Darwin Debunks himself? what did we miss?

[theFijian]

You want to hear my position? again.
Taking the Bible literaly is the most important thing you can learn, but because some people are too dense to understand when a metaphor or a poem or a story is being used then I guess I will have to make that clear when laying out my belief next time around.

You say I am contradicting because I didn't say anything about the odvious in the first post about taking the Bible literaly. That was outside the point the only reason the examples you gave were brought up was for you to have something to continue arguing with me about. You would have never started bringing poems metaphors etc... into this otherwise. You know that I know what a story, a metaphor, a poem is and when odviously it is being used.

So to be consistent with what you've already said I would guess that means that you interpret poems and metaphors in scripture literally even though you are aware of the non-literal device being used?

 

[Bouke285]

So to be consistent with what you've already said I would guess that means that you interpret poems and metaphors in scripture literally even though you are aware of the non-literal device being used?

Your still not getting the point. What I should have said in my first post about taking the bible literally would include the following: "The most important lesson for someone to learn is to take the Bible literally + for this crowd I should have added except in obvious situations in which any normal functioning human being could interpretate the difference." The reason being you guys didn't think I was capable of seeing the obvious, or you just decided to give your self some TE community rep by carrying on this argument.

These are my final words.

Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries (which change over and over through out the years) Scripture is the truth you can't just twist around what does and doesn't apply to us (I better make this clear for you guys) Not including the obvious metaphors, poems, parables etc...

 

[Melethiel]

Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries (which change over and over through out the years) Scripture is the truth you can't just twist around what does and doesn't apply to us (I better make this clear for you guys) Not including the odvious metaphors, poems, parables etc...

Wait - so are you saying that "odvious [sic] metaphors, poems, parables etc" aren't truth, or don't apply to us in some way?

(On a side note, I am having an honest problem parsing some of your posts. Can you please use proper grammar?)

I also think it's highly arrogant to assume that "proper Scriptural interpretation" is so easy, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be trying to twist Scripture to their own purposes. There have been many arguments in church history over what is literal and what isn't - one of the most high profile debates, of course, being over the Sacraments. It is, in fact, NOT always so obvious that "any functioning human being could interperate [sic] the difference."

 

[Mallon]

You know that I know what a story, a metaphor, a poem is and when odviously it is being used.

Well, then the question has to be asked: how DO you distinguish between historical and non-historical narrative? What "odvious" (it's spelled "obvious", by the way) features do you look for?

 

[Mallon]

Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries

Except for the parts about preformatism, flat-earthism, geocentrism, and the firmament, right?

 

[vossler]

Your still not getting the point. What I should have said in my first post about taking the bible literally would include the following: "The most important lesson for someone to learn is to take the Bible literally + for this crowd I should have added except in obvious situations in which any normal functioning human being could interpretate the difference." The reason being you guys didn't think I was capable of seeing the obvious, or you just decided to give your self some TE community rep by carrying on this argument.

These are my final words.

Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries (which change over and over through out the years) Scripture is the truth you can't just twist around what does and doesn't apply to us (I better make this clear for you guys) Not including the obvious metaphors, poems, parables etc...

Bouke285,

Don't let this crowd get under your skin. TEs have a long history of taking Scripture and manipulating it to fit their scientific views. Our job is to stand for the Truth of God's Word as you've attempted to do. You're obviously right, Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries. Unlike science, it doesn't change and is rock solid. It is the Truth we're to base our lives on. Sadly, for the TE, the trustworthiness of Scripture isn't the primary focus, worse yet, they seem to take pleasure in finding ways to dismiss it when it doesn't neatly fit into their 'worldview'.

BTW, I think you might like my signature.

 

[Mallon]

Bouke285,

Don't let this crowd get under your skin. TEs have a long history of taking Scripture and manipulating it to fit their scientific views. Our job is to stand for the Truth of God's Word as you've attempted to do. You're obviously right, Scripture is far more trustworthy than any scientific discoveries. Unlike science, it doesn't change and is rock solid. It is the Truth we're to base our lives on. Sadly, for the TE, the trustworthiness of Scripture isn't the primary focus, worse yet, they seem to take pleasure in finding ways to dismiss it when it doesn't neatly fit into their 'worldview'.

BTW, I think you might like my signature.

The trustworthiness of Scripture isn't what is at issue, vossler. It's the trustworthiness of YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture that is at issue (I don't know how often this needs to be repeated).
Neocreationists just love to accuse TEs of taking liberty with the Bible. But TEs don't make the single greatest mistake of equating their fallible, human interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself. It appears you do.

 

[vossler]

The trustworthiness of Scripture isn't what is at issue, vossler. It's the trustworthiness of YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture that is at issue (I don't know how often this needs to be repeated).
Neocreationists just love to accuse TEs of taking liberty with the Bible. But TEs don't make the single greatest mistake of equating their fallible, human interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself. It appears you do.

Next time could you speak a little louder Mallon.

 

[Mallon]

Next time could you speak a little louder Mallon.

I'll speak as loud as I need to so long as neocreationists continue not to acknowledge the very fallible, human filter of interpretation that all of us possess.

 

[shernren]

... except in obvious situations in which any normal functioning human being could interpretate the difference."

I don't know about that. How obvious is it that this:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
(Luke 16:19-31 NIV)

is a parable? Jesus never clearly says it is a parable, nor does he later supply meanings for the "symbols" of the parable (if indeed it has any "symbolism" at all). And so Barnes says this is a parable, because it so neatly matches the lesson Jesus was teaching beforehand; Gill cites extrascriptural manuscripts to say that yes this is a parable; none less than the venerable Scofield Bible says this is a true story, on account of the fact that no other parables have names; and Clarke (wisely?) stays out of the whole "parable - true story?" discussion altogether.

Which of these well-read Bible scholars are "normal functioning human beings"? Which of them aren't?

 

[Bouke285]

I don't know about that. How obvious is it that this:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
(Luke 16:19-31 NIV)

is a parable? Jesus never clearly says it is a parable, nor does he later supply meanings for the "symbols" of the parable (if indeed it has any "symbolism" at all). And so Barnes says this is a parable, because it so neatly matches the lesson Jesus was teaching beforehand; Gill cites extrascriptural manuscripts to say that yes this is a parable; none less than the venerable Scofield Bible says this is a true story, on account of the fact that no other parables have names; and Clarke (wisely?) stays out of the whole "parable - true story?" discussion altogether.

Which of these well-read Bible scholars are "normal functioning human beings"? Which of them aren't?

Ok, I have to respond to this one. Take a look do you really think a person can look up from Hell and talk to anyone? Use your head it's not that difficult.

 

[Mallon]

Ok, I have to respond to this one. Take a look do you really think a person can look up from Hell and talk to anyone? Use your head it's not that difficult.

Interesting answer. Notice that you never cited anything internal to the text itself in order to identify this as a non-historical narrative. That is, because the text does not clearly or explicitly identify itself as a parable, you were forced to look to external sources -- to you own personal experiences and rationality -- in order assess the nature of the text.

Now think about what you've just done: Is your approach here any different than that taken by evolutionary creationists in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis? Why are you allowed to cite external sources in dealing with Luke 16:19-31, and yet when evolutionary creationists take the same approach to dealing with Genesis 1 and 2, you accuse them of being too liberal with the Bible?

There's a certain double standard here that I don't think you appreciate. So if you are now going to allow rationality dictate your reading of the Scriptures, ask yourself this: Do you really think a snake can talk?

(Thanks to shernren for illustrating this point.)

 

[Bouke285]

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And

2TH 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

2PE 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to
hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment

The point here is again to show when not to take the Bible literally, in metaphors, or parables you will know when this is the case. I have used no personal interpretation in the last post

In the opening of Genesis there is no hint, Nothing pointing away from a literall interpretation. (No metaphors, no parables etc...)

Again putting words in my mouth I have never seen any of you try and use scripture in or out of Genesis to defend your theorys. It's all about science for you
You go ahead and take external scripture when trying to debunk creation in Genesis. It's not going to change anything.

 

[shernren]

Ok, I have to respond to this one. Take a look do you really think a person can look up from Hell and talk to anyone? Use your head it's not that difficult.

Then this must be just a story too!

The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."
"What does he look like?" he asked.
"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
"I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."
(1 Samuel 28:13-15 NIV)

My, my, someone twice as liberal as me!

It gets better:

The grave below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you--
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones--
all those who were kings over the nations.
They will all respond,
they will say to you,
"You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us."
All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
(Isaiah 14:9-15 NIV)

This is obviously just a story too, right? Unfortunately, in traditional Christian interpretation (which I don't actually think to be very right in this case) this passage describes nothing less than Lucifer's fall from heaven. So that didn't happen either?

[all emphases added]

See the peril of jumping to conclusions?

(thanks Bouke, I can't remember the last time anybody actually made it this easy for me. ^^)

 

[Assyrian]

2TH 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

2PE 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to
hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment

The point here is again to show when not to take the Bible literally, in metaphors, or parables you will know when this is the case. I have used no personal interpretation in the last post

In the opening of Genesis there is no hint, Nothing pointing away from a literall interpretation. (No metaphors, no parables etc...)

You are still not showing anything internal in the text to show it is not literal. Nor do these verses contradict a literal reading of the Lazarus story. The rich man is shut out from the presence of God, he can only call up to Abraham from a vast distance. The gloomy dungeon was for angels so the verse may not even apply. Given the rich man has to call up to Abraham and there is a vast chasm between them, if that means the rich man was stuck at the bottom of the chasm, that sounds pretty like a dungeon like to me, an oubliette.

But if we are going to take your interpretation of verses outside the passage to decide the Lazarus story is not literal, why not do the same with Genesis 1 and take Psalm 90:4 to say the days are not figurative? Given this was a psalm of Moses where he discusses the creation, it is actually a very reasonable basis for taking the creation days non literally. Or we could look at the second creation account which gives a completely different order of creation and take that as evidence the the order in Genesis 1 may not be meant literally.

Again putting words in my mouth I have never seen any of you try and use scripture in or out of Genesis to defend your theorys. It's all about science for you

You obviously haven't read that many of our posts. We discuss scripture all the time.

You go ahead and take external scripture when trying to debunk creation in Genesis. It's not going to change anything.

Incidentally Vossler points you to his signature, but he has never been able to explain why this principle applies to Genesis but never to his interpretation of the geocentric verses like Joshua stopping the sun moving or Ecclesiastes 1:5. It is only external scientific evidence that tells us we should not interpret these passages literally.

As TEs we keep coming across Creationists with this strange split minded approach to scripture, in normal conversation about the bible they have no problem with the idea that there is metaphor and parables, but talk about Genesis and their creationist teaching kicks in and taking scripture figuratively is denying the word of God.

So one side of you realises very obviously there are some things that we can take literally and other things we can't. But when you were thinking about about Creationism you claimed: ...This is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible there is.[FONT=&quot]

This is not your fault, you simply hadn't thought through the contradiction in teaching you have received. But it is very disturbing when you have to face it.
[/FONT]

 

[vossler]

Bouke286,

Let me encourage you with this Scripture.

1 Timothy 6: 3-8

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
​

These words minister to me and I find them to be incredibly helpful in situations like this. Remember, if you should continue in this dialogue the responses will be similar to what you’ve just read and the words will become even unhealthier. This will thereby produce more friction and in the end will begin to diminish the Truth we hold so dear to our hearts. Their discontentment with the Word of God shouldn’t affect our contentment. Their motives may appear to be godly but underneath lies something else. It doesn’t necessarily have to be monetary gain but could just as well be notoriety (having people think their smart) or something else. No matter what, we’re all here to do different things in service to Christ, but the one thing I know is none of us are here to argue against the doctrines of God.

It is my opinion that the TEs here are not interested in what you or I have to say, their sole purpose is to defend and counter anything which in any remote way tears at or breaks down their beloved theory of evolution. They do this by lifting up science (not God’s Word) to make their arguments and in return attempt to make your argument (based on God’s Word) about ‘your interpretation.’ This of course then makes it seem so obvious to any rational person that science is far more reliable and trustworthy than ‘your interpretation.’ On the surface this definitely sounds appealing, take the human element out and replace it with science, something measurable and supposedly easy to discern. Yet as you’ve already pointed out, scientific study, at least how it is used today, is ever changing as well and far from easy to discern. Not only that, much of what is called science today is anything but that, it is philosophy disguised as science.

Anyway, I believe the reason many TEs take this approach is that it allows the Bible to become a just another book written by men to which they are not held accountable. This thereby allows many unique interpretations of subject areas where they don't believe the Bible speaks to include 100% man derived theories such as evolution. This then allows how the world sees creation to formulate their interpretation of God's Word, it in essence then supercedes the Word of God with the man's philosphy. Science then becomes an idol upon which their doctrine is based.

As Paul said “there is great gain in godliness with contentment”, so be content in the Holy Spirit and let Him direct your path and may God bless you in this endeavor.

 

[shernren]

They do this by lifting up science (not God’s Word) to make their arguments and in return attempt to make your argument (based on God’s Word) about ‘your interpretation.’

How much science was there in #70 and #74, vossler? Or aren't Luke, Isaiah and 2 Samuel God's Word?

Bouke said there were "obvious criteria" that make a passage literal. Turns out that one of his was that people talking out from Hell is "obviously" a metaphorical element. (So obvious that he felt compelled to rush back into the thread a few posts right after he had said he wouldn't say anything more - the trademark maneuver of someone looking for a fight.)

All I did was to show that by his own standard the fall of Satan (as traditionally exegeted from Isaiah) never literally happened either. So either plain literalness is not quite as obvious as he thinks it is, or he doesn't know the Bible as well as he thinks he does. An unenviable choice he has to make and I can see why he's taking his time to make it.

How much science was there in that argument? That could have as easily come from a Bible-literate creationist as from me. How many papers did I have to cite? Nothing besides the Bible.

When the Protestant Reformation broke out among the excesses of the Catholic church, the heads of Catholicism felt led to fight back in a move historically known as the Counter-Reformation. They met at Trent to decide (among other things) how they would theologically respond to this threat against their right to dictate the meaning of Scripture. What did they do? They defined once and for all what it meant to be scripturally right. A view that was right was not simply one that came from a particular Scripture: it also had to agree that everything the Church Fathers had to say about that Scripture. Negatively speaking they affirmed that it was a heresy to go against anything that the Church Fathers and the Catholic magisterium were unanimous about. As a practical example, heliocentrism was condemned as heretical because (and this was stated explicitly by Cardinal Bellarmine) all the Church Fathers had been unanimously geocentric in all Scriptures concerned.

This day and age don't seem too different. Apparently an evolutionist, no matter if he knows Scripture inside out, no matter if it's frequently all he needs to quote to confound an opponent, can't be scriptural. The Scriptures alone don't determine such things, oh no. A scriptural view isn't just one that agrees with Scriptures, it's one that agrees with both Scripture and the Grand Magisterium of Hovind, Ham and Morris.

Or more insidiously - a scriptural view isn't just one that agrees with Scriptures, it's one that agrees with both Scripture and the Grand Infallible Interpreter [reader, insert your name here]. And this is a temptation common to both TEs and creationists - although most TEs here know their Scriptures so well that I can hardly imagine any of them falling prey to that.

mark kennedy recently stated that he found that he had more in common with a Catholic he debated (on justification by faith no less!) than with TEs. That's probably truer than he knows.

 

[Critias]

Or more insidiously - a scriptural view isn't just one that agrees with Scriptures, it's one that agrees with both Scripture and the Grand Infallible Interpreter [reader, insert your name here]. And this is a temptation common to both TEs and creationists - although most TEs here know their Scriptures so well that I can hardly imagine any of them falling prey to that.

Elitism & Narcissism. And no, not the Greek.

I'd bow to your greatness, but yea...

 

[shernren]

That is, "I can hardly imagine any TEs falling prey to thinking that they are Grand Infallible Interpreters who alone have the right interpretation of Scripture." It doesn't sound arrogant to me, merely a statement of what I've seen with my own two eyes around here.

 

[busterdog]

There's a certain double standard here that I don't think you appreciate. So if you are now going to allow rationality dictate your reading of the Scriptures, ask yourself this: Do you really think a snake can talk?

Hmmmm...... If everything can be metaphor, maybe that is all the resurrection is. What is your method to prove otherwise?

I think an easier example of interpretive difficulty is the statement "This is my blood." This is an interpretive difficulty that I at least have admitted.

So, if there are a small handful of difficulties, then must I concede everything? You seem to think so. It is certainly to your advantage in such a debate -- obviously that is not a method for real truth to emerge, but just a method of self-seeking. And yet one could not imagine a normal, educated interchange in which such a demand of an opponent would be the rule or the norm. It is an ungracious approach and doesnt betray much education, though we know from other exchanges that a very considerable education is in evidence.

But, I digress. If you demand absolutely rigid consistency in which a struggle is presumed to be concession, prove that the crucifixion and resurrection are not just clever fables. After all, Jesus says, "Take up your cross and follow me." Jesus doesnt really think there is a wooden cross you must physically carry. Isnt that right? So, be rigidly and uncompromisingly consistent.

Lets see where that goes.

I will make one reply and then I am out. It is getting too ugly too fast here again. And I am considering whether the above went beyond the personal standard I am trying to abide by. Though, the above is the truth and I am annoyed that my fellow YECs are being treated poorly in the thread. Bouke was too harsh in tone, but obviously some TEs think two wrongs make a right and it is ok to snipe, to be obtuse and contrary, and to be catty as long as the person deserves it.