradicted by science from a correct interpretation that is contradicted by science? You may think your interpretation is the correct one and that the science that contradicts it has got it wrong, but so did the geocentrists and and the flat earthers. How do you know you are different?

By applying Huemenutics, and systematic theology to the study of scripture. As well as studying the Greek and Hebrew.

The Bible does not contradict science, science works just fine in validating faith, evolution as it applies to origins is not science, it is philosophy or religion. Science requires observation, and repeatable tests, you will never be able to repeat creation, or the creation of life from non life, let alone true macro evolution.

Cosmas indicopleustes rejected the round earth precisely for the reasons you give here, that the church had bought into pagan Greek philosophy when it said the earth was round. Which is true. There is no mention of the earth being a sphere in the bible, a spherical earth was a Greek philosophical idea later demonstrated by pagan Greek scientist Eratosthenes calculating the diameter the earth. It may have been pagan but it was also true. So the church was quite right holding onto sound Greek science and rejecting Cosmas's bible interpretation that claimed the earth was flat.

Cosmas's interpretation was wrong. Proven wrong by observational science. From what I can tell his rejection of Greek philosophy was pretty much solely around rejecting Greek philosophy and not much else.

Geocentrism may have been an idea shared by all ancient civilisations, but that is how the sun actually appears to move in the sky it is no wonder everyone thought that way. It is also the plain literal reading of a number of bible passages like the Joshua's miracle or Ecclesiastes 1:5 and there is nothing in scripture to suggest we shouldn't take them literally or that it is really the earth that goes round the sun. It was only when this interpretation, universally held by every church writer who mentioned the subject, was show to be wrong by science that the church had to go back and find a better way to understand the passages than the plain literal meaning. It wasn't hermeneutics or systematic theology that showed them the interpetation was wrong, it was science. Though good theology and hermeneutics did show them that when this happens they need to find a better interpretation.

Yes the earth going around the sun is an observed science.

Calvin was a geocentrist so hermeneutics and systematic theology don't always help. He was however quite willing to revise his interpretation of scripture when science showed an interpretation was wrong, Saturn was much larger and brighter than the moon, though Genesis describes the sun and moon as the two great lights God placed in the firmament. It seems a minor issue but it was an astronomical foreshock of the geocentric controversy about the shake the church, and it was Calvin's approach to the question that God wasn't teaching science, but that it was an accommodation, God speaking in simple terms ordinary people could understand, that provided the church with the key to handling geocentric controversy.

Yup Saturn is brighter and larger, but not from earth, the Sun and the Moon completely overshadow the brightness of Saturn.

I never agreed with the geocentric approach. Interestingly though if you take assumptions such as planets doing their own heliocentric circles geocentricity works, and you can make accurate predictions with it, however it is wrong. So clearly even wrong theories can make accurate predictions.

Until someone can come up with a clearer definition of scripture than the following I see no reason to doubt it's interpretation:

In Six days God made the Heavens and Earth and all that in them is
God made man in the image of himself (I'm pretty certain God is not an ape)
In the Beginning God created the universe

 

[Zeena]

That's right. Augustine, like James, was concerned about offending others needlessly, for if Christians offend it brings the gospel into disrepute and keeps others from hearing the good news.

Now there is an "offence of the gospel" itself. Paul spoke of it as foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling-block to the Jews. Since we know that the gospel itself can offend, yet we cannot but speak of things we have seen and heard, it is all the more important that it not be linked to needless error and offense clung to in ignorance and for the sake of stubbornness rather than faithfulness.

If people reject our message, let it be the gospel message. If what they are really rejecting is some nonsense about the age of the earth (for example), and we have let that stand in the way of them hearing the gospel, then it is we who have set up a barrier to them hearing the message we have been commissioned to bring to them. They have not rejected the gospel because they have not heard the gospel. They have rejected foolishness as they have every right to. But if we insist the foolishness is true revelation, and fact, when they know it is not, they will dismiss everything we say as foolishness. So they are made deaf to the gospel by our own ignorance and foolishness.

I agree wholeheartedly with this approach to evangelism. YET, on the same token, we are not to have men Lord it over us. We are to approach our Heavenly Father with questions such as these, for He is the Lord.

We are to question our Heavenly Father on all thngs, prepared in our hearts, being made pliable to whatsoever He will answer us.

Isa 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Isa 8:19
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Ps 2:8
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Luke 11:9-10
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Who says so? Every great Christian teacher in the first 1500 years of Christian history as well as most since then would disagree with you.

My walk is just that, it's my walk, my faith.. To say that I must be in subjection to men who rule an earthly church goes against the very grain of my (recreated) being. For I have a Father who is omniscient, and should I not seek Him for counsel?

You will not hear me whisper in your ear what you aught to think. Only what "I" think is right.
We are not to 'Lord it' over anybody.

I don't wish to imply that there are no false interpretations, but that doesn't mean that there is only one legitimate interpretation.

There is only One God, and there is only One Spirit, Who wrote the Scipture through the hands of holy men as they were so moved.
There be many interpretations, but only One Truth.

Gen 40:8
And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it.
And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Everyday experience of what we see, touch, smell, hear, taste.

Should your senses now become the definition of Truth?

Ecc 6: 8,11
For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?

Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better?

Especially a careful and systematic exploration of such experience.

Ecc 6:5
Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.

Right. But if one is presented with head knowledge one knows to be wrong as if it were a teaching of scripture, then that head knowledge is going to get in the way of conversion.

When Paul said he aims to preach Christ, he's not talking symantecs, rather, he's speaking of the Person of Jesus.

But we are hereby discussing the possibility this theory be true amongst born again believers.

No, its not really relevant because we are speaking of Christian witness to unbelievers. Of course, unbelievers have not sought God yet. But that doesn't make them stupid. They have eyes and ears and powers of observation. As Augustine says, there are things about the natural world they know by reason and experience. So if a Christian who is ignorant of nature tells them that our scripture says foolish things about it, why would they then have any interest in studying the scriptures?

Better that the Christian should first learn to understand the scriptures properly.

It is totally relevant while looking from the perspective of the regenerate.

 

[Zeena]

That is not actually the case, scripture can have multiple meanings. The Passover Lamb was an OT sacrifice held every year commemorating the Israelites' liberation from slavery. That is completely literal. It was also a metaphorical picture of Christ "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world".

Though the Voice of many Waters do churn and froth, it always has a source..
ONE source.

He knew what He meant when He spoke what He did.

 

[gluadys]

I agree wholeheartedly with this approach to evangelism. YET, on the same token, we are not to have men Lord it over us. We are to approach our Heavenly Father with questions such as these, for He is the Lord.

And we don't have to let humans lord it over us. Remember, Augustine is speaking of things people (both believers and unbelievers) can know about the visible world through reason and experience. His examples come from astronomy--the rising and setting of stars, their luminosities and distances. Since these things are just as easily learned by believers as by unbelievers, it is not a matter of knuckling under to them as if they were masters, but a matter of mastering such information ourselves if we don't intend to be ignorant of them.

If that field of study is not our cup of tea, then, with humility, we should bow to those more expert--but only on those matters which they know well. We should not pretend our ignorance is a form of superior knowledge.

But, of course, there are other matters in which we are the ones who know: the good news of Christ. That is where we must focus and not be distracted or intimidated by the knowledge of others in mundane matters like astronomy.

My walk is just that, it's my walk, my faith.. To say that I must be in subjection to men who rule an earthly church goes against the very grain of my (recreated) being.

So you agree that the notion that scripture can have only one legitimate interpretation is a personal opinion of yours. And you presume that your walk with God is closer than theirs.

For I have a Father who is omniscient, and should I not seek Him for counsel?

Why then turn away from the teachers God gave to the church in times past? How do you know God has not given them to be the purveyors of his counsel to you?

Should your senses now become the definition of Truth?

Yes, indeed, for God blessed us with these senses so that we could know his creation and be amazed.

Ecc 6:5
Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.

I don't know what relevance a stillborn child has to this discussion. Are you just picking verses at random?

When Paul said he aims to preach Christ, he's not talking symantecs, rather, he's speaking of the Person of Jesus.

Yes, and Augustine's plea is that a believer ignorant of (for example) astronomy, not contend with astronomers about astronomy saying scripture supports foolish notions about the stars, but preach Christ and only Christ. If the uneducated believers, in his ignorance, contends with astronomers about what they know to be true, he only convinces them he is a fool and so they think the gospel is also foolishness.

In our day, the same can be said on other matters of science.

But we are hereby discussing the possibility this theory be true amongst born again believers.

Which theory are you referring to?

 

[Zeena]

And we don't have to let humans lord it over us.

Funny, but for the rest of your speach I percieve the exact opposte!

Remember, Augustine is speaking of things people (both believers and unbelievers) can know about the visible world through reason and experience. His examples come from astronomy--the rising and setting of stars, their luminosities and distances.

And should I now take his experiences at face value and not seek the Lord over such? Though his examples come from *astronmony*, should my example, my life, be any less valid because they are not in*this* feild?

MY experience and walk with the Lord tells me that all life derives from Him, there is nothing made that is existance which is not a direct by-product, not only of His decree, but His direct intervention. And, so far as I've heard, Christian evolutionists are totally in line with this same ideology.

Could I care less about the 'stars' and how they align, certainly not!

Since these things are just as easily learned by believers as by unbelievers, it is not a matter of knuckling under to them as if they were masters, but a matter of mastering such information ourselves if we don't intend to be ignorant of them.

WHO CARES if we are ignorant? If anyone is ingnorant, LET HIM BE ignorant. Isn't that the philosopy St. Paul laid forth in Holy Writ?

What MATTERS is FAITH, expressing itself in LOVE.

If that field of study is not our cup of tea, then, with humility, we should bow to those more expert--but only on those matters which they know well.

We aught not to 'bow' before any man, save Christ.

We should not pretend our ignorance is a form of superior knowledge.

What is knowledge that you deem it superior? Is an infant of less magnitude than an adult, a retard than an intellect?

What is knowledge in the sight of the Allmighty?

And here's the rub, ignorance is BLISS!

Ecc 3:12
I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live.

But, of course, there are other matters in which we are the ones who know: the good news of Christ.

Which every man has heard, the sound of Him going forth before all creation. There is nothing new under the sun, those who are righteous, let them be righteous still, and those who are evil, let them be evil still, to thier own hurt. Yet IF we can save some, let us do so in the fear of the LORD.

That is where we must focus and not be distracted or intimidated by the knowledge of others in mundane matters like astronomy.

I'm not intimidated by any but the most excellent of minds, that of Christ, Who thought it Godly to become NOTHING and lay down His Life. Which is FOOLISHNESS to the world, but the Power of Christ in us!

So you agree that the notion that scripture can have only one legitimate interpretation is a personal opinion of yours.

A personal opinion backed by Scriptural referance, or a personal opinion formed by such? I'll leave the verdict in your hand, for I know that my Saviour is nigh.

And you presume that your walk with God is closer than theirs.

It is closer, from my perspective, than they to God. Yet theirs is the same, and I do not deny that. Closeness is intimate, I would like every person to have an intimate relationship with his Creator. No man can intrude on that, for it is a personal relationship.

Why then turn away from the teachers God gave to the church in times past?

The OT Prophets and NT Apostles are all we needed to be taught, anything more is jus eyecandy and itchy ears playing tricks, with the SENSES.

How do you know God has not given them to be the purveyors of his counsel to you?

Because I've recieved another comforter.

Yes, indeed, for God blessed us with these senses so that we could know his creation and be amazed.

To be amazed is not to conflate all experience with a sensual reality, but rather, to ascribe it to the Creator. Who is a Spirit.

I don't know what relevance a stillborn child has to this discussion. Are you just picking verses at random?

Not quite, but to show that a sensual reality is not the end-all be-all of knowledge;

James 3:15
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

Yes, and Augustine's plea is that a believer ignorant of (for example) astronomy, not contend with astronomers about astronomy saying scripture supports foolish notions about the stars, but preach Christ and only Christ.

And with this I concurr, not that you need my approval, but that what is right might be stated for what it is. YET, let not mankind be subject to fleshly philoshoppy, let him be forever looking unto Jesus, let his mind be meditating on the things of God.

For really, what matter is it that we believe one thing or another, as long as we believe in God though Christ, He will lead us on the the good path.

If the uneducated believers, in his ignorance, contends with astronomers about what they know to be true, he only convinces them he is a fool and so they think the gospel is also foolishness.

Well then, let this be a lesson to any who would deign make convert to Christ through the theories of evolution!

Roman 15:16-19
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

In our day, the same can be said on other matters of science.

Phil 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Which theory are you referring to?

The theory of evolution my dear.

 

[Assyrian]

Though the Voice of many Waters do churn and froth, it always has a source..
ONE source.

He knew what He meant when He spoke what He did.

Yes, but we don't always know it. We have the Holy Spirit, but you know, he is much more likely to pick some out of context detail to speak straight into our hearts and call us into a closer walk with Christ, than give us a detailed exegesis of a text. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I think God sees sound bible study as our responsibility. 2Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. And we aren't going to get everything right this side of eternity. Remember how Paul said we only know in part 1Cor 13?

Eph 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith--that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
We cannot come to a full understanding of God and his word on our own, it is something Paul could only pray for and a believer will only ever come to together with all the saints. That means we need not just us and the Holy spirit, not just us and our own fellowship huddle, but us our own church all the other Christians and churches in the world we disagree so enthusiastically with, and all of the Christians and writers down through the centuries who had such odd interpretations. But if they need us for a full knowledge of God, then they haven't got everything right, and if we need them we haven't got everything right either.

You can also see in the passage the reason the Holy Spirit hasn't given anyone perfect scripture interpretation, he has a much higher priority which is for us to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge. There is little point in giving believers perfect scripture interpretation and perfect theology if we don't know the love of God haven't learned to love each other.

As I have shown with the passover lamb and 'this is my body' scripture can be interpreted different ways, sometimes both the literal and symbolic meanings are true like with the passover lamb, sometimes with the bread and wine, only one can be true and not necessarily the literal interpretation. And sincere believers can disagree about these things. Scripture scholars of the past like Augustine and Aquinas understood this. They knew that our understanding of scripture is still very imperfect and were not shaken by the idea of some scientific discovery overturning a particular interpretation of a passage. It didn't mean God got it wrong, just that a particular interpretation of ours was mistaken.

 

[Greg1234]

There are literal and metaphorical interpretations for when Jesus took the bread and said "This is my body", and the church hasn't come to a conclusion on that, most protestants happily accept it is figurative that the broken bread is a symbol of Christ's broken body on the cross, yet in doing so they are in disagreement with a large portion of the church believes today and what the church as a whole has believed through most of its history.

"When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

To some, the creation of the "seeds" may be the creation depicted in Genesis 1. But that seed is spiritual and mental, not physical as seen today. Within those created "seeds" are the "plants" which when sowed in matter, have the ability to manifest and create a wide variety of forms due to the inherent diversity contained therein. Like the way white light behaves when it "crosses" through a prism. Accordingly, they are created by [Lord] god, but even this is from spiritual to material, not bacteria jumping from one plane to the other. So that's one interpretation. How does the interpretation card favor your position now when this one is an interpretation, still Creationism, explains the diversity of life, maintains that Adam is the first man, Eve the first woman, doesn't 'reduce god's power" and still adheres to the stasis observed in lifeforms?

 

[Assyrian]

Evolutionary scientists work with 3 incumbents,
1. they regard evolution as fact

Actually they regard it as a conclusion based on all the evidence. The fact that all the evidence shows evolution is true is hardly an argument against it.

2. they make large, unprovable and untestable assumptions.

Science is always testing its assumptions, ideas that aren't testable are simply not science. Of course some tests are impossible, especially ones require time machines, which is why science find other tests to challenge their ideas.

3. they cannot observe the past

Unfortunately Creationism pins its hope on the impossibility of science fiction tests ignoring all the tests that can be done that confirm evolution and the age of the earth. We may not be able to go back in time but much remains from the past in fossil record in the atomic isotopes that make up the rock of our planet, in the structure of the geological strata, in the light travelling across billions of light years, in the biological structure of every living organism and the genetic code they inherited from their ancestors. Which al fits evolutiona and an ancient earth and universe beautifully and contradicts crationism again and again.

I'm familiar with that survey where an ambiguous question was used. I found it quite repulsive that the authors of that survey even thought it up, let alone used it. Like I said, lies lies lies and damned statistics.

The 5k I'm talking about are scientists who have registered as creationists who believe in a literal 6 day creation.

Most of whom are engineers and computer scientists rather than ones with training in relevant subjects. I am glad you found that survey repulsive, but don't just blame it on statistics. It shows the lengths these creationists are willing to go to and their desperation construct support for creationism. Perhaps they are the only ones, but if I were you I would look at Creationist claims very carefully, because any TE here will tell you, this highly creative deceptive manipulation is not uncommon.

Not really, Homology is a classic example, similar structures different genes. Evolutionists still claim today it is evidence for evolution when in fact utilizing different genes to produce similar structures is in fact proof negative of evolution and proof positive of design.

Homology does support evolution beautifully, why else would dolphins and whales have identifiable finger and wrist bones? Watch out for creationists straw man arguments based on an over simplification of genetic pathways. Anytime a creationist book or website claims evolution or genetics says something should happen, I suggest you check if this is really the case.

Everyone has presuppositions, it is not an excuse, it's a fact.

Perhaps creationists should be willing to test theirs the way scientists do and abandon presuppositions that do not stand up. First presupposition you should get rid of is that you should always interpret scripture literally unless scripture tells you clearly it is metaphor or parable. There is no scriptural basis for that. The next is that if an interpretation seems right to you it must be so. You would not be the first person to misunderstand scripture. Another presupposition is that since creationism is true evidence presented for creationism or against evolution is probably true too.

Interesting I see little handwaving today in serious creationist circles.

Sounds like your disgust towards the Discovery Institute's 'Dissent from Darwinism' stretches to other Creationist sites like Dr Dino and Answers in Genesis, as well as covering most Creationist rhetoric in the past? Creationism doesn't have a great track record for either honesty or being able to come up with sound arguments. Are you sure your serious creationists circles of today really have good arguments? Or are you just not able to see through them?

So if how do you explain that the scientists who believe in creationism are the ones who interpret the bible or the koran literally? How does a bible literalist find himself in the same anti-science boat as a fundmentalist muslim?

Creationists are not anti-science, I love science, I have a science degree.
You're quoting the same fallacy that every atheist quotes.

I know where you are coming from. I was a creationist with a degree in chemistry, I had to keep telling myself biology wasn't real science like chemistry and physics. But you haven't really answered my question. Whether you are against all sciences or just some, bible literalists who attack evolution and geology are still in the same boat with fundamentalist muslims. Don't you find it odd to have such strange companions? Or that they these are the only companions you have here? It is not even as if the Holy Spirit was giving special insight to true bible literalists, unless he is giving the same inspiration to fundamentalist Muslims. But if he was really the ecumenical, you would think he would show some other groups too.

Poetry, and metaphorically yes, I can spread something out around a sphere, by your bolding you also imply that the heavens were flat because they were stretched out, a rather silly notion. Applying correct heumenutics and systematic theology to this verse(s) does not end you up with a flat earth.

Is there anything (other than science) to tell you to try to interpret the verse that way? The bible says nothing about the earth being a sphere or oblate spheroid, and plenty of verse seem to reflect the flat earth cosmology of the writers. But my point was more the way you criticised the Koran for a passage very similar to ones you find in the OT which sounded like you are so busy reconciling texts to what you do accept from science, that you miss what the text actually says.

Which is another thing I do not get with creationism, They go to such lengths fitting bible texts with science, yet insist vehemently we could not possibly do that with Genesis.

I didn't say they realise the evidence doesnt stack up. Some choose to believe just because they believe while the majority believe because the evidence does stack up in favor of creation.

Certainly for the rank and file creationists, many will simply accept creationism because of their interpretation of the bible without going into the arguments for or against. But you also get prominent creationists like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood who know their science and admit there are serious problems with creationist arguments and that the evidence for evolution is very strong, but hold onto their belief in Creationism because of their interpteation of the bible.

By applying Huemenutics, and systematic theology to the study of scripture. As well as studying the Greek and Hebrew.

Calvin was a geocentrist with a pretty good understanding of Greek, Hebrew hermeneutics and systematic theology, so they really don't help that that much. Apart from the hermeneutic that said if science contradicts and interpretation of scripture you need a better interpretation. But that only works after science has shown you the interpretation was wrong which is why for the 1500 years before Copernicus and Galileo, no one ever spotted that the literal interpretations of the geocentric passages were wrong.

So again I have to ask, how can you tell an incorrect interpretation of scripture that is contradicted by science from a correct interpretation that is contradicted by science?

The Bible does not contradict science, science works just fine in validating faith, evolution as it applies to origins is not science, it is philosophy or religion. Science requires observation, and repeatable tests, you will never be able to repeat creation, or the creation of life from non life, let alone true macro evolution.

No one was able to test heliocentrism either, it was as ridiculously impossible to travel into space and see how the planets move back then as it is to travel back in time now. That didn't make heliocentrism a philosophy or a religion and more than evolution is. What science did instead was find other ways indirect to test heliocentrism just as it does with evolution. Showing how science and mathematics observable on earth account for the movement of the planets around the sun, searching for evidence of stellar parallax, closer stars appearing to shift from one side of earth's orbit to the other, and beautifully, Foucault showing how a giant pendulum shifted the plain of its swing as the earth rotated each day. It took centuries for these pieces of actual evidence to be found, long after most of the church had accepted heliocentrism not because it was observed or even tested, but because it was the best scientific explanation for the movements of the planets and was accepted by science.

Cosmas's interpretation was wrong. Proven wrong by observational science. From what I can tell his rejection of Greek philosophy was pretty much solely around rejecting Greek philosophy and not much else.

He says it was because Christians shouldn't be supping at the table of devils, mixing the bible with ideas from Greek paganism. He thought Christians should build their world view solely form the bible. I have to say he has a point, of sorts. It is something I realise as a young and enthusiastic creationist who wanted to do just that, build by understanding completely on scripture. I quickly realise if I tried to do that I would end up with a flat earth and the sun going around it. It was one of those questions that I put back on the shelf hoping I would find an answer to further down the road. Interestingly Cosmas's main companion in geocentrism in the early church was a much more level headed Lactantius, who did share his 'table of devils rhetoric', but argued it was ridiculous to debate what life might be line in a city on the other side of the globe where not has ever been able to go to and come back to tell us about. In other words he was arguing round earth was not observational science. As I have pointed out, before, until sputnik and space travel heliocentism wasn't observational science either.

But really this 'observational science' argument is simply trying to create a false distinction to separate the sciences you like from the ones you don't.

Yes the earth going around the sun is an observed science.

Not before we observed the earth from space. We see the sun moving across the sky and explain it with a scientific theory that says the earth is rotating instead. The hermeneutic the church used to reinterpret the geocentric passages was that science told them the earth went round the sun. It wasn't a hermeneutic that said only 'observed science' can challenge an interpretation, in fact if they had held to that hermeneutic they would have still been geocentrists until sputnik was launched and then they could just have blamed the problem on communism. No the hermeneutic that showed the church they had to change their interpretation was the hermeneutic of Augustine and Aquinas that says when any science demonstrates an interpretation is wrong, you need to change your interpretation.

Rejecting evolution because it is not 'observed science' is not the hermeneutic the church used to deal with geocentrism, instead it is simply an excuse to avoid dealing with our present scientific issues the way the church dealt with geocentrism and flat earth.

Yup Saturn is brighter and larger, but not from earth, the Sun and the Moon completely overshadow the brightness of Saturn.

So the moon isn't really the brightest it just seems that way.
end of part 1

 

[Assyrian]

part 2

I never agreed with the geocentric approach. Interestingly though if you take assumptions such as planets doing their own heliocentric circles geocentricity works, and you can make accurate predictions with it, however it is wrong. So clearly even wrong theories can make accurate predictions.

The difference between the Tychonian system and heliocentrism was not predictions, which were ultimately based on centuries of precise astronomical movements, so working out where a planet was going next wasn't that amazing, the difference was that heliocentism had a mechanism to explain why the planets moved that way, Newton's gravity. But that was hardly observational science. Gravity was what made apples fall straight down to earth. No one had ever observed gravity anywhere else, certainly no one had ever seen an apple or anything else fall into the sun. Gravity made things fall to earth and in a straight line, or possibly if you believe Galileo, they made cannon balls fly in a parabolic curve before they hit the earth. Claiming gravity could make things planets in circles had no observational scientific basis.

But gravity explained the movements of the moon and planets, which is why science went with heliocentrism. Which is why the twin nested hierarchy is such string evidence for evolution and such a problem for creationism. Evolution can explain the distribution and variety of living organisms and why they form the pattern they do. God-did-it isn't an explanation any more than it would have been for Tycho Brahe, it doesn't even begin to explain why God did it that way.

Though at least Tycho could predict how the planets would move, creationism can't make predictions at all, unlike evolution which has been predicting transitional fossils and telling us where they were likely to be found since Darwin said there should be creatures in the fossil record with features in between man and the great apes and that they should be found in Africa.

Until someone can come up with a clearer definition of scripture than the following I see no reason to doubt it's interpretation:

In Six days God made the Heavens and Earth and all that in them is
God made man in the image of himself (I'm pretty certain God is not an ape)
In the Beginning God created the universe

I don't think anyone here questions that God is creator or that he made man in his image. I don't see how God not being an ape is a problem since you believe God made man from a lump of mud what certainly wasn't God either. However God being a potter and making people from clay is a very common biblical metaphor. Nor is there any case for demanding a literal interpretation of day, when the word day is used metaphorically only a few verses after Genesis 1. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens Gen 2:4. There is a much stronger case for the literal interpretation of Joshua's miracle and geocentrism. There is nothing in scripture that even hints we should not take that literally, while from the early church people realised that Psalm 90, a Psalm Moses wrote about the creation pointed to a non literal interpretation of the days in Genesis, even literalist Church Fathers who believe in a six day creation thought Psalm 90:4 showed another parallel meaning to the days of creation. Then you have Jewish commentators and church father who didn't think the creation days were literal at all.

The church found new interpretations for the geocentric passages, with much less scientific evidence for heliocentrism than we have for evolution, and without even a hint in scripture of a non literal interpretation of the geocentric passages. Modern creationist are completely without excuse.

 

[Assyrian]

"When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

To some, the creation of the "seeds" may be the creation depicted in Genesis 1. But that seed is spiritual and mental, not physical as seen today. Within those created "seeds" are the "plants" which when sowed in matter, have the ability to manifest and create a wide variety of forms due to the inherent diversity contained therein. Like the way white light behaves when it "crosses" through a prism. Accordingly, they are created by [Lord] god, but even this is from spiritual to material, not bacteria jumping from one plane to the other. So that's one interpretation. How does the interpretation card favor your position now when this one is an interpretation, still Creationism, explains the diversity of life, maintains that Adam is the first man, Eve the first woman, doesn't 'reduce god's power" and still adheres to the stasis observed in lifeforms?

The fact there have been wild and wacky interpretation of scripture since the time of the gnostics in no way changes the fact you can also have different reasonable interpretations of a passage like 'this is my body' that both do justice to the text and to the one who spoke it. Jesus had the power to turn water into wine or bread into muscle tissue, but also loved to teach in metaphor, though our modern scientific understanding of the nature of matter tells us that if Jesus had miraculously transformed the bread, it would have tasted like meat too.

 

[shernren]

Yes the earth going around the sun is an observed science.

Have you ever observed that the earth goes around the sun?

Or did you believe that just because some adult told you so when you were an impressionable young'un?

If so, then it's a bit rich of you to accuse others of carrying around large sacks of unquestioned assumptions when you obviously have rarely questioned your own.

 

[gluadys]

And should I now take his experiences at face value and not seek the Lord over such? Though his examples come from *astronmony*, should my example, my life, be any less valid because they are not in*this* feild?

Do you expect God to directly reveal to you the facts of astronomy without any effort on your part to study astronomy?

Remember Paul tells us that even in the church the Holy Spirit calls some to be teachers. If the Spirit calls some to be teachers, they must have pupils, no? Those pupils are not called to sit and wait for a direct miraculous revelation, but to learn from their teachers.

The same is true on matters of secular knowledge (literally: knowledge about the world).

If you are not interested in astronomy and don't intend to study it, then it has nothing to do with your walk with God. But you have no right then to tell those who do study astronomy that they don't know what they are talking about when they discuss the composition of stars. You only have a right to speak to them of God and of Christ.

If you start out by showing a stubborn insistence on ignorant foolishness about what they know well, you put a stumbling block before them when it comes to presenting your real message.

MY experience and walk with the Lord tells me that all life derives from Him, there is nothing made that is existance which is not a direct by-product, not only of His decree, but His direct intervention. And, so far as I've heard, Christian evolutionists are totally in line with this same ideology.

Yep. That is why many Christian evolutionists refer to themselves as evolutionary creationists. Creation is the important teaching from God. Evolution is only one of many natural mechanisms God established within the created order.

Could I care less about the 'stars' and how they align, certainly not!

WHO CARES if we are ignorant? If anyone is ingnorant, LET HIM BE ignorant. Isn't that the philosopy St. Paul laid forth in Holy Writ?

No, Paul did not extol ignorance. The most common context of his use of "ignorant" is in the phrase "I would not have you be ignorant....." And the phrase "let him be ignorant" is, in context, a condemnatory phrase of those too stubborn to listen to those who are spiritual. In effect he is saying "if they insist on being ignorant, let them stew in their own juice."

What MATTERS is FAITH, expressing itself in LOVE.

And it is certainly not an expression of love to tell a student of nature that they have it all wrong--based on one's own ignorance of nature. When you start off by insulting a person like that, you can hardly lead them to faith.

We aught not to 'bow' before any man, save Christ.

What is knowledge that you deem it superior? Is an infant of less magnitude than an adult, a retard than an intellect?

Isn't knowledge of the truth superior to ignorance of the truth?
But don't confuse what a person has with their value as a person. A person of wealth has wealth, but is not of greater magnitude as a person than a pauper. A person in authority has power, but is not of greater magnitude as a person than a slave. A person with education has knowledge but is not of greater magnitude as a person than an infant.

What we have in terms of strength or wealth or knowledge is to be received reverently as a blessing to be used in God's service. And since the Holy Spirit disperses different gifts to different people, we should also be glad of what has been given to others so that they can, when appropriate, use what they have been given to bless us.

If God has blessed a person with intellect and knowledge, even an unbeliever, that is for our benefit and we should receive their instruction gladly, remembering, however, that although that teacher may have knowledge to pass on to us, it is God who gives wisdom.

What is knowledge in the sight of the Allmighty?

And here's the rub, ignorance is BLISS!

Ecc 3:12
I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live.

Well, the author of Ecclesiastes didn't say one had to be ignorant to be happy and to do good. He himself was certainly not ignorant.

I'm not intimidated by any but the most excellent of minds, that of Christ, Who thought it Godly to become NOTHING and lay down His Life. Which is FOOLISHNESS to the world, but the Power of Christ in us!

Well, no one is asking you to be intimidated. Being respectful of others and thankful for the gifts God has given them is quite a different matter than being intimidated.

A personal opinion backed by Scriptural referance,or a personal opinion formed by such?

Neither, for there is no such scriptural reference and there are many scriptural examples of multiple legitimate meanings, so if your personal opinion were really formed by scripture it would not lead to the conclusion that scripture has only one legitimate meaning.

It is closer, from my perspective, than they to God.

Really? You presume to judge that your intimacy with God is closer than that of Origen, Anselm, Augustine, John of Chrysostom, and many of the other saints of God?

If you had said "as close" I would not dispute that. But who are you to know another person's intimacy with God is not equal or even beyond yours?

The OT Prophets and NT Apostles are all we needed to be taught,

If that were true, the New Testament prophets would not have been necessary, nor would the Holy Spirit continue to provide the church with teachers (as well as administrators, benefactors, preachers, etc.) right to the present day. We need teachers to help us understand the OT prophets and NT apostles.

It is true, we don't need any new teaching, any new gospel; but we do need in every generation, those who will teach us the gospel and an understanding of scripture.

Because I've recieved another comforter.

And you assume that comforter will never direct you to another human being for additional insight? If that comforter says of another person "Listen to her" do you refuse because you take pride in your own meagre store of knowledge?

In effect, you are resisting the role of the church; you are assuming that you as one individual in touch with the Holy Spirit can go it alone. In Paul's analogy, you are like the eye or ear claiming it doesn't need the rest of the Body.

To be amazed is not to conflate all experience with a sensual reality, but rather, to ascribe it to the Creator. Who is a Spirit.

The Spirit is the Creator not the creation. But the Creator made a creation; and the Creator made the creation to be a sensual reality. And the Creator made living beings (including humans) to know and enjoy that sensual reality. After all, the Creator declared the creation "good" and "very good". God himself takes delight in creation; can we do less?

Further, the more we know of creation, the more delight we can take in it, and the richer our understanding of the wisdom of the Creator. So creation reveals and praises its Creator. And this sensual reality itself leads the wise listener to do the same.

Of course, not ALL experience is sensual, not is the world of sensual reality the whole of reality. For transcending this reality is the even more glorious spiritual reality. But one does not negate the other.


Perhaps another couple of insights from Augustine are appropriate here:

"Some people, in order to discover God, read books.
But there is a great book:
the very appearance of created things.
Look above you! Look below you!
Note it. Read it.
God, whom you want to discover,
never wrote that book with ink.
Instead He set before your eyes
the things that He had made.
Can you ask for a louder voice than that?
Why, heaven and earth shout to you:
"God made me!" "

In this he echoes much of scripture which also points to creation as a way to learn of God.

"I no longer wished for a better world, because I was thinking of the whole of creation, and in the light of this clearer discernment I have come to see that, though the higher things are better than the lower, the sum of all creation is better than the higher things alone."​

Spiritual matters are good and important, but God in his wisdom also made a physical, sensual world and called it also good. We depart from Christian truth and embrace Manicheaism, Gnosticism and other similar heresies when we separate ourselves from that physical creation, just as much as when we separate ourselves from God's Spirit.

Not quite, but to show that a sensual reality is not the end-all be-all of knowledge;

Well no one here is making that claim. It is still the case though, that some people have taken the time to study nature, the physical world, and know truths about it as a consequence of their study. Just as those who have studied mathematics know geometry and trigonometry in a way non-mathematicians do not. Or those who have traveled to and lived for some time in Africa know it better than those who have never left their birthplace in South Dakota.

For those who have not explored or studied these things to claim a greater mastery of that knowledge while, in practice, showing how little they know, simply shows them up to be fools. And if those fools then go on to assert that the inspired scriptures support them in their foolishness---well this is what Augustine warned against. This is what makes such fools dangerous, for they bring disrepute on the scriptures by equating its teachings with their own foolishness instead of really studying the scriptures and the creation themselves so that they can present the scriptures as wisdom.

And with this I concurr, not that you need my approval, but that what is right might be stated for what it is. YET, let not mankind be subject to fleshly philoshoppy, let him be forever looking unto Jesus, let his mind be meditating on the things of God.

Right, knowledge is one thing; philosophy (wisdom) is another. A person of unsurpassing intellectual talents who is filled with knowledge like an encyclopedia may yet be utterly lacking in wisdom and a little child may surpass them in wisdom though the child has little knowledge.

Well then, let this be a lesson to any who would deign make convert to Christ through the theories of evolution!

Oh my goodness, that would be a ridiculous tactic. Just as ridiculous as trying to make converts by denying evolution. Evolution is just some knowledge we have about nature. It doesn't touch on the things of the spirit, like conviction of sin, repentance, faith and forgiveness.


Evolution is not relevant to the preaching of the gospel. Or at least it wouldn't be relevant if some Christians did not play the role of Augustine's fool and claim the scriptures teach nonsense about evolution.

Because of such fools, wiser Christians are forced into damage control, assuring believers and non-believers alike that this foolish denial of the facts of evolution and evolutionary history do not conflict with the teaching of scripture.

We see an example of that in Francis Collins, the famous geneticist who worked on the Human Genome Project. In his semi-biographical work The Language of God, he speaks of his youthful understanding that as a scientist, he had to be an atheist: it was just something he took for granted.

His conversion did not come about because he learned his science was wrong; but because ordinary people among his patients displayed faith and confidence in God---and because he learned from some wise Christian teachers that what he knew about science could be brought whole into a Christian life. He could be a scientist, knowing all he knew about genetics, without being forced into atheism.

The theory of evolution my dear.

And nowhere is Augustine's advice more needed, for the relationship of Christians with science has been thoroughly poisoned by the foolishness of tying scripture to what scientists know to be false in the field of evolution.

I have been wrestling with this problem for 30 years, and it is a joy now to see so many Christians who are producing good work on the role of evolution in creation, in contrast to the era of my youth when almost the only thing we saw was shoddy pseudo-science masquerading as scriptural teaching or shoddy theology claiming support from science.

 

[Zeena]

Yes, but we don't always know it.

No we don't, that's why we ask Him.

We have the Holy Spirit, but you know, he is much more likely to pick some out of context detail to speak straight into our hearts and call us into a closer walk with Christ, than give us a detailed exegesis of a text.

And isn't this what really matters?

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Not only does the Holy Spirit search our hearts, but also the deep things of God.

I think God sees sound bible study as our responsibility. 2Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. And we aren't going to get everything right this side of eternity. Remember how Paul said we only know in part 1Cor 13?

Remember how he said 'until perfection comes'? [paraphrased]
Well, perfection HAS come;

John 17:23
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Eph 3:17-19 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith--that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

We cannot come to a full understanding of God and his word on our own,

We're not 'on our own'.

Heb 11:39-Heb 12:2
And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

it is something Paul could only pray for and a believer will only ever come to together with all the saints.

I do not believe God ever intended to have His Church run as it does today.
Rather, I believe 'Church' to be a place of exhoration and edification. Not one man preaching whille the 'sheep' all listen and comtemplate, but a place where we come together to bear witness to each others faith;

Heb 7:28
For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore.

Col 2:3-9
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Not only is the above a stern warning about seeking to peer after a fleshly manner into the 'rudiments of the world', but also a strong exhortation to be found steadfast in our faith in Christ. This is what St. Paul was looking into when he visted the various Churches, not an outward show of intelligence or humility, but an inward show of faith.

Heb 11:1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

That means we need not just us and the Holy spirit,

That means, we aught to be building each other up in the Most Holy of faiths. For what we have received is sufficient in Christ, namely His Spirit.

not just us and our own fellowship huddle,

Fellowship means to come together on what we both agree on. We BOTH agree that Jesus has given us of His Spirit. And this is what fellowship should be, the breaking of bread with the sharing of FAITH.

but us our own church all the other Christians and churches in the world we disagree so enthusiastically with, and all of the Christians and writers down through the centuries who had such odd interpretations.

That's because all churches presume to speak for God, when God has already spoken.

But if they need us for a full knowledge of God, then they haven't got everything right, and if we need them we haven't got everything right either.

But we don't need them for 'full knowledge of God', for He says "every man shall not teach his neighbor saying, know the Lord', for they shall ALL know me, from the least of them to the greatest".

What we NEED, is to bear witness to each others FAITH in the Spirit, for this edifies, The testimony of Spirit filled believers exhorting one another is ALL we've EVER need to grow in Grace. And if Christ be not magified in a body, rebuke and exhortation, reminding one what he has received when he received Jesus!

We don't need other believers to be whole, we have already received perfection in the Spirit of Christ.

You can also see in the passage the reason the Holy Spirit hasn't given anyone perfect scripture interpretation, he has a much higher priority which is for us to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge.

For this is edifying to our faith.

There is little point in giving believers perfect scripture interpretation and perfect theology if we don't know the love of God haven't learned to love each other.

All we need is to bear testimony to the Spirit of Christ in us, in Spirit and in Truth.

As I have shown with the passover lamb and 'this is my body' scripture can be interpreted different ways, sometimes both the literal and symbolic meanings are true like with the passover lamb, sometimes with the bread and wine, only one can be true and not necessarily the literal interpretation.

But it's not, for Jesus has already given us the True meaning of the passover, to whcih the Apostle Paul testified;

1 Cor 5:7b-8
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

And sincere believers can disagree about these things. Scripture scholars of the past like Augustine and Aquinas understood this. They knew that our understanding of scripture is still very imperfect and were not shaken by the idea of some scientific discovery overturning a particular interpretation of a passage. It didn't mean God got it wrong, just that a particular interpretation of ours was mistaken.

St Paul wrote;

1 Cor 4:14-15
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

2 Cor 1:24
Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.