Be careful here.
There is never a clear contradiction between scripture and creation. Only between poorly-interpreted scripture and creation.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, if there is a clear contradiction between scripture and creation... what, you'll say it is creation that is in error?
Or better still, there is only ever contradiction between poor interpretations of Scripture and creation. Scripture, even poorly interpreted, never contradicts creation; but it is our interpretation of Scripture that meets creation in the act of describing physical reality and sometimes fails.Be careful here.
There is never a clear contradiction between scripture and creation. Only between poorly-interpreted scripture and creation.
Or better still, there is only ever contradiction between poor interpretations of Scripture and creation. Scripture, even poorly interpreted, never contradicts creation; but it is our interpretation of Scripture that meets creation in the act of describing physical reality and sometimes fails.
Im not sure if what this question is really asking. Ill take a stab and well see if I hit something. Are you asking how I know the Bible to be Gods Word? If so, thats really a question that could require a number of different answers depending upon whos asking and why. Could you please be more specific?The real question though, on what do you base your "knowledge" that what you think of as God's word is ACTUALLY God's word, and completely true?
Thanks, but I cant claim it to be mine, Ive heard a number of people use it.great analogy!
If only it were that easy. Science should be a study of reality and reality comes from God. He has given us His special revelation and general revelation, on only one does He place a requirement for us to study. That's the one which holds the universals.Science isn't about understanding God's word, its about understanding his creation.
There have never been any contradictions between Scripture and Creation, only between Scripture and science.So, if there is a clear contradiction between scripture and creation... what, you'll say it is creation that is in error?
Yes!Since you know God's Word is absolutely true, you know that creation is absolutely true, right?
No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.What you are failing to say here is that you do not have absoute knowledge of God's Word. You have partial knowledge of God's Word, whether you are looking at creation or scripture.
Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice Ill be subjecting myself to how the world thinks and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:So I am not asking you to lower your standards at all. I am asking you raise them, to open yourself to a more complete and correct understanding of God's Word.
I didnt know you knew so much.Sure you do. You may not have come to Christianity in your childhood, but at some time you were a child in Christ, relying on your teachers to explain it to you.
If and when I do, it never contradicts Scripture.But you also take into account extra-biblical information as well. You just don't do it consistently. That is one place you get selective.
Im not trying to poison any wells here, just making a simple observation that if someone claims they are doing X,Y and Z then that should be demonstrated by their actions, nothing more. As for those who live out a model Christian life and disagree only with my interpretation of Scripture, well Id say more power to them. I havent met anyone like that yet, but Id like to.Is this more poisoning of the well? What do you make of those who do live out a model Christian life but still disagree with your interpretation of scripture?
I dont know, Ive never met anyone like that before. It certainly would be an interesting discussion though. I did meet a person who meets most of those criteria and he was a big Hugh Ross proponent. I didnt really have much of a problem with him although he had a big one with YEC, but not me. It was an interesting discussion to say the least.You meet those who interpret scripture differently than yourself. They demonstrate that they know scripture, that they know how to take into account the context, from paragraph to chapter to book to the whole bible. They give every evidence of being humble and open-minded and they are seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet they think differently about what scripture means than you do.
How do you demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong?
On this I can agree. No problem, these things get a bit confusing at times.However, in practice, we have to rely on secondary sources of truth. It is the truth, which comes from God, which assesses the reliability of that secondary source. I am sorry I did not make clear that I was referring to secondary sources only.
It is as complete and absolute as it needs to be. When God said; love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, that was absolute. It may not have been complete, but that isnt important, but it certainly was absolute.Bad logic. You are touching on a real issue. Even if absolute truth exists, we have no absolute knowledge of it. All of our knowledge is partial. Scripture itself tells us this. We know in part. We can only know in part.
I just dont believe we will, in this life, ever know absolute reality, we may know of it but thats all. Theres no reason to believe that.But it is bad logic to say that because we can only know it in part, that absolute reality cannot exist. Certainly it can exist.
That is not claim I make or even remotely support.It is also bad logic to say that because we know only in part that we know nothing of value.
Again this is not something I in anyway lay claim to.The gap between absolute reality and our partial knowledge of that reality should be an incentive to increase our knowledge, not a reason for throwing up our hands in despair and renouncing the knowledge we do have.
I suppose thats true, but then creation doesnt quite work that way does it. We cant look at creations relatives, its personality, etc. our scope of view is quite limited.Actually, continued observation of the elephant can tell us much about its personality, history, family, etc. The same holds true for creation.
I could say the same thing.Well, you still don't appear to have got your head around it. Hence the necessary repetition.
Thats what I see it doing.But if we are interpreting the scripture incorrectly, we will end up heading in the wrong direction. Remember, science does not correct scripture.
Diligent study of Scripture, prayer and meditation will serve us far better than any science book or scientist ever will.And no one is asking you to hold science up to measure scripture. But good science can correct bad interpretations of scripture. In that respect, it can help us go in the right direction.
There is no contradiction. The quote you provided was my summation of how I felt you saw the issue, it certainly wasnt my view.Now you are contradicting what you just said above. You contended that: If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim. Truth becomes relative and therefore meaningless.
Now you are saying that it is possible to have incomplete knowledge that is enough.
So which is it?
vossler said:No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.
vossler said:Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice Ill be subjecting myself to how the world thinks and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
After rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!Can you please explain to us how your understanding of scripture is perfect, flawless, complete, all-encompassing, unaldulterated and unlimited? (because that's what absolute means, I suspect you don't really know what you are saying here and have just made an innocent mistake. otherwise you are a heretic because only God is absolute)
Yes!
No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.
Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice Ill be subjecting myself to how the world thinks
and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.I intend to heed that warning.
I didnt know you knew so much.
If and when I do, it never contradicts Scripture.
Im not trying to poison any wells here, just making a simple observation that if someone claims they are doing X,Y and Z then that should be demonstrated by their actions, nothing more.
As for those who live out a model Christian life and disagree only with my interpretation of Scripture, well Id say more power to them. I havent met anyone like that yet, but Id like to.
It is as complete and absolute as it needs to be. When God said; love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, that was absolute. It may not have been complete, but that isnt important, but it certainly was absolute.
I just dont believe we will, in this life, ever know absolute reality, we may know of it but thats all.
That is not claim I make or even remotely support.
Again this is not something I in anyway lay claim to.
I suppose thats true, but then creation doesnt quite work that way does it. We cant look at creations relatives, its personality, etc. our scope of view is quite limited.
Thats what I see it doing.
Diligent study of Scripture, prayer and meditation will serve us far better than any science book or scientist ever will.
There is no contradiction. The quote you provided was my summation of how I felt you saw the issue, it certainly wasnt my view.
After rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!
Care to back it up?That's one way of looking at it, I happen to see it differently.Are you serious? Don't you think that most sides in these arguments might think the other has introduced theories and ideas that are completely contrary to the text? Of course what is really happening is that the ideas are completely contrary to their interpretation of the text.
Again, No I didn't.
What you said was:LOL! Hardly.
You seem to be answering the suggestion that you are misinterpreting scipture, (1) By lumping TEs with homosexuals and atheists and (2) You defend you interpretation as being what the bible means, by saying if you can't rely on and trust on scripture it is meaningless.In order for Scripture to mean anything, one has to be able to trust it and rely on it. Only TEs and those Christians who believe homosexuality is fine seem to continually make the challenge "that is your interpretation." Why is that? That's the same challenge I hear from atheists. If that's the standard answer how can it be considered truth for you?
Given that none of us approach scripture from a relativistic point of view, I don't see the point in making that statement other than to smear TEs again.Of course, if you approach Scripture as an absolute source of truth you can't be vague about how you see it. Then again if you approach it from a relativistic point of view, then you allow lots of interpretations.
We do tell you your infallible interpretation is wrong. but you don't believe us when we show you because you believe your interpretation is infallible.If I believe it why shouldn't I proclaim it? If I'm wrong there will be more than enough people available to tell me and then prove it, otherwise I'll continue to proclaim it loudly and frequently.No it is just the assumption that when you do interpret a passage, you know when your interpretation is infallible.
Scientific theories should be held accountable to the world God created and religious theories should be held accountable to the word of God.To man and his theories yes, but not to God and His Word.
I agree with most of this except you claim scripture didn't speak about geocentrism. A literal inerrant interpretation speaks very clearly about geocentrism, which was the problem all church leaders Catholic and Protestant had with Copernicus. Luther, Melanchton and Calvin were all clear on the geocentrism of the bible.Science is good at studying the natural world. I understand that the church, and let's be clear that was primarily the Catholic church, got theology and science mixed up and they were clearly wrong. It wasn't the first time and it wasn't the last. The church should stick to theology and let science deal with its realm of study. It's only when science intrudes into theology or vice-versa that a problem occurs. It's a problem for theology (like geocentricism) when the Scriptures don't speak on a subject and likewise with science when it speaks to theological issues without adequate proof or authority.
Deciding science is preaching against God's word is not 'Wait and see'.It does if the ‘science’ is preaching against God’s Word.
No you haven't. You are confusing how were were formed with why. There is no more contradiction between God using evolution to make us and making us in God's image, than there is between God making us out of clay and making us in his image. Or do chapters 1 & 2 contradict each other?Well then I suppose we’re wrong about being created in God’s image since science shows we were created through natural selection. There probably isn’t much we’ve gotten right and that’s why we need science so that we can straighten out all the bad theology. I Got it!
Clearly you do believe it is foundation but you haven't given us any evidence for the claim. As far as I can see you believe it is foundational because it was meant literally, but if it wasn't meant literally then that falls apart. It is a circular argument. You have show no biblical doctrines that have a six day creation as their foundation. While the teaching that God is creator is foundation and is brought up and retaught again and again through out the OT and New, no one ever taught a six day creation or suggested it was in any way important. The only place it comes up is in Exodus, not because a six day creation is being taught, but because it is being used as an illustration (in thew middle of a metaphor) for something the OT actually did hold to be important, the Sabbath. If it is foundational why did no one take the six days of Genesis days and teach them?I believe God describing His Creation week to be very foundational, geocentricism has little to no value.
Simply claiming the scientists are wrong does not solve the problem that your hermeneutic is incapable of showing you when science, or scientists are wrong. Your claim your hermeneutic shows you science is wrong, but it would not have shown you the right answer with geocentrism.Science isn’t wrong, scientist are.
Paul was not talking about believers attacking the bible or Christianity, but the behaviour of believers leading to the Gentiles blaspheming the Name of God.Far from it, the worst attacks to Christianity and the Bible come from “believers.”
...six day creationism or 4.5 billion years.Wouldn’t a better approach to Scripture be that everything within it is true no matter what because God said it. I think the crux of the problem is you don’t believe God said it. If you don’t understand a statement and that statement can be disproved via a scientific process, then the statement is false. Given that I don’t know the original language and environment that these verses come from, I’m not in a position to challenge their authenticity. I don’t believe the Bible teaches either a flat earth or round one, heliocentricism or geocentricism.
Do share, because so far your hermeneutic has been unable to deal with the question.My research has shown a different answer,
No, It is just your pet hermeneutic I am having a go at. I am taking this literalist hermeneutic, a human construct that thinks it has God's word in a box, and seeing how it stands up to the word of God. But Aslan is not a tame lion.but that really isn’t the issue here because ultimately you see Jesus either lying or being ignorant and I see neither. If you don’t then explain what it is you do see. Sometimes I get the distinct impression I’m arguing with an atheist, someone who can’t wait to disprove their little pet Scriptures.
You only know it would be a lie because of naturalistic research. You can measure the size of a poppy seed and a mustard seed. It is no different from science measuring the age of rock and showing a six day interpretation was wrong, or science measuring the motion of the planets and showing that it was the earth that rotated instead of the sun moving around the earth.I don’t reject the plain and simple literal meaning because it contradicts science, I do so because it contradicts the very nature of God. The nature of God is Truth, He cannot lie and that is the first rule of my hermeneutics, as it should be for all.You are simply refusing to accept the plain and simple literal meaning of what Jesus said, because you know it contradicts science. Your hermeneutic does not get you a way out of this so you correctly ignore your hermeneutic.
Because you listening to too many YEC preachers rather than reading the word of God has to say for itself?Yeah that’s quite a stretch for me to do, taking the liberty and assuming the text to read like there were six days when it is in fact it is clearly implied to be much, much more than that. Psalm 90 has shown us that, why couldn’t I see that without you?
Does that mean you are dropping the David Cooper quote in your sig?Good except for when you use ‘the science’ I would substitute ‘our scientific understanding.’
Does it tell you the earth rotates?Creation doesn’t tell me anything even remotely similar to what it tells you.
You believe he was actually a shepherd? What ever happened to carpenter?As you’re free to believe.Just because Jesus said he was a shepherd it doesn't mean he was.
It is amazing how you can read such a vague and general meaning to the word day in Psalm 90 while in Genesis 1 it has to be absolutely, no other option, 24 hours, and nothing else. It is amazing how you can see no connection between Genesis mentioning days and Moses talking about God's days in a Psalm about the creation. Shouldn't we allow scripture to interpret scripture? Shouldn't we allow the only person to mention creation days in the whole bible to tell us about God's days in his Psalm about creation?I don’t know but when I read that I see God telling us about His eternal nature. When He says that “a thousand years are nothing to God’s eternity” and that there is no proportion to His eternal Mind I saw that as a reminder of how totally frail we are and how divine He is. We can’t even accurately describe what we did in the last hour, but God can tell us everything over eternity. I could go on but I’m sure I’d be showing my lack of intellect and my bound nature when I fail to see how those days tell us about the creation days.
Glad you are open.Do you want a list? My wife, the kids just love to although they don’t get near the opportunity they’d like, my bible study buddies, my best friend and even you!
Yet you don't think God is excluded because we can measure the motion of the planets or study the growth of a baby in the womb?Because as I’ve heard TEs and atheists alike state, that evolution happens on its own, we have science to measure it and therefore God isn’t actively playing a role. C’mon if He was do you think TEs and atheists could be so together on this?
Then why all the misrepresentations of TE?Insults are not required nor permissible. Evidence is but a few clicks away.
Vossler: we can’t even accurately say what happened last week.Never said it couldn’t.So science can tell us something about the past.
How about simply backing up your insinuations or withdrawing them?Assyrian: I don't think Moses tied God down to any particular timescale, neither did Peter. We are not told billions of years, just that literal day is a mistake.
Vossler: Are you saying you’ve been given a special revelation that no one else has?
Assyrian: No. Christians have realised there are problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days through the history of the church.
Vossler: Only the scientifically enlightened ones have.
Assyrian: You are describing Origen, Augustine and Aquinas as scientifically enlightened? They understood the days in Genesis were not literal by reading the bible, not from modern geology books.
Vossler: No, I’m referring to the evolutionists. Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had reasonable biblical support for their beliefs.
Assyrian: Are you saying the bible has changed? That the reasonable biblical support Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had for not taking the Genesis days literally has suddenly disappeared?
Vossler: No.
Do you think Augustine cared what reason Christians used to support their bible interpretation against secular science. Whatever the excuse, whatever their reasoning, it was still disgraceful and dangerous and makes the word of God a laughing stock.Not if that ‘science’ is based on conjecture and speculation.
I assume if you could give an answer you would, so one of those meaningless answers probably means you cannot support your original claim.If that is how you wish to interpret it, sure, isn’t that how it works.Should I take it this kind of meaningless answer is you dropping a claim you can't support? TEs are getting a lot of it in this discussion.
Come on Vossler. I thought common ancestry was the biggest beef you have with evolution, that it was clearly against the Word of God and blasphemous? Here is you chance to back up the literal interpretation of God making mankind out of clay. If the literal interpretation of this part of the Adam and Eve story is so important, how can you claim the topic will edify no one?I really don’t have time to present a lengthy presentation, and that’s what it would take if I wanted to do it right, on a topic that will edify no one.
If only what the world thinks is actually the truth of creation.No, you would be subjecting yourself to the truth of creation, which, you agreed above, is absolutely true.
It applies to me, it is the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means. It is what some call sophistry. This isnt wisdom from God but wisdom from man. Evolution clearly meets that criterion.So this warning does not apply, since we are appealing to the truth of creation, not to the deceitfulness of human tradition.
Of course I had teachers and learned from them, we all did.Am I wrong?
Im selective and consistent to listen only when what you preach doesnt contradict Gods Word.Neither does any truth of creation, including the age of the earth and evolution. You are selective in determining when you will listen to what we have discovered to be true about creation. To be consistent, you should accept all or reject all such information.
I dont just accept something as truth because someone said it is so. You made the claim that if people claimed to be doing all the right things and disagree with me what would I do. I basically said its easy to say someone is doing all the right things its a whole other thing to see it. I dont see how this is poisoning anything.But why bring up the issue except to imply that this was not the case? That is poisoning the well.
Being the strange person that I am, that shouldnt be much of a surprise.You use words in a strange way.
Yes!It is hard to describe something partial as complete. I think what you are conceding here is that we can understand some things in scripture quite correctly in spite of the imperfections of our understanding.
Its one thing to do that with Scripture, its entirely a different matter to do it with anything else. Scripture is known to me to be 100% Truth so if I only get a small slice of it, what I get is Truth. The same cannot be said for science.Yet you do not grant that we can do the same with creation. At least not in respect of the age of the earth and evolution. Selectivity again.
O.K. Ill go with that, Scripture certainly supports that.I think the word you really want is "sufficient". The sufficiency of scripture was an important claim of the Reformation. Scripture does not give us complete knowledge, nor do we have complete understanding of scripture. But it does give us sufficient knowledge for its purpose, (to lead us to salvation) and does so with sufficient clarity that even a child can understand it.
Id go with that too. Ive always claimed that to be true and support it.Similarly, science does not give us complete knowledge about creation, nor does it fully understand creation, but it does give us a certain amount of clear and reliable information about creation. Such information should not be rejected by Christians.
Agreed!I agree. But that doesn't necessarily make the partial knowledge we do have false or without value.
Only if that effort contradicts Scripture.Sure you do. You have said time and time again that it is not worth the effort to increase our understanding of how creation works.
How about YECs dont look to use the particulars in order to determine the universals, they limit the scope of their investigation to see how the particulars can be applied to the universals.Our scope is limited, but generally speaking, I find YECs assume it is more limited than it really is. They seriously underestimate how much we can learn and how accurately we can learn it.
You can tell me all you want about what I see, but that isnt going to change anything. Regardless of your objections I see science changing Scripture. Scripture plainly says things that science contradicts.No, what you see happening is correction of misleading interpretations of scripture. It is your failure to identify these as interpretations that makes it look as if scripture itself is being contradicted.
Nor do I claim it as an either or situation. As Ive stated before, I reject conjecture and speculation as science or knowledge. If said information then contradicts Scripture, well that makes it a simple and straight-forward rejection.I wouldn't disagree. But it is not an either-or situation. What we learn from science obviously has less importance relative to our salvation, but that doesn't make it less true. It doesn't make it right to reject the knowledge of creation we have gleaned through science because we choose to interpret scripture in a way that contradicts that knowledge.
I apologize, sometimes in these lengthy conversations we get along and assume others understand the meaning of what we say.Well, now you know that it was not a correct summation of my view either. It would have been helpful if you had identified it as what you thought I was thinking. I hope that I have clarified for you what my actual position is.
So all we have to do isAfter rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!
Which may be very different to what we think his word should accomplish. So when we find God's word accomplished something very different from what we expected, in a very different way to what we expected (13.7 billion years rather than six days), do we celebrate what God accomplished in his own way, or do we insist he does it our way?Which, of course, is why it is a good thing that Scripture is from God and not from men. Because of that we can rely on His promise that His word will accomplish just what He wants it to accomplish (Is. 55:1).
Im not aware of any legitimate theories that have ever been introduced that were contrary to the text. Maybe you can enlighten?Care to back it up?
How can one rely on Scripture if when it is used to tackle a tough issue, the standard response is, thats your interpretation. Thats why I said in order for Scripture to be meaningful one has to be able to trust and rely on it. My point is that only TEs and atheists use this methodology. The similarities are striking. Why is that? You never answered my question, but then expect me to answer yours.You seem to be answering the suggestion that you are misinterpreting scipture, (1) By lumping TEs with homosexuals and atheists and (2) You defend you interpretation as being what the bible means, by saying if you can't rely on and trust on scripture it is meaningless.
Of course if you meant something else, please say.
Look this isnt just some TE trait, Christians the world over approach Scripture from a relativistic point of view, even some YECs. Im not just smearing TEs, Im smearing the majority of Christians. Does that make you feel better now?Given that none of us approach scripture from a relativistic point of view, I don't see the point in making that statement other than to smear TEs again.
No, the primary thing that allows for lots of interpretations is human pride.What allows lots of interpretations is the simple human inability to understand the mind of God and all that he has revealed in scripture, especially when God seem to think the best way to communicate spiritual truth to flesh and blood man is through allegory metaphor and symbolism.
This isnt about my interpretation. Its about what the words say. If I told you that your children werent really yours, would you believe me or not? Of course not, youd probably unequivocally tell me Im full of it. It would take something extraordinary like DNA for you to even consider it. Even then youd still probably hang on to the possibility that the DNA is wrong because you just know. Thats a little bit how I see this discussion, youre trying to tell me God didnt quite know what He was saying and that He needs to send me an expert (TE) to assist me in understanding His creation.We do tell you your infallible interpretation is wrong. but you don't believe us when we show you because you believe your interpretation is infallible.
What about in the areas where both speak?Scientific theories should be held accountable to the world God created and religious theories should be held accountable to the word of God.
Instead of dogma how about the Scriptures, Gods Holy Word?If you want to hold science accountable to religious dogma we are left back with the Inquisition trying Galileo and that was not good for science or the church.
Agreed, but its also intruding when it attempts to change what Scripture says.The question is, when is science intruding into theology and theology intruding into science? I would say science is intruding into theology when people try to use it as a basis for morality or the existance of God ("We have found a gay gene, homosexuality is natural therefore homosexuality is good", Social Darwinisms ruthlessness is the natural way, or Dawkins claim science disproves God.)
However anytime the bible makes claims about the natural world, or people's interpretations say the bible is making claims about the natural world, then these claims have entered the realm where they are open to naturalistic investigation. 1Cor
Where does it say in the Bible to test it against the natural world? The Scriptures you highlighted are prophetic and those are always tested. Genesis 1 is hardly prophetic, its historical.15:14 If Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain. Deut 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. Jer 28:8 The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. 9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet." When the word of speaks about the natural world it can be tested against the natural world.
My wait and see comment was directed toward findings that have little to no bearing on the overall truth of Scripture.Deciding science is preaching against God's word is not 'Wait and see'.
Scripture doesnt contradict Scripture, whether in the beginning or the end and all points in between. If God said He created us in His image then to take that and surmise that 1.) This involved a lengthy process 2.)That it was an image that required numerous changes 3.) His image is related to other parts of creation are all extra-biblical events conjured up by man in an effort to show himself smarter than he is. I havent even mentioned the why and thats a separate list.No you haven't. You are confusing how were were formed with why. There is no more contradiction between God using evolution to make us and making us in God's image, than there is between God making us out of clay and making us in his image. Or do chapters 1 & 2 contradict each other?
The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. When telling a story of such magnitude and describing the events as Genesis does, the vast majority of non-biased people would clearly see the foundational and historical purpose of it. I see it as foundational because thats how God wanted me to and thats also how most people do, even those who dont espouse to the Christian belief system.Clearly you do believe it is foundation but you haven't given us any evidence for the claim. As far as I can see you believe it is foundational because it was meant literally, but if it wasn't meant literally then that falls apart.
How about the Sabbath? How about the doctrine of work?It is a circular argument. You have show no biblical doctrines that have a six day creation as their foundation.
How about no one questioned them? It was a given. The only people doing any questioning are those who dont believe.While the teaching that God is creator is foundation and is brought up and retaught again and again through out the OT and New, no one ever taught a six day creation or suggested it was in any way important. The only place it comes up is in Exodus, not because a six day creation is being taught, but because it is being used as an illustration (in thew middle of a metaphor) for something the OT actually did hold to be important, the Sabbath. If it is foundational why did no one take the six days of Genesis days and teach them?
Thats the beauty of God and His Word, I dont have to show it, my job is to believe and proclaim.Simply claiming the scientists are wrong does not solve the problem that your hermeneutic is incapable of showing you when science, or scientists are wrong.
Lets be correct here, there is no literal flat earth.I have no problem with your statement here. The difficulty I have is with your inconsistency. You reject the literal flat earth and geocentric readings because you know and accept the science.
Given the Bible says six days and doesnt talk about a flat earth or geocentrism and that those issues are irrelevant I think Im perfectly content to stand on what it does talk about.But you refuse to take the same approach with six day creationism. You don't see a problem with holding the truth of God's word and denying geocentrism and a flat earth. In fact you see the denial of flat earth and geocentrist readings as upholding the truth of Gods word. But you think that doing the exact same thing with the literal six days is denying the truth of God's word.
After looking at this through multiple sources I could find nothing that the Israelites did in fact sow poppy. Here is a link that explains the problem you seem to have with the mustard seed.Do share, because so far your hermeneutic has been unable to deal with the question.
You havent answered the question: Is Jesus lying or is He just being ignorant?No, It is just your pet hermeneutic I am having a go at. I am taking this literalist hermeneutic, a human construct that thinks it has God's word in a box, and seeing how it stands up to the word of God. But Aslan is not a tame lion.
Then what is the right answer? Inquiring minds want to know.You only know it would be a lie because of naturalistic research. You can measure the size of a poppy seed and a mustard seed. It is no different from science measuring the age of rock and showing a six day interpretation was wrong, or science measuring the motion of the planets and showing that it was the earth that rotated instead of the sun moving around the earth.
In each case you have a choice between
(1) believing God lied,
(2) believing, in faith, that the scientific measurement is wrong. Or
(3) believing the literal reading is a misunderstanding of what God's word said.
We both believe (1) is wrong. God does not lie. You are right to have it as the first rule of hermeneutics. That does not automatically lead to (3) with mustard seeds and geocentrism. You hermeneutic says you must choose (2) Go for the literal reading if it makes sense, which they do. Do not allow things outside scripture (scientific evidence) to influence your interpretation of scripture. Only scripture can influence your interpretation of scripture.
These are very simple hermeneutic rules, very easy to apply, and they give the wrong answer.
So what does the Word of God have to say on this matter?Because you listening to too many YEC preachers rather than reading the word of God has to say for itself?
So are you implying that science and Scripture are on the same plane?Does that mean you are dropping the David Cooper quote in your sig?
Not that Im aware of.Does it tell you the earth rotates?
What does it matter what I believe? If it cant be proven scientifically it holds no weight, right?You believe he was actually a shepherd? What ever happened to carpenter?
Im sure Augustine, Origin and Aquinas saw it that way too, not to mention Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Moody etc. Right?It is amazing how you can read such a vague and general meaning to the word day in Psalm 90 while in Genesis 1 it has to be absolutely, no other option, 24 hours, and nothing else. It is amazing how you can see no connection between Genesis mentioning days and Moses talking about God's days in a Psalm about the creation. Shouldn't we allow scripture to interpret scripture? Shouldn't we allow the only person to mention creation days in the whole bible to tell us about God's days in his Psalm about creation?
You failed to defend your claim that God is active in evolution. Why? Would your relationship with the world become tainted by defending it?Yet you don't think God is excluded because we can measure the motion of the planets or study the growth of a baby in the womb?
The following points are continually made to me by atheists and TEs alike.Then why all the misrepresentations of TE?
Think of it this way, if a hundred things happened last week and we can say accurately state we know of 2 things that happened. Does that give us an accurate picture of what happened? To an evolutionist it certainly appears to, but to a YEC it just reaffirms the awesome splendor and majesty of God. So yes science can tell us something about the past.Vossler: we cant even accurately say what happened last week.
No, what Im suggesting is that only TEs who are scientifically enlightened or possess a special revelation know the Truth because their claims are so far removed from Scripture itself. Origin, Augustine and Aquinas I suspect used Scripture as a foundation to support their assertions, not science or some other man-derived source. To use Augustine as an example, he had questions whether God created in six days or instantaneously because the nature of God supported that. Where did he arrived at that conclusion from, Scripture. He arrived there not because of what he saw in creation, but what he saw in Scripture. TEs dont do that.You suggest TEs are relying on some dubious 'special revelation', and that the only Christians who have seen problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days are the ones who are 'scientifically enlightened', a phrase I don't think you meant in a positive sense. Don't just say 'No'. Back your up insinuations or withdraw them.
Im sorry but I truly dont even know what the original point was here. Give me the question and Ill do my best to answer it.I assume if you could give an answer you would, so one of those meaningless answers probably means you cannot support your original claim.
There isnt anything to back up. Heres the short answer. The text says it and theres no reason not to believe it. God, as the text says, literally made Adam from the dust of the earth. BTW, the snake and tree of life were literal too. What wasnt literal is the bruising of the snakes head that was figurative. I cleared that up just so you can see that Genesis was literal here too.Come on Vossler. I thought common ancestry was the biggest beef you have with evolution, that it was clearly against the Word of God and blasphemous? Here is you chance to back up the literal interpretation of God making mankind out of clay. If the literal interpretation of this part of the Adam and Eve story is so important, how can you claim the topic will edify no one?
vossler said:The following points are continually made to me by atheists and TEs alike.
1. Man and all of life evolved from a common ancestor.
2. All life that exists in its present form became so via natural processes.
3. The Bible is loaded with wrong assertions.
vossler said:You failed to defend your claim that God is active in evolution. Why? Would your relationship with the world become tainted by defending it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?