Convince me

[Calypsis4]

So, you claim that:
"In the beginning God" is figurative?

"In the beginning God created" is figurative?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is figurative?

Partaker my friend: Amen.

Mallon said, "I'm not saying the creation account isn't literal (with respect, do you know what the word means?). I'm saying that it isn't an account of a historical event."

But Jesus said it was (Mark 10:6). He also said the flood was historical (Matthew 24:36-39). The truth is that this skeptic doesn't care what Jesus said about it.

Let him or any other TE try finding a single verse in the New Testament that does not affirm the historical account of Adam as it is described in Genesis:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinth 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinth 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

The parts I highlighted in red are espcially strong in verifying the historical nature of the Genesis account concerning the first man who ever lived.

What hint is given anywhere in scripture that Adam and the account of his creation and life as recorded in Genesis was not historical?

 

[Mallon]

Mallon said, "I'm not saying the creation account isn't literal (with respect, do you know what the word means?). I'm saying that it isn't an account of a historical event."

But Jesus said it was (Mark 10:6). He also said the flood was historical (Matthew 24:36-39). The truth is that this skeptic doesn't care what Jesus said about it.

Jesus cited the creation account to make a point. That's NOT the same thing as accepting it as historical. If I said "It's important to plan for the future just as the ant did in Aesop's fable", does that necessarily imply that I believe the fable to be a historical account?

Besides, if the Hebrew people believed the creation account to be historical, then Jesus would have accommodated his message to this common understanding, as I just explained above. Jesus also accommodated to his Hebrew audience elsewhere... for example, by calling the mustard seed the smallest of them all (when we know it's not).

 

[Mallon]

It is both literal and historical.

That's hearsay. That's not a valid form of argument. Just saying something is so doesn't make it so.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

"Any hints that the creation account is not literal?
(1) Having the word day used in three or four different ways in the first two chapter of Genesis
(2) Creation being described as taking place in a day in Gen 2:4 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.
(3) Being given a completely different order of creation in Genesis 2
(4) Moses speaking about the creation in Psalm 90 and telling us God's days are not like ours.
(5) Moses giving an allegorical interpretation of the imagery in Genesis, Adam being turned back to dust, the flood, even evening and morning are used metaphorically.
(6) The writer of Hebrew interpreting God's rest on the seventh day as as an ongoing rest we are commanded to enter into Today."

There are many places where YEC's take scripture figuratively, yet have problems when we take portions of the Bible figuratively - again why the inconsistencies.

"Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.
Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son."

Basically Theistic Evolution does NOT contradict the Bible, as we read it figuratively, and it is compatible with science so why not believe it?
Theistic Evolution fits perfectly with Scripture and I see no reason not to believe in it...
as we have used figurative interpretations before

 

[Partaker of Christ]

That's hearsay. That's not a valid form of argument. Just saying something is so doesn't make it so.

No, it is biblical as has been shown.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

"Any hints that the creation account is not literal?
(1) Having the word day used in three or four different ways in the first two chapter of Genesis
(2) Creation being described as taking place in a day in Gen 2:4 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.
(3) Being given a completely different order of creation in Genesis 2
(4) Moses speaking about the creation in Psalm 90 and telling us God's days are not like ours.
(5) Moses giving an allegorical interpretation of the imagery in Genesis, Adam being turned back to dust, the flood, even evening and morning are used metaphorically.
(6) The writer of Hebrew interpreting God's rest on the seventh day as as an ongoing rest we are commanded to enter into Today."

There are many places where YEC's take scripture figuratively, yet have problems when we take portions of the Bible figuratively - again why the inconsistencies.

"Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.
Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son."

Basically Theistic Evolution does NOT contradict the Bible, as we read it figuratively, and it is compatible with science so why not believe it?
Theistic Evolution fits perfectly with Scripture and I see no reason not to believe in it...
as we have used figurative interpretations before

Another "Did God really say"

So tell us did God really and literally say:

Gen 2:16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Eating you may eat of every tree in the garden;
Gen 2:17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

Was that command a parable??????????

I think you also have been deceived by the crafty serpent.

 

[Mallon]

No, it is biblical as has been shown.

No it's not, as has been shown.

(I can see where this is going...)

 

[mark kennedy]

Jesus cited the creation account to make a point. That's NOT the same thing as accepting it as historical. If I said "It's important to plan for the future just as the ant did in Aesop's fable", does that necessarily imply that I believe the fable to be a historical account?

Jesus regarded the creation as historical as did all the New Testament writers who spoke of it. None of the criteria for a parable or figure of speech are present in the Genesis text and the book as a whole is a book of historical record, thus genesis or genealogy. No one even questioned this up until the advent of Darwinism and just like you play fast and loose with the evidence you make the Scriptures say anything you want it to.

Besides, if the Hebrew people believed the creation account to be historical, then Jesus would have accommodated his message to this common understanding, as I just explained above. Jesus also accommodated to his Hebrew audience elsewhere... for example, by calling the mustard seed the smallest of them all (when we know it's not).

It was the smallest domestic seed, you really need to learn something about cultural context before you start pretending to preach for it. All the New Testament writers took the creation of Adam literally, which is why Luke's genealogy ends with him. Paul uses Adam's name and despite the false soliloquies of Liberal Theology, and other secular philosophies, Adam was a person specially created by God and the first parent of humanity.

Is this how you handle scientific evidence? If you do I hope you don't spend a lot of time in a lab producing things that actually matter.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Jesus regarded the creation as historical as did all the New Testament writers who spoke of it.

Again, citing the Genesis creation accounts does not equate to accepting them as historical accounts, as I explained above. If God accommodated the Genesis creation accounts to His Hebrew audience, then it would only make sense that Jesus would continue to speak of these accounts in this vein.

None of the criteria for a parable or figure of speech are present in the Genesis text

What criteria are you referring to?

It was the smallest domestic seed, you really need to learn something about cultural context before you start pretending to preach for it.

Are you arguing, then, that Jesus accommodated his message to the experiences of ancient Hebrew farmers in order to get his points across and wasn't, in fact, saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the whole world?

All the New Testament writers took the creation of Adam literally

But this does not mean that we, too, should take the creation of Adam literally. As I've shown before, the ancient astronomy presented in the Bible was taken literally by the authors of the Bible, too, but that does not mean that we should also. The message is separate from the incidental vessel in which it was delivered.

Is this how you handle scientific evidence? If you do I hope you don't spend a lot of time in a lab producing things that actually matter.

The neocreationists here are such kind folks. You and C4 make great bedfellows, mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again, citing the Genesis creation accounts does not equate to accepting them as historical accounts, as I explained above. If God accommodated the Genesis creation accounts to His Hebrew audience, then it would only make sense that Jesus would continue to speak of these accounts in this vein.

They are always related as historical accounts and the totality of Scripture indicate exactly that. Genesis is an historical narrative and the genealogies are proof positive of this core principle. 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)​

Calling this a parable contradicts the explicit teaching of every New Testament writer that speaks to the subject. What is more the idea of Adam having ancestors is unknown to Christian scholarship and Jewish tradition until the advent of Darwinism.

What criteria are you referring to?

Hermeneutics and principles of interpretation. What is most important in Genesis is the intent of the author and the meaning of the words used as well as the context. There is nothing indicating Adam or the special creation of life as an event is anything other then historical.

Are you arguing, then, that Jesus accommodated his message to the experiences of ancient Hebrew farmers in order to get his points across and wasn't, in fact, saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the whole world?

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.

But this does not mean that we, too, should take the creation of Adam literally. As I've shown before, the ancient astronomy presented in the Bible was taken literally by the authors of the Bible, too, but that does not mean that we should also. The message is separate from the incidental vessel in which it was delivered.

Jesus, Luke, Paul and Job used highly figurative language to describe creation as a literal event. Yes we should take it literally since it is inextricably linked to the Adamic nature that Christ died to free us from. The Scriptures never speak to anything remotely astronomical or cosmological and certainly never links these modern studies to essential doctrine. Scripture is to be interrupted by Scripture and when you don't you have become a revisionist and an editor. By your criteria I could take Matthew's genealogy figuratively and subsequently the resurrection, is that right?

The neocreationists here are such kind folks. You and C4 make great bedfellows, mark.

I learned from the best and it's the TEs on here that take it to this level. If you want a more civil discussion at least have the decency to learn the requisite theology of Creationism and Christian Apologetics before importing your worldly philosophy and preaching it as gospel.

I know you were taught to think like this in College and most of the people you associate with professionally are of the same opinion. What you don't realize is that Darwinism is nothing but one long argument against creation and does not stand up to hermeneutics. If that were not so your posts would occasionally include something else and never do. What is more it's a modern interpretation that comes from an attitude of unbelief. When you separate yourself from the clear testimony of Scripture and the traditional teaching of the church don't be surprised when you are called on it.

I still think they are using you to create division and contention in the church and to undermine faith in the Scriptures. You may not be Darwinian in your science but what you are arguing on here is classic Darwinism in no uncertain terms. Get off the fence Mallon, you either believe the Bible or you don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[metherion]

I know you were taught to think like this in College and most of the people you associate with professionally are of the same opinion. What you don't realize is that Darwinism is nothing but one long argument against creation and does not stand up to hermeneutics. If that were not so your posts would occasionally include something else and never do. What is more it's a modern interpretation that comes from an attitude of unbelief. When you separate yourself from the clear testimony of Scripture and the traditional teaching of the church don't be surprised when you are called on it.

I still think they are using you to create division and contention in the church and to undermine faith in the Scriptures. You may not be Darwinian in your science but what you are arguing on here is classic Darwinism in no uncertain terms. Get off the fence Mallon, you either believe the Bible or you don't.

Two things.

1, just so we're ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no talking past each other, what EXACTLY is and are the tenets of this particular contextual use of the word "Darwinism"?

2, again, your last sentence is more of what I talked about earlier. Not believing that Genesis is a literal history is equated with being an unbeliever, not having faith, not actually believing in God, however you want to term it.

Metherion

 

[crawfish]

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.

While we all fully agree with you, by looking at the simple text (and reading through the original Greek), there is no direct evidence that Jesus is implying anything here that is not universal. Let me put it this way: if the mustard seed was, in fact, the smallest seed in existence, then you would not have to alter the text one bit to make the claim that Jesus was making a scientifically valid conclusion. Ultimately, the only reason many accept this as a statement of perspective is because we know for a fact that it isn't universal.

My question is, why is accommodation (and that's exactly what it is) acceptable from a YEC perspective here but the very idea is abhorrent elsewhere? This needs to be explained, as it is one of the reasons that TE's see YEC as an untenable view that cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

Two things.

1, just so we're ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no talking past each other, what EXACTLY is and are the tenets of this particular contextual use of the word "Darwinism"?

There is really only one:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)​

2, again, your last sentence is more of what I talked about earlier. Not believing that Genesis is a literal history is equated with being an unbeliever, not having faith, not actually believing in God, however you want to term it.

Metherion

What am I supposed to think when the only thing a Bible believing Christian has to look forward to on this board is a constant attack for taking the Bible as it is written and as the Church has historically. The book of Genesis is clearly presented as historical and confirmed in the New Testament as exactly that, no fancy mental gymnastics needed. The wording is not only explicit it is in the strongest possible language. Paul calls Adam the 'first man', it does not get any more direct then that.

Now if we were in agreement on some things and disagreeing on other things it would be different. Instead there is a constant barrage of personal attacks (aka ad hominem fallacies) that are directly linked to a secular philosophy based on the rejection of miraculous interposition. This kind of debate was unknown to Christian theology prior to Darwinism for one reason, Adam was understood to be the first man, specially created. It cannot be a coincidence and the fact that all TEs want to do is attack creationists speaks volumes about where their heart is. It's so much more important that their intellectual pursuits line up with the secular worlds thinking then it is fellow believers, it leads me to wonder how much of the Bible they actually believe.

See you in the formal debate forum soon, I can hardly wait.

While we all fully agree with you, by looking at the simple text (and reading through the original Greek), there is no direct evidence that Jesus is implying anything here that is not universal. Let me put it this way: if the mustard seed was, in fact, the smallest seed in existence, then you would not have to alter the text one bit to make the claim that Jesus was making a scientifically valid conclusion. Ultimately, the only reason many accept this as a statement of perspective is because we know for a fact that it isn't universal.

The only reason to question it is to cast aspersions about the reliability of Scripture. This has virtually nothing to do with anything remotely theological, Jesus is simply making an illustration that was readily understandable to his audience. That's the trouble with TEs, it doesn't stop with Genesis.

My question is, why is accommodation (and that's exactly what it is) acceptable from a YEC perspective here but the very idea is abhorrent elsewhere? This needs to be explained, as it is one of the reasons that TE's see YEC as an untenable view that cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture.

The size of seeds in not a major issue with YECs for the same reason that it is not a major issue for Christian theology, no doctrinal issues are at stake. It was the smallest domesticated seed and his audience would not have studied the size of seeds in the wild. That's not accommodation that is taking a verse in it's proper cultural context.

You know, there is ample reason to question YEC without the scathing skepticism that is derived from the unbelieving academic world. It would not take a TE long to gain credibility and learn sound hermeneutics and principles of interpretation in order to speak to creationists in their own language.

You guys never do that, why should I consider you anything other then a skeptic? You affirm nothing and mimic skepticism straight from the Darwinian playbook. I can't help but be skeptical of your motives.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

Caly4 wrote:

Here we go again...a refusal to deal with the issue honestly.

Example: A man looking for a job saw a sign in the window: applications available. Maximum age qualification: 45.

Now, tell me how old the man was.

Your side story does nothing to change what the word "million" means. You posted something that included an age up to 750,000,000 years as if that supported your 6,000 myth. That's off by a factor of over 100,000, regardless of how many red herrings you throw at it.

Quite. I meant what I said

Yes, but you didn't explain why it is all these Christians that have a supposed "deep seeded" bias against Genesis. I'll give you a hint - they don't, they just have recogized that the simplistic and naive interpretation you still cling to is not relevant.

You aren't telling the truth [about the RATE people]. It is evolutionists who lie and distort the truth about the origins of our world. We are on to them and we aren't hesitant to say so.

What 'bogus lab'? Document it.

*Sigh*... For how long will creationists allow stuff like the RATE study to further degrade their credibility, if that were possible? Here is a discussion of Humphrey's use of bogus conditions, exposed by real geologists:

RATE's Ratty Results: Helium Diffusion Doesn't Support Young-Earth Creationism (simply page down to the section discussing "Laboratory vacuum diffusion results".

The article discusses many more instances of either intentional lying or geological incompetence on the part of Dr. Humpreys, if you are interested in honesty.

It's also worthwhile to point out that I too am aware of the practice of Dr. Humphreys, as well as other "RATE" people in invoking miracles when needed to change the numbers as they wish, because they won't match reality otherwise.

It's the same as this old joke, but this time someone is saying this in real life, and expecting others to take them seriously. Well, they did get the creationists hook, line and sinker, but the rest of us see through this.

http://www.betz.lu/media/users/charel/math07.gif

oscillation frequencies from 1996 to date in a search for evidence of solar radius evolution during the rising phase of the current activity cycle.

Do you know what "oscillation frequency" and "cycle" mean? Hint - they mean it goes back and forth, and should not be extrapolated millions of years into the past. Maybe read your reference before posting it next time.
<B>

​

​

​

</B>
I already answered this. Why did you bring it up again? I read that article about a year ago.
​

You posted, but still don't seem to understand the article. It shows how and why dendrochronolgy is reliable.


​

many field reversals have happened, (Oh? When was the last one? Date it please!)...and they are well taken into account. Citing an irrelevant article and calling it "proof" hardly helps your position, and certainly doesn't affect the bogus work of Humphreys.

the last one was around 780,000 BC. Maybe consider learning about this yourself before posting. A simple start is here: Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humphreys is light years ahead of you in this regard. You better let it go before you get burned any worse than you already have. Everthing in our world/solar system/universe is degenerating according to the second law of thermodyanmics and that includes the electromagnetic field.

Humphreys is indeed light years ahead of me in deception, based at least on frequency of practice. It looks like others have already correctly you in your repetition of the creationist PRATT of 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I encourage you to get over your condescending, superior attitude if you wish to continue any kind of discussion with me in the future. Is that clear?

What are you going to do, beat me with a wet noodly something?

Once again, evolutionist predictions and the cold reality of the facts do not match.

Are you even aware that I'm not talking about the Oort cloud? That's like if I said that trilobite fossils show a range of ages and you posted an article about how to make a cheesecake. Please at least read my posts if you are going to respond to them. Pretty please?

Actually, at bottom line, none of what you said really stands. Look at my documentation above.

I did look at it - it usually shows that you don't understand what you are posting - even to the point of posting things that directly show you position to be wrong.

I see. You don't have a clue.

I see you still naively think that tissue has a little timer in it, making it self destruct after ten seconds.

Well, if you remain in darkness, friend, it is of your own doing. It seems that you are determined to dwell there despite the truth you have been given.

Whew, I'm glad you aren't condescending toward me, as you accuse me of being toward you.

Where ....is....your...documentation. I am not interested in opinions.

I pointed out that you appear ignorant of the whole field of Taphonomy. Tell me, how long have you been studying taphonomy?

You probably better stop here.

Well, being that it is the end of your post, I suppose I will stop this post here.

Papias

 

[crawfish]

The only reason to question it is to cast aspersions about the reliability of Scripture. This has virtually nothing to do with anything remotely theological, Jesus is simply making an illustration that was readily understandable to his audience. That's the trouble with TEs, it doesn't stop with Genesis.

The size of seeds in not a major issue with YECs for the same reason that it is not a major issue for Christian theology, no doctrinal issues are at stake. It was the smallest domesticated seed and his audience would not have studied the size of seeds in the wild.

You understand, I'm not attacking scripture. I believe it is 100% true in that it is exactly what God intended. What I am questioning is the assumptions made by YEC for interpreting scripture - how this or that in Genesis cannot be interpreted anyway other than literal because of certain rules, yet those rules become less important when evaluating other scripture. It is inconsistent.

I fully recognize that Jesus' theological point in the parable is true regardless of whether or not there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed. I have no problems with this. My accommodationist views do not demand it from scripture; the truth is there and I accept it as simply as you claim to. The difference, it my acceptance of it is entirely consistent with my acceptance of all scripture; YECs hold some scripture to a "higher level" than others; the accomodationist view is not allowed. I can discern no rhyme or reason to why each is differentiated, other than in cases like this you know it cannot be true so you accept the accommodated explanation.

That's not accommodation that is taking a verse in it's proper cultural context.

"Taking a verse in it's proper cultural context" is the very definition of accommodation. What you are saying is like claiming "I'm talking about slow changes over time, I'm not talking about evolution". You can deny the word all you want, but you are living the definition.

You know, there is ample reason to question YEC without the scathing skepticism that is derived from the unbelieving academic world. It would not take a TE long to gain credibility and learn sound hermeneutics and principles of interpretation in order to speak to creationists in their own language.

Have you been reading the works of Denis Lamareaux? Peter Enns? N.T. Wright? John Walton? (To mention just a few.) These are all highly respected and educated theologians who have engaged in sound exegesis, hermeneutics and principles of interpretation to put out very sound alternatives to the literal view of early Genesis. I don't think the problem is that this type of TE does not exist, it's that the typical YEC refuses to even listen to them.

You guys never do that, why should I consider you anything other then a skeptic? You affirm nothing and mimic skepticism straight from the Darwinian playbook. I can't help but be skeptical of your motives.

Brother, I am going to be bold and tell you I don't think you're really listening to us. I tried to engage in hermeneutics to approach the topic of death before the fall a few months ago; only two YEC's responded, and neither accepted the principle. If you truly believe your interpretation is better, then you should deal with the issues we raise rather that dismiss them as ridiculous. We will not bring the world to Christ if we ignore the hard questions.

 

[mark kennedy]

You understand, I'm not attacking scripture. I believe it is 100% true in that it is exactly what God intended. What I am questioning is the assumptions made by YEC for interpreting scripture - how this or that in Genesis cannot be interpreted anyway other than literal because of certain rules, yet those rules become less important when evaluating other scripture. It is inconsistent.

You believe it's 100% true except here:

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)​

And here:

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

I don't want to get exercised at this point of the discussion but I'm going to tell you plainly, you don't know anything about the rules of interpreting Scripture. I don't really mind so much when evolutionists condescend to me on scientific issues, even when they don't have a scientific argument. What really gets me going is when they mimic an atheistic philosophy, mocking the Scriptures and pretend they know more about the Bible then Christians who have studied it their entire adult lives.

Don't go there with me, I'm serious about this.

I fully recognize that Jesus' theological point in the parable is true regardless of whether or not there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed. I have no problems with this. My accommodationist views do not demand it from scripture; the truth is there and I accept it as simply as you claim to. The difference, it my acceptance of it is entirely consistent with my acceptance of all scripture; YECs hold some scripture to a "higher level" than others; the accomodationist view is not allowed. I can discern no rhyme or reason to why each is differentiated, other than in cases like this you know it cannot be true so you accept the accommodated explanation.

It's not an accommodation, it's one of the things you come to realize when you actually do the work of Bible exposition but you wouldn't know anything about that.

"Taking a verse in it's proper cultural context" is the very definition of accommodation. What you are saying is like claiming "I'm talking about slow changes over time, I'm not talking about evolution". You can deny the word all you want, but you are living the definition.

Taking a verse in it's proper context is one of the most basic rule of hermeneutics, thus the old saying, 'a text without a context is a pretext'. I am seriously trying not dump the truck on you, why are you making it so difficult.

Have you been reading the works of Denis Lamareaux? Peter Enns? N.T. Wright? John Walton? (To mention just a few.) These are all highly respected and educated theologians who have engaged in sound exegesis, hermeneutics and principles of interpretation to put out very sound alternatives to the literal view of early Genesis. I don't think the problem is that this type of TE does not exist, it's that the typical YEC refuses to even listen to them.

I'm well acquainted with the work of Liberal Theologians and I'm not impressed. They mock and scoff at the historical and miraculous aspects of Scripture with childish disdain. No I have not read those authors and if your argument is an example of what I can expect then I doubt that I will or should.

Brother, I am going to be bold and tell you I don't think you're really listening to us. I tried to engage in hermeneutics to approach the topic of death before the fall a few months ago; only two YEC's responded, and neither accepted the principle. If you truly believe your interpretation is better, then you should deal with the issues we raise rather that dismiss them as ridiculous. We will not bring the world to Christ if we ignore the hard questions.

These are not hard questions, I studied it out years ago and found suitable explanations, with minimal effort, along with dozens of others far more difficult. Stop assuming that I'm ignorant because I don't share your skepticism. They didn't respond to your thread because it's not a valid point or a sound interpretation, it's idle speculation and childish mockery.

This is your last warning, trust me when I tell you, you don't want to hear the rest.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

I'm well acquainted with the work of Liberal Theologians and I'm not impressed. They mock and scoff at the historical and miraculous aspects of Scripture with childish disdain. No I have not read those authors and if your argument is an example of what I can expect then I doubt that I will or should.

Denis Lamoreaux liberal, sure. Peter Enns, maybe.

But N.T. Wright?

Unconventional he may be, and disagreed with by many, but calling him a liberal is just about as credible as calling Stephen Gould a Christian or Kevin Rudd a Chinese.

A five-minute Google search reveals that the man is deeply interested in the question of how the Bible is authoritative:

[FONT=&quot]So, secondly within the first half of this lecture, I want to suggest that scripture’s own view of authority focuses on the authority of God himself. (I recall a well-known lecturer once insisting that ‘there can be no authority other than scripture’, and thumping the tub so completely that I wanted to ask ‘but what about God?’) If we think for a moment what we are actually saying when we use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’, we must surely acknowledge that this is a shorthand way of saying that, though authority belongs to God, God has somehow invested this authority in scripture. And that is a complex claim. It is not straightforward. When people use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ they very often do not realize this. Worse, they often treat the word ‘authority’ as the absolute, the fixed point, and make the word ‘scripture’ the thing which is moving around trying to find a home against it. In other words, they think they know what authority is and then they say that scripture is that thing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I want to suggest that we should try it the other way around. Supposing we said that we know what scripture is (we have it here, after all), and that we should try and discover what authority might be in the light of that. Granted that this is the book that we actually have, and that we want to find out what its ‘authority’ might mean, we need perhaps to forswear our too-ready ideas about ‘authority’ and let them be remolded in the light of scripture itself—not just in the light of the biblical statements about authority but in the light of the whole Bible, or the whole New Testament, itself. What are we saying about the concept of ‘authority’ itself if we assert that this book—not the book we are so good at turning this book into—is ‘authoritative’?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Beginning, though, with explicit scriptural evidence about authority itself, we find soon enough—this is obvious but is often ignored—that all authority does indeed belong to God. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’. God says this, God says that, and it is done. Now if that is not authoritative, I don’t know what is. God calls Abraham; he speaks authoritatively. God exercises authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that authority is ultimately invested in Christ: ‘all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth’. Then, perhaps to our surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole letters in order to make this point crystal clear (in a manner of speaking). This authority, we discover, has to do with the Holy Spirit. And the whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within God’s world as his accredited agent(s). From an exceedingly quick survey, we are forced to say: authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.
[/FONT]​

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright[FONT=&quot][/FONT] (emphasis added)

Wow! That feels a little bit too conservative for me! Who knows, you might have actually liked the guy. Newsflash mark: not everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal heretic. Evangelicalism doesn't have popes, remember?

 

[mark kennedy]

Denis Lamoreaux liberal, sure. Peter Enns, maybe.

But N.T. Wright?

Unconventional he may be, and disagreed with by many, but calling him a liberal is just about as credible as calling Stephen Gould a Christian or Kevin Rudd a Chinese.

A five-minute Google search reveals that the man is deeply interested in the question of how the Bible is authoritative:

[FONT=&quot]So, secondly within the first half of this lecture, I want to suggest that scripture&#8217;s own view of authority focuses on the authority of God himself. (I recall a well-known lecturer once insisting that &#8216;there can be no authority other than scripture&#8217;, and thumping the tub so completely that I wanted to ask &#8216;but what about God?&#8217 If we think for a moment what we are actually saying when we use the phrase &#8216;authority of scripture&#8217;, we must surely acknowledge that this is a shorthand way of saying that, though authority belongs to God, God has somehow invested this authority in scripture. And that is a complex claim. It is not straightforward. When people use the phrase &#8216;authority of scripture&#8217; they very often do not realize this. Worse, they often treat the word &#8216;authority&#8217; as the absolute, the fixed point, and make the word &#8216;scripture&#8217; the thing which is moving around trying to find a home against it. In other words, they think they know what authority is and then they say that scripture is that thing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I want to suggest that we should try it the other way around. Supposing we said that we know what scripture is (we have it here, after all), and that we should try and discover what authority might be in the light of that. Granted that this is the book that we actually have, and that we want to find out what its &#8216;authority&#8217; might mean, we need perhaps to forswear our too-ready ideas about &#8216;authority&#8217; and let them be remolded in the light of scripture itself&#8212;not just in the light of the biblical statements about authority but in the light of the whole Bible, or the whole New Testament, itself. What are we saying about the concept of &#8216;authority&#8217; itself if we assert that this book&#8212;not the book we are so good at turning this book into&#8212;is &#8216;authoritative&#8217;?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Beginning, though, with explicit scriptural evidence about authority itself, we find soon enough&#8212;this is obvious but is often ignored&#8212;that all authority does indeed belong to God. &#8216;In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth&#8217;. God says this, God says that, and it is done. Now if that is not authoritative, I don&#8217;t know what is. God calls Abraham; he speaks authoritatively. God exercises authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that authority is ultimately invested in Christ: &#8216;all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth&#8217;. Then, perhaps to our surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole letters in order to make this point crystal clear (in a manner of speaking). This authority, we discover, has to do with the Holy Spirit. And the whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within God&#8217;s world as his accredited agent(s). From an exceedingly quick survey, we are forced to say: authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.
[/FONT]​

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright[FONT=&quot][/FONT] (emphasis added)

Wow! That feels a little bit too conservative for me! Who knows, you might have actually liked the guy. Newsflash mark: not everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal heretic. Evangelicalism doesn't have popes, remember?

Bear in mind I don't have time to google every passing mention of an author or theologian, but when your right your right:

This is the promise which is then taken up in the next four chapters. Romans 1&#8212;4 expounds, from one point of view, the way in which the problem of creation has been addressed by the fulfilment of the covenant, while simultaneously the problem of the covenant (the failure of ethnic Israel) has been dealt with by God&#8217;s action through Jesus the Messiah, in fulfilment of the promise of new creation. Chapters 5&#8212;8 develop the themes of creation and covenant in a closely related manner. Romans 5, densely but deftly, outlines like 1 Corinthians 15 the way in which the obedience of the one man Jesus the Messiah has more than reversed the effects of the one man Adam. He has done, it seems, what the covenant was put in place to do. But what has happened to the covenant itself?
Creation and Covenant​

He seems alright to me, thanks for the quip. Don't get me wrong, I'm still checking it out and there is some question whether or not he is an evangelical.

Further from my post yesterday, on ligioner's website there is a video on NT Wrights view of the gospel. This is a panel discussion, but will give you an idea of what NT Wright is trying to say or trying to avoid saying??. NT Wright takes a view, that, the reformers got it wrong about Justification, particularly on their view of works based salvation in Judaism in 1st century Palestine.

It seems as though NT Wright has based his views on 1st century Judaism on EP Sanders (EP Sanders is a liberal evangelical) work, anyhow check the video out for yourself. Mark Seifried answers this correctly around the 10 minute mark in the discussion. N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification: A Panel Discussion​

 

[gluadys]

Denis Lamoreaux liberal, sure. Peter Enns, maybe.

But N.T. Wright?



Wow! That feels a little bit too conservative for me! Who knows, you might have actually liked the guy. Newsflash mark: not everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal heretic. Evangelicalism doesn't have popes, remember?

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.

 

[crawfish]

I don't want to get exercised at this point of the discussion but I'm going to tell you plainly, you don't know anything about the rules of interpreting Scripture. I don't really mind so much when evolutionists condescend to me on scientific issues, even when they don't have a scientific argument. What really gets me going is when they mimic an atheistic philosophy, mocking the Scriptures and pretend they know more about the Bible then Christians who have studied it their entire adult lives.

Don't go there with me, I'm serious about this.

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.

It's not an accommodation, it's one of the things you come to realize when you actually do the work of Bible exposition but you wouldn't know anything about that.

You don't seem to understand what accommodation is.

Taking a verse in it's proper context is one of the most basic rule of hermeneutics, thus the old saying, 'a text without a context is a pretext'. I am seriously trying not dump the truck on you, why are you making it so difficult.

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.

I'm well acquainted with the work of Liberal Theologians and I'm not impressed. They mock and scoff at the historical and miraculous aspects of Scripture with childish disdain. No I have not read those authors and if your argument is an example of what I can expect then I doubt that I will or should.

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.

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.

These are not hard questions, I studied it out years ago and found suitable explanations, with minimal effort, along with dozens of others far more difficult. Stop assuming that I'm ignorant because I don't share your skepticism. They didn't respond to your thread because it's not a valid point or a sound interpretation, it's idle speculation and childish mockery.

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.

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.

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.

This is your last warning, trust me when I tell you, you don't want to hear the rest.

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.

I hope you have a nice day, too,

Chris