Did You Compromise?

[Raydar]

To all TE and OEC's do you think you had to compromise your interpritation of the Genesis account of creation to make it fit in to your beliefs on how the world began?

 

[2Timothy2]

Wow, the way you phrased that suggests you think we do just that. "...to make it fit in to your beliefs".

Quite the other way around. My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture. I'm willing to put my beliefs/interpretation to Scripture's test any time, and often do in many areas. Sometimes I have to change what I believed, as it conflicted with what the Bible says. I've done this repeatedly with my interpretation of Genesis 1-2, and have come away so far as understanding the Earth is some 4 or so billion years old.

If this doesn't apply then disregard it, but if you get most of your info on creation and science from AIG or ICR, I would suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. I only say this because of your choice of words and AIG's "campaign".

 

[Dark_Lite]

No.

 

[gluadys]

To all TE and OEC's do you think you had to compromise your interpritation of the Genesis account of creation to make it fit in to your beliefs on how the world began?

Not at all. In fact, my beliefs on creation have very little to do with how I interpret the scriptural stories of creation.

 

[Calminian]

Quite the other way around. My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture. I'm willing to put my beliefs/interpretation to Scripture's test any time, and often do in many areas. Sometimes I have to change what I believed, as it conflicted with what the Bible says. I've done this repeatedly with my interpretation of Genesis 1-2, and have come away so far as understanding the Earth is some 4 or so billion years old.

So in other words, if current scientific thought suddenly took a paradigm shift and started moving toward a much younger solar system, would you then stick to your guns and go against the scientific community? After all if it says it in scripture it says it in scripture. Let's say for instance that a whitehole type theory (like Humphreys) eventually became the majority view. Would you abandon your old earth view and look for a new hermeneutic or would you perhaps even abandon the Bible?

 

[2Timothy2]

Cal, your fundamental assumption is flawed. I don't base my faith or hermeneutics on science. And no, I shall never abandon God's word.

There have been several "sudden paradigm" shifts (I hate the phrase paradigm shift, too many people use it and don't know what it means), and they have not contradicted Scripture. Sometimes they have shown the fallacies of certain interpretations though. Do you remember what happened to the fella quoted in my sig? The Catholic church used an interpretive method very much akin to YEC's. And tactics very much akin to YEC's in defense of their interpretations. Let's remember that our disagreement on the age of the universe is a disagreement on interpretation, not on belief in God's word or the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[notto]

Nope. I was never taught or interpreted it as being literal.

 

[Vance]

My view of the "how" and "when" of creation is based on what I can discover from God's Creation itself, because I find nothing compelling in Scripture on those points. Scripture tells exactly the "who" and "why".

And, so, no I did not compromise any interpretation of Scripture in order to accept that the "how" and "when" were almost assuredly evolution over billions of years. This is because even before I seriously considered the scientific evidence, and while I would still have been considered a YEC (having been raised with that interpretation), I concluded that Genesis 1 and 2 was almost assuredly meant to be read figuratively, and not as a strict historical narrative.

So, at the time that I turned to consider the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and special creation vs. evolution, I had an interpretation of Scripture that did not require either, so was free to go where the evidence led, to the extent the evidence was compelling.

Now, having said that, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Augustine that we, as Christians, should allow the evidence from God's Creation to inform our interpretive process and should NEVER be so confident in our own human, fallible ability to interpret Scripture that we are not willing to consider another interpretation if there is good reason. That would not be compromise, that would be accepting that one was in error and correcting it.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, your fundamental assumption is flawed. I don't base my faith or hermeneutics on science. And no, I shall never abandon God's word.

There have been several "sudden paradigm" shifts (I hate the phrase paradigm shift, too many people use it and don't know what it means), and they have not contradicted Scripture. Sometimes they have shown the fallacies of certain interpretations though. Do you remember what happened to the fella quoted in my sig? The Catholic church used an interpretive method very much akin to YEC's. And tactics very much akin to YEC's in defense of their interpretations. Let's remember that our disagreement on the age of the universe is a disagreement on interpretation, not on belief in God's word or the Lord Jesus Christ.

If that's your view fine. In your first post you said your old earth beliefs came from scripture and not science.

Quite the other way around. My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture.

Now you’re saying your beliefs about old earth are not based on scripture at all.

 

[2Timothy2]

Now you’re saying your beliefs about old earth are not based on scripture at all.

How you got that from this...

My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture.

(or)

I don't base my faith or hermeneutics on science

I'll never know. Might I suggest you actually let the words convey the ideas they actually mean and not force your own opinions on them?

The fact that there have been shifts in scientific understanding has no bearing on what my beliefs are based. That is true no matter what AIG tells you to think about it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The fundamental idea that the OP wishes to portray is that Scripture stands alone, it needs no input from the outside, especially from modern science.

So i will again, address to those who think this way.

where in Scripture is it's own table of contents?
ie. the listing of the individual books, the problem of the canon.
and remember you can only use the contents of Scripture, no reference to history, to archeology, to textual criticism etc etc, for they are sciences.

......
btw, if you want to do some research on the issue, google the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone or by itself, vs Scripture only

 

[billwald]

If the scientific community produced convincing evidence of a young earth I would temporarially accept it but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Calminian]

Wow, the way you phrased that suggests you think we do just that. "...to make it fit in to your beliefs".

Quite the other way around. My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture. I'm willing to put my beliefs/interpretation to Scripture's test any time, and often do in many areas. Sometimes I have to change what I believed, as it conflicted with what the Bible says. I've done this repeatedly with my interpretation of Genesis 1-2, and have come away so far as understanding the Earth is some 4 or so billion years old.

If this doesn't apply then disregard it, but if you get most of your info on creation and science from AIG or ICR, I would suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. I only say this because of your choice of words and AIG's "campaign".

Sounds like AIG's really getting to ya. But your hostility's not warranted.

To all TE and OEC's do you think you had to compromise your interpritation of the Genesis account of creation to make it fit in to your beliefs on how the world began?

You then replied:

Quite the other way around. My beliefs, old Earth, are based on Scripture, the whole of Scripture. I'm willing to put my beliefs/interpretation to Scripture's test any time, and often do in many areas. Sometimes I have to change what I believed, as it conflicted with what the Bible says. I've done this repeatedly with my interpretation of Genesis 1-2, and have come away so far as understanding the Earth is some 4 or so billion years old.

All the other TE posters explained that they didn’t think Genesis was literal and that it doesn’t really help us with old earth young earth, therefore they are free to go with current scientific theories. You’re the only one that claimed your OE beliefs were based on scripture. You said it was “the other way around” implying you let scripture convince you the earth was old. Yes I realize you changed your view in your second post and I accepted that. So what’s with the hostility? We are all clear.

 

[2Timothy2]

I'm totally confused here. Where did I change my views? And what hostility? Is it hostile to point out that you are reading into my words what is not there? It seems to me you are still doing this.

AIG is getting to me? No, some of the things they say are just plain wrong. But that's an aside. What I am saying is that we should never get all our info from just one source (and I'm not speaking here of getting our beliefs from the Bible). Looking at other viewpoints helps to fix our understanding, in many if not most areas. The truth of Scripture has nothing to fear from honest examination. Take a look at some old earth views. You might be surprised that they uphold and preach the exact same Gospel.

And I am not, in any way, an evolutionist. The last part of Cal's post seemed to imply this.

All the other TE posters...You’re the only one

If I'm reading that wrong, I apologize. But, the rules of English, as I understand them, say you are lumping me in with evolutionists. Let me state, yet again, my views as clearly as I can. I do not believe evolution ever did, does, will, or can occur. "Old earth" does not equal evolutionist. This is one of the things AIG gets wrong, btw.

 

[Calminian]

I'm totally confused here. Where did I change my views?.

In your first post you indicated your OE views were based on scripture. In your second, after being asked if you would stick to that interpretation if the majority of scientists changed their minds, you seemed to say you would change your interpretation (as the catholic church did). It sounds like your view of the earths age is determine by current science. Go ahead and clarify because I’m getting confused also.

If I'm reading that wrong, I apologize. But, the rules of English, as I understand them, say you are lumping me in with evolutionists. Let me state, yet again, my views as clearly as I can. I do not believe evolution ever did, does, will, or can occur. "Old earth" does not equal evolutionist. This is one of the things AIG gets wrong, btw.

Yes you are right I should have included OECs as well.

 

[Calminian]

The fundamental idea that the OP wishes to portray is that Scripture stands alone, it needs no input from the outside, especially from modern science.

I don't think the OP implied that at all.

ie. the listing of the individual books, the problem of the canon.
and remember you can only use the contents of Scripture, no reference to history, to archeology, to textual criticism etc etc, for they are sciences.

This is not the issue at all. The issue is, Should miracles like the resurrection, the creation, the virgin birth etc. be understood in light of naturalistic theories that assume additions to natural processes have not occurred? While the sciences can help us determine many things about our bible (through archeology etc.), it cannot help us determine whether or not particular miracles in the Bible really happened. There are many so called christians that deny miracles like the virgin birth and resurrection in light of modern scientific theories. They look at them as sort of parables with important messages for us, but not a literal happenings. IOW they don't interpret them as being conveyed as literal stories (sound familiar?) According to your logic, why are they wrong?

 

[The Lady Kate]

To all TE and OEC's do you think you had to compromise your interpritation of the Genesis account of creation to make it fit in to your beliefs on how the world began?

"Compromise" how?

If, by "compromise," you mean, "Change what I used to think it meant into something else," then yes.

But that could just as easily be called "wisdom" as "compromise"... what did you have in mind?

 

[notto]

I don't think the OP implied that at all.



This is not the issue at all. The issue is, Should miracles like the resurrection, the creation, the virgin birth etc. be understood in light of naturalistic theories that assume additions to natural processes have not occurred? While the sciences can help us determine many things about our bible (through archeology etc.), it cannot help us determine whether or not particular miracles in the Bible really happened. There are many so called christians that deny miracles like the virgin birth and resurrection in light of modern scientific theories. They look at them as sort of parables with important messages for us, but not a literal happenings. IOW they don't interpret them as being conveyed as literal stories (sound familiar?) According to your logic, why are they wrong?

The virgin birth and resurrection miracles have not been falsified. A 6 day special creation of a young earth has been falsified by several independent lines of evidence that do not fit a literal reading of Genesis. If creation happened the way that Genesis lays out (even as a miracle), it would leave evidence that would show us that indeed the order and nature of the creative act as laid out was what happened. The evidence directly conflicts with this and we can falsify that it happened the way a literal reading of Genesis was laid out. The only other alternative would be that God miraculously covered up the creative act which would seem to conflict with other parts of scripture that tell us that we can see the nature of God by studying the creation.

 

[Vance]

Right, Notto, the miracles of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc, are entirely different. YEC's keep assuming that we don't believe in a young earth because it would be "miraculous" and contrary to purely natural actions. This is simply not true. Almost every TE I know has no problem at all with the miracles, or any supernatural action. God created the natural processes, so He could override them. Not a problem.

The problem for a particular supernatural act comes in when evidence from God's Creation itself speaks that the event did not happen in that way, but in another. In that case, it behooves us to "test all things" and see whether we have the interpretation of Scripture correct. The stronger the evidence from God's Creation, the more we should scrutinize our own interpretation.

If there are two very viable possible interpretations, and one agrees with the evidence from God's Creation and one contradicts it, would not God expect us to use the interpretation that work with His Creation?

 

[Maccie]

If there are two very viable possible interpretations, and one agrees with the evidence from God's Creation and one contradicts it, would not God expect us to use the interpretation that work with His Creation?
emphasis mine

I'm absolutely sure he would, Vance. Why else would he enable people of a scientific turn of mind to observe what he did and learn from it?