Distorting God's word

[vossler]

But suppose I proved a point using Scripture alone without any reference to contemporary science.

Surely you would agree with me that such a point would be Scriptural?

On the surface yes, but with the TE there is always more below the surface.

You talk a lot, but I'm still the only one here who has presented a cosmology fully supported by the Scriptures. And this isn't an invention of my own intended to defend evolution, as you say. The cosmology I presented is the same one accepted in one form or another by the Christian church for most of history, the details of which are given in this video series

Accepted by who? Liberal theologians and pastors, certainly not conservative and orthodox Christians.

The point is, the scientific concordism you espouse is bankrupt. The Bible obviously does not align with 21st century science, certainly not without twisting and distorting its intended meaning, as I showed juvie. Does that make the Bible untrustworthy? Only if you buy into the scientism of the atheists, who insist that the only true knowledge is that which aligns with science. Or you can opt for an accommodationist hermeneutic, which states that the Bible "is the Word of God given in the words of men in history", as G.E. Ladd put it. Christians, including yourself and peace4ever, have opted for the latter wherever the Bible references the shape and movement of the earth. I'm only suggesting you apply the principle consitently rather than selectively.

The Bible most certainly aligns with 21st century science without having to twist or distort anything. The problem is that TEs treat the Bible the same way atheists and other non believers do. They dismiss it because it doesn't align with man centered thinking. I don't understand how any TE can possibly call the Bible the Word of God when they believe parts of it are false.

If you continue to reject an accommodationist approach in favour of a concordist approach, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe. Good luck with that.

I don't have to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe, it is you, who believes that it doesn't, who must show that it doesn't. This isn't as simple as how most unbelievers make it, the truth of God's Word is penetrating and not easily dismissed, especially by God's people. The problem is, your primary weapon to dismiss the Truth of God's Word is conjecture and speculation; that is nothing but sinking sand. Is it any wonder the ideas which support your theory need to be continually adjusted and/or changed while God's Word continues to stand firm.

We TE's are the ones who respect scripture enough to not make it say what we want it to say. No TE here is trying to tear down the Truth of God's word. We are trying to separate the "truth" of man's interpretation from the Truth that God intends. By pointing out how God's word is unsatisfactory for describing science rather than trying to retrofit the poetic and descriptive words in an out-of-context way to explain what we now know, we see scripture in a much purer sense.

That would be funny if it weren't so sad. TEs may not be knowingly tearing down the truth of God's Word, but they certainly are doing so practically. The only reason some feel God's Word is unsatisfactory for describing science is because they've already put their faith in man and his knowledge over God. Yes you see scripture in a purer sense, sadly however it is a purely human sense.

 

[Mallon]

Accepted by who? Liberal theologians and pastors, certainly not conservative and orthodox Christians.

Conservative and orthodox Christians were the ones who clung most strongly to the cosmology I just showed you. See the writings of Luther, Calvin, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Lactantius, Philipp Melanchthon, etc. Again, you can hear some of what they had to say concerning the state the earth in the video series I posted earlier.

The Bible most certainly aligns with 21st century science without having to twist or distort anything.

As I have shown in this thread, it clearly doesn't. Simply insisting otherwise doesn't change that.

The problem is that TEs treat the Bible the same way atheists and other non believers do. They dismiss it because it doesn't align with man centered thinking.

Dismissing the Bible as a science textbook is not equivalent to dismissing the Bible. What evolutionary creationists are trying to do is to understand God's true intent for the Bible. Obviously, as I have shown here, God did not intend for the Bible to be read in accordance with science, for if He had, He would have done a much better job of it. Saying throughout that the earth does not move while the sun does simply does not align with what we know to be true from God's creation.
So what was God's true intent in inspiring the Bible? The following passages convey a wholly spritual intent related to man's salvation through Christ, not simply to conceal scientific easter eggs in its pages for creation "scientists" to dig up 2000 years later:

• [FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 3:15[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]… from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]John 20:23[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]John 5:39[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Ephesians 2:20[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][You are]… built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Romans 15:4[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.[/FONT]

I don't understand how any TE can possibly call the Bible the Word of God when they believe parts of it are false.

The Bible is only false if you impose on it a post-Enlightenment mindset that truth must be conveyed as science. That sounds more in line with atheistic thinking than anything any evolutionary creationist here has advocated.
The first Hebrews simply didn't care about science, so we should expect them to write as though such things mattered to them?

I don't have to demonstrate that the Bible accurately describes the physical universe, it is you, who believes that it doesn't, who must show that it doesn't.

And I did. All you have given in response is whining and complaining about how I'm trying to destroy the Bible. I find your inability to directly address my points, particularly with reference to the Scriptures, entirely validating.

 

[crawfish]

That would be funny if it weren't so sad. TEs may not be knowingly tearing down the truth of God's Word, but they certainly are doing so practically. The only reason some feel God's Word is unsatisfactory for describing science is because they've already put their faith in man and his knowledge over God. Yes you see scripture in a purer sense, sadly however it is a purely human sense.

What is ironic here is that man's way - 21st-century rationalism - is behind the attempt to show scientific concordism within scripture. It is the need of some to have scripture meet modern criteria that forces onto scripture a meaning that it does not intend. God had no desire or need to satisfy 21st-century sensibilities when He wrote scripture. It is a text meant for all people of all cultures of all times.

I have no faith in man's science. I am simply willing to let it speak for itself, to succeed or fail on its own merits. I will not dismiss it because some uber-literal bible translation says it could not happen, though.

 

[juvenissun]

It's still a flat piece of clay, juvie.
Will you guys stop at nothing to deny the plain the meaning of Scripture? It's amazing how inconsistent your hermeneutic is: on the hand, arguing that Genesis must be read as a scientifically-accurate account of earth's creation; on the other hand, explaining away every reference the Bible makes to a flat-earth, geocentric universe. Does this kind of doublethink not bother you?

You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.

I won't do any argument if it is a seal stamped on paper.

 

[Mallon]

You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.

Taken in context of the Bible's several other references to the earth being flat, I think the most parsimonious interpretation of this verse refers to the flattening of the earth as well (in addition to the creation of topography).

 

[Assyrian]

You do not read me. The figure stamped out by the seal is NOT FLAT. It is like a printed sculpture.

I won't do any argument if it is a seal stamped on paper.

You do realise the phrase 'flat earth' never meant smooth? As I pointed out, people back then did know about mountains and valleys.

 

[vossler]

Dismissing the Bible as a science textbook is not equivalent to dismissing the Bible. What evolutionary creationists are trying to do is to understand God's true intent for the Bible. Obviously, as I have shown here, God did not intend for the Bible to be read in accordance with science, for if He had, He would have done a much better job of it.

I'm not interested in getting into a long fruitless discussion so I'll summarize this entire topic down to this. TEs don't believe that God meant six days when He went to great pains to clearly state exactly that throughout Genesis 1 and 2. This was nicely summarized in Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
​

This despite the fact that the days are clearly individually distinguished.

They also don't believe the whole earth experienced a flood that killed everything except that which was in the ark. Genesis 7:4 states:

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
​

verses 17-23 go on to say:

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
​

Anyone who reads this can clearly see that the entire earth was under water and that all animals and people died except for those on the ark. Yet the TE denies this and uses man's ideas/theories to dismiss the Word of God to interpret this to say something entirely different. This is no different than the atheist or non believer.

Yeah you can call it trying to understand God's intent, but it is clear that this understanding is only contingent on what 'science' says first.

How you can in good conscience claim that TEs don't dismiss God's Word is beyond anything I can comprehend.

 

[vossler]

God had no desire or need to satisfy 21st-century sensibilities when He wrote scripture. It is a text meant for all people of all cultures of all times.

If only you truly believed this. If you did you would be a YEC.

I have no faith in man's science. I am simply willing to let it speak for itself, to succeed or fail on its own merits.

Of course you have faith in man's science, you just have allowed it to blind you for so long that you no longer recognize it.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not interested in getting into a long fruitless discussion so I'll summarize this entire topic down to this. TEs don't believe that God meant six days when He went to great pains to clearly state exactly that throughout Genesis 1 and 2. This was nicely summarized in Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
​

This despite the fact that the days are clearly individually distinguished.

They also don't believe the whole earth experienced a flood that killed everything except that which was in the ark. Genesis 7:4 states:

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
​

verses 17-23 go on to say:

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
​

Anyone who reads this can clearly see that the entire earth was under water and that all animals and people died except for those on the ark. Yet the TE denies this and uses man's ideas/theories to dismiss the Word of God to interpret this to say something entirely different. This is no different than the atheist or non believer.

Yeah you can call it trying to understand God's intent, but it is clear that this understanding is only contingent on what 'science' says first.

How you can in good conscience claim that TEs don't dismiss God's Word is beyond anything I can comprehend.

Blah, blah, blah. And you don't believe in geocentrism despite the fact that the Bible explicitly says four times that earth cannot be moved.
You apply the same accommodationist hermeneutic that evolutionary creationists do, vossler. You're just inconsistent about it.

 

[vossler]

Blah, blah, blah. And you don't believe in geocentrism despite the fact that the Bible explicitly says four times that earth cannot be moved.
You apply the same accommodationist hermeneutic that evolutionary creationists do, vossler. You're just inconsistent about it.

I'm not surprised by this response. Thanks for being consistent.

 

[theFijian]

Wow, I'm gone for a few weeks and someone new comes in and takes on the fight. Great to have you here, however take it from someone who's been here awhile, you're wasting your breath. Most TEs don't seek knowledge they're just here to defend their ideas, certainly not God's Word. Welcome to the mayhem!

What a shame you feel the need to bear false witness against your brethren. You bring the gospel into disrepute in doing so.

 

[crawfish]

If only you truly believed this. If you did you would be a YEC.

First of all, I just explained why that is not the case. YEC is an attempt to justify God's word in the face of rationalism. I don't believe it needs to be justified.

What I see in this thread an elsewhere is an attitude of "take the bible at its plain word" for Genesis and then a lot of work to justify why it should not be taken at its plain word elsewhere. YEC fails because it cannot be consistently applied through scripture.

Of course you have faith in man's science, you just have allowed it to blind you for so long that you no longer recognize it.

Second, don't put words in my mouth. I put no faith in science nor do I put my faith in any man's interpretation of scripture. I put my faith into the pure Word of God and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gus2009]

Give a long list is a very poor way to argue about anything (it is be a good reference, though. Thanks for that).

Take the first one of the list: I can see it is a perfect way to explain the shape of the earth. It is formed (made) under a general physics law (the seal): gravity force. The same force (seal) made all celestial bodies of this universe. No one can describe the origin and the shape of the earth any better and any more precise than this one.

Same type of argument can be applied to EVERYONE on the list.

Evolutional scientist could misinterpret God's word whenever they like to. Creational scientist can always see God's beautiful creation in His words.

The seal described in Job is actually gravity....Now there is a non-literal translation if ive ever heard one. Come on now.

 

[crawfish]

The seal described in Job is actually gravity....Now there is a non-literal translation if ive ever heard one. Come on now.

That's exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say "retrofitting God's word to a rationalistic view".

 

[Mallon]

I'm not surprised by this response. Thanks for being consistent.

vossler, I have made just one point from the outset of this thread: That any YEC who scoffs at evolutionary creationists for operating under an accommodationist hermeneutic are themselves being hypocritical because they, too, selectively chose to use the same hermeneutic in light of how the Bible describes the flat-earth, geocentric universe. You have said nothing to refute this. Your various responses so have consisted of two things:
1) Statements to the effect that I am wrong about the Bible's description of the earth, without actually demonstrating, with reference to the Bible, how I am wrong.
2) More scoffing at me for operating under an accommodationist hermeneutic.
It's almost as though you don't understand the point I am making because you never actually address the core of my argument. This is why I "blah, blah, blahed" over your last reply to me because none of it actually addressed my point that accommodationism works. If you put more thought into your posts beyond simply telling me that I am wrong, I'd spend more time giving you the response that you deserve.

 

[vossler]

vossler, I have made just one point from the outset of this thread: That any YEC who scoffs at evolutionary creationists for operating under an accommodationist hermeneutic are themselves being hypocritical because they, too, selectively chose to use the same hermeneutic in light of how the Bible describes the flat-earth, geocentric universe. You have said nothing to refute this... It's almost as though you don't understand the point I am making because you never actually address the core of my argument.

Given that my point had nothing to do with your flat earth geocentric universe argument, I would hope you could see why I didn't respond to it. My initial post was to concur and commiserate wth peace4ever's point, not address anything you said. You then decided to address me and I chose not to go down the path of discussion you wished to entertain.

My point has been and will continue to be that TEs typically don't defend God's Word here in OT or even the rest of CF, instead they're constantly attempting to tear it down. So rather than addressing your point and getting lost in an endless discussion which wasn't fundamental to my accusation, I addressed the root of the issue with my post and you chose to, which you're free to do, dismiss it.

 

[MattLangley]

Interpreting differently is not tearing it down, it's simply different.

 

[Assyrian]

My point has been and will continue to be that TEs typically don't defend God's Word here in OT or even the rest of CF, instead they're constantly attempting to tear it down.

Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself.
- C.H. Spurgeon

 

[vossler]

Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself.
- C.H. Spurgeon

I like that quote a lot, probably because it's so true.

 

[Mallon]

My point has been and will continue to be that TEs typically don't defend God's Word here in OT or even the rest of CF, instead they're constantly attempting to tear it down.

If trying to understand Scripture the way God intended is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Sorry you didn't feel like discussing the merits of concordism and accommodationism, vossler. If ever you do feel like wrestling over these important issues, I'll be around.