Dinosaurs

[notto]

But those who persist in saying a hippo matches the description are just destroying their own credibility IMHO.

I disagree. I think that explaining the verses with an animal that actually lived during the time when they were written would have more credibility than suggesting they were written about an animal that did not exist at the time they were written.

 

[Vance]

Scripture certainly is about revealing spiritual truth. But the author (author by inspiration) also knew history and science perfectly. So while His aim wasn't to inform us about the universe and history per se, we certainly wouldn't expect Him to make mistakes in those areas either. And BTW I would think you agree with this also. TEs don't claim that God made a bunch of scientific mistakes in Genesis. Rather they claim men are just interpreting the book wrongly. If historical and scientific mistakes were okay, they wouldn't even bother.

Exactly. My point is that if something is not meant to be written as science or even strict historical narrative, then the degree to which a perceived "fact" is not accurate is NOT a mistake, it is NOT an error in the least. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, he is not making a scientific statement, so the fact that the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed is NOT an error by Jesus.

The Bible can only be in error if it is attempting to do something and then does it incorrectly. If God is not intending to say that the universe was created in six 24-hour periods, then the fact that it was not created in that time frame does not make the Scriptures in error.

The bottom line is that Scripture is not in error, regardless of whether the earth is billions of years old and He used evoluiton as part of His creative process.

 

[bdfoster]

It's not quite that simple. The Bible has proven to me it's a reliable source of information about our world. Christ has proven to be to be a reliable source of info. Contemporary theories, considering their transitory nature, have not demonstrated to me they are a reliable enough source to override the Bible, or even to cause me to spiritualize portions of it.

I disagree, and this may be one of the fundamental disagreements between YEC and TE. God gave us the creation and God gave us scripture. I think each is equally a valid source of truth if properly interpretted. I think it is wrong to worship either, although there are those who do. It seems to me that YECs have much higher regard for truth revealed in scripture than for truth revealed in creation. Both scripture and creation need to be interpretted properly in order to yield truth. But it seems to me that YECs assume that a litteral interpretation of scripture automatically yields truth.

I can't say I'm totally following but I think I am a little. I realize the scripture is not acceptable to many folks but I'm not one of them.

This is just what I mean. I didn't say scripture is not acceptable, I said a literal reading of scripture is not acceptable to many folks.

But those who persist in saying a hippo matches the description are just destroying their own credibility IMHO.

I don't insist that a hippo matches the behemoth description. But I have to agree with notto on one thing: if you think those who do (think it's a hippo) are destroying their credibility, and you think it's a dinosaur, then I think you're living in a glass house.

 

[gluadys]

Scripture certainly is about revealing spiritual truth. But the author (author by inspiration) also knew history and science perfectly.

Why on earth would anyone assume that?

So while His aim wasn't to inform us about the universe and history per se, we certainly wouldn't expect Him to make mistakes in those areas either. And BTW I would think you agree with this also. TEs don't claim that God made a bunch of scientific mistakes in Genesis. Rather they claim men are just interpreting the book wrongly. If historical and scientific mistakes were okay, they wouldn't even bother.

Depends on what framework you are using. I don't expect the biblical authors to have a flawless knowledge of science and history. So I expect them to make errors viewed against a more complete knowledge of science and history.

But viewed from the framework they knew--no they were not making errors. It is not an error to view the sky as a tent or dome as the biblical authors did, if that is what you really think it is. It only looks like an error if one thinks the author is supposed to know the sky is atmosphere shading into interstellar space.

 

[Calminian]

Why on earth would anyone assume that?

I should have capitalized Author. IOW God (the Author) understood science and history perfectly. Therefore even if His purpose was not to teach it, we would at least no expect errors in that area.

Depends on what framework you are using. I don't expect the biblical authors to have a flawless knowledge of science and history. So I expect them to make errors viewed against a more complete knowledge of science and history.

Then it's obvious you reject inspiration.

But viewed from the framework they knew--no they were not making errors. It is not an error to view the sky as a tent or dome as the biblical authors did, if that is what you really think it is. It only looks like an error if one thinks the author is supposed to know the sky is atmosphere shading into interstellar space.

God is the Author of scripture. With the kind of reasoning you're offering one could say the N.T. authors were wrong about an actual resurrection, but it doesn't matter since they really believed it was real.

 

[Vance]

No, it is not obvious that she rejects inspiration at all. You can believe that God inspires the message, the essential truth, but then lets the human author present that message in his own words, in his own style, which could include anachronisms, even factual contradictions. What God would not allow in this process is the inclusion of actual errors in the message.

And, since you and I both agree that the resurrection of Jesus is a theological requirement, we don't beleive that God would have allowed the human author to tell that story in a way that varied from the actual facts in any significant way.

 

[Calminian]

No, it is not obvious that she rejects inspiration at all. You can believe that God inspires the message, the essential truth, but then lets the human author present that message in his own words, in his own style, which could include anachronisms, even factual contradictions. What God would not allow in this process is the inclusion of actual errors in the message.

And, since you and I both agree that the resurrection of Jesus is a theological requirement, we don't beleive that God would have allowed the human author to tell that story in a way that varied from the actual facts in any significant way.

But how do we know it is a requirement? Maybe the part about it being a requirement was one of those factual contradictions that God supposedly allows.

Boy, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey could be called divine using this criteria!

 

[gluadys]

Then it's obvious you reject inspiration.

Not at all. You are clearly attaching some criteria to inspiration that I do not.

God is the Author of scripture. With the kind of reasoning you're offering one could say the N.T. authors were wrong about an actual resurrection, but it doesn't matter since they really believed it was real.

No, God is not the author of scripture or human authors would not be needed. God inspires scripture. Humans write it.

As for the resurrection, that is entirely a different matter than ancient cosmology. The NT accounts of the resurrection were written either by eye-witnesses or those who knew the eye-witnesses personally.

No one in ancient times had witnessed the structure of the solar system personally.

 

[gluadys]

Boy, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey could be called divine using this criteria!

They were.

 

[Vance]

But how do we know it is a requirement? Maybe the part about it being a requirement was one of those factual contradictions that God supposedly allows.

Boy, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey could be called divine using this criteria!

The point is that with each text, we are called to determine what God is actually telling us, and what this means about what actually happened. There is no magic bullet of hermenuetics by which we can avoid this responsibility. Just because we know that one text must be read as literal history does not, in any way, mean that we MUST take all of them the same way.

And I am sure you don't. I am sure there are many texts which you recognize as using figurative language. So, would you say it was correct to say that since you take some of Psalms or Revelation or even, possibly, all of Job (as Calvin did), as figurative language or stories, that you must doubt the resurrection account? No, this just doesn't make sense.

Here is another very important point. The fact that God used figurative language to describe His Creation process does not mean that the process did not happen, that it was not a literal event. It was a literal event, something that happened in history. The Creation WAS a literal event, it did happen, and every essential truth of that process is told in Scripture.

Now, with the resurrection, it is again a LITERAL event, something that happened in history. So, both stories are the same in that regard, and we both agree that Scripture asserts that both things happened. The difference is in the literary style of the presentation. You can tell about a literal, historical event either with literal, historical narrative, or in a figurative, non-literal style. Both work, both are viable and valuable methods of telling about a real past event. The only difference between you and I is that I am willing to allow God to use EITHER style to tell about the event, whereas you insist that God can only have used the one which is your basic default for stories about the past.

 

[Calminian]

The point is that with each text, we are called to determine what God is actually telling us, and what this means about what actually happened. There is no magic bullet of hermenuetics by which we can avoid this responsibility. Just because we know that one text must be read as literal history does not, in any way, mean that we MUST take all of them the same way.

And I am sure you don't. I am sure there are many texts which you recognize as using figurative language.

Yes, passages are figurative when the author makes it clear they are. In that case the author knows himself that he is writing a figurative message. What you guys are trying to say is that the author believes one thing, while his future enlightened readers believe something totally different—that he is making factual errors but God really means them in a figurative way.

So, would you say it was correct to say that since you take some of Psalms or Revelation or even, possibly, all of Job (as Calvin did), as figurative language or stories, that you must doubt the resurrection account? No, this just doesn't make sense.

No because I believe the author intended it to be literal. But apparently that’s not enough for you. So I’m wondering what it is that makes you see something as literal.

Here is another very important point. The fact that God used figurative language to describe His Creation process does not mean that the process did not happen, that it was not a literal event. It was a literal event, something that happened in history. The Creation WAS a literal event, it did happen, and every essential truth of that process is told in Scripture.

Okay so what’s the problem with people believing the physical resurrection didn’t happen, but that instead a spiritual truth of redemption was being conveyed? Are they not using the same hermeneutic you are only more consistently? After all they believe in a figurative first and last Adam, whereas you only have a first.

Now, with the resurrection, it is again a LITERAL event, something that happened in history. So, both stories are the same in that regard, and we both agree that Scripture asserts that both things happened. The difference is in the literary style of the presentation. You can tell about a literal, historical event either with literal, historical narrative, or in a figurative, non-literal style. Both work, both are viable and valuable methods of telling about a real past event. The only difference between you and I is that I am willing to allow God to use EITHER style to tell about the event, whereas you insist that God can only have used the one which is your basic default for stories about the past.

I don’t believe your rejection of a literal Adam has to do with literary style at all. You reject him because the account doesn’t fit into naturalistic theories about the age of the earth. And obviously you feel you are at liberty to dismiss as figurative any portion of scripture that contradicts the “facts” of science. Yet when someone else applies the same method to the Resurrection you cry foul. Why?

 

[Vance]

But Cal, I have told you over and over, that I came to my conclusion about the proper reading of Genesis BEFORE I had even considered the scientific evidence and while I still assumed that the secular scientific evidence was wrong, and that the earth was young and evolution was bunk. So, no, it was not driven by my "naturalistic theories". Why would you keep saying that when I have told you many times that this is not the case? This is basically calling me a liar.

And, no, the hermenuetic is not just to "take things figuratively". The hermenuetic is to do as Augustine says and consider all the evidence. We have theology, Scripture, the natural world, etc. All of these factor in to a good hermenuetic. No one factor controls, except to the extent that the essentials of Christian theology must be maintained. You are simply mischaracterizing our hermenuetical approach.

I conclude that the resurrection is historical because Scripture describes it as a literal, historical event, just like it describes the Creation as a literal, historical event. Now, again, there can be different literary styles for telling us about a LITERAL, HISTORICAL event. While it is possible that God COULD have told us about the resurrection event using figurative language, an analysis of the text shows that He did not. Regardless, it would still be a literal, historical event.

Now, anyone can come up with any thoery they like, and people have come up with a great number of different doctrines and dogmas based on a wide variety of interpretations. We must TEST each one, as Paul tells us, and determine whether it is correct or not. My hermeneutical approach tells me that the resurrection account tells of a literal event, and the telling is historical. That same hermenuetics tells me that the Creation accounts tell of a literal event, but the telling is figurative. This is not inconsistent at all, the difference lies in the clues of the literary style.

The scientific evidence is just a form of confirmation, even if not needed.

 

[Calminian]

But Cal, I have told you over and over, that I came to my conclusion about the proper reading of Genesis BEFORE I had even considered the scientific evidence and while I still assumed that the secular scientific evidence was wrong, and that the earth was young and evolution was bunk. So, no, it was not driven by my "naturalistic theories". Why would you keep saying that when I have told you many times that this is not the case? This is basically calling me a liar.

No I don't think you're a liar, but I think you're fooling yourself. You may not have understood the scientific method very well but you knew well that every scientist believed the earth was old. When I jumped at the gap theory I wasn't that familiar with the scientific arguments either but it made sense to interpret the Bible in a way that was compatible with what all scientists were saying. From about the age of four I was aware that scientists believe dinos were millions of years old and man didn't not live with them. So I'm very skeptical when people try to tell me the came to an old earth conclusion apart from scientific theories.

And, no, the hermenuetic is not just to "take things figuratively". The hermenuetic is to do as Augustine says and consider all the evidence. We have theology, Scripture, the natural world, etc. All of these factor in to a good hermenuetic. No one factor controls, except to the extent that the essentials of Christian theology must be maintained. You are simply mischaracterizing our hermenuetical approach.

I don't even think Augustine would agree with what you're doing, though. He certainly didn't take it as far. Did you know he believed in a global flood?

I conclude that the resurrection is historical because Scripture describes it as a literal, historical event, just like it describes the Creation as a literal, historical event.

This is just double talk. One could easily say they believe the redemption of mankind is described as a literal event and yet deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Why are they wrong and why do you excluded them from the family of God? Should they have the same rights you do in this area?

Now, again, there can be different literary styles for telling us about a LITERAL, HISTORICAL event. While it is possible that God COULD have told us about the resurrection event using figurative language, an analysis of the text shows that He did not. Regardless, it would still be a literal, historical event.

Okay please share the difference with us. What in your analysis makes the resurrection literal as opposed to the days of creation especially as explained by Moses in Ex. 20:10-11. What is the difference between the first and last Adam?

Now, anyone can come up with any theory they like, and people have come up with a great number of different doctrines and dogmas based on a wide variety of interpretations. We must TEST each one, as Paul tells us, and determine whether it is correct or not. My hermeneutical approach tells me that the resurrection account tells of a literal event, and the telling is historical. That same hermeneutics tells me that the Creation accounts tell of a literal event, but the telling is figurative. This is not inconsistent at all, the difference lies in the clues of the literary style.

Then it should be easy to explain. Why is the first Adam figurative and the last real?

The scientific evidence is just a form of confirmation, even if not needed.

Now that's interesting. Therefore if science suddenly shifted its view about the age of the earth you would actually reject current scientific thinking and continue to believe the earth was old based on the Bible. Somehow I find that hard to believe.

 

[Vance]

1. First, tell me why you think a literal, historical resurrection is an essential for Christian belief (as I do).

2. The difference is, as I have stated SO many times before, in the literary style itself, and how cultures of the time wrote and thought about such things. With the resurrection, we are talking about someone who WAS writing about an historical event because he is referring to events that people actually witnessed, could confirm or deny, etc. The intent of the writer is clearly historical. Further, the content is written in an historical style, literarily.

3. The Genesis account is figurative because the text is written in a figurative style. Now, as I have said before, I have no idea whether Adam was a literal figure or not. But I think that even if he was a literal person, the stories told about what happened to him are told in figurative language. Jesus as the last Adam is literal/historical because the text is written that way. Remember, we are talking about texts that were written thousands of years apart, one about a person who the authors had seen and listened to, or from a first hand account. The Creation and Adamic accounts are not.

4. If the general consensus of the scientific community, Christian and non-Christian alike eventually (it would never be suddenly) changed its opinion and decided that the earth was young, I would review the evidence and, if sound, would accept that the earth was most likely young (holding that opinion with a "degree of certianty" factor based on the evidence like we should always do with our understanding of God's Creation). It would not effect my reading of Scripture, though, at all. I would still think that the text was written figuratively and was not meant to give a strictly historical account of what happened. I would still say that the Scriptures do not REQUIRE an old earth or young earth, it does not REQUIRE that all species were created at the same time or that they were not.

 

[Calminian]

4. If the general consensus of the scientific community, Christian and non-Christian alike eventually (it would never be suddenly) changed its opinion and decided that the earth was young, I would review the evidence and, if sound, would accept that the earth was most likely young (holding that opinion with a "degree of certianty" factor based on the evidence like we should always do with our understanding of God's Creation). It would not effect my reading of Scripture, though, at all. I would still think that the text was written figuratively and was not meant to give a strictly historical account of what happened. I would still say that the Scriptures do not REQUIRE an old earth or young earth, it does not REQUIRE that all species were created at the same time or that they were not.

Which contradicts your earlier post that stated in was the Bible not science that caused you to believe in an old earth. Your own words refute this.

 

[Vance]

Which contradicts your earlier post that stated in was the Bible not science that caused you to believe in an old earth. Your own words refute this.

Not at all. The Bible caused me to believe in a figurative reading of the Bible. I never said that the Bible caused me to believe in an old earth. What my figurative interpretation did was cause me to consider the scientific evidence seriously (rather than just blindly accept the truth of the YEC scientific statements). So, at that point, I was willing to consider whatever the evidence from science showed, since the Bible doesn't speak to the age of the earth one way or the other. The evidence showed an old earth. Dramatically so.

So, if a bunch of new scientific evidence was found that convinced me the earth was young, that would be fine. My figurative reading of Scripture would not change, however, since the age of the earth has nothing to do with Scripture. What is contradictory about that?

 

[Matthew777]

It is a myth

The fathers of the Church would disagree.

Dinosaurs went extinct ~65 million years ago

According to the uniformitarian mindset.

their direct descendents is theorized to be birds

Which there is no irrefutable fossil evidence for.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[PaladinValer]

The fathers of the Church would disagree.

Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.

According to the uniformitarian mindset.

According to the evidence.

Which there is no irrefutable fossil evidence for.

The museums I've been to are towering proofs that you are wrong.