Did You Compromise?

[Calminian]

The virgin birth and resurrection miracles have not been falsified.

Science cannot investigate miracles, and the effects of miracles cannot be predicted by scientific methods since they don’t know all the details about the miraculous work nor its Worker. Scientists don't know what a miraculously created universe looks like, (except of course those that understand this one is miraculously created). But most approach this universe as being formed apart from God. That’s a huge assumption.

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.

Ooops. Is this an admission that the Bible really does teach YEC?

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.

So you’re saying that we know for certain what the effects of a miracle will look like? How many miracles have we been able to study that you can say this with such certainty. Are you saying if you had miraculously created wine you would be able verify it’s age as well as the method used to create it through science?

 

[Calminian]

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.

YECs fully realize TEs accept miracles. We just believe they do so inconsistently. The problem is not that TEs reject miracles, but that they approach the origins question using the the naturalistic assumptions that atheistic evolutionists use. Certainly you will admit that modern dating methods assume a non miraculous environment?

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.

Here we go again with this idea that scientific investigation can verify a miracle and it's effects. A simple examination of the wine Jesus created would suggest it was created the natural way. But that assumption would be wrong. You don't test a miracle and its effects by using a method that cannot tell us anything about miracles.

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.

No where does the bible advise us to test things through naturalistic eyes. We are to test things through scripture. Okay here's a challenge. Where does the bible tells us to test things though observing creation, let alone test the clear teachings of scripture through observing creation?

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?

If all we had was the leftover wine Christ created, two viable explanations would exist. The natural explanation would fit the evidence just fine. But the naturalistic explanation would be wrong.

 

[Vance]

You are right, science can not and does not investigate the supernatural, and so science is, by definition simply an explanation of how things happen in their natural processes. Some go further, and hold to philosophical naturalism, which asserts that the supernatural does not exist and has no impact on our universe. But this is no longer science, it is philosophy.

Again, the problem for all of those scientists who do NOT have a naturalistic philosophy, is not with the idea of miracles at all. Only those claims of the supernatural which the specific evidence shows not to have happened. This is not a rejection based on their not being able to happen, simply on the evidence that this ONE didn't happen.

Science can not prove that a supernatural event too place. But it can, in some instances, prove that one did NOT take place.

Now, having said that, we must remember that even the TE sees the entire Creation process, including the development of the evolutionary process, as a supernatural event. A miracle.

 

[Alarum]

Given that the bible is full of parables, I see no reason that interpretations need be literal.

The elements in the bible that suggest non-literality are simply staggering. Ignoring who wanted to murder Cain, or how there was day before sun, you have the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Come on, the Tree of Knowledge? Forbidden Fruits? What part of this suggests literal apples? It is clearly a metaphor.

 

[Vance]

YECs fully realize TEs accept miracles. We just believe they do so inconsistently. The problem is not that TEs reject miracles, but that they approach the origins question using the the naturalistic assumptions that atheistic evolutionists use. Certainly you will admit that modern dating methods assume a non miraculous environment?

First, no, we do not use the same naturalistic assumptions that atheistic evolutionists use, any more than you do. When you accept photosynthesis because that is what the secular science describes as the process for growing plants, are you adopting naturalistic assumptions? Yes and no. You are accepting that God created a world in which natural processes are at work. Both TE's and YEC's reject, however, any idea that the MUST happen via natural processes, since God can override these at any time.

And, no, modern dating methods do not assume a non-miraculous environment anymore than any other methodology does. It just says that this has proven to be a reliable method of dating the past. It has been tested and shown to be accurate. It does not assume a non-miraculous anything, it just explains what happens when it happens naturally. Now, this can not prove the miraculous, but it CAN disprove certain claims of the supernatural since it can show that something else happened instead.

Here we go again with this idea that scientific investigation can verify a miracle and it's effects. A simple examination of the wine Jesus created would suggest it was created the natural way. But that assumption would be wrong. You don't test a miracle and its effects by using a method that cannot tell us anything about miracles.

No, science can not verify a miracle, since it can not explain it. But it can show that events took place in a way that might disprove certain supernatural claims. As for the wine, we have no idea what it would have shown. But I do know that God is not a deceiver and would not create in a way that included UNECESSARY elements which showed past events which did not happen. There is a difference between creating wine that would have the qualities of aged wine because there is a benefit to that extra fermentation, and creating a world with scars and signs of a past that did not happen. As for a recent flood, there is the ABSENCE of evidence that would exist if it had happened. God would not be a deceiver and hide away that evidence either.

No where does the bible advise us to test things through naturalistic eyes. We are to test things through scripture. Okay here's a challenge. Where does the bible tells us to test things though observing creation, let alone test the clear teachings of scripture through observing creation?

Where does it say that the "testing" Scripture is meant to refer to testing it through Scripture? And the use of the word "clear" is begging the question since I don't find it clearly speaking as literal historical narrative at all. I came to the conclusion that it must be read figuratively before reviewing any of the scientific evidence.

If all we had was the leftover wine Christ created, two viable explanations would exist. The natural explanation would fit the evidence just fine. But the naturalistic explanation would be wrong.

Yes, and that would be OK because that natural explanation would be based on what one would expect naturally, not based on some specific evidence that contradicted the miraculous nature of the event. This is very different with a young earth and the flood.

 

[notto]

So you’re saying that we know for certain what the effects of a miracle will look like? How many miracles have we been able to study that you can say this with such certainty. Are you saying if you had miraculously created wine you would be able verify it’s age as well as the method used to create it through science?

We know what the effects of a 6 day creation would look like and we find evidence that directly conflicts with it unless God is a deciever. Even if we accept an 'appearance of age' as part of the miracle, the creation shows much more. It shows an appearance of history that would have never happened. This history would not be part of the micracle, but would be part of a specific deception. Not good science or theology.

 

[Calminian]

Some go further, and hold to philosophical naturalism, which asserts that the supernatural does not exist and has no impact on our universe. But this is no longer science, it is philosophy.

I'm not talking about scientists I'm talking about how all scientific investigation is done. All scientific dating methods (no matter which scientist is using them) assume a non miraculous environment. Do you disagree with this?

 

[Calminian]

Given that the bible is full of parables, I see no reason that interpretations need be literal.

Well, how about genealogies? We have specific genealogies linking Adam to Christ. Can you give me the allegorical meaning of genealogies? And as I said before, there are many that call themselves "christian" that believe Christ's miracles are allegorical stories as well. Can you fault them for this, give there are genealogies from the first Adam to the last?

 

[Vance]

Well, how about genealogies? We have specific genealogies linking Adam to Christ. Can you give me the allegorical meaning of genealogies? And as I said before, there are many that call themselves "christian" that believe Christ's miracles are allegorical stories as well. Can you fault them for this, give there are genealogies from the first Adam to the last?

Well, yes, there is a very big difference. There is no reason at all to doubt the miracles based on the text or history. The Scripture in which the miracles are relayed have the hallmarks of truth historically and is not written in a literary style which lends itself to figurative reading.

Genealogies are very different in ancient times. It was very common, actually almost standard, to link up actual lineages to legendary, mythical or semi-mythical persons. This happened all the time, and those who described their line in this way did not think of that lineage as strictly historically accurate all the way back. In a way that we have a difficult time getting our heads around today, they could think of such early figures (and such texts as the Creation accounts) as "true" and "real" without being strict literal history. Our minds just don't work this way since the Enlightenment.

As for the dating, I would urge you to read the following bits from a scientists who is also an anti-evolutionist Christian:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

and a more detailed coverage:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.shtml

 

[Calminian]

First, no, we do not use the same naturalistic assumptions that atheistic evolutionists use, any more than you do. When you accept photosynthesis because that is what the secular science describes as the process for growing plants, are you adopting naturalistic assumptions?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with naturalists that photosynthesis is part of a natural process and does not require a miracle. I disagree with naturalists that creation of plants and light and the rest of the world was a natural process. You don't.

Yes and no. You are accepting that God created a world in which natural processes are at work. Both TE's and YEC's reject, however, any idea that the MUST happen via natural processes, since God can override these at any time.

But the difference is you believe you can know through scientific investigation whether or not God overrides them and therefore which miracles to believe or not.

And, no, modern dating methods do not assume a non-miraculous environment anymore than any other methodology does.

I've talked with many scientists. You are the fist that has ever claimed this. I got this directly from them.

It just says that this has proven to be a reliable method of dating the past. It has been tested and shown to be accurate. It does not assume a non-miraculous anything, it just explains what happens when it happens naturally.

Now you're equivocating. "Naturally" and "non miraculously" are the same thing. I think you're confused.

 

[Calminian]

We know what the effects of a 6 day creation would look like and we find evidence that directly conflicts with it unless God is a deciever..

Yes we do. All we have to do is look at our universe. But the problem is you don't believe our universe was miraculously created in 6 days about 6 thousand years ago. Soooo, how is it you claim to know what one would look like. Have you ever observed one???? Have you ever observed how God creates things out of nothing???? How is it you claim you can know such a thing?

 

[Calminian]

Genealogies are very different in ancient times. It was very common, actually almost standard, to link up actual lineages to legendary, mythical or semi-mythical persons. This happened all the time, and those who described their line in this way did not think of that lineage as strictly historically accurate all the way back. In a way that we have a difficult time getting our heads around today, they could think of such early figures (and such texts as the Creation accounts) as "true" and "real" without being strict literal history. Our minds just don't work this way since the Enlightenment.

Okay this would be a very interesting defense of your position. Could you let me know where I can find ancient genealogies that take the same form as biblical genealogies, including life spans of the individuals and their age at birth of their children??

Example: Gen. 5:6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm not talking about scientists I'm talking about how all scientific investigation is done. All scientific dating methods (no matter which scientist is using them) assume a non miraculous environment. Do you disagree with this?

Personally, I don't disagree... But why assume a miraculous environment that looks and acts like a non-miraculous one?

 

[Vance]

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with naturalists that photosynthesis is part of a natural process and does not require a miracle. I disagree with naturalists that creation of plants and light and the rest of the world was a natural process. You don't.

But, yes, I DO disagree with the philosophical naturalist when he says that it was the result of a natural process because He excludes the supernatural CAUSE of that natural process. Just as you accept photosynthesis as a natural means by which God fulfills His creative process, I see evolution as a natural process by which He fulfilled (and fulfills) His creative process. You and I both disagree with the philosophical naturalist on the essential point.

But the difference is you believe you can know through scientific investigation whether or not God overrides them and therefore which miracles to believe or not.

No, not which miracles to believe, but simply HOW God performed His various supernatural acts. Sometimes God uses natural processes to make wondrous things happen (much of his initial creative process and currently, the birth process) other times He steps in and overrides the natural laws to make something happen. Whenever God describes it as a miracle in Scripture, I accept it as a miracle, though. There is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 which requires the belief that God did NOT use many natural processes to accomplish that miraculous event.

I've talked with many scientists. You are the fist that has ever claimed this. I got this directly from them.

Scientists make no judgment about whether the miraculous can happen. If they do, they are no longer doing science. The dating process does not assume miracles don't happen, they just get to work on how it happens naturally.

Now you're equivocating. "Naturally" and "non miraculously" are the same thing. I think you're confused.

No, see my earlier statement about why the dating process would still work even if a supernatural event took place. It would just help us learn HOW that event took place. If there is strong enough evidence from God's Creation itself, including things like isotopes, etc (see those articles I linked you to), that the earth is very old, then we can tentatively work with the idea that the supernatural event of Creation took place over that very long time.

As for the genealogies, the degree of detail will vary from culture to culture, but it would be difficult to find a culture in the ANE, or even Greece or Rome (maybe even the far east, but that is not my area, my degree is in the ancient history of the West), which did not tie their genealogies back to such figures. Read the thread called "Support for the ancients not reading their texts literally" or something close to that.

 

[gluadys]

As for the genealogies, the degree of detail will vary from culture to culture, but it would be difficult to find a culture in the ANE, or even Greece or Rome (maybe even the far east, but that is not my area, my degree is in the ancient history of the West), which did not tie their genealogies back to such figures. Read the thread called "Support for the ancients not reading their texts literally" or something close to that.

One clear-cut and still current example from the far east is the royal family of Japan whose ancestry is traced back to the sun god. Until the end of World War Two the Japanese held their emperor to be an incarnation of the sun god. Part of the peace settlement was that the emperor explicitly renounce any claim to personal divinity.

 

[notto]

Yes we do. All we have to do is look at our universe. But the problem is you don't believe our universe was miraculously created in 6 days about 6 thousand years ago. Soooo, how is it you claim to know what one would look like. Have you ever observed one???? Have you ever observed how God creates things out of nothing???? How is it you claim you can know such a thing?

I would expect that we can look at the creation and it would look like it is only 6,000 years old. There are things that exist within the creation that could not exist in a 6000 year older earth unless God put them there to specifically deceive us.

Did Adam have scars from his childhood? Why would he? Why would the earth have an appearance of a history that never happened?

 

[Calminian]

I would expect that we can look at the creation and it would look like it is only 6,000 years old. There are things that exist within the creation that could not exist in a 6000 year older earth unless God put them there to specifically deceive us.

Deceived who?? I'm not deceived. The early church wasn't deceived. I believe God's direct revelation. Only those who choose to look at the world through naturalistic glasses are deceived. How is that God's fault?? Don't you know scientific theories come and go?

In the wine illustration (if you had a chance to check it out), the wine would have appeared old only to those who chose to believe naturalistic explanations first. To the rest, age wouldn't have even entered their minds.

Did Adam have scars from his childhood? Why would he? Why would the earth have an appearance of a history that never happened?

It doesn't to me. Now I would surmise (not being a scientist) that in order for an echo system to work properly, some things in creation might have had to be tweaked a little in order to work in harmony with everything else.

Did Adam have a belly button? I don't know. Maybe not, but he certainly would have been mature looking in other areas. His brain and vocal cords would have had to have the appearance of age (to those who assume naturalism) in order to even talk. His muscles would have had the appearance of age in order to do work in the garden. And I bet God gave him adult teeth right from the start in order to enjoy all those vegetables. In fact just about every cell in his entire body must have had the appearance of age as they would have had to all be working in sink together. I would imagine the earths echo system was the same way, the soil, the plants, the bees, etc. I would imagine the solar system would be the same way and even the galaxy. Does that make God a deceiver? Not to me, for I have His direct revelation. Only those that assume naturalism or that think they know all that goes into a miracle will be deceived. I don't think God's responsible for that.

 

[Calminian]

No, not which miracles to believe, but simply HOW God performed His various supernatural acts. Sometimes God uses natural processes to make wondrous things happen (much of his initial creative process and currently, the birth process)

It's a false comparison. The birth process is never described in scripture as a supernatural act of God. The creation is.

other times He steps in and overrides the natural laws to make something happen. Whenever God describes it as a miracle in Scripture, I accept it as a miracle, though. There is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 which requires the belief that God did NOT use many natural processes to accomplish that miraculous event.

Well, actually there is but you've dismissed all as figurative, isn't that the case? Someone could just as easily say they don't believe the virgin birth needs to be taken literally. Why would they be any different than you or any less christian than you? Science can't help them either way and they just don't see the point in believing a miracle when a natural process works just as good.

Scientists make no judgment about whether the miraculous can happen. If they do, they are no longer doing science. The dating process does not assume miracles don't happen, they just get to work on how it happens naturally.

Another equivocation. Naturally and non miraculous are the same thing.

As for the genealogies, the degree of detail will vary from culture to culture, but it would be difficult to find a culture in the ANE, or even Greece or Rome (maybe even the far east, but that is not my area, my degree is in the ancient history of the West), which did not tie their genealogies back to such figures. Read the thread called "Support for the ancients not reading their texts literally" or something close to that.

But I have to take this as an admission that there are no mythological genealogies in the ancient world (that link real me to mythological men) with the kind of detail we see in Genesis. Therefore, there's no reason for me to dismiss them just because they conflict with modern theories about the earth.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Time to say it again.

Proving that the Bible insists on a literal reading, a 6 day creation, and a six thousand year old earth proves only one thing - that the Bible is wrong.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Christians would want to go there. Why prove the Bible is wrong? I don't get it.

 

[Vance]

It's a false comparison. The birth process is never described in scripture as a supernatural act of God. The creation is.

That is begging the question of HOW the supernatural act was performed. I agree completely that the Creation was a supernatural act, which, in its ultimate causation, can not be understood by a mere application of naturalistic principles. The question is not whether we believe it was supernatural, or whether God used and uses natural processes to accomplish His work, since we both believe in both propositions. The question is the when He used natural processes (which he supernaturally developed).

Well, actually there is but you've dismissed all as figurative, isn't that the case? Someone could just as easily say they don't believe the virgin birth needs to be taken literally. Why would they be any different than you or any less christian than you? Science can't help them either way and they just don't see the point in believing a miracle when a natural process works just as good.

But there is a HUGE difference. It is not a matter of "because a natural process works just fine". I do not reject a young earth and intantaneous creation because a natural process would work. I reject them for two simple reasons. First, I have NO Scriptural or theological reason to accept them, since I had already concluded that the text was meant to be read figuratively. Second, the evidence from God's Creation indicates that evolutionary development has occured over billions of years. It takes BOTH of these to cause me to reject a young earth.

With the virgin birth, we have no evidence whatsoever that would cause us to disbelieve it, and Scriptural and theological reasons to accept it. Apples and oranges.

Another equivocation. Naturally and non miraculous are the same thing.

Have you read the links to the dating methodologies I cited you to? I would ask that you review those before we discuss the dating any further.

But I have to take this as an admission that there are no mythological genealogies in the ancient world (that link real me to mythological men) with the kind of detail we see in Genesis. Therefore, there's no reason for me to dismiss them just because they conflict with modern theories about the earth.

So you want to dismiss all evidence of comparative uses of genealogies in ancient times because of the level of detail? Seems like a decision made on a pre-existing conclusion to me.