Deceiving the Nations.

[gluadys]

So, if there is a clear contradiction between scripture and creation... what, you'll say it is creation that is in error?

Be careful here.

There is never a clear contradiction between scripture and creation. Only between poorly-interpreted scripture and creation.

 

[shernren]

Be careful here.

There is never a clear contradiction between scripture and creation. Only between poorly-interpreted scripture and creation.

Or better still, there is only ever contradiction between poor interpretations of Scripture and creation. Scripture, even poorly interpreted, never contradicts creation; but it is our interpretation of Scripture that meets creation in the act of describing physical reality and sometimes fails.

 

[gluadys]

Or better still, there is only ever contradiction between poor interpretations of Scripture and creation. Scripture, even poorly interpreted, never contradicts creation; but it is our interpretation of Scripture that meets creation in the act of describing physical reality and sometimes fails.

Quite right. In fact, I changed an original wording that was more like yours. I should have left well enough alone.

 

[vossler]

The real question though, on what do you base your "knowledge" that what you think of as God's word is ACTUALLY God's word, and completely true?

I’m not sure if what this question is really asking. I’ll take a stab and we’ll see if I hit something. Are you asking how I know the Bible to be God’s Word? If so, that’s really a question that could require a number of different answers depending upon who’s asking and why. Could you please be more specific?

great analogy!

Thanks, but I can’t claim it to be mine, I’ve heard a number of people use it.

Science isn't about understanding God's word, its about understanding his creation.

If only it were that easy. Science should be a study of reality and reality comes from God. He has given us His special revelation and general revelation, on only one does He place a requirement for us to study. That's the one which holds the universals.

So, if there is a clear contradiction between scripture and creation... what, you'll say it is creation that is in error?

There have never been any contradictions between Scripture and Creation, only between Scripture and science.

Scripture gives us the universals and science gives us the particulars. If we use each properly we'll never have a problem. The problem we continually have though is using science to give us the universals instead of Scripture. If only we used Scripture for its intended purpose, as a plumb line from God, whereby we can discover the universals which then in turn will help us sort out and understand the particulars.

 

[vossler]

Since you know God's Word is absolutely true, you know that creation is absolutely true, right?

Yes!

What you are failing to say here is that you do not have absoute knowledge of God's Word. You have partial knowledge of God's Word, whether you are looking at creation or scripture.

No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.

So I am not asking you to lower your standards at all. I am asking you raise them, to open yourself to a more complete and correct understanding of God's Word.

Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice I’ll be subjecting myself to how the world thinks and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
​

I intend to heed that warning.

Sure you do. You may not have come to Christianity in your childhood, but at some time you were a child in Christ, relying on your teachers to explain it to you.

I didn’t know you knew so much.

But you also take into account extra-biblical information as well. You just don't do it consistently. That is one place you get selective.

If and when I do, it never contradicts Scripture.

Is this more poisoning of the well? What do you make of those who do live out a model Christian life but still disagree with your interpretation of scripture?

I’m not trying to poison any wells here, just making a simple observation that if someone claims they are doing X,Y and Z then that should be demonstrated by their actions, nothing more. As for those who live out a model Christian life and disagree only with my interpretation of Scripture, well I’d say more power to them. I haven’t met anyone like that yet, but I’d like to.

You meet those who interpret scripture differently than yourself. They demonstrate that they know scripture, that they know how to take into account the context, from paragraph to chapter to book to the whole bible. They give every evidence of being humble and open-minded and they are seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet they think differently about what scripture means than you do.

How do you demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong?

I don’t know, I’ve never met anyone like that before. It certainly would be an interesting discussion though. I did meet a person who meets most of those criteria and he was a big Hugh Ross proponent. I didn’t really have much of a problem with him although he had a big one with YEC, but not me. It was an interesting discussion to say the least.

However, in practice, we have to rely on secondary sources of truth. It is the truth, which comes from God, which assesses the reliability of that secondary source. I am sorry I did not make clear that I was referring to secondary sources only.

On this I can agree. No problem, these things get a bit confusing at times.

Bad logic. You are touching on a real issue. Even if absolute truth exists, we have no absolute knowledge of it. All of our knowledge is partial. Scripture itself tells us this. We know in part. We can only know in part.

It is as complete and absolute as it needs to be. When God said; “love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind,” that was absolute. It may not have been complete, but that isn’t important, but it certainly was absolute.

But it is bad logic to say that because we can only know it in part, that absolute reality cannot exist. Certainly it can exist.

I just don’t believe we will, in this life, ever know absolute reality, we may know of it but that’s all. There’s no reason to believe that.

It is also bad logic to say that because we know only in part that we know nothing of value.

That is not claim I make or even remotely support.

The gap between absolute reality and our partial knowledge of that reality should be an incentive to increase our knowledge, not a reason for throwing up our hands in despair and renouncing the knowledge we do have.

Again this is not something I in anyway lay claim to.

Actually, continued observation of the elephant can tell us much about its personality, history, family, etc. The same holds true for creation.

I suppose that’s true, but then creation doesn’t quite work that way does it. We can’t look at creations relatives, it’s personality, etc. our scope of view is quite limited.

Well, you still don't appear to have got your head around it. Hence the necessary repetition.

I could say the same thing.

But if we are interpreting the scripture incorrectly, we will end up heading in the wrong direction. Remember, science does not correct scripture.

That’s what I see it doing.

And no one is asking you to hold science up to measure scripture. But good science can correct bad interpretations of scripture. In that respect, it can help us go in the right direction.

Diligent study of Scripture, prayer and meditation will serve us far better than any science book or scientist ever will.

Now you are contradicting what you just said above. You contended that: If what we see is never complete then neither is the reality of what is before us and therefore absolute truth cannot exist, at least not in a form that we as humans can utilize and proclaim. Truth becomes relative and therefore meaningless.
Now you are saying that it is possible to have incomplete knowledge that is enough.

So which is it?

There is no contradiction. The quote you provided was my summation of how I felt you saw the issue, it certainly wasn’t my view.

 

[theFijian]

No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.

Can you please explain to us how your understanding of scripture is perfect, flawless, complete, all-encompassing, unaldulterated and unlimited? (because that's what absolute means, I suspect you don't really know what you are saying here and have just made an innocent mistake. otherwise you are a heretic because only God is absolute)

 

[theFijian]

Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice I’ll be subjecting myself to how the world thinks and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The irony of course, which he is oblivious to, is that vossler has already subjected himself to how the world thinks. His interpretation is a product of the rationalist thought of the enlightenment (along with all kinds of other atheistic humanist philisophies). He still thinks that the words of scripture just leap from the page into his brain without any filtering of any sort. How else could he claim to have an 'absolute' understanding of scripture? Not that I expect him to engage with this point, he never does which is tacit admission to the point.

 

[vossler]

Can you please explain to us how your understanding of scripture is perfect, flawless, complete, all-encompassing, unaldulterated and unlimited? (because that's what absolute means, I suspect you don't really know what you are saying here and have just made an innocent mistake. otherwise you are a heretic because only God is absolute)

After rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!

 

[gluadys]

Yes!

At least we are clear on that.

No, what I have is absolute knowledge in the area that Scripture speaks.

LOL!! At least you get full marks for chutzpah. I have seldom seen the arrogance of YECism more bluntly stated. I think if rmwilliamsll were still with us, this line would make it into his signature, where he collected such statements.

The only way you can have absolute knowledge in the area that scripture speaks is to claim an absolutely perfect interpretation of scripture. Yet your interpretation of scripture specifically excludes what we know to be true of creation, even calling that truth error.

You may be quite correct in some of your interpretations of scripture, but to assert an absolutely perfect interpretation with no errors or gaps of any kind is quite beyond probability.

Quite the contrary, if I follow your advice I’ll be subjecting myself to how the world thinks

No, you would be subjecting yourself to the truth of creation, which, you agreed above, is absolutely true.

and it will eventually get me to compromise in areas that contradict God, His Word, His very nature. Colossians 2:8 gives us a warning whe it states:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
​

I intend to heed that warning.

So this warning does not apply, since we are appealing to the truth of creation, not to the deceitfulness of human tradition.

I didn’t know you knew so much.

Am I wrong? Or are you claiming to have learned the Christian faith without any contact with Christian teachers? Just why did Christ give us a Church and give the Church instructions to preach and teach if people could learn without teachers?

If and when I do, it never contradicts Scripture.

Neither does any truth of creation, including the age of the earth and evolution. You are selective in determining when you will listen to what we have discovered to be true about creation. To be consistent, you should accept all or reject all such information.

I’m not trying to poison any wells here, just making a simple observation that if someone claims they are doing X,Y and Z then that should be demonstrated by their actions, nothing more.

But why bring up the issue except to imply that this was not the case? That is poisoning the well.

As for those who live out a model Christian life and disagree only with my interpretation of Scripture, well I’d say more power to them. I haven’t met anyone like that yet, but I’d like to.

Again and again you illustrate that you live a very circumscribed life. I find it hard to believe that even a recluse in an obscure hamlet could have so few contacts. I have even met non-Christians whose righteous living compares favorably with the best of Christian saints. Virtue is not a Christian preserve. Indeed Paul speaks of those outside the law who nevertheless live in obedience to it, following the light they know.

It is as complete and absolute as it needs to be. When God said; “love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind,” that was absolute. It may not have been complete, but that isn’t important, but it certainly was absolute.

You use words in a strange way. It is hard to describe something partial as complete. I think what you are conceding here is that we can understand some things in scripture quite correctly in spite of the imperfections of our understanding. Yet you do not grant that we can do the same with creation. At least not in respect of the age of the earth and evolution. Selectivity again.

I think the word you really want is "sufficient". The sufficiency of scripture was an important claim of the Reformation. Scripture does not give us complete knowledge, nor do we have complete understanding of scripture. But it does give us sufficient knowledge for its purpose, (to lead us to salvation) and does so with sufficient clarity that even a child can understand it.

Similarly, science does not give us complete knowledge about creation, nor does it fully understand creation, but it does give us a certain amount of clear and reliable information about creation. Such information should not be rejected by Christians.

I just don’t believe we will, in this life, ever know absolute reality, we may know of it but that’s all.

I agree. But that doesn't necessarily make the partial knowledge we do have false or without value.

That is not claim I make or even remotely support.

Glad to have that cleared up.

Again this is not something I in anyway lay claim to.

Sure you do. You have said time and time again that it is not worth the effort to increase our understanding of how creation works. And you specifically reject some of the understanding that has been gained on the specious grounds that it does not accord with your interpretation of scripture. Of course, you have now claimed that your interpretation of scripture is so perfect that you have absolute knowledge in the area in which scripture speaks, so you have the authority to rule out anything creation says that disagrees with this absolute knowledge.

I suppose that’s true, but then creation doesn’t quite work that way does it. We can’t look at creations relatives, it’s personality, etc. our scope of view is quite limited.

Depends. If we are looking at creation as a whole, we have knowledge of only one universe, so we can't compare it with any other. But it is a universe that contains many particular parts, and we can study the relationships of the parts. With living things, this can include the study of relatives and ancestors.

Our scope is limited, but generally speaking, I find YECs assume it is more limited than it really is. They seriously underestimate how much we can learn and how accurately we can learn it.

That’s what I see it doing.

No, what you see happening is correction of misleading interpretations of scripture. It is your failure to identify these as interpretations that makes it look as if scripture itself is being contradicted.

Diligent study of Scripture, prayer and meditation will serve us far better than any science book or scientist ever will.

I wouldn't disagree. But it is not an either-or situation. What we learn from science obviously has less importance relative to our salvation, but that doesn't make it less true. It doesn't make it right to reject the knowledge of creation we have gleaned through science because we choose to interpret scripture in a way that contradicts that knowledge.

There is no contradiction. The quote you provided was my summation of how I felt you saw the issue, it certainly wasn’t my view.

Well, now you know that it was not a correct summation of my view either. It would have been helpful if you had identified it as what you thought I was thinking. I hope that I have clarified for you what my actual position is.

 

[gluadys]

After rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!

Just saw this. So you can ignore my comments in the previous post in regard to the original statement.

But do you see the parallel again? Creation gives us absolute knowledge about itself. That doesn't mean we know it absolutely-not even through science. However, we can know it in part, just as we can know scripture sufficiently well for it to serve its purpose.

And we have no more call to reject sound information about creation than we have to reject sound knowledge of scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

Are you serious? Don't you think that most sides in these arguments might think the other has introduced theories and ideas that are completely contrary to the text? Of course what is really happening is that the ideas are completely contrary to their interpretation of the text.

That's one way of looking at it, I happen to see it differently.

Care to back it up?

Again, No I didn't.

LOL! Hardly.

What you said was:

In order for Scripture to mean anything, one has to be able to trust it and rely on it. Only TEs and those Christians who believe homosexuality is fine seem to continually make the challenge "that is your interpretation." Why is that? That's the same challenge I hear from atheists. If that's the standard answer how can it be considered truth for you?

You seem to be answering the suggestion that you are misinterpreting scipture, (1) By lumping TEs with homosexuals and atheists and (2) You defend you interpretation as being what the bible means, by saying if you can't rely on and trust on scripture it is meaningless.

Of course if you meant something else, please say.

Of course, if you approach Scripture as an absolute source of truth you can't be vague about how you see it. Then again if you approach it from a relativistic point of view, then you allow lots of interpretations.

Given that none of us approach scripture from a relativistic point of view, I don't see the point in making that statement other than to smear TEs again.
What allows lots of interpretations is the simple human inability to understand the mind of God and all that he has revealed in scripture, especially when God seem to think the best way to communicate spiritual truth to flesh and blood man is through allegory metaphor and symbolism.

No it is just the assumption that when you do interpret a passage, you know when your interpretation is infallible.

If I believe it why shouldn't I proclaim it? If I'm wrong there will be more than enough people available to tell me and then prove it, otherwise I'll continue to proclaim it loudly and frequently.

We do tell you your infallible interpretation is wrong. but you don't believe us when we show you because you believe your interpretation is infallible.

I have had similar conversations with Catholics about the Pope.

To man and his theories yes, but not to God and His Word.

Scientific theories should be held accountable to the world God created and religious theories should be held accountable to the word of God.

If you want to hold science accountable to religious dogma we are left back with the Inquisition trying Galileo and that was not good for science or the church.

Science is good at studying the natural world. I understand that the church, and let's be clear that was primarily the Catholic church, got theology and science mixed up and they were clearly wrong. It wasn't the first time and it wasn't the last. The church should stick to theology and let science deal with its realm of study. It's only when science intrudes into theology or vice-versa that a problem occurs. It's a problem for theology (like geocentricism) when the Scriptures don't speak on a subject and likewise with science when it speaks to theological issues without adequate proof or authority.

I agree with most of this except you claim scripture didn't speak about geocentrism. A literal inerrant interpretation speaks very clearly about geocentrism, which was the problem all church leaders Catholic and Protestant had with Copernicus. Luther, Melanchton and Calvin were all clear on the geocentrism of the bible.
The question is, when is science intruding into theology and theology intruding into science? I would say science is intruding into theology when people try to use it as a basis for morality or the existance of God ("We have found a gay gene, homosexuality is natural therefore homosexuality is good", Social Darwinisms ruthlessness is the natural way, or Dawkins claim science disproves God.) However anytime the bible makes claims about the natural world, or people's interpretations say the bible is making claims about the natural world, then these claims have entered the realm where they are open to naturalistic investigation. 1Cor 15:14 If Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain. Deut 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. Jer 28:8 The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. 9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet." When the word of speaks about the natural world it can be tested against the natural world.

It does if the ‘science’ is preaching against God’s Word.

Deciding science is preaching against God's word is not 'Wait and see'.

Well then I suppose we’re wrong about being created in God’s image since science shows we were created through natural selection. There probably isn’t much we’ve gotten right and that’s why we need science so that we can straighten out all the bad theology. I Got it!

No you haven't. You are confusing how were were formed with why. There is no more contradiction between God using evolution to make us and making us in God's image, than there is between God making us out of clay and making us in his image. Or do chapters 1 & 2 contradict each other?

I believe God describing His Creation week to be very foundational, geocentricism has little to no value.

Clearly you do believe it is foundation but you haven't given us any evidence for the claim. As far as I can see you believe it is foundational because it was meant literally, but if it wasn't meant literally then that falls apart. It is a circular argument. You have show no biblical doctrines that have a six day creation as their foundation. While the teaching that God is creator is foundation and is brought up and retaught again and again through out the OT and New, no one ever taught a six day creation or suggested it was in any way important. The only place it comes up is in Exodus, not because a six day creation is being taught, but because it is being used as an illustration (in thew middle of a metaphor) for something the OT actually did hold to be important, the Sabbath. If it is foundational why did no one take the six days of Genesis days and teach them?

Science isn’t wrong, scientist are.

Simply claiming the scientists are wrong does not solve the problem that your hermeneutic is incapable of showing you when science, or scientists are wrong. Your claim your hermeneutic shows you science is wrong, but it would not have shown you the right answer with geocentrism.

Far from it, the worst attacks to Christianity and the Bible come from “believers.”

Paul was not talking about believers attacking the bible or Christianity, but the behaviour of believers leading to the Gentiles blaspheming the Name of God.

Wouldn’t a better approach to Scripture be that everything within it is true no matter what because God said it. I think the crux of the problem is you don’t believe God said it. If you don’t understand a statement and that statement can be disproved via a scientific process, then the statement is false. Given that I don’t know the original language and environment that these verses come from, I’m not in a position to challenge their authenticity. I don’t believe the Bible teaches either a flat earth or round one, heliocentricism or geocentricism.

...six day creationism or 4.5 billion years.

I have no problem with your statement here. The difficulty I have is with your inconsistency. You reject the literal flat earth and geocentric readings because you know and accept the science. But you refuse to take the same approach with six day creationism. You don't see a problem with holding the truth of God's word and denying geocentrism and a flat earth. In fact you see the denial of flat earth and geocentrist readings as upholding the truth of Gods word. But you think that doing the exact same thing with the literal six days is denying the truth of God's word

My research has shown a different answer,

Do share, because so far your hermeneutic has been unable to deal with the question.

but that really isn’t the issue here because ultimately you see Jesus either lying or being ignorant and I see neither. If you don’t then explain what it is you do see. Sometimes I get the distinct impression I’m arguing with an atheist, someone who can’t wait to disprove their little pet Scriptures.

No, It is just your pet hermeneutic I am having a go at. I am taking this literalist hermeneutic, a human construct that thinks it has God's word in a box, and seeing how it stands up to the word of God. But Aslan is not a tame lion.

You are simply refusing to accept the plain and simple literal meaning of what Jesus said, because you know it contradicts science. Your hermeneutic does not get you a way out of this so you correctly ignore your hermeneutic.

I don’t reject the plain and simple literal meaning because it contradicts science, I do so because it contradicts the very nature of God. The nature of God is Truth, He cannot lie and that is the first rule of my hermeneutics, as it should be for all.

You only know it would be a lie because of naturalistic research. You can measure the size of a poppy seed and a mustard seed. It is no different from science measuring the age of rock and showing a six day interpretation was wrong, or science measuring the motion of the planets and showing that it was the earth that rotated instead of the sun moving around the earth.

In each case you have a choice between
(1) believing God lied,
(2) believing, in faith, that the scientific measurement is wrong. Or
(3) believing the literal reading is a misunderstanding of what God's word said.

We both believe (1) is wrong. God does not lie. You are right to have it as the first rule of hermeneutics. That does not automatically lead to (3) with mustard seeds and geocentrism. You hermeneutic says you must choose (2) Go for the literal reading if it makes sense, which they do. Do not allow things outside scripture (scientific evidence) to influence your interpretation of scripture. Only scripture can influence your interpretation of scripture.

These are very simple hermeneutic rules, very easy to apply, and they give the wrong answer.

Yeah that’s quite a stretch for me to do, taking the liberty and assuming the text to read like there were six days when it is in fact it is clearly implied to be much, much more than that. Psalm 90 has shown us that, why couldn’t I see that without you?

Because you listening to too many YEC preachers rather than reading the word of God has to say for itself?

Good except for when you use ‘the science’ I would substitute ‘our scientific understanding.’

Does that mean you are dropping the David Cooper quote in your sig?

Creation doesn’t tell me anything even remotely similar to what it tells you.

Does it tell you the earth rotates?

Just because Jesus said he was a shepherd it doesn't mean he was.

As you’re free to believe.

You believe he was actually a shepherd? What ever happened to carpenter?

I don’t know but when I read that I see God telling us about His eternal nature. When He says that “a thousand years are nothing to God’s eternity” and that there is no proportion to His eternal Mind I saw that as a reminder of how totally frail we are and how divine He is. We can’t even accurately describe what we did in the last hour, but God can tell us everything over eternity. I could go on but I’m sure I’d be showing my lack of intellect and my bound nature when I fail to see how those days tell us about the creation days.

It is amazing how you can read such a vague and general meaning to the word day in Psalm 90 while in Genesis 1 it has to be absolutely, no other option, 24 hours, and nothing else. It is amazing how you can see no connection between Genesis mentioning days and Moses talking about God's days in a Psalm about the creation. Shouldn't we allow scripture to interpret scripture? Shouldn't we allow the only person to mention creation days in the whole bible to tell us about God's days in his Psalm about creation?

Sorry of course not. If you did it would mean giving up six day creationism. That can't possibly be allowed

 

[Assyrian]

Do you want a list? My wife, the kids just love to although they don’t get near the opportunity they’d like, my bible study buddies, my best friend and even you!

Glad you are open.

Because as I’ve heard TEs and atheists alike state, that evolution happens on its own, we have science to measure it and therefore God isn’t actively playing a role. C’mon if He was do you think TEs and atheists could be so together on this?

Yet you don't think God is excluded because we can measure the motion of the planets or study the growth of a baby in the womb?

Insults are not required nor permissible. Evidence is but a few clicks away.

Then why all the misrepresentations of TE?

So science can tell us something about the past.

Never said it couldn’t.

Vossler: we can’t even accurately say what happened last week.

Assyrian: I don't think Moses tied God down to any particular timescale, neither did Peter. We are not told billions of years, just that literal day is a mistake.
Vossler: Are you saying you’ve been given a special revelation that no one else has?
Assyrian: No. Christians have realised there are problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days through the history of the church.
Vossler: Only the scientifically enlightened ones have.
Assyrian: You are describing Origen, Augustine and Aquinas as scientifically enlightened? They understood the days in Genesis were not literal by reading the bible, not from modern geology books.
Vossler: No, I’m referring to the evolutionists. Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had reasonable biblical support for their beliefs.
Assyrian: Are you saying the bible has changed? That the reasonable biblical support Origin, Augustine, and Aquinas all had for not taking the Genesis days literally has suddenly disappeared?
Vossler: No.

How about simply backing up your insinuations or withdrawing them?

You suggest TEs are relying on some dubious 'special revelation', and that the only Christians who have seen problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days are the ones who are 'scientifically enlightened', a phrase I don't think you meant in a positive sense. Don't just say 'No'. Back your up insinuations or withdraw them.

Not if that ‘science’ is based on conjecture and speculation.

Do you think Augustine cared what reason Christians used to support their bible interpretation against secular science. Whatever the excuse, whatever their reasoning, it was still disgraceful and dangerous and makes the word of God a laughing stock.

Should I take it this kind of meaningless answer is you dropping a claim you can't support? TEs are getting a lot of it in this discussion.

If that is how you wish to interpret it, sure, isn’t that how it works.

I assume if you could give an answer you would, so one of those meaningless answers probably means you cannot support your original claim.

What doesn't work, as you put it, is that you are quite likely to come back making the same claim again even though you couldn't support it the last time.

I really don’t have time to present a lengthy presentation, and that’s what it would take if I wanted to do it right, on a topic that will edify no one.

Come on Vossler. I thought common ancestry was the biggest beef you have with evolution, that it was clearly against the Word of God and blasphemous? Here is you chance to back up the literal interpretation of God making mankind out of clay. If the literal interpretation of this part of the Adam and Eve story is so important, how can you claim the topic will edify no one?

 

[vossler]

No, you would be subjecting yourself to the truth of creation, which, you agreed above, is absolutely true.

If only what the world thinks is actually the truth of creation.

So this warning does not apply, since we are appealing to the truth of creation, not to the deceitfulness of human tradition.

It applies to me, it is the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means. It is what some call sophistry. This isn’t wisdom from God but wisdom from man. Evolution clearly meets that criterion.

Am I wrong?

Of course I had teachers and learned from them, we all did.

Neither does any truth of creation, including the age of the earth and evolution. You are selective in determining when you will listen to what we have discovered to be true about creation. To be consistent, you should accept all or reject all such information.

I’m selective and consistent to listen only when what you preach doesn’t contradict God’s Word.

But why bring up the issue except to imply that this was not the case? That is poisoning the well.

I don’t just accept something as truth because someone said it is so. You made the claim that if people claimed to be doing all the right things and disagree with me what would I do. I basically said it’s easy to say someone is doing all the right things it’s a whole other thing to see it. I don’t see how this is poisoning anything.

You use words in a strange way.

Being the strange person that I am, that shouldn’t be much of a surprise.

It is hard to describe something partial as complete. I think what you are conceding here is that we can understand some things in scripture quite correctly in spite of the imperfections of our understanding.

Yes!

Yet you do not grant that we can do the same with creation. At least not in respect of the age of the earth and evolution. Selectivity again.

It’s one thing to do that with Scripture, it’s entirely a different matter to do it with anything else. Scripture is known to me to be 100% Truth so if I only get a small slice of it, what I get is Truth. The same cannot be said for science.

I think the word you really want is "sufficient". The sufficiency of scripture was an important claim of the Reformation. Scripture does not give us complete knowledge, nor do we have complete understanding of scripture. But it does give us sufficient knowledge for its purpose, (to lead us to salvation) and does so with sufficient clarity that even a child can understand it.

O.K. I’ll go with that, Scripture certainly supports that.

Similarly, science does not give us complete knowledge about creation, nor does it fully understand creation, but it does give us a certain amount of clear and reliable information about creation. Such information should not be rejected by Christians.

I’d go with that too. I’ve always claimed that to be true and support it.

I agree. But that doesn't necessarily make the partial knowledge we do have false or without value.

Agreed!

Sure you do. You have said time and time again that it is not worth the effort to increase our understanding of how creation works.

Only if that effort contradicts Scripture.

Our scope is limited, but generally speaking, I find YECs assume it is more limited than it really is. They seriously underestimate how much we can learn and how accurately we can learn it.

How about YECs don’t look to use the particulars in order to determine the universals, they limit the scope of their investigation to see how the particulars can be applied to the universals.

No, what you see happening is correction of misleading interpretations of scripture. It is your failure to identify these as interpretations that makes it look as if scripture itself is being contradicted.

You can tell me all you want about what I see, but that isn’t going to change anything. Regardless of your objections I see science changing Scripture. Scripture plainly says things that science contradicts.

I wouldn't disagree. But it is not an either-or situation. What we learn from science obviously has less importance relative to our salvation, but that doesn't make it less true. It doesn't make it right to reject the knowledge of creation we have gleaned through science because we choose to interpret scripture in a way that contradicts that knowledge.

Nor do I claim it as an either or situation. As I’ve stated before, I reject conjecture and speculation as science or knowledge. If said information then contradicts Scripture, well that makes it a simple and straight-forward rejection.

Well, now you know that it was not a correct summation of my view either. It would have been helpful if you had identified it as what you thought I was thinking. I hope that I have clarified for you what my actual position is.

I apologize, sometimes in these lengthy conversations we get along and assume others understand the meaning of what we say.

 

[Assyrian]

After rereading that statement I need to amend it just a bit. Scripture gives us absolute knowledge in the areas that it speaks. That doesn't mean I have it. Sorry!

So all we have to do is

(1) figure out what areas it is speaking, not that easy when you realise how Calvin, Luther (and Pope Urban VIII) all thought scripture was speaking geocentrism.

and

(2) understand the absolute knowledge scripture does teach with our finite and culture molded minds.

 

[laptoppop]

Which, of course, is why it is a good thing that Scripture is from God and not from men. Because of that we can rely on His promise that His word will accomplish just what He wants it to accomplish (Is. 55:1).

 

[Assyrian]

Which, of course, is why it is a good thing that Scripture is from God and not from men. Because of that we can rely on His promise that His word will accomplish just what He wants it to accomplish (Is. 55:1).

Which may be very different to what we think his word should accomplish. So when we find God's word accomplished something very different from what we expected, in a very different way to what we expected (13.7 billion years rather than six days), do we celebrate what God accomplished in his own way, or do we insist he does it our way?

 

[vossler]

Care to back it up?

I’m not aware of any legitimate theories that have ever been introduced that were contrary to the text. Maybe you can enlighten?

You seem to be answering the suggestion that you are misinterpreting scipture, (1) By lumping TEs with homosexuals and atheists and (2) You defend you interpretation as being what the bible means, by saying if you can't rely on and trust on scripture it is meaningless.

Of course if you meant something else, please say.

How can one rely on Scripture if when it is used to tackle a tough issue, the standard response is, that’s your interpretation. That’s why I said in order for Scripture to be meaningful one has to be able to trust and rely on it. My point is that only TEs and atheists use this methodology. The similarities are striking. Why is that? You never answered my question, but then expect me to answer yours.

Given that none of us approach scripture from a relativistic point of view, I don't see the point in making that statement other than to smear TEs again.

Look this isn’t just some TE trait, Christians the world over approach Scripture from a relativistic point of view, even some YECs. I’m not just smearing TEs, I’m smearing the majority of Christians. Does that make you feel better now?

What allows lots of interpretations is the simple human inability to understand the mind of God and all that he has revealed in scripture, especially when God seem to think the best way to communicate spiritual truth to flesh and blood man is through allegory metaphor and symbolism.

No, the primary thing that allows for lots of interpretations is human pride.

We do tell you your infallible interpretation is wrong. but you don't believe us when we show you because you believe your interpretation is infallible.

This isn’t about my interpretation. It’s about what the words say. If I told you that your children weren’t really yours, would you believe me or not? Of course not, you’d probably unequivocally tell me I’m full of it. It would take something extraordinary like DNA for you to even consider it. Even then you’d still probably hang on to the possibility that the DNA is wrong because you just know. That’s a little bit how I see this discussion, you’re trying to tell me God didn’t quite know what He was saying and that He needs to send me an expert (TE) to assist me in understanding His creation.

Scientific theories should be held accountable to the world God created and religious theories should be held accountable to the word of God.

What about in the areas where both speak?

If you want to hold science accountable to religious dogma we are left back with the Inquisition trying Galileo and that was not good for science or the church.

Instead of dogma how about the Scriptures, God’s Holy Word?

The question is, when is science intruding into theology and theology intruding into science? I would say science is intruding into theology when people try to use it as a basis for morality or the existance of God ("We have found a gay gene, homosexuality is natural therefore homosexuality is good", Social Darwinisms ruthlessness is the natural way, or Dawkins claim science disproves God.)

Agreed, but it’s also intruding when it attempts to change what Scripture says.

However anytime the bible makes claims about the natural world, or people's interpretations say the bible is making claims about the natural world, then these claims have entered the realm where they are open to naturalistic investigation. 1Cor

15:14 If Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain. Deut 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. Jer 28:8 The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. 9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet." When the word of speaks about the natural world it can be tested against the natural world.

Where does it say in the Bible to test it against the natural world? The Scriptures you highlighted are prophetic and those are always tested. Genesis 1 is hardly prophetic, it’s historical.

Deciding science is preaching against God's word is not 'Wait and see'.

My wait and see comment was directed toward findings that have little to no bearing on the overall truth of Scripture.

No you haven't. You are confusing how were were formed with why. There is no more contradiction between God using evolution to make us and making us in God's image, than there is between God making us out of clay and making us in his image. Or do chapters 1 & 2 contradict each other?

Scripture doesn’t contradict Scripture, whether in the beginning or the end and all points in between. If God said He created us in His image then to take that and surmise that 1.) This involved a lengthy process 2.)That it was an image that required numerous changes 3.) His image is related to other parts of creation are all extra-biblical events conjured up by man in an effort to show himself smarter than he is. I haven’t even mentioned the why and that’s a separate list.

Clearly you do believe it is foundation but you haven't given us any evidence for the claim. As far as I can see you believe it is foundational because it was meant literally, but if it wasn't meant literally then that falls apart.

The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. When telling a story of such magnitude and describing the events as Genesis does, the vast majority of non-biased people would clearly see the foundational and historical purpose of it. I see it as foundational because that’s how God wanted me to and that’s also how most people do, even those who don’t espouse to the Christian belief system.

It is a circular argument. You have show no biblical doctrines that have a six day creation as their foundation.

How about the Sabbath? How about the doctrine of work?

While the teaching that God is creator is foundation and is brought up and retaught again and again through out the OT and New, no one ever taught a six day creation or suggested it was in any way important. The only place it comes up is in Exodus, not because a six day creation is being taught, but because it is being used as an illustration (in thew middle of a metaphor) for something the OT actually did hold to be important, the Sabbath. If it is foundational why did no one take the six days of Genesis days and teach them?

How about no one questioned them? It was a given. The only people doing any questioning are those who don’t believe.

Simply claiming the scientists are wrong does not solve the problem that your hermeneutic is incapable of showing you when science, or scientists are wrong.

That’s the beauty of God and His Word, I don’t have to show it, my job is to believe and proclaim.

I have no problem with your statement here. The difficulty I have is with your inconsistency. You reject the literal flat earth and geocentric readings because you know and accept the science.

Let’s be correct here, there is no literal flat earth.

But you refuse to take the same approach with six day creationism. You don't see a problem with holding the truth of God's word and denying geocentrism and a flat earth. In fact you see the denial of flat earth and geocentrist readings as upholding the truth of Gods word. But you think that doing the exact same thing with the literal six days is denying the truth of God's word.

Given the Bible says six days and doesn’t talk about a flat earth or geocentrism and that those issues are irrelevant I think I’m perfectly content to stand on what it does talk about.

Do share, because so far your hermeneutic has been unable to deal with the question.

After looking at this through multiple sources I could find nothing that the Israelites did in fact sow poppy. Here is a link that explains the problem you seem to have with the mustard seed.

No, It is just your pet hermeneutic I am having a go at. I am taking this literalist hermeneutic, a human construct that thinks it has God's word in a box, and seeing how it stands up to the word of God. But Aslan is not a tame lion.

You haven’t answered the question: Is Jesus lying or is He just being ignorant?

You only know it would be a lie because of naturalistic research. You can measure the size of a poppy seed and a mustard seed. It is no different from science measuring the age of rock and showing a six day interpretation was wrong, or science measuring the motion of the planets and showing that it was the earth that rotated instead of the sun moving around the earth.

In each case you have a choice between
(1) believing God lied,
(2) believing, in faith, that the scientific measurement is wrong. Or
(3) believing the literal reading is a misunderstanding of what God's word said.

We both believe (1) is wrong. God does not lie. You are right to have it as the first rule of hermeneutics. That does not automatically lead to (3) with mustard seeds and geocentrism. You hermeneutic says you must choose (2) Go for the literal reading if it makes sense, which they do. Do not allow things outside scripture (scientific evidence) to influence your interpretation of scripture. Only scripture can influence your interpretation of scripture.

These are very simple hermeneutic rules, very easy to apply, and they give the wrong answer.

Then what is the right answer? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because you listening to too many YEC preachers rather than reading the word of God has to say for itself?

So what does the Word of God have to say on this matter?

Does that mean you are dropping the David Cooper quote in your sig?

So are you implying that science and Scripture are on the same plane?

Does it tell you the earth rotates?

Not that I’m aware of.

You believe he was actually a shepherd? What ever happened to carpenter?

What does it matter what I believe? If it can’t be proven scientifically it holds no weight, right?

It is amazing how you can read such a vague and general meaning to the word day in Psalm 90 while in Genesis 1 it has to be absolutely, no other option, 24 hours, and nothing else. It is amazing how you can see no connection between Genesis mentioning days and Moses talking about God's days in a Psalm about the creation. Shouldn't we allow scripture to interpret scripture? Shouldn't we allow the only person to mention creation days in the whole bible to tell us about God's days in his Psalm about creation?

I’m sure Augustine, Origin and Aquinas saw it that way too, not to mention Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Moody etc. Right?

 

[vossler]

Yet you don't think God is excluded because we can measure the motion of the planets or study the growth of a baby in the womb?

You failed to defend your claim that God is active in evolution. Why? Would your relationship with the world become tainted by defending it?

Then why all the misrepresentations of TE?

The following points are continually made to me by atheists and TEs alike.

1. Man and all of life evolved from a common ancestor.
2. All life that exists in its present form became so via natural processes.
3. The Bible is loaded with wrong assertions.

Did I miss something? Was an announcement made by TEs rescinding all these claims? If so, I have reason to rejoice and will be the first to offer an apology to each and every TE here. I will be happy to rescind all of my misrepresentations. Please tell me it is so.

Vossler: we can’t even accurately say what happened last week.

Think of it this way, if a hundred things happened last week and we can say accurately state we know of 2 things that happened. Does that give us an accurate picture of what happened? To an evolutionist it certainly appears to, but to a YEC it just reaffirms the awesome splendor and majesty of God. So yes science can tell us something about the past.

You suggest TEs are relying on some dubious 'special revelation', and that the only Christians who have seen problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis days are the ones who are 'scientifically enlightened', a phrase I don't think you meant in a positive sense. Don't just say 'No'. Back your up insinuations or withdraw them.

No, what I’m suggesting is that only TEs who are scientifically enlightened or possess a special revelation know the Truth because their claims are so far removed from Scripture itself. Origin, Augustine and Aquinas I suspect used Scripture as a foundation to support their assertions, not science or some other man-derived source. To use Augustine as an example, he had questions whether God created in six days or instantaneously because the nature of God supported that. Where did he arrived at that conclusion from, Scripture. He arrived there not because of what he saw in creation, but what he saw in Scripture. TEs don’t do that.

I assume if you could give an answer you would, so one of those meaningless answers probably means you cannot support your original claim.

I’m sorry but I truly don’t even know what the original point was here. Give me the question and I’ll do my best to answer it.

Come on Vossler. I thought common ancestry was the biggest beef you have with evolution, that it was clearly against the Word of God and blasphemous? Here is you chance to back up the literal interpretation of God making mankind out of clay. If the literal interpretation of this part of the Adam and Eve story is so important, how can you claim the topic will edify no one?

There isn’t anything to back up. Here’s the short answer. The text says it and there’s no reason not to believe it. God, as the text says, literally made Adam from the dust of the earth. BTW, the snake and tree of life were literal too. What wasn’t literal is the bruising of the snake’s head that was figurative. I cleared that up just so you can see that Genesis was literal here too.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The following points are continually made to me by atheists and TEs alike.

1. Man and all of life evolved from a common ancestor.
2. All life that exists in its present form became so via natural processes.
3. The Bible is loaded with wrong assertions.

Theistic evolutionists do not necessarily reject biblical inerrancy. We simply recognize the difference between the genre of historical narrative and mythologized epic.

A person can believe that the Scriptures are true in all matters they address- doctrinal, ethical, scientific, and historical- and at the same time believe that the Genesis narrative does not address scientific cosmology or anthropology.

I mean, it's not like creationists think that the Joshua-Amalikites narrative addresses the relationship between planet earth and our sun. Why can't we say the same about the cosmology of Genesis 1 by interpreting it according to the framework exegetical model, or Genesis 2 and 3 according to the genre of Near Eastern creation epic?

 

[theFijian]

You failed to defend your claim that God is active in evolution. Why? Would your relationship with the world become tainted by defending it?

Are you actually suggesting Assyrian must defend the claim that God works through natural means and processes?? Seriously what kind of a Christian are you that you don't agree with this?