Creation and Deceit

[vossler]

One thing that I continuously hear from evolutionists is that if evolution weren't true then why is God deceiving us? First of all I want say I've never felt deceived by God and His Creation. If anything, I'm in constant wonder and awe as to the magnificence to it all. Each day I look around and am constantly amazed. His Creation is so much more than I could ever put my little mind around. The thought that I could somehow explain it, even in a small way, doesn't even enter my mind. The only way deception could ever enter into the equation is when I listen to evolutionary scientists or those who push their theories. Otherwise all I see is His beauty and majesty, and that is more than enough for me.

Think about this. If we didn't get to hear man extrapolate and expound on his vast knowledge and vision, the vast majority of us wouldn't even think twice about Creation being exactly what the Bible says it is. That's right, six twenty-four hour days and that's it, nothing more is required because most of us couldn't imagine contributing to God's formula. Yet scientists in their 'infinite' wisdom choose to go where man has no need to go by developing and promoting theories to explain how everything came about. There was a day when most scientists were Godly men exploring areas of study that were God led and that certainly didn't challenge God and His Word. Unfortunately today that is hardly the case. Today all we ever want to do is exclude God from science related matters. God cannot ever be excluded from anything.

Rant over, I feel better.

I already know I'll get lambasted for this, that's o.k. I've got thick skin, go ahead.

 

[shernren]

*tiptoes in*
*listens*
*thinks*
*attempts to identify*

[I respect your position, and I understand where you are coming from. But I cannot think of any response from me that would edify you, so I shall not respond any other way: ]

*holds silence*
*tiptoes out*

 

[Mallon]

One thing that I continuously hear from evolutionists is that if evolution weren't true then why is God deceiving us?

Indeed. If we can learn about God by studying His creation (see my sig, for example), and His creation tells us a different story than what is recorded in Gen 1, does that not imply that God formed the Earth in a deceiving manner?

There was a day when most scientists were Godly men exploring areas of study that were God led and that certainly didn't challenge God and His Word.

Except for the whole flat-earth refutation, right? And the geocentrism thing? These concepts were refuted by godly scientists.

Today all we ever want to do is exclude God from science related matters.

If we didn't, it wouldn't be methodologically scientific, and we would be deceiving ourselves.

God cannot ever be excluded from anything.

Hence the position of TEs.

 

[notto]

There was a day when most scientists were Godly men exploring areas of study that were God led and that certainly didn't challenge God and His Word.

And the evidence that those Godly men found falsified a young earth and geocentrism. They were doing exactly what you say yet they found the creation different than they had wanted to. Funny that.

Unfortunately today that is hardly the case. Today all we ever want to do is exclude God from science related matters

I think you are saying things about scientists that simply are not true. Godly men have a word for that.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would only add one thing to this, scientists develop theories that cannot and do not explain our origins.

One thing that I continuously hear from evolutionists is that if evolution weren't true then why is God deceiving us? First of all I want say I've never felt deceived by God and His Creation. If anything, I'm in constant wonder and awe as to the magnificence to it all. Each day I look around and am constantly amazed. His Creation is so much more than I could ever put my little mind around. The thought that I could somehow explain it, even in a small way, doesn't even enter my mind. The only way deception could ever enter into the equation is when I listen to evolutionary scientists or those who push their theories. Otherwise all I see is His beauty and majesty, and that is more than enough for me.

Think about this. If we didn't get to hear man extrapolate and expound on his vast knowledge and vision, the vast majority of us wouldn't even think twice about Creation being exactly what the Bible says it is. That's right, six twenty-four hour days and that's it, nothing more is required because most of us couldn't imagine contributing to God's formula. Yet scientists in their 'infinite' wisdom choose to go where man has no need to go by developing and promoting theories to explain how everything came about. There was a day when most scientists were Godly men exploring areas of study that were God led and that certainly didn't challenge God and His Word. Unfortunately today that is hardly the case. Today all we ever want to do is exclude God from science related matters. God cannot ever be excluded from anything.

What he said.​

 

[Mallon]

I would only add one thing to this, scientists develop theories that cannot and do not explain our origins.

Be very careful how much faith you put in scientists' inability to explain or replicate things. The origin of life is a major questions that scientists around the world are currently working on. Your insistance that scientists cannot duplicate life therefore 'Goddidit' is a God-of-the-Gaps trap. If scientists do ever recreate life, as they well might, would you then concede that God cannot exist?

 

[billwald]

Do we live in a "real" physical universe or in virtual universe (holodeck) which it took God 6 days to design?

 

[mark kennedy]

Be very careful how much faith you put in scientists' inability to explain or replicate things. The origin of life is a major questions that scientists around the world are currently working on. Your insistance that scientists cannot duplicate life therefore 'Goddidit' is a God-of-the-Gaps trap. If scientists do ever recreate life, as they well might, would you then concede that God cannot exist?

You have no idea how absured that is to me. God did it, God created the world and all that is in it in six literal days. Nothing they produce in a lab is going to even come close to that.

That was a really good OP, it is sad that it got no real attention in the responses.

 

[Deamiter]

All the Christians who are scientists that I know (pity I can't use the term Christian scientists) would disagree strongly with the OP's claim that we are trying to contribute to God's forumla. Not the YECs and CERTAINLY not the TEs!

In science, we seek to explain not why but what. We take what we can see and what we can measure, and we try to predict what is coming next. And quite frankly, the only reason science is so successful is not because people like it. It's because it works. No matter what theological or moral issues you have with the results, the method has been proven.

I earned my first degree in a very conservative Christian university. There were students with a wide range of beliefs, but they were all Christian. In the science departments (where I spent most of my time) we talked about science a lot as you might expect. And the one constant -- no matter the view on origins, or morality, or the role of science in the world -- was that we were all in science to seek to better know God. None of us want to become God or to do better than God, far from it! We simply believe that we can know another part of God through his magnificent, awe-inspiring creation!

God has given us an amazing intellect, and a burning curiosity about his perfect creation. Scientists seek to use these tools along with the tools God has given us through the laws of nature he conceived in his infinite wisdom. Christians seek God by following the teachings of Jesus and his disciples. These are not opposing values. Quite honestly, my endeavor to become as good a follower of Christ as I can is as central to my Christian faith as my passion to study the world God designed for me.

So if scientists, many of them Christian, come to conclusions based on what we seen in the universe God created, don't immediately assume that they're doing it to try to become like God. I'm sure those people exist of course, but that's neither the basis of science, nor is it universal among scientists. Just because one of the conclusions we've been led to by God's creation contradicts your interpretation of the first bits of Genesis doesn't in the least invalidate the conclusions nor does it make those Christians somehow less faithful to Christ.

 

[vossler]

First of all I'd like to thank you for your well thought out and sincere post. It was quite refreshing and encouraging to read.

I'll only address a couple of your points.

None of us want to become God or to do better than God, far from it! We simply believe that we can know another part of God through his magnificent, awe-inspiring creation!

I don't believe that scientists necessarily want to become God, I just believe they think their studies are unrelated to God and therefore that opens the door to pride and unbelief.

God has given us an amazing intellect, and a burning curiosity about his perfect creation.

True, and that curiosity needs to be grounded in His Word and it should be foundational in all we endeaver to do.

Quite honestly, my endeavor to become as good a follower of Christ as I can is as central to my Christian faith as my passion to study the world God designed for me.

This statement demonstrates, I believe, where we begin to stray from what God wants from us. Following Christ and one's vocational passion should never equal.

So if scientists, many of them Christian, come to conclusions based on what we see in the universe God created, don't immediately assume that they're doing it to try to become like God.

I truly don't assume that. I'm always looking to see how those conclusions interact with the Word of God and what He says. If they conflict then red flags go up and other thoughts are entertained.

Just because one of the conclusions we've been led to by God's creation contradicts your interpretation of the first bits of Genesis doesn't in the least invalidate the conclusions nor does it make those Christians somehow less faithful to Christ.

Does this then mean I'm to reinterpret Genesis when a scientist develops conclusions that contradict Scripture? I'm certainly willing to entertain the thought that Scripture might say more than what I'm currently seeing, but to deny it is saying what it clearly is saying would be disingenuous on my part, wouldn't you say?

 

[Pats]

Vosselor, that is a very good OP. We agree on many things.

Mark, your addition to the OP is very insightful. But, patience. This is only day 2 of the thread.

Deamiter, thank you for your insights. That added a lot to this thread.

I have more thoughts, but I just wanted to chuck my two cents in for now.

 

[Deamiter]

Does this then mean I'm to reinterpret Genesis when a scientist develops conclusions that contradict Scripture?

Of course not. A scientists conclusions should always be questioned, and your position should only be based on evidence which leads YOU to conclusions, not based on their conclusions. However, if scientists find evidence that contradicts your interpretation of scripture, you SHOULD reconsider the interpretation.

I'm certainly willing to entertain the thought that Scripture might say more than what I'm currently seeing, but to deny it is saying what it clearly is saying would be disingenuous on my part, wouldn't you say?

You know very well that this isn't about denying what scripture is "clearly saying." It's a discussion of what scripture clearly says.

The Bible VERY clearly says that Jesus is a rock, and that Jesus is a vine. You don't accept this clear scriptural teaching because you know that there is a better interpretation. When evidence indicates that a particular understanding of something you say is "clear" is false, you SHOULD consider changing your interpretation of the scripture. Certainly in the past, hundreds of years ago before we could see or understand parts of God's creation, the first chapters of Genesis were thought to be historically accurate. But we don't need to live in ignorance. We have more information that indicates that these passages are not historical.

 

[vossler]

Of course not. A scientists conclusions should always be questioned, and your position should only be based on evidence which leads YOU to conclusions, not based on their conclusions. However, if scientists find evidence that contradicts your interpretation of scripture, you SHOULD reconsider the interpretation.

I agree, at least to a point, except for when Scripture is clear on a subject. Then it would take some very strong evidence in order to reconsider an interpretation.

You know very well that this isn't about denying what scripture is "clearly saying." It's a discussion of what scripture clearly says.

To me it is!

The Bible VERY clearly says that Jesus is a rock, and that Jesus is a vine. You don't accept this clear scriptural teaching because you know that there is a better interpretation. When evidence indicates that a particular understanding of something you say is "clear" is false, you SHOULD consider changing your interpretation of the scripture. Certainly in the past, hundreds of years ago before we could see or understand parts of God's creation, the first chapters of Genesis were thought to be historically accurate. But we don't need to live in ignorance. We have more information that indicates that these passages are not historical.

TEs are always quick to point out that God doesn't deceive, and rightly so! Yet when TEs take man-made measurements and determine the world to be billions of years old you essentially are saying that God deceived us for thousands of years. You yourself admitted that in the past Genesis was considered to be historically accurate. It wasn't until man came along and redefined the terms that many have now come to accept billions of years where once days existed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree, at least to a point, except for when Scripture is clear on a subject. Then it would take some very strong evidence in order to reconsider an interpretation.

Scripture was clear to people that it taught that the earth was flat.

Scripture was clear to people that it taught that the sun revolved around the earth.

Scripture was clear to people that slavery was justified and legitimate.

Scripture was clear to people that heretics ought to be executed.

Scripture was clear to people that witches cause the black plague.

Scripture was clear to people that promises to heretics were not binding hence Hus burned and Luther almost did.

Scripture was clear to people that polygamy was a legitimate form of marriage, that divorce could be accomplished by the man announcing 3 times, i divorce thee.

Scripture was clear that it was the obligation of Christendom to pursue the Crusades against the infidel Moslems.

Scripture was clear to people that that exclusive psalmody was the only way God wanted church services to sing, no instruments, no hymns.

Scripture was clear to people that that the Sabbath is holy and that blue laws are to be passed and enforced, that church discipline is to be exercised against people who attend games on Sunday night or go out to dinner on Sunday.

Scripture was clear to people that women are not to be heard in a church service, that they are not to teach, that they are not to be ordained.

Scripture was clear to people that marriage is only to be between people of like race, therefore misgenenation laws are legitimate.

i could go on...but the point is obvious.


the people who professed to be Biblical Christians that believed only what the Bible clearly taught, died believing these things were taught in the Scriptures, do you?


Scripture was clear to lot of people that were WRONG.


now.
there was at least one generation alive that believed all of these things were Scriptural who also had the strong evidence in hand that changed the minds of their children. So evidence alone obviously is not enough to change strongly held beliefs.
note, that nowhere have i defended either side of these debates, nor is it necessary to in order to show that people believed BOTH sides of these issues with all the faith that they could muster. \
Therefore it is not a case of being Biblical or not, since people on both sides claimed the same verses.
Therefore it is not a case of evidence since there existed people who believed both sides with the same evidence.
Therefore it is not a case of hermeneutical principles since both sides claim the same clear teaching mandate.

Therefore the statement at the top of this posting in bold is nonsense.

 

[vossler]

Therefore the statement at the top of this posting in bold is nonsense.

It's the belief that Scripture isn't clear that is nonsense. Scripture is clear on all matters of importance, including many of the ones you stated above.

 

[Willtor]

It's the belief that Scripture isn't clear that is nonsense. Scripture is clear on all matters of importance, including many of the ones you stated above.

Vossler, you understand that there were people who interpreted Scripture the opposite way (from you) on many of these matters, and were just as certain as you that it clearly said what they thought it said? Wars were fought over a lot of these matters. Each side thought that Scripture clearly supported their views. But the simple fact was that both sides had done a lot of work to interpret their positions, even if they didn't realize it.

I think you don't realize how much your interpretation of Scripture is based on the thought patterns of our society.

 

[Deamiter]

It's ridiculous to claim that men came along and "redefined the terms." We simply used our God-given brains. We can study DNA, we can look into the beginning of time, we can see things that the writers of Genesis couldn't have imagined.

If scripture is so clear "on matters of importance" why did the Hebrew people believe that there was a solid "firmament" in which stars were suspended? Certainly the Bible clearly mentions the firmament. Yet you deny that this part was literal, perhaps because we have knowledge that these early people did not?

The list rmwilliamsll posted is not something to dismiss with, "scripture is always clear." Scripture is JUST as clear about every one of those points. However, you and many YECs like you have chosen a select few which you defend as "clear" where you are quite happy to interpret the others as poetic or allegory.

A great example is our colossal failure to follow the Levitical codes. That Jesus fulfills the old covenant in no way "clearly states" that we can ignore the laws which are clearly written in the Bible. You've interpreted it that way because it's a heck of a lot more convenient, but when it comes down to it, there's no question that the Bible clearly lays out a number of guidelines that it does not later repeal.

Yes, there are very good, and in my opinion sound, doctrinal reasons why we believe what we believe. But make no mistake -- these are not based on a "clear reading" of scripture. They are based on our interpretation.

God didn't deceive us for thousands of years for the simple fact that he never intended the scriptures to be read as a historical textbook. Certainly the historical textbook did not exist in 2000 BC! It would have made as much sense as writing a book on Mormonism! It is a product of our culture and our flawed interpretation that many of us have taken the Genesis account as historical fact when it was always intended to convey important lessons about our relationship with Christ!

 

[vossler]

Vossler, you understand that there were people who interpreted Scripture the opposite way (from you) on many of these matters, and were just as certain as you that it clearly said what they thought it said? Wars were fought over a lot of these matters. Each side thought that Scripture clearly supported their views. But the simple fact was that both sides had done a lot of work to interpret their positions, even if they didn't realize it.

Yes I realize this. Are you saying that Scripture shouldn't be clear and hold to a certain teaching unless everyone can agree? Are we supposed to take certainty out of our vocabulary when referring to Scripture for fear of...???

I think you don't realize how much your interpretation of Scripture is based on the thought patterns of our society.

That's just it, interpretation of Scripture is based on the thought patterns of our society. Our society came up with evolution and adapted Scripture to accommodate it. I'm not the one trying to add or change Scripture to accommodate my thinking.

 

[Willtor]

Yes I realize this. Are you saying that Scripture shouldn't be clear and hold to a certain teaching unless everyone can agree? Are we supposed to take certainty out of our vocabulary when referring to Scripture for fear of...???

That's just it, interpretation of Scripture is based on the thought patterns of our society. Our society came up with evolution and adapted Scripture to accommodate it. I'm not the one trying to add or change Scripture to accommodate my thinking.

If people stopped observing evolution tomorrow, in every way, and if all the programs I've ever written using evolution stopped working, and if errors were found in all of the mathematical theorems used to write them, I would still think Genesis was a myth. Because that's what an ancient society (such as the Hebrews) would have understood.

 

[vossler]

It's ridiculous to claim that men came along and "redefined the terms." We simply used our God-given brains. We can study DNA, we can look into the beginning of time, we can see things that the writers of Genesis couldn't have imagined.

If taking a verse that says "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." and then somehow reading millions of years there isn't redefining the terms then I don't know what is.

If scripture is so clear "on matters of importance" why did the Hebrew people believe that there was a solid "firmament" in which stars were suspended? Certainly the Bible clearly mentions the firmament. Yet you deny that this part was literal, perhaps because we have knowledge that these early people did not?

First of all the specifics to the firmament are not important and it's not entirely clear even today on how to define it. Bottom line it has little to no practical use for us to know.

The list rmwilliamsll posted is not something to dismiss with, "scripture is always clear." Scripture is JUST as clear about every one of those points. However, you and many YECs like you have chosen a select few which you defend as "clear" where you are quite happy to interpret the others as poetic or allegory.

I agree Scripture is just as clear on these points, at least the ones of importance. Tell me one that is of importance that isn't clear?

A great example is our colossal failure to follow the Levitical codes. That Jesus fulfills the old covenant in no way "clearly states" that we can ignore the laws which are clearly written in the Bible. You've interpreted it that way because it's a heck of a lot more convenient, but when it comes down to it, there's no question that the Bible clearly lays out a number of guidelines that it does not later repeal.

I agree, and I think the church has done a great disservice to many of them. Still, no one is taking a verse and changing the entire meaning of it, that's the main point I'm trying to expound.

Yes, there are very good, and in my opinion sound, doctrinal reasons why we believe what we believe. But make no mistake -- these are not based on a "clear reading" of scripture. They are based on our interpretation.

Scripture as a whole is very clear on all topics of importance and when viewed as a whole requires less interpretation than most of us would like to apply.

God didn't deceive us for thousands of years for the simple fact that he never intended the scriptures to be read as a historical textbook.

Yet even you admit that they were.

Certainly the historical textbook did not exist in 2000 BC! It would have made as much sense as writing a book on Mormonism! It is a product of our culture and our flawed interpretation that many of us have taken the Genesis account as historical fact when it was always intended to convey important lessons about our relationship with Christ!

When something is presented in a historical fashion it's not to big of a stretch to think people will think of it as historical. Just as they've done for thousands of years. Yet today we're being asked to rethink our position and change how Scripture has been viewed for thousands of years. Hmmm....

Yes the Genesis account was also intended to convey important lessons about our relationship with Christ, no doubt that is true. That still doesn't change the historical nature of the book and the intent and importance that the events recorded played on that same relationship with Christ. It is meant to add to the depth and meaning of it, not take away from it by associating us with lower life forms.