Deceiving the Nations.

[shernren]

As I said before, study communism. It has been state policy for many years to teach against all Biblical understanding. This has also been partially true of some democratic institutions.

Communism in Russia spent 20 years executing evolutionists. How does that jive with your conspiracy theories? How does teaching against the Bible, for the Bible, or absolutely nothing about the Bible, change one's scientific methodology and the scientific phenomena they observe?

That the red sea miracle is possible but a six day miracle is not. Yes, I understand there are some distinctions between the two stories.

If there are some distinctions between the two stories, isn't it entirely fair, appropriate, and consistent to apply some distinctions in the way we interpret those two stories?

 

[vossler]

What a load of nonsense! You honestly think evolution takes the glory away from God because it gives it to natural forces? Does the fact that humans procreate by natural forces take away the glory due God for the birth of a new human?!? Even to YEC, God created natural forces and to claim that when something is due to natural forces it takes glory away from God is quite blasphemous!

Not so much because it gives it to natural forces but that it takes it away from God. Evolution has put God on the sidelines when He should be in the middle of everything.

You keep claiming that you do not interpret scripture, apparently afraid that if you were to interpret scripture, you might be wrong... Then you claim that creation is not a revelation of the Word -- Jesus Christ.

I don't recall saying that I do not interpret Scripture, please point out where I said that. I also didn't claim that creation isn't a revelation of the Word, please do likewise and point out where I said that.

Since you take the utterly unbliblical stance that the Bible alone is the Word of God (a title that is reserved solely for Jesus in the Bible) and utterly refuse to either study God's creation or question your interpretation of scripture, it's no wonder your interpretation of scripture is impossible to reconcile with creation. That you turn around and claim your interpretation of scripture is unquestionable is ironic when it violates your own standard -- that interpretation of scripture and nature do not contradict each other.

Boy you sure are full of unsubstantiated accusations today. Again, show me where I said the Bible alone is the Word of God.

Of course, you get around this quite handily by vocally refusing to look even superficially at nature claiming that you know everything you need to know... It's certainly very easy to avoid contradiction between one's interpretation of scripture and God's revelation in creation when you shut your eyes and look not only at scripture, but only at one interpretation of scripture, ignoring any suggestion that your interpretation might be wrong.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave gluadys, show me or tell me something that is necessary for me to know about creation that, in your opinion, I don't know. If you can do that then you might have a point, otherwise what you say carries absolutely no weight or significance.

 

[vossler]

One of the things I find frustrating about this forum is having to go over old ground which has already been discussed at length ie. the Creation Mandate. What do you think God meant when he commanded Adam and Eve to 'fill the earth and subdue it'? Your failure to see this as a command to understand and study his creation is against what God plainly says in his Word.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he meant for us to have babies and take over His Creation, obviously you must see this differently. As far as I can tell we've done a great job filling and subduing the earth, almost too good. This is another example of where the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense.

 

[laptoppop]

Since you take the utterly unbliblical stance that the Bible alone is the Word of God (a title that is reserved solely for Jesus in the Bible)...

So when the Psalms refer to the word of God they are referring to Jesus? I think that you are reading WAY too much into John 1:1 to try to say that the Word is *always* solely Jesus.

 

[vossler]

There you go again perpetuating that falsehood. Again I'll ask, are logic and language divinely inspired? Are they part of the revelation of scripture? No they are not, therefore they are part of the world and as such are 'worldly theories'. Yet they undergird your hermeneutic. Unless you are about to reveal that your hermeneutic is a-logical.

I don't know if this will help but I'll give it a try. Part of my hermeneutic covers the communication gaps or problems that come from our attempts to interpret the Bible. Here are probably the four main ones that I consider to be important and must be addressed:

1. Language Gap
2. Culture Gap
3. Geography Gap
4. History Gap

If we don't take all of these under consideration when interpreting the Bible we going to miss things that were intended in the original. Obviously this is far too detailed a subject to explain adequately here, but at least it gives you a framework that undergrid my hermeneutic and from which I base my interpretative principles.

 

[Deamiter]

Not so much because it gives it to natural forces but that it takes it away from God. Evolution has put God on the sidelines when He should be in the middle of everything.

Does gravity similarly take glory from God because it is a natural force that causes the stars and planets to interact? Does understanding nuclear forces take glory from God because we can be sure that it's the rules that God set up that keep matter together? How then does evolution -- just another natural force that God has designed and sustains -- take any glory from God? God created the universe to work in an ordered way -- you seem to insinuate that you only see glory when natural forces (designed by God) are violated by God.

I don't recall saying that I do not interpret Scripture, please point out where I said that. I also didn't claim that creation isn't a revelation of the Word, please do likewise and point out where I said that.
Boy you sure are full of unsubstantiated accusations today. Again, show me where I said the Bible alone is the Word of God.
I'll give you the same challenge I gave gluadys, show me or tell me something that is necessary for me to know about creation that, in your opinion, I don't know. If you can do that then you might have a point, otherwise what you say carries absolutely no weight or significance.

Unless I had a better idea of what you'd consider "necessary" the challenge would be rather impossible to meet. As an example, what of the long tradition of geocentrism in the church -- was it necessary for theologians like Calvin and Luther to understand the movement of the planets? Certainly not necessary for their salvation perhaps, but as Augustine said, if a non-Christian knows something about nature that the Christian claims is rejected by scripture, why WOULD the non-Christian consider Christianity?

You're damaging your witness by refusing to study nature because anybody who studies nature and then talks to you about Biblical claims WILL come to the conclusion that the Bible lies about the age of the Earth and the origin of the species.

Does that make it necessary? Depends on your goals, but just as an insistance on geocentrism drove people from a saving relationship with Christ centuries ago, an insistance on your interpretation of scripture while refusing to study nature because it's not "necessary" gives the non-Christian the impression that the Bible IS intended as a science textbook and that it has been falsified in it's literal description of what has happened in nature.

 

[vossler]

Does gravity similarly take glory from God because it is a natural force that causes the stars and planets to interact? Does understanding nuclear forces take glory from God because we can be sure that it's the rules that God set up that keep matter together?

No, they all attest to His glory and align with His splendor and majesty.

How then does evolution -- just another natural force that God has designed and sustains -- take any glory from God? God created the universe to work in an ordered way -- you seem to insinuate that you only see glory when natural forces (designed by God) are violated by God.

Evolution is only a natural force in the mind of the evolutionist, certainly not God. Yes God created the universe to work in an ordered way, it is that order that draws attention to Him and identifies Him. If evolution did that, then it would cause more people to be drawn to Him, it does no such thing. If anything it causes people to doubt His existence because it puts Him on the sidelines instead of being the quarterback that He was orchestrating everything. I see this time and time again from my personal conversations with atheists and agnostics alike.

Unless I had a better idea of what you'd consider "necessary" the challenge would be rather impossible to meet. As an example, what of the long tradition of geocentrism in the church -- was it necessary for theologians like Calvin and Luther to understand the movement of the planets? Certainly not necessary for their salvation perhaps, but as Augustine said, if a non-Christian knows something about nature that the Christian claims is rejected by scripture, why WOULD the non-Christian consider Christianity?

Since you failed to substantiate your claims about what I believe I take it you are now dropping them, right?

Necessary is something that without it my understanding of God would be so limited that it could keep me from developing a full and satisfying relationship with Him. So let me ask you; is heliocentricism is necessary for a Christian to know in order to better develop a relationship with God?

You're damaging your witness by refusing to study nature because anybody who studies nature and then talks to you about Biblical claims WILL come to the conclusion that the Bible lies about the age of the Earth and the origin of the species.

Or they might see someone who actually believes the claims of the Bible and will take solace and comfort that there is someone who holds the Bible in such high regard. I’d take the latter over the former any day.

Does that make it necessary? Depends on your goals, but just as an insistance on geocentrism drove people from a saving relationship with Christ centuries ago, an insistance on your interpretation of scripture while refusing to study nature because it's not "necessary" gives the non-Christian the impression that the Bible IS intended as a science textbook and that it has been falsified in it's literal description of what has happened in nature.

I’ve not ever heard that the churches insistence of geocentricism drove people from a saving relationship with Christ, can you substantiate that? If true that’s very disappointing to hear, people basing their faith and understanding on scientific observations rather than the living God and His Word and yet this isn't so different from today in some respects.

The Bible is intended to be the ultimate source of Truth, wherever and whenever it speaks it speaks only Truth. If that gives the non-Christian the impression that it is false then I don’t believe they are open to the Truth.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Evolution is only a natural force in the mind of the evolutionist, certainly not God.

So you know the mind of God? I was pretty sure the Bible said that no man knew the mind of God...

How did you come upon such knowlege?

 

[Assyrian]

Well, to be fair, I think there is a quite a bit of interest in understanding your position. I think lots of us understand quite a bit of it.

The OP has a thesis: whether the surface text of Genesis has any basis in reason to be considered evidence in these matters. There is no reasonable reading of Gen. 1 or Gen. 2 that can exclude all possibility that the text refers to a literal six days or a global flood. You have every right to argue that something else was meant (in the free will sense, and reason will support you), and maybe you are right but the surface text is what it is.

Actually the surface text of Gen 1 does not say the world was created in six days. It lists six days but includes other days before and between them. While the flood account says nothing about a global flood. We find that the surface text of Genesis uses the word day in 3 or 4 completely different ways in the first two chapters, while the surface text of Psalm 90 and 2Pet 3 warn us that God's days are not necessarily literal days. So why should the church spend so much of its resources, bringing the gospel and the scriptures into disrepute, preaching a message we weren't commissioned to preach, in the vain hope that 'maybe the scientists got it wrong'?

That the red sea miracle is possible but a six day miracle is not.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what we believe?

Both the Red Sea miracle and six day miracle are possible. God can do anything. What we are saying is that the 'six day miracle' or creation as the bible calls it, did not happen the way you claim. The world was not created in six solar days 6000 years ago. It is much older than that. God still created the world and everything it. God could have created it in six days. But he didn't.

 

[busterdog]

Communism in Russia spent 20 years executing evolutionists. How does that jive with your conspiracy theories? How does teaching against the Bible, for the Bible, or absolutely nothing about the Bible, change one's scientific methodology and the scientific phenomena they observe?



If there are some distinctions between the two stories, isn't it entirely fair, appropriate, and consistent to apply some distinctions in the way we interpret those two stories?

A. Because two wrongs don't make a right.

and

B. I have never said your reading is without reason. But, inconsistency is still a pretty good argument that deserves recognition. TE should, IMHO, recognize "reasonable doubt" that this is so.

 

[gluadys]

"Probable" means there is contrary evidence.

Not necessarily. It may simply mean that the evidence available is not sufficient for a firm conclusion, even in the absence of contrary evidence.

This is the case with scientific evidence. Sometimes the probabilities are so high (in excess of 99%) that they may as well be certain for all practical purposes, but in principle 99.999% is not 100%.

You will note that I am only asking that the surface text be taken seriously as part of that equation.

I don't know what you mean by this. Certainly the surface text is always to be taken seriously, but not necessarily literally.

As I said before, study communism. It has been state policy for many years to teach against all Biblical understanding.

And is that not precisely because they are buying into the Satanic deceptions I mentioned? Violence will bring in the desired revolution. An oppressive dictatorship will bring in social justice. Enemies of the state must be purged, etc. All Satanic lies.

Of course, under Stalin, they also taught against evolution using all the power of an oppressive state.

Not sure what point you are attempting to make.

 

[shernren]

A. Because two wrongs don't make a right.

No, my point was: if communism is founded on evolutionism as you claim, and if communists are fully aware of this and hence teach evolutionism to further communism as you claim, why on earth did a communist state execute evolutionists for 20 years?

B. I have never said your reading is without reason. But, inconsistency is still a pretty good argument that deserves recognition. TE should, IMHO, recognize "reasonable doubt" that this is so.

I've listed my reasons to say my reading is consistent. Have you given any reasons for your charge of inconsistency, other than "busterdog thinks it is so"? If not, then I'm not sure why your argument is pretty good or deserves recognition.

 

[busterdog]

No, my point was: if communism is founded on evolutionism as you claim, and if communists are fully aware of this and hence teach evolutionism to further communism as you claim, why on earth did a communist state execute evolutionists for 20 years?



I've listed my reasons to say my reading is consistent. Have you given any reasons for your charge of inconsistency, other than "busterdog thinks it is so"? If not, then I'm not sure why your argument is pretty good or deserves recognition.

A. Both acts of suppression were wrong. That there are two wrongs does not mean the enemy did not infect Soviet science to persecute Christian belief. Two wrongs don't make a right.

B. Physical observations are not to shake one's faith in the Word of God. God says he will part the seas. God says he made the earth in six days. Same thing.

God says He will change us "in twinkling of an eye" and have a "day" when "every eye will see." The latter is an afterthought, since the end of things mirrors the beginning of things and hopefully deals with the allegation that statements of what God "will do" are statements to be understood according to a different way of understanding.

 

[gluadys]

I’m not required to study it, just praise God because of it. Tell me one thing I need to know about Creation that, in your opinion, it appears I don’t know.

You don't know that evolution is a natural process that gives just as much glory to God as gravity.

Of course He has and He gets all the glory. I know that to be true. I don’t know evolution to be true and it actually takes the glory away from God and gives it to natural forces. Whenever I talk to atheists that’s exactly what they do.

So? Do you expect atheists to be right? They have a vested interest in promoting the lie that whatever is natural excludes God. For a Christian, ascribing something to natural forces is not taking glory away from God, because Christians don't (or shouldn't) set nature and God in opposition to each other. Natural processes are God in action.

Man isn’t required to come up with his own theories about it’s existence because it speaks so loudly on its own that Job knew right away it was God.

And scientific theories don't override that.

So to you the command to study creation is found in and based on Job 38 and 39? If these are not the chapters to which you are referring please point out the specific chapter and verse.

Just like a literalist. You never think in terms of the broad, overall themes of scripture. It has to come down to a specific verse. Tell me, what specific verse in scripture says that Christians are not to own slaves? There is none. How then do we know that slavery is not the will of God?

Nevertheless, here are some verses worth pondering.

Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked nor take the path that sinners tread or sit in the seat of scoffers, but their delight is in the law of the LORD and on his law they meditate day and night. Ps. 1:1-2

Would you say the law of the Lord does not include those laws which undergird the created world? Do you not place yourself in the seat of scoffers when you choose not to accept them as they are discovered?

I will meditate on all your work and muse on your mighty deeds. Ps. 77:12

I remember the days of old,
I think about all your deeds,
I meditate on the work of your hands.
Ps. 143:5

Next to the redemption of humanity from sin, what work of God is more worthy of meditation than his creation?

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. 2. Tim. 2:15

A good creed for a scientist since his/her profession is to explain nature which was spoken into existence by God. A working scientist who rightly explains this word of truth will indeed not be ashamed before God.

Also, as Fijian noted, the study of nature is a given of the creation mandate. The task given to humanity in Genesis 2 is to till the land and keep the garden, something that cannot be done without a careful study of soils and plants and their needs. And in Genesis 1, the task given is to be the image of God in the world and to exercise dominion over the animal world. That equally requires a careful study of animals and their habits and needs. No hunter, no farmer, no shepherd, no gatherer of roots, fruits and seeds can fulfill the creation mandate without studying nature.

Again you place nature and the study of it on the same level as Scripture. You have nothing within Scripture to back up that claim. This is why our worldviews are so entirely different.

I place nature on the same level as scripture. I place the study of nature on the same level as the study of scripture. I place nature and scripture on the same level because this seems to be what scripture teaches. Nature was spoken into existence by the very Word of God. Scripture was given by inspiration of God. Both are revealed by the Word and are testimonies to the Creator.

What nature does not do, and scripture does, is reveal God's plan of redemption and convey God's will in the area of moral behaviour. That is why scripture is needed in addition to creation. But nothing in scripture can make void the truth in nature or (of course) vice versa.

That’s not what I said, I said there hasn’t been a single other theory that has even remotely been questioned by the public the way evolution has. I wasn’t speaking about clergy, scientists, geologists, etc., only the public. In the past the public has always accepted scientific findings without much of any objection, that is until evolution came along. Again, I ask why do you suppose that is?

In the past, most of the general public was not literate, and often didn't even know what theories were being proposed by scientists and academics. And if they did question, they did not do so in books or newspapers. So how can you document your assertion? What makes you think that the general public was accepting heliocentrism without much objection when the Pope, Luther and Calvin were all objecting to it?

Yes, that one reality that all worldviews should be tested against is the reality of Scripture, not man’s speculations on nature.

Here we go again. You insist on assuming that we have only two terms: scripture and man's speculations on nature. As I have said twice previously, we actually have four terms: scripture, nature, human interpretations of scripture and human interpretations of nature. The reality of nature is just as solid as the reality of scripture. The interpretations of scripture are just as fallible as the interpretations of nature, if not more so.

So, I agree with you. There is no point in testing a world-view against a human speculation about nature. But there is every point in testing both a world-view and a human speculation about nature against the reality of nature. Ditto for a human speculation about scripture.

Nature and scripture are both expressions of the same reality: the Word of God. That is the one reality that speculations about both nature and scripture are to be tested against.

That one reality, Jesus Christ, found in Scripture not nature, will re-shape the worldviews soon.

Scripture itself says differently. For the natural world was created for him, by him and through him, and it is in him that it holds together. So that reality is found in nature as well as in scripture.

I can only shake my head at how much of scripture you must ignore to maintain that your interpretation of scripture is correct. It only reinforces my long-standing position that YECism is even worse theology than it is science.

]A non-Christian could never present a biblically strong position because the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside within them, so their beliefs are not relevant and obviously not welcome.

Yet, your behaviour shows that you do not practice this, for you accept the pseudo-science of Deists and atheists when it agrees with your hermeneutic, but reject the science of Christians when it does not agree with your hermeneutic.

No, they all attest to His glory and align with His splendor and majesty. Evolution is only a natural force in the mind of the evolutionist, certainly not God.

Inconsistent hermeneutic again. Nothing distinguishes evolution from other natural processes.

Yes God created the universe to work in an ordered way, it is that order that draws attention to Him and identifies Him. If evolution did that, then it would cause more people to be drawn to Him, it does no such thing.

Evolution does do that, and you know of at least one person who was drawn closer to God through evolution. I don't think I am an exception.

If anything it causes people to doubt His existence because it puts Him on the sidelines instead of being the quarterback that He was orchestrating everything. I see this time and time again from my personal conversations with atheists and agnostics alike.

Listening to atheists and agnostics again instead of to Christians who understand that natural processes do not put God on the sidelines. That is the lie that has to be resisted, not adopted by Christians as an argument against evolution.

 

[busterdog]

Not necessarily. It may simply mean that the evidence available is not sufficient for a firm conclusion, even in the absence of contrary evidence.

This is the case with scientific evidence. Sometimes the probabilities are so high (in excess of 99%) that they may as well be certain for all practical purposes, but in principle 99.999% is not 100%.

I don't know what you mean by this. Certainly the surface text is always to be taken seriously, but not necessarily literally.

Probability is generally a process of weighing contrary evidence and deciding where the preponderance of evidence of lies.

There is no scientific method that test the proposition for the global flood.

Surface text is just the simplest and often the most obvious reading.

EG, some TE have denied that six 24 hour days is in the surface text. I don't think that argument is really worth debating, though I would say it is not unreasonable, scientifically or academically speaking, to debate whether the surface text is somehow overcome by a hidden meaning for things like "yom" in the context of Gen. 1.

 

[gluadys]

Probability is generally a process of weighing contrary evidence and deciding where the preponderance of evidence of lies.

Often it is. I was just making the point that that is not always the case. The use of the term "probable" is not always an indication that contrary evidence exists.

And, of course, the criterion of preponderance of the evidence does not apply when an interpretation has been shown to be false on other grounds, as is the case with a global flood within the period of human civilization.

Surface text is just the simplest and often the most obvious reading.

Which tells us nothing about whether or not this reading is to be understood literally and historically.

I would say it is not unreasonable, scientifically or academically speaking, to debate whether the surface text is somehow overcome by a hidden meaning for things like "yom" in the context of Gen. 1.

I don't think we have to appeal to a hidden meaning for specific terms in the story like 'yom'. Within the context of the story it obviously refers to an ordinary day. It is the character of the context itself that needs to be determined. A day in a story is not the same thing as a day in history, even though we do not resort to any hidden meaning in connection with the term.

 

[laptoppop]

Just to be clear - the global flood has not "been shown to be false". It is "believed" to be false. It is "theorized" to be false. There are particular pieces of evidence that are hard to reconcile with conventional geology. There are pieces of evidence that are hard to reconcile with catastrophic geology. Most scientists accept conventional geology.

However, it is absolutely crucial in science to understand the difference between something proven and something theorized. There is no room for mixing the two.

For me, even if the flood model was more improbable (which I do not agree with), I would choose it because I see it as much more consistent with the explicit revelation of an omniscient God.

 

[vossler]

You don't know that evolution is a natural process that gives just as much glory to God as gravity.

Why do I need to know that? How does that assist me with my relationship with God? On what basis, within Scripture, can you make that claim? You can't!

So? Do you expect atheists to be right?

No, but we’ve given them a vehicle that promotes their own ill advised views and allows them to remain prideful and arrogant.

They have a vested interest in promoting the lie that whatever is natural excludes God. For a Christian, ascribing something to natural forces is not taking glory away from God, because Christians don't (or shouldn't) set nature and God in opposition to each other. Natural processes are God in action.

Evolution works very well for their purposes of promoting a lie, the biggest lie ever thrust upon and accepted by the church. Satan is very pleased.

If a Christian ascribes natural forces to Creation that indeed puts God on the sidelines instead of under center. How can God be in action if He isn’t in the game?

And scientific theories don't override that.

They do if they put God on the sidelines.

Just like a literalist. You never think in terms of the broad, overall themes of scripture. It has to come down to a specific verse. Tell me, what specific verse in scripture says that Christians are not to own slaves? There is none. How then do we know that slavery is not the will of God?

You were inappropriately quoting Job and then you blame me for your mistake, how convenient.
So you are now taking a broad claim like studying Creation and comparing it to the specific exercise of slavery. BTW, slavery is adequately addressed in the Bible, all it takes is some effort to find the appropriate verses. 1 Timothy 1:10 specifically answers your question.

Nevertheless, here are some verses worth pondering.

Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked nor take the path that sinners tread or sit in the seat of scoffers, but their delight is in the law of the LORD and on his law they meditate day and night. Ps. 1:1-2

Would you say the law of the Lord does not include those laws which undergird the created world? Do you not place yourself in the seat of scoffers when you choose not to accept them as they are discovered?

You’re really stretching here. With those kinds of gymnastics you should be an Olympic athlete. I don’t believe the law of the Lord ever referred to creation and the study of it, that certainly isn’t supported here.

I will meditate on all your work and muse on your mighty deeds. Ps. 77:12

I remember the days of old,
I think about all your deeds,
I meditate on the work of your hands.
Ps. 143:5

Next to the redemption of humanity from sin, what work of God is more worthy of meditation than his creation?

Psalm 77 and 143 are the laments of the psalmist’s troubles and temptation. The meditation is a work of remembrance of what God has done, and that included creation in order to experience comfort. It certainly wasn’t a call to study creation. There certainly weren’t any edicts passed by David to go out and understand creation as a result of these psalms.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. 2. Tim. 2:15

A good creed for a scientist since his/her profession is to explain nature which was spoken into existence by God. A working scientist who rightly explains this word of truth will indeed not be ashamed before God.

Ahh again we conflate science and Scripture inappropriately. This verse has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with Scripture.

You couldn’t come up with a single verse that commands us to study God’s creation and yet you wish to claim that this exercise is on the same level as studying Scripture, whew what’s next?

And you say that I don’t know Scripture.

Also, as Fijian noted, the study of nature is a given of the creation mandate. The task given to humanity in Genesis 2 is to till the land and keep the garden, something that cannot be done without a careful study of soils and plants and their needs. And in Genesis 1, the task given is to be the image of God in the world and to exercise dominion over the animal world. That equally requires a careful study of animals and their habits and needs. No hunter, no farmer, no shepherd, no gatherer of roots, fruits and seeds can fulfill the creation mandate without studying nature.

So now evolution is necessary for the farmer to be a better tiller of the land and the keeping of his garden. I'd be willing to bet that if I polled a thousand farmers and asked them whether evolution has played a role in their success as a farmer everyone of them would say no. C'mon be honest with yourself and me, evolution plays no role here, you're just grasping for straws. There are plenty of legitimate sciences that are already doing a fine job of addressing the needs of the farmer.

I place nature on the same level as scripture. I place the study of nature on the same level as the study of scripture. I place nature and scripture on the same level because this seems to be what scripture teaches. Nature was spoken into existence by the very Word of God. Scripture was given by inspiration of God. Both are revealed by the Word and are testimonies to the Creator.

Wow, this is all based on what it seems to be to you. Thank you for your honesty, it is refreshing to see. As refreshing as that may be it doesn't change the fact that nothing within Scripture even remotely backs up that claim, it is solely a man-derived solution to the problem of evolution. Is it any wonder how we are so completely different in how we see the Bible and Christianity?

What nature does not do, and scripture does, is reveal God's plan of redemption and convey God's will in the area of moral behaviour. That is why scripture is needed in addition to creation. But nothing in scripture can make void the truth in nature or (of course) vice versa.

Ahh, but man’s evaluation of nature does exactly that, it voids the truth of Scripture.

In the past, most of the general public was not literate, and often didn't even know what theories were being proposed by scientists and academics. And if they did question, they did not do so in books or newspapers. So how can you document your assertion? What makes you think that the general public was accepting heliocentrism without much objection when the Pope, Luther and Calvin were all objecting to it?

Well if they had then the clergy would have probably documented it somewhere. They documented so many other things why not that?
But what about the present? In the last 150 years there have been countless other findings and theories that no one seems to question, the only one that is continually questioned is evolution. The reason is because it just doesn’t make sense; it sounds completely idiotic and foolish, that’s why so many object.

Here we go again. You insist on assuming that we have only two terms: scripture and man's speculations on nature.

Well that is what evolution is, man's speculations on nature. Also, just because you put Scripture and nature on the same plane, I don't. So I really only have one term, Scripture, you're the one with three others.

As I have said twice previously, we actually have four terms: scripture, nature, human interpretations of scripture and human interpretations of nature. The reality of nature is just as solid as the reality of scripture. The interpretations of scripture are just as fallible as the interpretations of nature, if not more so.

The problem I have with this statement is that you hold the study of Scripture and the study of nature to be of equal importance. For the Christian the study of Scripture is far, far, more important than nature.

Nature and scripture are both expressions of the same reality: the Word of God. That is the one reality that speculations about both nature and scripture are to be tested against.

You could say that man and Scripture are both expressions of the same reality: the Word of God. What is that supposed to mean to me? Lots of things are expressions of the same reality, big deal. This still doesn't change the fact of what we're called to do.

Scripture itself says differently. For the natural world was created for him, by him and through him, and it is in him that it holds together. So that reality is found in nature as well as in scripture.

I know you’re not saying I'm suppose to find Jesus in a tree or rock, I hope you’re just saying that you can see His fingerprints there. Of course if His fingerprints are there and thereby reality is also. No problem for me.

I can only shake my head at how much of scripture you must ignore to maintain that your interpretation of scripture is correct. It only reinforces my long-standing position that YECism is even worse theology than it is science.

I state that Jesus Christ will re-shape the worldviews soon and you claim I don’t know Scripture. Romans 14:11 among other places states:
for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Maybe you don’t believe it but when we stand before Him our worldview will be dramatically re-shaped.

Yet, your behaviour shows that you do not practice this, for you accept the pseudo-science of Deists and atheists when it agrees with your hermeneutic, but reject the science of Christians when it does not agree with your hermeneutic.

Name me one deist or atheist from whom I accept pseudo-science from. If you can’t do that then retract the accusation.

Inconsistent hermeneutic again. Nothing distinguishes evolution from other natural processes.

Other than it isn’t observable. As far as I know all other natural forces like life, gravity, erosion, wind, water, etc. can be observed, evolution cannot.

Evolution does do that, and you know of at least one person who was drawn closer to God through evolution. I don't think I am an exception.

Unfortunately there are countless others to whom it had the opposite effect.

Listening to atheists and agnostics again instead of to Christians who understand that natural processes do not put God on the sidelines. That is the lie that has to be resisted, not adopted by Christians as an argument against evolution.

Oh yeah, join the enemy in believing the lie so that we might promote another lie. Yikes.

 

[laptoppop]

I place nature on the same level as scripture. I place the study of nature on the same level as the study of scripture. I place nature and scripture on the same level because this seems to be what scripture teaches. Nature was spoken into existence by the very Word of God. Scripture was given by inspiration of God. Both are revealed by the Word and are testimonies to the Creator.

And this is the key to error. A particular scientific understanding is NOT the same as the specific written love letter from God to His people. The natural revelation is not as clearly understood as the specific revelation -- they differ in quality, understandability, usefulness, etc.

Studying the pot reveals much less about the Potter than His love letter.

I do not say that one revelation will contradict the other. However, where there is a conflict we need to test BOTH of our interpretations and understandings. I do not blindly accept the consensus of a methodology that specifically excludes God acting supernaturally, especially when He has revealed that He has done just that within history. Where there is a perceived conflict between the explicit and the implicit revelation, I examine my understanding of both, but will rely much more on the explicit revelation.


Specifically, saying "I place nature on the same level as scripture" equates their importance, etc. Just from nature we would not know the full nature and actions of the Redeemer.

 

[Assyrian]

B. Physical observations are not to shake one's faith in the Word of God. God says he will part the seas. God says he made the earth in six days. Same thing.

Physical observations can certainly shake you faith in the prophet who says these things, or in the interpreter who who says that is what they mean. God told us in
Deut 18:21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 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. Jer 28:9 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."

If Moses said the sea was going to part and it didn't, should the Israelites have kept following Moses? Not according to the bible.

When bible interpreters tell us God created the world in six literal days, ignoring what Moses himself tells us about God's days in Psalm 90:4, and science shows the interpretation is wrong, should we keep believing the interpreter? No. The interpreter has spoken presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. When God speaks, it happens. Physical observations sift the false from the true and rightly shake our faith in false prophecies and wrong interpretations of the Word of God.

God says He will change us "in twinkling of an eye" and have a "day" when "every eye will see." The latter is an afterthought, since the end of things mirrors the beginning of things and hopefully deals with the allegation that statements of what God "will do" are statements to be understood according to a different way of understanding.

An interesting statement given that modern YEC grew out of a movement that predicted the Lord's return around 1844 (the Millerites and the Seventh Day Adventists that emerged from the rubble when that interpretation was shattered by the physical observation that, well, the Lord hadn't actually returned.)

But you are right there are strong resemblances between the first and last things. We have the 'day' of the Lord which may turn out to be a millennium, or longer, who knows? We have both events given by prophecy, because there are no human witnesses to record either. And of course prophecy is full of symbolic language.

Certainly the book of Revelation mirrors the Genesis. We have that snake again, only it isn't actually a snake. We have the tree of life in the paradise of God. We have symbolic people who represent vast multitudes, the bride the harlot. We even have the first and the last wedding in both stories.

But YECs insist on reading one book as figurative and the other as literal history. If we insist on reading read Genesis literally why not Revelation? Should we expect seven headed monsters trampling NewYork and Tokyo?

One thing we can be certain of about Revelation and the end times is that earnest believers have been trying to understand it and getting it wrong again and again from the first century on down. The Millerites were not the first and there have been plenty since. The thing about a lot of prophecies is we only understand them when we actually see the fulfilment. Physical observations reveal what the Word of God meant. We only understood what Messiah was to be, when he came. We will begin to understand the book or Revelation clearly when we see the fulfilment, and we can begin to understand Genesis when we learn from the physical evidence how the world was actually formed.