Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey, no skin off my back - it was your number I was using.
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?
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.
So he's basically expressing his feelings towards;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)
There is only One Legitimate Way to interpret Scipture;He is making several points here
First, there are several legitimate ways to interpret scripture; the literal meaning is not the only allowable meaning.
What experience are you speaking about?Second, in some cases, our actual experience of creation tells us the literal meaning is unreasonable.
Job 38:21Third, since the actual experience of creation is open to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, many unbelievers know that some statements, taken literally are nonsense.
If conversion is a matter of head knowledge, yea. But it's not, thank God. It's a matter of LOVE!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.
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?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.
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.First off the Psalms is poetry, Genesis is Literal, this has already been confirmed by prose analysis of these chaptersPerhaps 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.
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.Secondly GodandScience.org has it wrong, Psalm 104 does not specify that the waters it talks about is creation week or flood week.
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.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.
It would be better if you gave the scripture references because we are discussing three different passages here, Genesis 1, the flood and Psalm 104.7At 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
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.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.
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.You only come to any other conclusion by denying scripture. Scripture isn't hard, it is what it is and as such is undeniable.
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".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.
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.
There is only One Legitimate Way to interpret Scipture;
What experience are you speaking about?
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.
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.
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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
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.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.
Sorry I used to be a creationists, I know the hand waving and the misrepresentation they call evidence. The creationist claims don't work.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.
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?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.
Job 38:12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,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)
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.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.
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?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
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.Correct interpretation of scripture through correct systematic theology and heumenutics only gives room for creation not evolution. Anything else is unbiblical.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry I used to be a creationists, I know the hand waving and the misrepresentation they call evidence. The creationist claims don't work.
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.I don't wish to imply that there are no false interpretations, but that doesn't mean that there is only one legitimate interpretation.
Should your senses now become the definition of Truth?Everyday experience of what we see, touch, smell, hear, taste.
Ecc 6:5Especially a careful and systematic exploration of such experience.
When Paul said he aims to preach Christ, he's not talking symantecs, rather, he's speaking of the Person of Jesus.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.
It is totally relevant while looking from the perspective of the regenerate.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.
Though the Voice of many Waters do churn and froth, it always has a source..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".
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.
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?
Should your senses now become the definition of Truth?
Ecc 6:5
Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.
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.
Funny, but for the rest of your speach I percieve the exact opposte!And we don't have to let humans lord it over us.
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?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.
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?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.
We aught not to 'bow' before any man, save Christ.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.
What is knowledge that you deem it superior? Is an infant of less magnitude than an adult, a retard than an intellect?We should not pretend our ignorance is a form of superior knowledge.
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.But, of course, there are other matters in which we are the ones who know: the good news of Christ.
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!That is where we must focus and not be distracted or intimidated by the knowledge of others in mundane matters like astronomy.
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.So you agree that the notion that scripture can have only one legitimate interpretation is a personal opinion of yours.
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.And you presume that your walk with God is closer than theirs.
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.Why then turn away from the teachers God gave to the church in times past?
Because I've recieved another comforter.How do you know God has not given them to be the purveyors of his counsel to you?
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.Yes, indeed, for God blessed us with these senses so that we could know his creation and be amazed.
Not quite, but to show that a sensual reality is not the end-all be-all of knowledge;I don't know what relevance a stillborn child has to this discussion. Are you just picking verses at random?
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.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.
Well then, let this be a lesson to any who would deign make convert to Christ through the theories of evolution!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.
Phil 1:18In our day, the same can be said on other matters of science.
The theory of evolution my dear.Which theory are you referring to?
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.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.
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.
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.Evolutionary scientists work with 3 incumbents,
1. they regard evolution as fact
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.2. they make large, unprovable and untestable assumptions.
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.3. they cannot observe the past
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.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.
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.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.
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.Everyone has presuppositions, it is not an excuse, it's a fact.
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?Interesting I see little handwaving today in serious creationist circles.
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.Creationists are not anti-science, I love science, I have a science degree.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?
You're quoting the same fallacy that every atheist quotes.
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.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.
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.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.
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.By applying Huemenutics, and systematic theology to the study of scripture. As well as studying the Greek and Hebrew.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Yes the earth going around the sun is an observed science.
So the moon isn't really the brightest it just seems that way.Yup Saturn is brighter and larger, but not from earth, the Sun and the Moon completely overshadow the brightness of Saturn.
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.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.
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.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
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."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?
Yes the earth going around the sun is an observed science.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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!
A personal opinion backed by Scriptural referance,or a personal opinion formed by such?
It is closer, from my perspective, than they to God.
The OT Prophets and NT Apostles are all we needed to be taught,
Because I've recieved another comforter.
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.
Not quite, but to show that a sensual reality is not the end-all be-all of knowledge;
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.
Well then, let this be a lesson to any who would deign make convert to Christ through the theories of evolution!
The theory of evolution my dear.
No we don't, that's why we ask Him.Yes, but we don't always know it.
And isn't this what really matters?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.
Not only does the Holy Spirit search our hearts, but also the deep things of God.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.
Remember how he said 'until perfection comes'? [paraphrased]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 3:17-19 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're not 'on our own'.We cannot come to a full understanding of God and his word on our own,
I do not believe God ever intended to have His Church run as it does today.it is something Paul could only pray for and a believer will only ever come to together with all the saints.
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.That means we need not just us and the Holy spirit,
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.not just us and our own fellowship huddle,
That's because all churches presume to speak for God, when God has already spoken.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 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".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.
All we need is to bear testimony to the Spirit of Christ in us, in Spirit and in Truth.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.
But it's not, for Jesus has already given us the True meaning of the passover, to whcih the Apostle Paul testified;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.
St Paul wrote;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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?