Convince me

[crawfish]

Just shows how misleading labels like "liberal", "conservative" "orthodox" "evangelical" etc. can be. Too conservative for you whom I think of as conservative, but not at all too conservative for me, though I am usually cast as a liberal. Sounds like perfectly good orthodox theology to me for both liberals and conservatives.

Of course, I don't like being cast as a liberal just because I don't subscribe to inerrant literalism. My theology is actually fairly conservative.

"Liberal Christian theology" is usually used to point out those who do not believe in the deity of Christ, in the resurrection, in miracles or in the promise of eternal life. However, I see all the time people tag someone as "liberal" who believes all these things but differs on something that is key scripture to them.

To call Lamareaux, Enns and Wright "liberal Christians" is to stretch the term to meaninglessness. I guarantee you - my grandparents' church would label about 98% of the people on this board "liberal".

In the end, it's simply a hot-button word that is used to justify ignoring what somebody has to say. This is "guilt by association", and is a logical fallacy.

 

[gluadys]

"Liberal Christian theology" is usually used to point out those who do not believe in the deity of Christ, in the resurrection, in miracles or in the promise of eternal life. However, I see all the time people tag someone as "liberal" who believes all these things but differs on something that is key scripture to them.

Well, my formative years were spent in what is generally characterized as a "liberal" church (United Church of Canada) and I was taught all the beliefs of the Apostles' and Nicene Creed. I was taught to affirm, not deny, the deity of Christ and believe in the promise of eternal life. And I was never taught to deny miracles. As a matter of fact, I still don't.

So I think this description of "liberal" is as much a caricature of liberal Christianity as AiG's description of evolution is a caricature of evolution.

I associate "liberal" not with the items you name, but with acceptance of the research into the origins of scripture that came out of the 19th century German scholarship and, with that, the historico-critical method of biblical interpretation.

To call Lamareaux, Enns and Wright "liberal Christians" is to stretch the term to meaninglessness. I guarantee you - my grandparents' church would label about 98% of the people on this board "liberal".

From the little I know of Disciples of Christ, I can understand that.

In the end, it's simply a hot-button word that is used to justify ignoring what somebody has to say. This is "guilt by association", and is a logical fallacy.

Yes, when it simply becomes an insult or a label meaning "people I don't agree with" there is no more meaning to it. And that appears to be the way it is now mostly used.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am a Christian who has studied the bible my entire adult life. And my entire childhood. I have taken multiple courses on hermeneutics and principles of interpretation on the collegiate level. I have taught bible classes, and worked with kids on how to study the bible. I was born, bred and raised in a conservative church of Christ. I have read through the bible multiple times. I have lived the gospel my entire life, and my study of the bible has been formative in my growth as a Christian and my acceptance of what is right. You should NOT condescend to me about bible knowledge. I have no fear of "going there". Be my guest, I will not avoid any topic or any question or any accusation. I only ask that the exchange be cordial, and that you stop making assumptions about me.

Ok, no problem.

You don't seem to understand what accommodation is.

What I do know is that the mustard seed is 'sown', if you are so well versed it seems unlikely that you missed it.

Please, dump the truck. I'd love to get into actual bible, rather than just condescending assumptions about my beliefs, my abilities, my knowledge or my character.

It's one thing to misunderstand a passage of Scripture, it's quite another to distort it. We can get to the Bible but I think what we are dealing with here is a philosophy

Lamareaux is a Pentecostal who believes in the person of Christ, in His death and resurrection, and has personally attested to witnessing miracles. Enns is a Presbytarian who fully believes in the deity of Christ. N.T. Wright is an Anglican who is one of the most well-respected conservative theologians of our day.

Well you mentioned their names in passing and given the content of your posts I expected they had decidedly liberal views. Tilich was considered an evangelical but his theology came down to secular humanism. That's ok though, I can let this tangent run it's course.

These are not "liberal theologians" in the sense the word is commonly used. Only in the realm of origins are they "liberal", and if you'd read their work you might understand why they have good reasons to feel that way.

I'm more comfortable with finding my own sources, generally like exegetical works. I don't really have the time or the means right now to search this out but I looked up Wright and like I told shrenren he seems alright to me.

I'm not assuming you're ignorant because you don't share my skepticism. I have a great deal of respect of the knowledge and faith of a lot of people who do not agree with me. From your own words, I'm assuming that you simply do not understand where the TE is coming from and what they believe - you can have all the opinions you want or what we are, but the only reality is what we actually believe. I also get the idea that you're not willing to go the second mile to actually figure out what we are about so that you can talk to us more clearly.

I've been round and round with TEs and the arguments rarely change much from post to post. I know what the Bible teaches with regards to creation and the simple, direct and original meaning should be the guiding principle. Instead this philosophical abstraction of Darwinism keeps creeping in contrary to the clear testimony of Scripture and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

It is my opinion that most YEC's don't respond to threads like that because they have already decided what they believe and don't want it questioned. They believe because it's the truth, and it's the truth because they believe. There is no exit from that circle. It's not that they can easily deal with any issues I bring up; it's that they automatically assume that any argument that contradicts what they believe is automatically wrong so they feel no need to address it. If I thought that way given my upbringing, I'd believe you were lost for not getting a water baptism and that you were mocking God by having musical instruments in your church. Fortunately, I was able to break out of that legalistic circle through solid and deep bible study.

Spent three years in the Church of Christ and I really never paid much attention to what they thought about instruments or baptism. I don't mean to be glib but it was early in my Christian walk and I was more concerned with the veracity of Scripture and the inundation by the cults. Most churches have their pet doctrines and many times they are extrabiblical in character. For the most part I find that they are easily addressed and quickly dismissed.

I have learned that just because I believe something does not mean that I should not challenge it (and that is what it is - not skepticism, but challenging my beliefs to see if they hold up to scrutiny). I wish more Christians would do the same.

I have to be honest here, I haven't been impressed with the way TEs handle the Scriptures. The Mustard Seed parable was a classic example, any serious student of the Scriptures can handle that one simply by reading it in context. Instead you belabor the point for what reason I don't know.

Listen, I do not want this to get ugly. I'm not afraid of talking bible - proper, solid interpretation has led me to where I am today, through YEC to progressive creationist to evolutionary creationist - but I do not want another conversation to devolve into fighting and name-calling. I ENCOURAGE you to tell me the rest, to dump the truck, to unload on me, and I promise, I will treat it with respect and dignity. But if you are going to preach without listening, if you are going to dismiss or avoid, then don't bother.

Ok but I avoided discussing Biblical topics with TEs for so long for good reason. I know you probably think you have a good handle on things but for someone who has such a strong background you picked a pretty easy argument to get stuck on. You seem to have a civil tone and a real interest in studying the Bible out, I may have jumped to conclusions about you.

I'm usually alright right up until I get confronted with something I know is too obvious to be subject to error. I'll give it some time but what I almost always end up finding out is that skepticism has a very dim view of the veracity of Scripture and TEs don't respond well to Christian Apologetics.

We'll see...

I hope you have a nice day, too,

Chris

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, my formative years were spent in what is generally characterized as a "liberal" church (United Church of Canada) and I was taught all the beliefs of the Apostles' and Nicene Creed. I was taught to affirm, not deny, the deity of Christ and believe in the promise of eternal life. And I was never taught to deny miracles. As a matter of fact, I still don't.

So I think this description of "liberal" is as much a caricature of liberal Christianity as AiG's description of evolution is a caricature of evolution.

I associate "liberal" not with the items you name, but with acceptance of the research into the origins of scripture that came out of the 19th century German scholarship and, with that, the historico-critical method of biblical interpretation.

Its been my experience that liberal theology excels at criticizing the Scriptures while blending in seamlessly with the world. I do agree with the last part, textual criticism would be one of the defining marks of liberal theology. It's really philosophical in character and has very little to do with Biblical Christianity.

From the little I know of Disciples of Christ, I can understand that.

The Disciples of Christ are definitely liberal.

Yes, when it simply becomes an insult or a label meaning "people I don't agree with" there is no more meaning to it. And that appears to be the way it is now mostly used.

Liberal is actually a nice word for unbelief just like argument from incredulity is a nice way of calling someone stupid. Liberal theologians simply don't believe the Bible and the ones who don't heap skepticism on it usually ignore things like miracles, predictive prophecy, the incarnation and final judgment. I have spent some time in their churches and their preaching, if you could call it that, is marked by ambiguity.

I'm not worried about you though gluadys, I have yet to see you seriously deny essential doctrine. I think you should be more discerning about some of the things secular academics are doing with regards to Biblical issues like creation but I don't think your that far left.

 

[crawfish]

What I do know is that the mustard seed is 'sown', if you are so well versed it seems unlikely that you missed it.

It's one thing to misunderstand a passage of Scripture, it's quite another to distort it. We can get to the Bible but I think what we are dealing with here is a philosophy

I did not miss it. The text does not clearly put it in that context, however; it's even less obvious when you go back to the original language.

But you have answered me on how you feel can believe both consistently, and I thank you for that. In truth, though, the same principle you apply to that verse is what we apply to Genesis 1, and is accommodationist in nature. Accommodation means that the message is delivered using the cultural context and understanding of the time; God isn't requiring unknown knowledge to grasp His point.

I'm more comfortable with finding my own sources, generally like exegetical works. I don't really have the time or the means right now to search this out but I looked up Wright and like I told shrenren he seems alright to me.

Wright is my YEC-believing-associate minister's favorite theologian. I'm scared to mention Wright's belief on origins to him, just in case he doesn't know yet.

Spent three years in the Church of Christ and I really never paid much attention to what they thought about instruments or baptism. I don't mean to be glib but it was early in my Christian walk and I was more concerned with the veracity of Scripture and the inundation by the cults. Most churches have their pet doctrines and many times they are extrabiblical in character. For the most part I find that they are easily addressed and quickly dismissed.

It's more difficult when you're born to it, as I was. You have to constantly challenge yourself and your beliefs, because it is entirely possibly to believe in something deeply and completely, and to feel you have full scriptural support, and be dead wrong.

I have to be honest here, I haven't been impressed with the way TEs handle the Scriptures. The Mustard Seed parable was a classic example, any serious student of the Scriptures can handle that one simply by reading it in context. Instead you belabor the point for what reason I don't know.

I simply used this scripture because it was already out there. While I feel it does demonstrate the principle I'm trying to explain, it is definitely not the most clear example (Matthew 4 is my personal favorite).

Please remember, it's not that we TE's do not have answers to these problems. We aren't just pointing out inconsistencies in scripture to prove that there are mistakes or contradictions. What we are trying to do is to show that YEC interpretation cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture; whatever strict rules you set on the early chapters of Genesis to read it "simply" are eventually thrown out elsewhere in scripture. The reading of scripture that allows for a non-literal creation account is the only set of rules I've seen that can be consistently applied across all of scripture while keeping the theological message of scripture intact.

Ok but I avoided discussing Biblical topics with TEs for so long for good reason. I know you probably think you have a good handle on things but for someone who has such a strong background you picked a pretty easy argument to get stuck on. You seem to have a civil tone and a real interest in studying the Bible out, I may have jumped to conclusions about you.

Again, I didn't pick it, I just picked it up. And what I really wanted was an explanation, not a patent dismissal. I do not claim to know everything; I am still putting this puzzle together in my head.

I'm usually alright right up until I get confronted with something I know is too obvious to be subject to error. I'll give it some time but what I almost always end up finding out is that skepticism has a very dim view of the veracity of Scripture and TEs don't respond well to Christian Apologetics.

TE's are not necessarily skeptics. I know I am not. Like I said, if a belief is Truth then it will stand up to challenges, and I am of a nature where I feel it necessary to constantly challenge my beliefs. Including those about my own methods of interpretation and about evolution.

For instance, you challenged me to look into the whole chimp thing you are so fond of bringing up. After reading many sources from all over the map, I am very certain that your problems are semantic and have no real bearing in the argument against evolution. But, rest assured, I did take your point seriously enough to consider it.

God bless

 

[Mallon]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been focused on writing my thesis lately.

They are always related as historical accounts and the totality of Scripture indicate exactly that.

Right. Just as the totality of Scripture indicates a flat earth and geocentric universe. The point is that these depictions of science and history have been accommodated to the ancient understanding of man. The first Hebrews may have understood the Genesis creation accounts or the genealogies or the Bible's cosmology to be historical and accurate, but the evidence from God's own creation unambiguously tells us otherwise. If we're going to let scientific evidence influence our interpretation of the Bible's cosmology -- understanding it instead to be an accommodation or figurative language -- then to be consistent in our hermeneutics, we should also do the same when it comes to the Genesis creation accounts. Otherwise our approach to biblical interpretation is inconsistent. We’re subjectively cherry-picking which passages to read as historical and which not to. I think evolutionary creationists are more consistent in this regard, as gluadys and crawfish have noted elsewhere.

Paul repeatedly spoke of Adam as the first man.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (I Cor 15:45)​

I'm not sure that verse helps your point, given that Paul is pretty obviously using the word 'Adam' in a figurative or symbolic sense, here. He often does.

What is more the idea of Adam having ancestors is unknown to Christian scholarship and Jewish tradition until the advent of Darwinism.

And the idea that the earth went around the sun was unknown to Christians and Jews until Copernicus. Thank God for science – it allows us to determine whether our interpretation of Scripture is erroneous or not.

There is nothing indicating Adam or the special creation of life as an event is anything other then historical.

I would argue that the obvious differences and contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 argue pretty strongly against interpreting either account too literally or historically, regardless of what the science might say. Genesis 1 tells us that birds were created on Day 5; Genesis 2 tells us they weren't created until after Adam. They can’t both be historically true.

The Biologos blog has focused a lot lately on the interpretation of Genesis and why it does not necessarily follow from the text alone that its opening chapters describe historical events. Check it out sometime. The theologians and scholars mentioned above post articles there regularly.

It would have been the smallest seed they were acquainted with and could probably be better translated 'all the seeds of the garden', since all of them probably had gardens with mustard plants. It's not meant to be a scientific statement from Botany.

I agree. Jesus' statement is an accommodation to the experiences of Hebrew farmers. And that’s the point. If we were to restrict ourselves to a concordist interpretation of Jesus’ words, we might think that mustard seeds are indeed the smallest of all cultivated seeds. But only by looking outside of Jesus’ words, to the world around us – or more importantly, to the world around the ancient Hebrews – do we come to understand that Jesus was accommodating to the experiences of the Hebrews and that his point wasn’t meant to be a universal, scientific statement from botany, as you say. We only come to know this by allowing ourselves to look outside of Jesus’ words for that crucial context that helps us to understand what he means. When it comes to reading Genesis 1 and 2, YECs don’t generally want to allow that helpful context to influence our interpretation.

The Scriptures never speak to anything remotely astronomical or cosmological

Of course they do. I’ve already cited dozens of verses that describe the shape of the earth and the state of the universe.

and certainly never links these modern studies to essential doctrine.

I would argue that it isn’t essential to doctrine that the earth be 6000 years old, either, or that Adam be a historical man that lived in a magical garden. Seems the authors of the creeds didn’t either.

Scripture is to be interrupted by Scripture

Assuming you mean “interpreted”, why don’t you therefore believe the earth is flat, the sky is solid, and the sun goes around the earth? Our modern cosmology certainly doesn’t follow Scripture’s description of these things. Surely you aren’t allowing modern science to influence your understanding of the Bible’s cosmology, are you? Surely you’re following your own advice.

By your criteria I could take Matthew's genealogy figuratively and subsequently the resurrection, is that right?

Nope. It doesn’t follow that just because one passage may not be historical or literal, neither are all subsequent passages. As you yourself admit, the Bible is full of figurative and ahistorical language, but that doesn’t stop you from accepting the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. The slippery slope you’re trying to invoke is just not an issue for either of us.

Get off the fence Mallon, you either believe the Bible or you don't.

Surprise surprise. Once again, you are falsely equating belief in the Bible with scientific concordism. And you have the tenacity to say that I have a poor appreciation of hermeneutics! I take some solace in the fact that most biblical scholars disagree with your simplistic conflation. I wonder how you would respond to a flat-earth geocentrist who accused you of not believing the Bible. I don’t suppose our responses would be so different then.

Back to thesis writing.

 

[mark kennedy]

I did not miss it. The text does not clearly put it in that context, however; it's even less obvious when you go back to the original language.

Then why is it translated 'sown'? What is more these are the kingdom parables and most of them indicate domesticated plants. This is what I mean about Darwinism and liberal theology. You want to moralize about AIG but when it comes to making factual statements you twist things to your own end.

But you have answered me on how you feel can believe both consistently, and I thank you for that. In truth, though, the same principle you apply to that verse is what we apply to Genesis 1, and is accommodationist in nature. Accommodation means that the message is delivered using the cultural context and understanding of the time; God isn't requiring unknown knowledge to grasp His point.

Sounds like something you just made up because you don't like Genesis being an historical narrative. The Genesis account is brief but you never did answer my question, if the genealogies in Genesis can't be trusted then why should I trust the ones in Luke or Matthew? I know this doesn't end in the first chapters of Genesis, maybe you would like to tell me by what criteria I can believe the New Testament but reject Genesis.

Wright is my YEC-believing-associate minister's favorite theologian. I'm scared to mention Wright's belief on origins to him, just in case he doesn't know yet.

Formal systematic theology really doesn't have a lot to do with YEC except with regards to the fall. I'm guessing that is why Wright is into it, he needed it for his view of justification or something to that order.

It's more difficult when you're born to it, as I was. You have to constantly challenge yourself and your beliefs, because it is entirely possibly to believe in something deeply and completely, and to feel you have full scriptural support, and be dead wrong.

I was raised Catholic but never felt any compulsion to accept RCC dogma. Same thing with the Church of Christ, the whole water salvation thing is easily dismissed. What is not so easy to dismiss is the way liberal theology distorts Scripture, I know this from personal experience since my Pastor had decidedly liberal views. When he finally left and went back to the Disciples of Christ (where he belonged by the way) I started searching out the Apologetics aspect. A pet dogma does not bother me but when you have a theology that undermines the authority of Scripture it's far more serious.

I simply used this scripture because it was already out there. While I feel it does demonstrate the principle I'm trying to explain, it is definitely not the most clear example (Matthew 4 is my personal favorite).

Matthew 4 is not only historical in nature but a watershed event, Matthew especially, opens the door to literal interpretations to a lot of what even Jewish scholars were more comfortable with as figurative.

Please remember, it's not that we TE's do not have answers to these problems. We aren't just pointing out inconsistencies in scripture to prove that there are mistakes or contradictions. What we are trying to do is to show that YEC interpretation cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture; whatever strict rules you set on the early chapters of Genesis to read it "simply" are eventually thrown out elsewhere in scripture. The reading of scripture that allows for a non-literal creation account is the only set of rules I've seen that can be consistently applied across all of scripture while keeping the theological message of scripture intact.

Non-literal reading is the only one you will accept and so far I have yet to see a single rule applied, let alone consistently maintained. The rules as I understand them are really quite simple, the clear, direct and intended message is the message. Genesis speaks in absolutes and the links to the incarnation are inescapable. Trust me when I tell you we will get to that aspect.

Again, I didn't pick it, I just picked it up. And what I really wanted was an explanation, not a patent dismissal. I do not claim to know everything; I am still putting this puzzle together in my head.

Ok, we'll see...

TE's are not necessarily skeptics. I know I am not. Like I said, if a belief is Truth then it will stand up to challenges, and I am of a nature where I feel it necessary to constantly challenge my beliefs. Including those about my own methods of interpretation and about evolution.

For instance, you challenged me to look into the whole chimp thing you are so fond of bringing up. After reading many sources from all over the map, I am very certain that your problems are semantic and have no real bearing in the argument against evolution. But, rest assured, I did take your point seriously enough to consider it.

God bless

I have not forgotten the horrible things you where saying about AIG when I brought up the chimpanzee genome. Evolutionists lie through their teeth when it comes to homology arguments and always have, that one statement about 'chimpanzees and humans being 98% the same in their DNA' is proof positive. But you don't take that seriously even though it is a distortion of a clear statement of fact taken directly from peer reviewed scientific papers. These are not isolated statements, evolutionists have known the truth for at least 10 years and yet continue to lie about it.

Why would they do that if they believed the truth was on their side. Maybe you have another explanation like they didn't know the truth or somehow the 'interpreted' the facts differently. You need to take this seriously because epistemology is crucial to both the theology and science involved and make no mistake, semantics is not an issue here at all.

Can't wait to get back, I think I finally know what the problem is.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been focused on writing my thesis lately.


Right. Just as the totality of Scripture indicates a flat earth and geocentric universe.

No it doesn't but it clearly teaches a literal, specially created Adam and Eve and links it inextricably to essential doctrine. Get your facts straight.

The point is that these depictions of science and history have been accommodated to the ancient understanding of man. The first Hebrews may have understood the Genesis creation accounts or the genealogies or the Bible's cosmology to be historical and accurate, but the evidence from God's own creation unambiguously tells us otherwise.

God's creation tells us nothing of the sort, for instance, most variety is the result of recombination not mutations. This simply fact speaks volumes for how special creation makes the best explanation for how the genes got their in the first place but this fact is systematically ignored because God as a cause has been eliminated a priori. The evidence always follows the naturalistic assumptions Mallon, that's the only reason it's unambiguous in your mind, it cannot be otherwise which is why you won't accept the inverse logic of the evidence, it would create a null hypothesis for your theory.

If we're going to let scientific evidence influence our interpretation of the Bible's cosmology -- understanding it instead to be an accommodation or figurative language -- then to be consistent in our hermeneutics, we should also do the same when it comes to the Genesis creation accounts. Otherwise our approach to biblical interpretation is inconsistent. We’re subjectively cherry-picking which passages to read as historical and which not to. I think evolutionary creationists are more consistent in this regard, as gluadys and crawfish have noted elsewhere.

The Bible makes no real statements regarding cosmology and I'm very confident in my hermeneutics, they are the same ones that the church has used for 2,000 years. What is inconsistent is concluding the Genesis account is figurative but the Matthew account is historical. Wait a minute....you do believe the Matthew account is literal right?

I'm not sure that verse helps your point, given that Paul is pretty obviously using the word 'Adam' in a figurative or symbolic sense, here. He often does.

He is doing nothing of the sort, you are just making that up. Can't wait to see how that hermeneutic is applied consistently to the New Testament. Out of time, see you guys in about a week and I can hardly wait to finally clear this mess up.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[crawfish]

Then why is it translated 'sown'? What is more these are the kingdom parables and most of them indicate domesticated plants. This is what I mean about Darwinism and liberal theology. You want to moralize about AIG but when it comes to making factual statements you twist things to your own end.

The statement does not say "least of all seeds that are sown". It takes a level of indirection to imply that this sown seed is the least of all domesticated seeds (of that time). I personally have no problem with that, as I see an accommodated message used to deliver a theological message. It just gets interesting to me that YEC's tend to only take the less direct route to scriptural interpretation if they know that the most literal interpretation is factually wrong.

However, I do not want to belabor this verse anymore.

Sounds like something you just made up because you don't like Genesis being an historical narrative. The Genesis account is brief but you never did answer my question, if the genealogies in Genesis can't be trusted then why should I trust the ones in Luke or Matthew? I know this doesn't end in the first chapters of Genesis, maybe you would like to tell me by what criteria I can believe the New Testament but reject Genesis.

Here's where it gets interesting. Interpreting scripture is done many ways, but one of the primary factors is genre. One must correctly identify genre before we know how to read its contents. You don't draw meaning from proverbs the same way you draw meaning from law; you don't draw meaning from apocrypha the same way you draw meaning from letters.

Thus, if you can identify early chapters in Genesis as genres other than historical - if they can be defined as poetic or symbolic or legendary - then you may read them in an entirely different way without affecting any of the other historical portions of scripture.

We all do this to a point. Even YEC's. The only question is, by what rules do you decide that a piece of scripture should be read other than dead literal? Is it by using consistent, objective analysis of literary genre and styles to determine if a piece of scripture can be taken symbolically or not, or do we simply accept everything as literal until science or discovery tells us with no doubts that we cannot? I do not accept the latter as good bible hermeneutics. EVERY piece of scripture is open to analysis and interpretation, not just those where we know we can't have it literally.

I was raised Catholic but never felt any compulsion to accept RCC dogma. Same thing with the Church of Christ, the whole water salvation thing is easily dismissed. What is not so easy to dismiss is the way liberal theology distorts Scripture, I know this from personal experience since my Pastor had decidedly liberal views. When he finally left and went back to the Disciples of Christ (where he belonged by the way) I started searching out the Apologetics aspect. A pet dogma does not bother me but when you have a theology that undermines the authority of Scripture it's far more serious.

I don't know much about the DoC, other than they sprang from the same well as the church of Christ and the ICC (independent Christian churches). Not a lot of them in the south.

Matthew 4 is not only historical in nature but a watershed event, Matthew especially, opens the door to literal interpretations to a lot of what even Jewish scholars were more comfortable with as figurative.

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here...

Non-literal reading is the only one you will accept and so far I have yet to see a single rule applied, let alone consistently maintained. The rules as I understand them are really quite simple, the clear, direct and intended message is the message. Genesis speaks in absolutes and the links to the incarnation are inescapable. Trust me when I tell you we will get to that aspect.

I am currently evaluating a book, Grasping God's Word, trying to come up with a simple but elegant method for teaching better hermeneutics to mature Christians in a small group setting. I haven't finished it, but it does present the "rules" of interpreting scripture that I seek to apply (you can peruse the TOC or a few chapters if you want from the Amazon link). I don't think the authors are liberal or anything, these are pretty standard rules of interpretation (they are silent on origins). I don't know of a better way to communicate my rules for interpreting than that.

What I see with typical YEC interpretation is that strict boundaries are set for the interpretation of that portion of the text; yet, elsewhere in the text the rules are relaxed, and there is little or no justification as to why they can be strict in one place and lax in another. YEC seems to ignore simple rules of genre and literary context in order to justify itself.

The accommodationist approach, however, lends itself to a consistent (although complicated) application throughout all of scripture. I especially like the idea of concentrating on the theological message rather than muddling up things with concordist treatments; it allows us to deal with scripture far more honestly and to stop concentrating on making it justify itself. The bible uses ambiguity and contradiction as literary mechanisms, and we must resist the urge to "fill in" the ambiguous parts or to make them unnaturally connect, and then to canonize those additions.

I have not forgotten the horrible things you where saying about AIG when I brought up the chimpanzee genome. Evolutionists lie through their teeth when it comes to homology arguments and always have, that one statement about 'chimpanzees and humans being 98% the same in their DNA' is proof positive. But you don't take that seriously even though it is a distortion of a clear statement of fact taken directly from peer reviewed scientific papers. These are not isolated statements, evolutionists have known the truth for at least 10 years and yet continue to lie about it.

I'm not sure what horrible things I said about AiG concerning the chimp genome. I only remember the horrible things I said about AiG concerning their views on what TE's believe in, most of which could be falsified by asking a statistically valid group of TEs (some are opinions that could be argued, some are designating false or incomplete beliefs based on bias). Those, I stand by.

Can't wait to get back, I think I finally know what the problem is.

Have a nice day
Mark

Looking forward to it...

 

[Mallon]

No it doesn't but it clearly teaches a literal, specially created Adam and Eve and links it inextricably to essential doctrine. Get your facts straight.

I’m not sure how to respond to this. “I’m right, you’re wrong” doesn’t make for very fruitful conversation because you’re not even trying to address the details of my argument. I might just as easily retort with a simple “The Bible doesn’t teach a literal, specially created Adam and Eve”.
Let me restate my position as quoted from an earlier argument with biblical support so you can try again:

“As I've already pointed out, the Bible tells us that the earth is shaped like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is circular (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these passages imply a flat earth.
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses imply geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer") as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is stretched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses imply a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.”

God's creation tells us nothing of the sort, for instance, most variety is the result of recombination not mutations. This simply fact speaks volumes for how special creation makes the best explanation for how the genes got their in the first place but this fact is systematically ignored because God as a cause has been eliminated a priori. The evidence always follows the naturalistic assumptions Mallon, that's the only reason it's unambiguous in your mind, it cannot be otherwise which is why you won't accept the inverse logic of the evidence, it would create a null hypothesis for your theory.

This entire paragraph confuses me for a couple of reasons:

1) I don’t know why you’re saying that the creation of genetic variability via recombination is being “systematically ignored” by scientists. It strikes me as a ludicrous statement coming from someone who has never looked at a biology textbook. Who has ever denied or downplayed the importance of genetic recombination as it pertains to variability? And how would doing so ever lend more credibility to the theory of common descent? I have no idea where this is coming from. It strikes me as a conspiracy theory about nothing.

2) Why are you contrasting natural phenomena with God’s actions? Are you deist? Do you believe that God acts only through the occasional miracle? I don’t. I believe that God’s hand is present in both natural and supernatural phenomena. So for you to say that I eliminate “God as a cause a priori” because I don’t consider miracles to be testable with science is a silly statement. It would be like me telling you that you subscribe to atheistic philosophy because you think genetic variation is a result of natural sexual recombination and not miracles. God cannot be excluded from creation; He is a constant. And as such, I cannot test for His existence using science because no control experiment can be designed in which God is excluded from His creation. Therefore, as far as scientific explanations are concerned, appeals to miracles are not a useful way to understand God’s creation. You may disagree, but your issue would not be with evolution per se; it would be with science as a whole.

Regardless, my point here was that the evidence from God’s creation tells us that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be interpreted using a concordist hermeneutic. I stand by that, and your reply here does not undermine such a conclusion (because it doesn’t even address it).

The Bible makes no real statements regarding cosmology

What do you mean the Bible makes no “real” statements about cosmology? Are the Bible’s statements about cosmology that I provided earlier fake?

and I'm very confident in my hermeneutics, they are the same ones that the church has used for 2,000 years.

Obviously they are not since we do not interpret the Bible the same way that we did 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago, the Bible was used to argue for such things as geocentrism, the inexistence of the antipodes, the slaughter of witches, the density of water being greater than that of earth, etc. To say that you interpret the Bible the same way Christians did thousands of years ago is to ignore thousands of years of history. We’ve moved on.

What is inconsistent is concluding the Genesis account is figurative but the Matthew account is historical. Wait a minute....you do believe the Matthew account is literal right?

If the family tree given by Matthew was meant as a literal tit-for-tat retelling of history, why would he exclude several generations from his genealogy? Was he trying to fit the genealogy to a numerical scheme as most biblical scholars seem to think? And if so, was Matthew’s intent really to provide a historical or “literal” retelling of Jesus’ lineage?
If anything, the genealogy provided by Matthew is a good example of why the Bible shouldn’t always be read using a concordist hermeneutic. Matthew simply wasn’t concerned with the details of history as neocreationists are.

He is doing nothing of the sort, you are just making that up.

So, you’re telling me that Paul isn’t, in fact, using “Adam” figuratively in 1 Cor 15:45? Who was the “last Adam” Paul is referring to in that verse, then, if not Jesus (which would necessitate a figurative interpretation of the name)?

 

[shernren]

The Bible makes no real statements regarding cosmology ...

Hey guys! Mark doesn't believe that Genesis 1:1-19 is real! And here we thought he was a creationist all these years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey guys! Mark doesn't believe that Genesis 1:1-19 is real! And here we thought he was a creationist all these years.

Cute but the game you play only lasts for so long, God as Creator is the message of Genesis 1 but there is no Cosmology to speak of. Cosmology has no connection to actual doctrinal issues the way the creation of Adam and Eve does, but you already knew that. I know what you are doing shernren, enjoy it while it lasts.

Have a nice day,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Cute but the game you play only lasts for so long, God as Creator is the message of Genesis 1 but there is no Cosmology to speak of. Cosmology has no connection to actual doctrinal issues the way the creation of Adam and Eve does, but you already knew that. I know what you are doing shernren, enjoy it while it lasts.

Have a nice day,
Mark

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[Gen 1:14-18 ESV]

That can't be cosmology, even though it talks all about the stars.

This must be describing the creation of Hollywood on Day Four.