Deceiving the Nations.

[vossler]

Isn't this assuming that God is not speaking authoritatively if he is not speaking literally? Why equate authoritative with literal?

I have no such standard.

In any case, your example is not a universal. It is not a general principle from which we can deduce particulars. It is itself a particular deduced from the principle that the correct hermeneutic to apply in this case is a literal one.

The six days are loaded with universals such as, God created…

An example of a universal in scripture would be Jesus' command to "Love one another, as I have loved you." Or his injuction to the lawyer to whom he recounted the parable of the Good Samaritan "Go and do likewise."

Those are good, but I thought you asked for ones concerning science.

Well, I agree God said it: in creation. But it took science to find out what was said. God did not say it in scripture. What he apparently said in scripture is that the earth is established on foundations so that it cannot be moved. How does what God said in creation confirm what God said in scripture in this case?

Am I misunderstanding the question? Maybe I’m too simplistic but creation confirms that the earth is established on foundations that don’t move. If science tells us things not mentioned in Scripture I of course have no problems with that.

However, I agree with you. All science can do is confirm what God has already said. And it has confirmed a billions-year old earth and it has confirmed evolution.

At least we somewhat agree.

According to a plain meaning or according to a meaning re-interpreted in the light of scientific discovery that actually it is not fixed to foundations, pillars or anything else, and is not unmovable but has orbital motion, axial spin and various wobbles?

Plain meaning of course.

Why do you insist that it does teach "six days"? What is the principle by which you decide when it is teaching and when it is not?

Good question. The doctrine of work comes from six days. What doctrine comes from geocentrism?

That is not what you said in post 313. You didn't speak of what Joshua thought. You said:
I do take it literally, I'm sure the sun did stop moving.

Isn’t that taking it literally?

Why don't you do that with "so that [the earth] cannot move"? Why get all scientific about it? Why not just accept it as it is written?

I wasn’t aware that I was being scientific.

I don't have a problem with the text because I am consistent in how I deal with texts such as these. I don't take any of them to have a literal referent. You keep trying to have it both ways: some are literal, some are not. But you have no consistent principle for determining which is which.

Some things are literal, some are allegorical or symbolic and some are both. The principles of the context, language, culture, history, grammar, etc. determines which is which.

And that is exactly the position both scientists and Church leaders were in given the theory of Copernicus and the astronomical discoveries of Galileo. They were very much caught up in trying to figure out whether the sun goes round the earth or vice-versa.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to figure that out, just let’s not make a doctrine out of it.

So basically, you don't know why you believe it. Nor can you explain why you believe in the literal factuality of six days, but not in the literal factuality of solar motion and earth's immobility. How is it that you are willing to accept the first on trust, but depend on science for the second.

I said I may not fully understand it, so I do understand some or should I say enough of it. The first is important and the second isn’t.

That is really all any of us are asking. If trusting in the plain meaning is good for accepting six days, why is it not good enough for geocentrism? If science is good enough not to accept geocentrism, why is it not good enough to consider a non-literal meaning for six days? Why straddle the fence?

The main reason is that geocentrism isn’t clearly presented as a teaching of Scripture.

Do you mean the teaching on the Sabbath? Since the sabbath can be a day, a year, one year in fifty, thousands of years (as the original Sabbath never ended), and even eternity, it hardly follows that the preceding six days must be literal days.

So are you saying there is no doctrine of work?

 

[Assyrian]

I really don’t know what Luther was thinking when he wrote about geocentrism and to be perfectly honest it really isn’t important. Why should it be? It's not a doctrinal issue of any sort, it has no real historical significance. Yet it obviously is important to you and something you feel strong enough about to pursue more vigilantly. Go for it!

Thats funny because Luther & Co though geocentrism really was important, that it struck at the very heart of the reliability of scripture. All you can come up with for the six days being foundational is they were used to illustrate an OT command that wasn't even considered binding in the NT.

How about the Bible teaches one and not the other.

How do we know which one is taught by the bible? How do we know the bible doesn't teach all three, or none of them?

We have three interpretations, flat earth, geocentrism and a six day creation that people believed were taught by scripture, and in fact people still believe are taught clearly by the word of God. The three subjects are contradicted by science, but the people who hold these views argue passionately that they are the plain meaning of God's word.

So how do we tell them apart. How do we know when science is right and when it is the literal bible interpretation?

Scripture clearly supports it, but if you’re inclined to disbelieve and submit everything to science, that’s your prerogative and you’ll have to live with it. From everything I can tell you are very content to stay that course.

You haven't shown an alternative course. You say scripture supports a six day creation, the same applies to flat earth and geocentrism. They are all supported by a literal interpretation, a plain sense reading of the text.

You think we should believe science about the spherical earth and heliocentrism and reject what the literalist interpretations that see flat earth and geocentrism in the bible. But reject geological age and accept the literalist interpretation of a six day creation. On what basis do we pick and chose between them?

So are you saying you believe the evidence?

What evidence?

Weren’t both you and gluadys saying that a prophet tells us what happened?

Prophets can tell us God's view of what happened, but they are not the only people who can tell us what happened.

So to you the point of these Scriptures isn’t that time stood still and that God is outside of time but that physical aspects of the Sun moving?

The passage says nothing about God being outside time, that is a completely different teaching found elsewhere in the bible. Nor does the passage say time stood still, it says the sun stood still for a whole day before it hurried on to set again.

But if it is wrong then God didn't say it did he. It was just our interpretation, like geocentrism and flat earth.

Ahh…so when He said six days He really wanted us to look at our interpretation of six days and realize it was wrong. Gotcha!

You are not dealing with the point. If our interpretation is wrong, the problem is our interpretation not God being deceitful. This is your quite sensible approach to geocentrism and flat earth. But somehow you can't see that the same approach would apply if a six day interpretation is wrong. That wouldn't be a misinterpretation, that would be God being deceitful.

No there is one difference here. With the six days we are told in both the OT and the New that God's days are not like ours, so yes he wanted us to look at our interpretation there. However the bible leaves us on our own with geocentrism and flat earth. There is nothing in specific scripture to say God really wanted us to look at our interpretation of geocentrism and flat earth and realize they were wrong. There is a lot of general teaching about how God speaks to us, but nothing specific on these topics.

But the same principle hold with all three, If our interpretation is wrong it is a problem with the interpretation not God being deceitful. It is just easier with six day creationism.

So if something has no support, it actually means it does. I’m beginning to understand the logic.

I realise you don't have any arguments left apart from this sarcasm, but could you at least try to deal with the points?

Vossler: 3.....Maybe because evolution has no support whatsoever within Scripture, it actually contradicts it.
Assyrian: As theFijian said Heliocentrism has no support whatsoever within scripture, it actually contradicts
Vossler:So if something has no support, it actually means it does. I’m beginning to understand the logic.

You claim to reject evolution because it has no support in scripture and and actually contradicts it (though you haven't been able to back that claim up). But you accept heliocentrism even though definitely it has no support in scripture and and contradicts the plain sense of scripture.

Why does this argument only apply with evolution? Why not apply the same principle used with heliocentrism to evolution? If the science is well supported you start looking for other interpretations where there isn't a contradiction.

1. The Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism, at best we can say is that geocentrism is something that can be inferred from the text.
2. See answer 1
3. See answer 1

And that is our point with six day creationism. It is inferred through a literal reading of the text, just like geocentrism. So back to our questions. Please provide answers that will actually show us how to distinguish between them:

1. How is being wrong about the bible teaching geocentrism any different from being wrong about the bible teaching a six day creation?
2. How does being wrong about either have a bearing on the truth of scripture?
3. And if the church would have been right to wait and see about Copernicus, why is it wrong to wait and see about geological ages and evolution?

God never said abortion contradicts his word either.

If you were arguing about abortion with an pro abortionist, I would expect you to back up you claims that abortion is wrong. On this topic, you claimed that evolution contradicts Gods word, why not try to back up your claim instead of lumping it with abortion (or homosexuality and atheism)?

No whether you’re willing to admit it or not you have issues with Scripture. Your belief that the Bible teaches a flat earth, geocentric system, Jesus trillions of days and those are just what come immediately to mind.

"Jesus trillions of days" ??? Is that a typo?

You claim to know that I have 'issues with the bible' but you don't seem to grasp the simplest thing I say about it. I don't believe the bible teaches flat earth, geocentrism or six day creationism. I have said this again and again. How can you claim I believe "that the Bible teaches a flat earth, geocentric system". You can't support your claim that six day creationism is foundational, so you resort to personal attacks claiming I have 'issues with the bible'.

None of those things concern me in the least, I accept only what the Bible actually teaches.

But you never manage to tell us how you know 'what the Bible actually teaches' How do you tell that geocentrism and flat earth are not what the bible teaches but six day creationism is?

I have no problem with you believing what the bible actually teaches, just how your hermeneutic can you what this is.

We most certainly come to Scripture from two entirely different directions.

Actually, you manage to come to Scripture from two entirely different directions. You take a very similar approach to us for geocentrism and flat earth but a completely different approach to six day creationism.

You didn’t have to say it, it’s implied.

That’s just it I do, you’re the one with a problem with it and claim He isn’t right and the natural conclusion would be that He is either a liar or ignorant.

It is not implied and I never implied it. Claiming I am calling Jesus a liar or ignorant is simply another person attack when you can't answer the question.

I have given you three options.
(1) The mustard seed is the smallest seed.
(2) Jesus is wrong and either a liar or ignorant
(3) We need a better hermeneutic than your sig gives.

I believe the answer to to this, as well as to geocentrism, flat earth and six day creationism are all found in (3). Now you reject (3) as a possibility which leaves you with (1) the mustard seed is the smallest seed or (2) Jesus was wrong -a liar or ignorant.

You don't believe Jesus was a liar or ignorant so why don't you believe (1) that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. All you have to do is ignore the scientific evidence of poppy seeds and orchids.

There is no reason to believe otherwise so yes He would be a liar.

What reason do you have to believe otherwise with geocentrism, flat earth and mustard seeds? You don't believe God is a liar when geocentrism, flat earth and mustard seeds are not literal. Why would he be a liar if the six day are not literal?

If one starts with the understanding that everything God says is true instead of a challenge for us to disprove, then it’s all easier for us to accept.

I do start with exactly that understanding. That is why I have no problem with the literalist interpretation of geocentrism, flat earth, mustard seeds or six day creationism being wrong. If our misunderstanding of scripture is shown to be wrong by science, it is not God getting it wrong, it is us misunderstanding what he said.

I do take it literally, I'm sure the sun did stop moving.

Oh dear. We are pushing vossler in the wrong direction. He is turning into a geocentrist.

But the bible says the sun rushes around the earth. Why not take it literally like you take the six days? Could it be because you believe the science instead of the plain meaning of scripture?

It’s hard to get the point sometimes when all we see is the science of it all. I myself am not star struck by the tool of science.

So you are starting to reject heliocentrism?

I believe in the truth of God’s Word instead of looking for ways to disprove it or find fault with it.

We all believe the truth of God's word, we are just trying to get rid of of fallible human misinterpretations

If you wish to believe that Psalm 90s main theme is about creation that’s your prerogative.

No not the theme, theme is simply our interpretations. I was talking about the context. Remember what you said about 'Context context context'? The context of Psalm 90 is the creation.

No, I’m just repeating what I said and not what you attempted to have me say.

Another non answer then.

The rest of scripture tells us God often uses potter and clay as a metaphor, and the rest of scripture tell us the snake wasn't a reptile it was a metaphor for Satan. And the rest of scripture tells us physical food cannot give everlasting life only Jesus can. It is the rest of scripture that tells us the story in the garden is highly allegorical.

Oh that’s right, this is where Psalm 90 comes in.

Not just Psalm 90.
Gen 18:27 Job 34:15 Psalm 90:3 (there you go), Psalm 103:14 Eccles 3:20, 12:7, 1Cor 15:48 (all made of dust)
Job 10:9, 33:6, 38:14, Isaiah 45:9 (we are made of clay)
Isaiah 29:16, 30:14, 41:25, 64:8, Jer 18 & 19, Rom 9:21 (God as a potter)
Job 26:13, Psalm 74:14, Isaiah 27:1, 51:9, Ezek 28, John 8:44, Rev 12 (snake not literal)
Prov 3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4, John 3:6, 6:27 & 63, Rev 2:7 (tree of life as a metaphor and Christ is the real source of everlasting life)

 

[gluadys]

I have no such standard.

Good. I thought you were simply substituting "authoritative" for "literal" or "plain meaning". I am glad to see you agree that the former does not imply the latter.

btw, to pick up on something I overlooked:

Weren’t both you and gluadys saying that a prophet tells us what happened?

No, I said a prophet sometimes interprets past events. Also present events. So Joel, for example, interprets a plague of locusts as a judgment from God and calls the people to repentance.

The six days are loaded with universals such as, God created…

I accept "God created" as a scriptural universal, but that does not depend on "six days" being literal.

Those are good, but I thought you asked for ones concerning science.

I did. But I didn't make an effort to find one myself. My bad. How about this: Plants and animals (i.e. living organisms to include all living things) reproduce after their kind.

Both a scriptural universal and a scientific fact. Also a prediction of the theory of evolution. Everything born is of the same species as its parent(s).

Am I misunderstanding the question? Maybe I’m too simplistic but creation confirms that the earth is established on foundations that don’t move.

On the contrary. Creation confirms the opposite: that the earth is not established on foundations and that it does move. So the testimony of creation in this case is completely at odds with a plain reading of the text of scripture.

Hence, most Christians now understand the plain reading of these texts not to be the correct reading.

Plain meaning of course.

Sarcasm, of course?

Good question. The doctrine of work comes from six days.

I don't understand this answer in relation to the question. Could you try again. What is the principle by which you decide when scripture is teaching and when it is not? How do you determine that "six days" is a teaching and "so that it cannot move" is not.

What doctrine comes from geocentrism?

That since the whole universe revolves around the earth which God made for humanity and to whom he gave dominion, the whole universe was made to serve humanity.

Personally, I think this is bad doctrine, but you don't need to look far to find it taught.

Isn’t that taking it literally?

No. There is a big difference between saying the sun actually stopped and saying Joshua thought it stopped. Only the first takes the text literally.

( I keep running into examples like these where a person identifies a reading that is anything but literal as a literal reading. My personal hypothesis is that you and others who make this error are subconsciously equating "literal" with "true" and using the first term when you mean the second. One of my favorite ripostes from a creationist who insisted her reading was always "literal" was "Well, it's literally figurative!")

I wasn’t aware that I was being scientific.

If you are accepting a spherical, spinning earth that moves around the sun, you are being scientific.

Some things are literal, some are allegorical or symbolic and some are both. The principles of the context, language, culture, history, grammar, etc. determines which is which.

And which of these principles distinguishes "six days" from "so that it cannot move"? Let us see some actual application of the hermeneutical principles here.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to figure that out, just let’s not make a doctrine out of it.

So there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the age of the earth, just let's not make a doctrine out of 6,000 years. There is nothing wrong with looking into the origins of species, just let's not make a doctrine of special creation.

I said I may not fully understand it, so I do understand some or should I say enough of it. The first is important and the second isn’t.

The relative importance of the text has nothing to do with whether it is to be read literally or non-literally. Some very important teachings of scripture are presented non-literally i.e. Jesus being the Good Shepherd, when literally he was a carpenter. Jesus being the Lamb of God, when literally he was a man. Interesting. If we took these images literally, Jesus was both a sheep and a shepherd. Not a problem when we understand them as figures though.

The main reason is that geocentrism isn’t clearly presented as a teaching of Scripture.

And what is your basis for saying that it isn't clearly presented as a teaching of Scripture? What is not clear about "so that it [the earth] cannot move"? What is not clear about "the sun...hastens to the place where it rises"?

So are you saying there is no doctrine of work?

I don't know of any biblical connection of work and time that is not part of a Sabbath framework. My point is that the Sabbath framework is not just the week of six days work and one day rest. It is also six years of work followed by a year of rest and liberation (Deuteronomy 15). It is also the Jubilee cycle of 7 x 7 years followed by the Jubilee year of rest, liberation and redistribution of wealth (Leviticus 25). It is also the "Today" of salvation by which we enter God's endless rest. And it is also the rest of eternity in heaven after we leave the toil of this world.

Because of the variety of meanings of "Sabbath" and because the days of creation are set in a Sabbath framework, it doesn't make sense to me that the meaning of days must be equivalent only to the six work days of the weekly Sabbath framework. We already know from scripture that in God's sight years can be days and days years. Why must the days of creation be tied to only one manifestation of the Sabbath framework, and not be understood as flexibly as the Sabbath itself?

 

[vossler]

Thats funny because Luther & Co though geocentrism really was important, that it struck at the very heart of the reliability of scripture. All you can come up with for the six days being foundational is they were used to illustrate an OT command that wasn't even considered binding in the NT.

They may have thought it was important, lots of people think many things are important that are not. The point is if we know it not to be important then why are we, more specifically you, discussing it. It must be obviously be important to you too. You may see the six day work week as not being an important teaching, but I do.

How do we know which one is taught by the bible? How do we know the bible doesn't teach all three, or none of them?

First of all it has to be clearly shown as a teaching. Flat earth is an easy one to see isn’t, while geocentrism could be seen if one looked at certain verses from a scientific perspective instead of a contextual one.

So how do we tell them apart. How do we know when science is right and when it is the literal bible interpretation?

This should never be an issue about a science versus literal Bible interpretation. I have no reason to believe that science should play much of a role in our interpretation of Scripture. It can be used to support our interpretations but never to form it.

You haven't shown an alternative course. You say scripture supports a six day creation, the same applies to flat earth and geocentrism. They are all supported by a literal interpretation, a plain sense reading of the text.

If you go into Scripture looking for a way to support a flat earth or geocentrism then you’ll come out finding it. I think that holds true for abortion and gay marriage too.

You think we should believe science about the spherical earth and heliocentrism and reject what the literalist interpretations that see flat earth and geocentrism in the bible. But reject geological age and accept the literalist interpretation of a six day creation. On what basis do we pick and chose between them?

This isn’t about picking and choosing, this is about where the text and the Holy Spirit leads you.

You are not dealing with the point. If our interpretation is wrong, the problem is our interpretation not God being deceitful.

This isn’t even an interpretation issue, this is solely an issue of accepting His Word. Tell me how can you misinterpret six days without looking foolish in the process?

I realise you don't have any arguments left apart from this sarcasm, but could you at least try to deal with the points?

Vossler: 3.....Maybe because evolution has no support whatsoever within Scripture, it actually contradicts it.
Assyrian: As theFijian said Heliocentrism has no support whatsoever within scripture, it actually contradicts
Vossler:So if something has no support, it actually means it does. I’m beginning to understand the logic.

You claim to reject evolution because it has no support in scripture and and actually contradicts it (though you haven't been able to back that claim up). But you accept heliocentrism even though definitely it has no support in scripture and and contradicts the plain sense of scripture.

I’m sorry for the sarcasm; it usually rears its ugly head when the discussion becomes foolish and reason is slipping away.

You use something like heliocentrism, which isn’t discussed at all in Scripture and compare it to the creation account which is clearly discussed and expect that both come to conclusions supported solely outside of Scripture they’re both equally valid.

"Jesus trillions of days" ??? Is that a typo?

Yes, Jesus shouldn’t have been included, please just omit His name there. Oops!

You claim to know that I have 'issues with the bible' but you don't seem to grasp the simplest thing I say about it. I don't believe the bible teaches flat earth, geocentrism or six day creationism. I have said this again and again. How can you claim I believe "that the Bible teaches a flat earth, geocentric system". You can't support your claim that six day creationism is foundational, so you resort to personal attacks claiming I have 'issues with the bible'.

I don’t know how else to take it because you keep bringing up the flat earth and geocentrism, no one else does. If you didn’t have issues with it then there’s no reason to bring it up, right?

But you never manage to tell us how you know 'what the Bible actually teaches' How do you tell that geocentrism and flat earth are not what the bible teaches but six day creationism is?

Easy, show me where the Bible says the earth is flat or how that could possibly be important to anyone? Show me where the Bible states knowing the sun rotates around the earth is an important scientific point or how that this knowledge is pertinent.

The Bible does however plainly state that God created everything in six days and from that foundational truth of six days we are then to establish our work week. That’s obviously pretty important stuff, your issues are clearly not.

It is not implied and I never implied it. Claiming I am calling Jesus a liar or ignorant is simply another person attack when you can't answer the question.

What else would you call it when you challenge Him saying that the mustard seed isn’t the smallest seed sown?

I have given you three options.
(1) The mustard seed is the smallest seed.
(2) Jesus is wrong and either a liar or ignorant
(3) We need a better hermeneutic than your sig gives.

I believe the answer to to this, as well as to geocentrism, flat earth and six day creationism are all found in (3). Now you reject (3) as a possibility which leaves you with (1) the mustard seed is the smallest seed or (2) Jesus was wrong -a liar or ignorant.

Please don’t give everyone the impression you’ve previously given me three options, until now this is the first time I’ve seen them.

First, I know of no one making any claims about geocentrism, a flat earth or having issues with the mustard seed other than TEs. YECs don’t bring these easily understood topics up, only TEs do.

Secondly your number three is where we will find the answer but yet you fail to provide it, is it a secret answer? Does this better hermeneutic even exist?

You don't believe Jesus was a liar or ignorant so why don't you believe (1) that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. All you have to do is ignore the scientific evidence of poppy seeds and orchids.

I do believe number 1, it’s you who doesn’t believe it. I trust Jesus spoke correctly and accurately to His audience. I haven’t a clue what you on the other hand would like to do with this issue. You claim Jesus wasn’t lying or ignorant about this, but you’ve yet to offer an explanation.

What reason do you have to believe otherwise with geocentrism, flat earth and mustard seeds? You don't believe God is a liar when geocentrism, flat earth and mustard seeds are not literal. Why would he be a liar if the six day are not literal?

Maybe because I don’t read them the way you do. This goes back to our approaches.

I do start with exactly that understanding. That is why I have no problem with the literalist interpretation of geocentrism, flat earth, mustard seeds or six day creationism being wrong. If our misunderstanding of scripture is shown to be wrong by science, it is not God getting it wrong, it is us misunderstanding what he said.

I don’t know of anyone, not a single person, who believes in the four things you mentioned. Can you name even one? I do know of people who love to use throw all those terms around and associate them with YECs.

We all believe the truth of God's word, we are just trying to get rid of of fallible human misinterpretations.

It would please me to know that is true, but I’m not at all convinced. It would appear, to me at least, that you believe as long as it doesn’t conflict with the what you seemingly see as the best hermeneutic, science.

No not the theme, theme is simply our interpretations. I was talking about the context. Remember what you said about 'Context context context'? The context of Psalm 90 is the creation.

I don’t believe that for a minute. The context of a single verse within Psalm 90 is what you base your creation interpretation on…that’s not what context implies, at least not to me.

 

[vossler]

I did. But I didn't make an effort to find one myself. My bad. How about this: Plants and animals (i.e. living organisms to include all living things) reproduce after their kind.

Both a scriptural universal and a scientific fact. Also a prediction of the theory of evolution. Everything born is of the same species as its parent(s).

If everything is born of the same species as its parent how does evolution introduce new ones?

On the contrary. Creation confirms the opposite: that the earth is not established on foundations and that it does move. So the testimony of creation in this case is completely at odds with a plain reading of the text of scripture.

Hence, most Christians now understand the plain reading of these texts not to be the correct reading.

Well I most certainly do. The earth has never moved, at least as far as I know. That knowledge is an important tool in understanding the Scriptures to which it speaks. Again, this isn’t a scientific answer and one isn’t required to understand this.

I don't understand this answer in relation to the question. Could you try again. What is the principle by which you decide when scripture is teaching and when it is not? How do you determine that "six days" is a teaching and "so that it cannot move" is not.

Is there a doctrine somewhere attached, if so it needs to be clearly shown. A verse pulled out of air isn’t a doctrine.

That since the whole universe revolves around the earth which God made for humanity and to whom he gave dominion, the whole universe was made to serve humanity.

Personally, I think this is bad doctrine, but you don't need to look far to find it taught.

If you see it as a bad doctrine as do I then there isn’t anything else to say.

( I keep running into examples like these where a person identifies a reading that is anything but literal as a literal reading. My personal hypothesis is that you and others who make this error are subconsciously equating "literal" with "true" and using the first term when you mean the second. One of my favorite ripostes from a creationist who insisted her reading was always "literal" was "Well, it's literally figurative!")

I can’t speak for others but literal to me isn’t an equation with true.

And which of these principles distinguishes "six days" from "so that it cannot move"? Let us see some actual application of the hermeneutical principles here.

I need the actual Scripture of “so that it cannot move” to answer, the only one that I come up with is Jeremiah 10 and I’m sure you’re not speaking of that.

So there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the age of the earth, just let's not make a doctrine out of 6,000 years. There is nothing wrong with looking into the origins of species, just let's not make a doctrine of special creation.

I agree that 6,000 years isn’t and shouldn’t be a doctrinal issue.

The relative importance of the text has nothing to do with whether it is to be read literally or non-literally. Some very important teachings of scripture are presented non-literally i.e. Jesus being the Good Shepherd, when literally he was a carpenter. Jesus being the Lamb of God, when literally he was a man. Interesting. If we took these images literally, Jesus was both a sheep and a shepherd. Not a problem when we understand them as figures though.

I agree!

And what is your basis for saying that it isn't clearly presented as a teaching of Scripture? What is not clear about "so that it [the earth] cannot move"? What is not clear about "the sun...hastens to the place where it rises"?

The “so that it [earth] cannot move” and “the sun…hastens to the place where it rises” verses are not teachings of geocentrism. The Ecclesiastes verse speaks about man’s work and never finding rest unless he finds it in God. It certainly isn’t teaching geocentrism. As for the other verse, I don’t even know what Scripture that is.

 

[gluadys]

If everything is born of the same species as its parent how does evolution introduce new ones?

The species changes. But since it usually takes many generations for species change to occur, each parent gives birth to offspring of the same species.

Well I most certainly do. The earth has never moved, at least as far as I know.

So how do we get day and night without the earth spinning on its axis? How do we get summer and winter without the earth orbiting the sun (and being inclined at an angle to its orbital plane)? How do we get the precession of the equinoxes without the nutations of the poles?

I would really like to see how any of these can be explained without reference to the motions of the earth.

The “so that it [earth] cannot move” and “the sun…hastens to the place where it rises” verses are not teachings of geocentrism.

How so? How can these statements be literally true without an immobile earth in the centre of the cosmos?

The Ecclesiastes verse speaks about man’s work and never finding rest unless he finds it in God. It certainly isn’t teaching geocentrism.

How is it not? Just because the statement occurs in a context with a spiritual message doesn't mean the writer is not saying the sun goes round the earth.

As for the other verse, I don’t even know what Scripture that is.

Psalm 93:1b I gave the citation when I first mentioned it. There are also several others which refer to the earth being fixed, established, stable, supported by foundations, not moving. So it is hardly an isolated reference.

btw, I notice no comment on work and Sabbath and the relationship to six days.

 

[theFijian]

The earth has never moved, at least as far as I know

So you are a geocentrist! Finally some clarity!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If everything is born of the same species as its parent how does evolution introduce new ones?

Everything ISN'T born the same as its parent. Every offspring has minor mutations in its DNA that make it ever so slightly different to its parent. Over time, these tiny mutations collectively add up to be significant changes in the DNA between species.

 

[vossler]

The species changes. But since it usually takes many generations for species change to occur, each parent gives birth to offspring of the same species.

But at some point a new species takes shape that is different from his/her parents. If each parent gives birth to offspring of the same species evolution, as I understand it, can't happen.

So how do we get day and night without the earth spinning on its axis? How do we get summer and winter without the earth orbiting the sun (and being inclined at an angle to its orbital plane)? How do we get the precession of the equinoxes without the nutations of the poles?

Obviously the earth does the things you mentioned but they are unknown to us except for science. The writer wasn't concerned about those matters and it was reflected in the text.

How is it not? Just because the statement occurs in a context with a spiritual message doesn't mean the writer is not saying the sun goes round the earth.

If I today described my day and started it by saying the sun came up and I did...would your focus be on my statement of the sun moving or on the description of my day?

Psalm 93:1b I gave the citation when I first mentioned it. There are also several others which refer to the earth being fixed, established, stable, supported by foundations, not moving. So it is hardly an isolated reference.

I'm sorry there's just been a lot of things said and I just want to make sure I'm responding to the right thing.
I believe I've mentioned this before but if not I'll try to say this in as clear a way as I can. I and most people don't approach Scripture from a scientific view, we read the text at face value and try to extrapolate its meaning. For example, when Psalm 93 states that the earth is fixed I'm not thinking about it going around the sun but how solid it is and how I can trust it and I suspect that's how most people read it.

btw, I notice no comment on work and Sabbath and the relationship to six days.

The reason being was that it would divert even further from the main points of this thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But at some point a new species takes shape that is different from his/her parents. If each parent gives birth to offspring of the same species evolution, as I understand it, can't happen.

Everything ISN'T born the same as its parent. Every offspring has minor mutations in its DNA that make it ever so slightly different to its parent. Over time, these tiny mutations collectively add up to be significant changes in the DNA between species. Perhaps the best way to explain it...

At which point does yellow become green? Imagine speciation as something like that... each new generation is a change in shade... you can't pinpoint the specific point that it has happened, but there are clear areas that are yellow, and clear areas that are green... just like there are clear species that are precursos to a different species... un between, we find individuals with traits of each, but there is never a clear point where a tiger gives birth to a lion

 

[EnemyPartyII]

but they are unknown to us except for science

Day and night would be unknown to us without science???

 

[gluadys]

But at some point a new species takes shape that is different from his/her parents. If each parent gives birth to offspring of the same species evolution, as I understand it, can't happen.

Then you don't understand evolution correctly. A newly-born organism may not be the same species as its ancestor of 100 or more generations previously, but it is always the same species as its immediate parents.

This does not mean it is identical to its parent. As EnemyPartyII points out, there are mutational differences between parents and offspring. In mammals the approximate average is 100 mutations per offspring. So you probably have 80-120 genetic characteristics which are new to you. You did not inherit them from your parents. So you have differences from your parents, but you are clearly of the same species.

Now your children will inherit these new genetic characteristics (at least some of them) from you. They will also have, on average, 100 or so mutations that are new to them.

Their children will inherit the new mutations which appeared in you (at least some of them) and the new mutations which appeared in their parents, and in addition will have 100 or so new mutations of their own.

And so on and so on.

There is more to it than this, but that is part of the way a species changes over time without any organism being of a different species than its parent.

Obviously the earth does the things you mentioned but they are unknown to us except for science. The writer wasn't concerned about those matters and it was reflected in the text.

What is reflected in the text is the writer's assumption of how we get night and day--by the movement of the sun across the sky and then returning to the place of its rising.

If I today described my day and started it by saying the sun came up and I did...would your focus be on my statement of the sun moving or on the description of my day?

That would depend on whether you are a geocentrist or a heliocentrist. It you also spoke of the sun returning to the place of its rising during the night hours, or if you spoke of the sun standing still (really, not apparently) or denied that the earth moves, I would have to conclude that you accept a geocentrist perspective, even if your focus in on the description of your day. That is what the biblical writers do.

I believe I've mentioned this before but if not I'll try to say this in as clear a way as I can. I and most people don't approach Scripture from a scientific view, we read the text at face value and try to extrapolate its meaning.

There is no reason to approach Scripture from a scientific view. It is not a science text. But there is also no reason to reject science on the basis of the face value of the text either. In fact, when you try to extrapolate the meaning of a text, you take for granted the scientific knowledge you have and never extrapolate a meaning contrary to that science, even though you are not explicitly approaching the scripture from a scientific point of view.

All we TEs are saying is that this attitude ought to apply to the science that deals with the age of the earth (and universe) and the evolution of species, just as it does to the motion of the earth and its relation to the sun and solar system.

You haven't rejected a heliocentric astronomy because of the surface reading of the text, and when you extrapolate meaning from the text, you do it within a heliocentric framework even sub-consciously because that framework is the one that is natural to you.

Exactly the same can be done in the case of geology and evolutionary biology as well.

For example, when Psalm 93 states that the earth is fixed I'm not thinking about it going around the sun but how solid it is and how I can trust it and I suspect that's how most people read it.

Because most people today take the heliocentric astronomy for granted and never think to use the older geocentric perspective when they read the text. So automatically and subconsciously they reject the plain, literal meaning of the text in favour of a deeper, figurative meaning that is more consistent with a heliocentric view. It never occurs to them to give the text a geocentric twist.

In fact though, prior to the adoption of Copernicus' heliocentric system, most people did read it from a geocentric perspective. It would not occur to them to read it any other way. It is no doubt the meaning the writer intended. So if it is the literal or surface meaning which is important, that is the geocentric meaning. You have to reject the geocentric surface meaning to get a meaning that is consistent with a heliocentric framework.

The reason being was that it would divert even further from the main points of this thread.

In detail perhaps. But pertinent to this thread is this question:

"Why must the days of creation be tied to only one manifestation of the Sabbath framework, and not be understood as flexibly as the Sabbath itself?"

 

[vossler]

Then you don't understand evolution correctly. A newly-born organism may not be the same species as its ancestor of 100 or more generations previously, but it is always the same species as its immediate parents.

If you extrapolate that out to 1000 generations you’re still going to have the same species because as you said an offspring cannot be a different species than its parents. You can state and so on and so on but at some point there has to be a new species in order for evolution to occur. So yes I don’t understand, it makes absolutely no sense.

That would depend on whether you are a geocentrist or a heliocentrist. It you also spoke of the sun returning to the place of its rising during the night hours, or if you spoke of the sun standing still (really, not apparently) or denied that the earth moves, I would have to conclude that you accept a geocentrist perspective, even if your focus in on the description of your day. That is what the biblical writers do.

The thing is you wouldn’t know or even care whether someone is geo or helio centrist. I know that thought would never cross my mind nor 99% of the people in this world.

There is no reason to approach Scripture from a scientific view. It is not a science text.

People do so all the time, they’re constantly putting scientific parameters around the text.

All we TEs are saying is that this attitude ought to apply to the science that deals with the age of the earth (and universe) and the evolution of species, just as it does to the motion of the earth and its relation to the sun and solar system.

The thing is no one really knows the age of the earth and we certainly don’t know that evolution (common ancestry) occurred, yet we’re asked to believe it more strongly than we believe the Word of God.

You haven't rejected a heliocentric astronomy because of the surface reading of the text, and when you extrapolate meaning from the text, you do it within a heliocentric framework even sub-consciously because that framework is the one that is natural to you.

I don’t even see helio or geo centrism as something the text really discusses or even begins to teach us, therefore there is no reason to extrapolate anything.

In fact though, prior to the adoption of Copernicus' heliocentric system, most people did read it from a geocentric perspective. It would not occur to them to read it any other way. It is no doubt the meaning the writer intended. So if it is the literal or surface meaning which is important, that is the geocentric meaning. You have to reject the geocentric surface meaning to get a meaning that is consistent with a heliocentric framework.

I don’t believe it matters whether you have a geocentric or heliocentric view as to how one interprets these passages.

"Why must the days of creation be tied to only one manifestation of the Sabbath framework, and not be understood as flexibly as the Sabbath itself?"

They’re not just tied to the Sabbath framework, they’re also tied to the work doctrine.

 

[Melethiel]

People do so all the time, they’re constantly putting scientific parameters around the text.

Yes, and those people are the Creationists. However, the Scriptures are NOT a science text, and should not be interpreted scientifically.
What I don't get is your inconsistent hermeneutic. You say that the passages about Joshua and the sun stopping still, and the earth being unmovable are referring to the overall themes of the text, and I agree. However, you do not apply this same hermeneutic to Genesis 1. Interesting.

 

[gluadys]

If you extrapolate that out to 1000 generations you’re still going to have the same species because as you said an offspring cannot be a different species than its parents. You can state and so on and so on but at some point there has to be a new species in order for evolution to occur. So yes I don’t understand, it makes absolutely no sense.

No, usually there is no identifiable point when a new species arises. It's like the colour transition mentioned earlier. Try this thought experiment. You have a gallon of yellow paint. Each day you stir in one tablespoon of blue paint. Eventually, since yellow+blue makes green, you will have green paint instead of yellow paint. But can you tell on which day it changed from yellow to green? Similarly it is usually not possible to find a point at which a new species arises. It is obvious in hindsight that a new species has arisen, but it is not possible to tell that it occurred in a particular generation.

In fact, it probably did not happen in a particular generation. When species are in the process of splitting into two separate species, the ability of one group to mate and reproduce with the other typically disappears gradually, over several generations. The hybrids become less and less viable, but do not totally disappear in a single generation.

We sometimes get the sense that a species has transitioned into a new species at a certain point in time because of the rules of classification. When classifying a population or a fossil, it must be labelled as something. Even if it is somewhere between two species, it has to be assigned to one or the other for classification purposes. This does not actually change its transitional nature. Taxonomists have to choose what key characters will count toward being the member of species B rather than a member of the ancestral species A. If they chose a different key characteristic, the dividing line between the species would fall elsewhere.

The thing is you wouldn’t know or even care whether someone is geo or helio centrist. I know that thought would never cross my mind nor 99% of the people in this world.

In this day and age, I would assume a person was using a heliocentric frame of reference unless there was evidence they were not. By the same token, prior to the publication of Copernicus' theory, I would assume a person was using a geocentric frame of reference, as that was the norm for the time.

People do so all the time, they’re constantly putting scientific parameters around the text.

And they shouldn't. You know Christians had a lot to do with that, for they began looking for scientific support for what they thought the bible said. Modern geology was practically invented by Christians looking for evidence of the flood. Instead their studies led to the conclusion that the flood could not have been a global deluge. And in the 19th century, most Christian scholars were honest enough to believe the evidence and revise their estimate of the age of the earth.

But the impulse to find science in the bible has not diminished among many Christians. So you get nonsense assertions such as that the phrase "stretched out the heavens" refers to the expanding universe or that "in his days the land was divided" refers to tectonic plate movement and the break-up of Gondwanaland.

Of course, rejecting science because it apparently contradicts scripture is just a mirror-image of reading modern science into scripture. Both impulses stem from demanding that scripture be scientifically supported.

The thing is no one really knows the age of the earth and we certainly don’t know that evolution (common ancestry) occurred, yet we’re asked to believe it more strongly than we believe the Word of God.

A lot of your problem relies on denying that we know things we do know. Yes we do know the age of the earth. We certainly know that it is more than 4 billion years old, but not as much as 5 billion years old.

We do have evidence that makes it very highly probable (as in better than 90% probable) that all life on earth today is related through a common ancestor.

And we are not asked to believe this evidence more strongly than the Word of God. If it is true, it IS the Word of God. And that is why we need to believe it. Our interpretation of scripture must take this into account. It must be as much a part of our framework of interpretation as the heliocentric perspective on the solar system has become. Something we no longer even think about, so that we have to have the older perspective explained to us by historians.

I don’t even see helio or geo centrism as something the text really discusses or even begins to teach us, therefore there is no reason to extrapolate anything.
I don’t believe it matters whether you have a geocentric or heliocentric view as to how one interprets these passages.

It makes a lot of difference to the literal meaning. But it need not make any difference to the spiritual teaching being conveyed.

And btw, it was you who referred to yourself extrapolating the meaning from the text. I just copied your use of the term.

They’re not just tied to the Sabbath framework, they’re also tied to the work doctrine.

So show me this "work doctrine" expounded without the Sabbath framework. Where in scripture can I find it?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you extrapolate that out to 1000 generations you’re still going to have the same species because as you said an offspring cannot be a different species than its parents. You can state and so on and so on but at some point there has to be a new species in order for evolution to occur. So yes I don’t understand, it makes absolutely no sense.

But after 1000 generations, the offspring may be the same species as its parents, but not the same species as its great-great-great-great-great...etc... gerandparants.

Imagine a sculptor carving a block of stone, counting each individual strike of the hammer... There may be no visible difference in the stone between hammer strike # 2,274,563 and #2,274,562, but plenty of difference between #2,274,563 and #1.

People do so all the time, they’re constantly putting scientific parameters around the text.

The thing is no one really knows the age of the earth and we certainly don’t know that evolution (common ancestry) occurred, yet we’re asked to believe it more strongly than we believe the Word of God.

We're asked to believe it more strongly than a particular interpretation of the word of God which has already been proven categorically wrong time and time again... I've got no problem with that.

 

[vossler]

[/font]Yes, and those people are the Creationists. However, the Scriptures are NOT a science text, and should not be interpreted scientifically.

I have to chuckle when I read that because if it wasn't for evolutionists continually challenging Scripture with scientific interpretations contrary to Scripture AiG, ICR and the like would never even exist.

 

[Deamiter]

I have to chuckle when I read that because if it wasn't for evolutionists continually challenging Scripture with scientific interpretations contrary to Scripture AiG, ICR and the like would never even exist.

It's unfortunate that you still think this way. We usually make it quite clear that when we point out inconsistancies or discrepancies in scripture, it's only to point them out from a literalist creationist hermeneutic. We're never challenging scripture, only your faulty interpretation.

 

[vossler]

No, usually there is no identifiable point when a new species arises. It's like the colour transition mentioned earlier. Try this thought experiment. You have a gallon of yellow paint. Each day you stir in one tablespoon of blue paint. Eventually, since yellow+blue makes green, you will have green paint instead of yellow paint. But can you tell on which day it changed from yellow to green? Similarly it is usually not possible to find a point at which a new species arises. It is obvious in hindsight that a new species has arisen, but it is not possible to tell that it occurred in a particular generation.

I see the point you’re trying to make but here’s what I see. If you mix yellow and yellow you’re always going to get yellow no matter how many times you repeat the same exercise. It isn’t until you introduce something new and foreign that you are going to get something different. Where does that foreign substance come from? It has to be new and different enough to effect change but not too foreign or different as to effect character and consistency. Blue paint matches that description because it shares most of the characteristics and consistency of yellow paint and can therefore be easily absorbed into it. Sure you can change the color of the paint by introducing a small variation over a long period of time but remember in the end you’ve still got paint. It hasn’t somehow become water or oil for example. That’s what I see as adaptation not evolution.

In this day and age, I would assume a person was using a heliocentric frame of reference unless there was evidence they were not. By the same token, prior to the publication of Copernicus' theory, I would assume a person was using a geocentric frame of reference, as that was the norm for the time.

My point is though, regardless of the frame of reference the interpretation of Scripture is the same.

And they shouldn't. You know Christians had a lot to do with that, for they began looking for scientific support for what they thought the bible said.

On that we can most certainly agree.

Of course, rejecting science because it apparently contradicts scripture is just a mirror-image of reading modern science into scripture. Both impulses stem from demanding that scripture be scientifically supported.

I would put it this way, rejecting scientific interpretations stem from the demand that Scripture is always true.

A lot of your problem relies on denying that we know things we do know. Yes we do know the age of the earth. We certainly know that it is more than 4 billion years old, but not as much as 5 billion years old.

I’m sorry but I think that is an incredibly arrogant statement. We can say we believe we know the age of the earth based on the best data we have, but to say that we know, well that’s over the top. There have been countless man-made things measured over the years where it’s age has changed numerous times, some of these things sometimes not even a hundred years old and we don’t really know its age. For us to make a bold claim that we know the age of the earth is extremely arrogant and says a lot about our culture.

We do have evidence that makes it very highly probable (as in better than 90% probable) that all life on earth today is related through a common ancestor.

Another statement that is outlandish. If only you would substitute the word creator in place of ancestor, then you would have something worthy of saying.

And we are not asked to believe this evidence more strongly than the Word of God. If it is true, it IS the Word of God. And that is why we need to believe it. Our interpretation of scripture must take this into account.

Oh yes we are asked to believe this evidence more strongly than the Word of God. Scripture clearly tells us what God did and how long it took Him, ‘science’ challenges both and asks us to believe it.

And btw, it was you who referred to yourself extrapolating the meaning from the text. I just copied your use of the term.

Let’s just be clear about something, I will never extrapolate meaning from Scripture that contradicts its plain meaning unless there is incredibly strong evidence within the context of all of Scripture to allow it. I certainly wouldn’t extrapolate Scripture to teach something that clearly isn’t being taught.

So show me this "work doctrine" expounded without the Sabbath framework. Where in scripture can I find it?

Genesis 3: 17-19 gives a good framework:

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."​

 

[theFijian]

Sure you can change the color of the paint by introducing a small variation over a long period of time but remember in the end you’ve still got paint.

LOL! You just knew that this was going to be the answer!