For creationists: How would you know?

[shernren]

Help me to understand this, why would Scripture need to be complete?

I was careless with terminology when I said this. Let me try to word it another way, what I don't quite get is why fallibility in the Bible would be equivalent to fallibility in God. To me such a logical chain would only come about if one were subconsciously identifying the Bible with God, i.e. that the Bible is essentially the complete and perfect revelation of God in the sense that it is identified and synonymous with God.

I myself would not be surprised if God were to use a fallible book to teach infallible messages, especially when the fallibility of this book essentially reflects the fallen mistakenness of the culture it was written in. Each and every "error" in the Bible comes precisely from wherever our culture sees things differently from their culture.

Men were dominant and wives submissive, hence the Bible seems to promote chauvinism (though in fact it is fairer to women in some places than most religions).
Slavery was normal, hence the Bible seems to promote slavery.
People believed geocentrism, hence the Bible seems to promote geocentrism.
People believed in a rapid, recent creation, without theologically viable alternatives, hence the Bible seems to promote a rapid, recent creation.

Let's use Genesis, the subject of this forum, as an example. Scripture says God created everything in six days, it doesn't give many details but it does give a day by day account. So it isn't complete, at least not in the information you are seeking, but what it says is without error and its only the details that are missing. We're free to speculate on the details so long as we don't change what is absolute and known. This is so easy for me and my kids to grasp that I truly will never understand why that is so difficult for others to accept.

Permit me to dissect this:

Scripture says: how do you know that Genesis is Scripture, in the first place? The document that tells you what is contained in the Bible (ie the contents page ) is not itself verbally inspired by God, is it?

God created everything: no, it says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and since to an early Hebrew the heavens were simply the atmosphere and not the vast empty vacuum of space, I would be a literalist and say that God created the atmosphere and Earth and all the astronomical objects - but He didn't create space because if He'd wanted to tell us that He created gazillions of empty vacua He would have said so.

it doesn't give many details: and why?

but it does give a day by day account: like this?

On the first day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
A partridge in a pear tree.

On the second day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
Two turtle doves,
And a partridge in a pear tree.

On the third day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
Three French hens,
Two turtle doves,
And a partridge in a pear tree.

On the fourth day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
Four calling birds,
Three French hens,
Two turtle doves,
And a partridge in a pear tree. etc. etc.


How would you know that this isn't a "day by day" account of actual things given on twelve actual days by an actual true love? I say "And there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day" is a refrain, and refrains happen in songs, not historical prose.

Again, this opens the Bible up to everyone having their own personal interpretation, each being equal and each being right. In other words when all is said and done the Bible says absolutely nothing of worth and is a book like any other book.

I am not saying that all personal interpretations will ultimately be equal and right: what I am saying is that for now we may not be given enough to discriminate.

Interestingly, though, one important way to discriminate between interpretations is via external evidence. If an atheist were to ask me why the Gospel accounts are not fictional, I wouldn't quote the Epistles at him, since he would not accept it! Internal evidence would not convince him, but external evidence (from other historians, the fact that Christianity is still alive today, my personal experience, the witness of changed lives) might.

Now, what would happen if he said:

"When I take the Bible at face value, it's an utter load of nonsense. And since that is the simplest possible interpretation of the Bible any external evidence that modifies this interpretation must be false."

 

[Assyrian]

Help me to understand this, because it really is unbelievable to me. Can I assume that you believe God to be perfect, sovereign, loving, merciful and personal yet give us instructions that are not factual and in many places just plain wrong? If this were god then he would be a cruel tyrant, leaving each of us to determine on our own what parts of his book are true or false. According to this line of thinking a man of low intelligence won't be able to understand the bible because he would need an expert like yourself to decipher what is true and what is false.

How do you justify that position?

Was Jesus a cruel tyrant to say the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds on earth? If that is not true how do we know what is true?

Tell me, what would your 'man of low intelligence' make of what Jesus said about the mustard seed? Would he think, ah good, now I can get that question right in the pub quiz if they ask about the world's smallest seed? Or would he think maybe he doesn't need to be super clever, or have a world famous faith ministry. All he has to do is take his little mustard seed of faith and put that faith in Jesus.

Mark 4:30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,
31 although actually the smallest seed commonly cultivated seed is the poppy, you know the one your granny smokes when she gets the gitters,
31b verily, the kingdom of God is like a narcotic plant seed. No that won't do.
31c the kingdom of God is like a South American orchid seed the smallest of all the seeds on earth, which grows into a pretty flower...
31d and Peter said unto him "what is an orchid?" and the other disciples asked "where is South America?
31e and Matthew asked of the Lord "Do you want me to write all this down..."

I prefer the way Jesus taught the disciples.

I believe inerrancy comes first from the concept of who God is. First of all it means that God is Sovereign. That's a very important concept that we need to be clear about, so let's look at what that means. Sovereignty means that:

• He does according to His will Daniel 4:35
• He is the possessor of all power in heaven and earth Psalm 115:3
• He is Lord of lords, King of kings Revelation 19:16
• He is the source of all creation and that all things come from and depend upon God Psalm 24:1
• His sovereignty is transcendent, beyond our complete comprehension Isaiah 6:1

To imply in anyway shape or form that God somehow did His best, but His best wasn't good enough, to transmit His message through men who due to their imperfection wrote an error filled Bible is to no longer declare God to be sovereign. That, in my opinion, is a blasphemous thought.

Who is talking about God 'doing his best? God sovereignly chose to reach down to man. He sovereignly chose to communicate to us the way we were, with all our limitations, rather than teach us advanced cosmology, astronomy, geology, meteorology, botany and reproductive biology before telling who he was, how we should live our lives and how we could have fellowship with him. What chance would your 'man of low intelligence' if we all had to learn perfectly accurate science before getting to know God?

Which is more important for mankind to learn first, nuclear physics or how to love our neighbour?

Again I prefer the way God did it.

With God's sovereignty as my foundation, it then doesn't become difficult to see how God would make sure His Word was accurate and complete in all areas where it speaks. With that proper understanding 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shouldn't be a stretch for anyone to grab a hold of:

We have a sovereign Lord who chose to teach his disciples about faith rather than botany. Arguments about sovereignty don't help you because God can and does sovereignly fit his teaching to our understanding.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. ​

It is only the prideful man that continues to resist His instruction and reproof by attempting to discredit, by the personal (i.e. what I want it to say) reinterpretation of His Word.

Bear in mind that we are the ones providing the scriptural basis for our view, you are not.

That's quite easy, if that were to happen it could only have been a spiritual being that I saw and therefore couldn't be measured by human instruments.

Or it could be some sort of hologramatic projection, or the mushroom you ate the night before. The interesting fact is you trust the testimony of the scientific equipment that there was nobody there, rather than you own eyes.

You are willing to disbelieve the 'plain reading' of scripture when you see the evidence with your own eyes (mustard seeds) but not when evidence of the age of the earth comes from scientific instruments? What sort of faith, what sort of consistent reading of scripture is that?

It's a faith based first on the truth of God's Word which then allows me to read the Scripture in the proper context which then shows it to be true. It isn't too complicated, but then it isn't easy either because I have to be willing to humble myself first.

Sorry, simply claiming that you have faith you are reading the scripture in the proper context doesn't come near to answering the problem. Sure, we trust in the truth of God's word. That doesn't mean our interpretations are all correct or even that our hermeneutic approach is correct.

You haven't given any reason why your interpretation of the mustard seed is so different to your interpretation of the six days. Both are used as teaching illustrations, the mustard seed illustrating faith, the six days illustrating the Sabbath. Both have a very simple 'plain reading'. Yet you arbitrarily decide, based on nothing more than how convincing you find the physical evidence against them, that the mustard seed is not literal but the six days are. How is that having faith in the word of God?

Let me ask you something. Radiometric dating is based on the decay of radiometric elements. It has been found to be highly consistent and accurate, based on known decay rates, to determine the dates of rocks. Do I have an accurate understanding so far? I hope so!

Now let's see if we can stay in agreement, however I believe it will get more difficult. Radiometric dating is based on an assumption that decay rates have stayed constant and are fixed. That has been the mantra for quite some time, however from what I understand recent research has shown that the decay rates can vary according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. At this time their seeing a 1.5% variance. This is showing that what was once considered clocklike is now prompting the comment in Science magazine "Certainty, it seems, is on the wane"

(Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999, pp. 235–328. & Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.)

Here is a more technical writing you might enjoy!

Most radioactive decay involves emission of an alpha or beta particle (a helium nucleus or an electron). A less common form of radioactive that a few isotopes (including K40) undergo is electron capture. The nucleus captures an electron from outside, from in one of the atom's electron shells, and uses it to converts a positive proton into a neutron. Because the process depends on how close the electron are to the nucleus, outside influences such as the chemical environment may have a slight influence on this.

A few things to notice here.

(1) This says nothing about other forms of radioactive decay which not influenced by environment.

(2) Frequently a number of different forms of radiometric dating are used, and Potassium Argon gives dates consistent with other methods.

(3) 1.5% is very small. Take for example the Australopithecine Lucy. Potassium Argon gave a date of 3 million years. If this was out by 1.5% it would mean she was actually just 2,995,000 years old. That isn't really all that much of a difference.

When the 3 million year date was given, it came with a margin of error, 3.0 ± 0.2 Ma, Lucy was between 3.2 and 2.8 million years old. Your 1.5% is less than the margin or error in the original K/Ar measurements.

The point is nothing of this world is as simple and easy to understand as Scripture itself. All we need to do is take our preconceived blinders off and believe. Is it any wonder how easily a child can and does believe.

That is why you never hear the church kids club arguing about the relationship between predestination and foreknowledge. It is all very simple to them. It is a pity we all have to grow up.

My approach relies primarily on what God's Word says, if God's Word doesn't speak on an issue then scientific evidence and even speculation can be taken into account. So the difference isn't based upon the reliability of scientific findings but upon whether the Bible speaks on the issue.

How can you claim God word hasn't spoke about the size of mustard seeds but has spoken about the length of creation?

 

[vossler]

Thanks for being honest and presenting your questions in a more straight forward manner.

Personal interpretation...or somebody elses?

Both! The personal interpretation should be based and molded on existing hermeneutics and doctrine. A personal interpretation is viable if it doesn't conflict with Scripture.

First of all you claimed that the alternative to personal interpretation was A Biblical contextual interpretation which completely avoided my question, becuase you did not attribute thta biblical contextual interpretation to a person or persons.

Why should it only be attributed to a person, can't it be attributed to an exegesis of Scripture that uses well established hermeneutics and/or a biblically based doctrinal standard?

So I seeked clarification and asked 'Whose interpretation?'

You then fudged the issue again by answering 'Yours, mine and other Christians' So at this point you are claiming that the alternative to me holding to my personal is me holding to the my interpretation, your interpretation and the interpretation of others. Which seemed contradictory.

I'm sorry if I've fudged, it certainly wasn't my intent. I try to be as direct as possible, sometimes I fail, please accept my apologies.

It appears you haven't gleened my point here, and that is that there is only one true interpretation of Scripture. If you and I decide that we can each have our own then the Bible loses it's primary strength which is the Truth. If Truth becomes relative to a personal interpretation of it then it no longer is the truth and the Bible becomes useless as it is in many peoples lives today.

At one time I thought you actually believed something similar, I guess I misunderstood.

The issue is this: Am I as a Christian seeking to be led by the Holy Spirit allowed to hold to my inperpretation of scripture? If not, whose interpretation should I then adopt?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear you're an advocate for each to have their own interpretation. I'm most definitely not. I believe my interpretation should:

1. Be true to and compatible with the rest of Scripture.
2. Hold true to well established biblically based doctrines
3. Always glorify God and minimize self

I believe if you can do that, then it isn't any longer a personal interpretation of Scripture, but the Lord's intended one.

I don't know how plainer I can make the issue. I think even a child would understand the issue by now (since the benchmark seems to be whether a child can understand something then it must be the correct interpretation)

I'm probably still an intellectual infant compared to you and don't possess your ability to digest and process information with such an acute sense of purpose and direction. Please be patient with your brother.

Maybe you should use crayons next time.

 

[vossler]

I was careless with terminology when I said this. Let me try to word it another way, what I don't quite get is why fallibility in the Bible would be equivalent to fallibility in God. To me such a logical chain would only come about if one were subconsciously identifying the Bible with God, i.e. that the Bible is essentially the complete and perfect revelation of God in the sense that it is identified and synonymous with God.

I, conscientiously, do identify the Bible with God, He inspired it, didn't He? So why wouldn't I identify it with Him? I liken it to the Model T, it was built by many men but always identified or associated with Henry Ford.

I myself would not be surprised if God were to use a fallible book to teach infallible messages, especially when the fallibility of this book essentially reflects the fallen mistakenness of the culture it was written in. Each and every "error" in the Bible comes precisely from wherever our culture sees things differently from their culture.

Now that isn't something I could get my arms around at all; if God who is sovereign can't produce an infallible book then I can't believe He is a sovereign God.

Men were dominant and wives submissive, hence the Bible seems to promote chauvinism (though in fact it is fairer to women in some places than most religions).
Slavery was normal, hence the Bible seems to promote slavery.
People believed geocentrism, hence the Bible seems to promote geocentrism.
People believed in a rapid, recent creation, without theologically viable alternatives, hence the Bible seems to promote a rapid, recent creation.

Topics that each have a clear and understandable explanations to today's audience if we're willing to be diligent and seek them. The problem is we're not.

Permit me to dissect this:



Scripture says: how do you know that Genesis is Scripture, in the first place? The document that tells you what is contained in the Bible (ie the contents page ) is not itself verbally inspired by God, is it?

All I need to do is test it and see if any of it is false, if any of it is proven to be wrong then I would dismiss it like so many do today. The only difference between me and the many is I've tested it. This is a good place to again bring up 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which covers this nicely:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.​

God created everything: no, it says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and since to an early Hebrew the heavens were simply the atmosphere and not the vast empty vacuum of space, I would be a literalist and say that God created the atmosphere and Earth and all the astronomical objects - but He didn't create space because if He'd wanted to tell us that He created gazillions of empty vacua He would have said so.

I believe this to be one of those arguments where if you wish to find a flaw, you will find it whether it's truly a flaw or not.

it doesn't give many details: and why?

Because they're not necessary.

but it does give a day by day account: like this?

Similar, yes.

How would you know that this isn't a "day by day" account of actual things given on twelve actual days by an actual true love? I say "And there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day" is a refrain, and refrains happen in songs, not historical prose.

I have no reason to believe it wasn't an actual daily account of things given. The words do not give us a reason to think otherwise, just as Genesis doesn't either. You're free to believe Genesis 1 is a song, but the words, my study and spirit would beg to differ.

I am not saying that all personal interpretations will ultimately be equal and right: what I am saying is that for now we may not be given enough to discriminate.

For now??? If we won't know until we're home, what good are the Words? God always has a purpose for everything He does, this is no different.

Interestingly, though, one important way to discriminate between interpretations is via external evidence. If an atheist were to ask me why the Gospel accounts are not fictional, I wouldn't quote the Epistles at him, since he would not accept it! Internal evidence would not convince him, but external evidence (from other historians, the fact that Christianity is still alive today, my personal experience, the witness of changed lives) might.

True, but all of those sources of evidence would confirm what is written. That's the point! If they didn't then you'd have a problem, that's where evolution has it's BIG problem. The evidence doesn't conform with the text.

Now, what would happen if he said:



"When I take the Bible at face value, it's an utter load of nonsense. And since that is the simplest possible interpretation of the Bible any external evidence that modifies this interpretation must be false."

For non-Christians that's to be expected. 1 Corinthians 2:14 states:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.​

People don't come to know Jesus by the evidence so much as by the longing or whole in their hearts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have no reason to believe it wasn't an actual daily account of things given

read as an eyewitness report, the sun is created after the light and the plants before the sun. The pattern of the Sabbath is not repeated or renewed until Exodus 6, it is unknown to Adam and to the patriarchs. It is not embedded in history from the beginning but specifically given to the Israelites during the Exodus as part of the Law.
There as a conflict in both the order of creation and of the timing, between Gen 1 and Gen 2, as well.

Therefore the Creation Week pattern is not an eyewitness report but rather an organizational metaphor.

 

[vossler]

Was Jesus a cruel tyrant to say the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds on earth? If that is not true how do we know what is true?

I’ve been thinking about this lately, trying to understand the TE viewpoint. Try as I might, I can’t come to a logical conclusion other than you want to find things wrong in the Bible in order to justify you evolutionary position. By focusing on things like the seed and geocentrism where even if you are correct and the Bible is wrong it still doesn’t change the message one iota. But by focusing on the trivial you can divert the attention from the more substantive things. The longer we can talk about the size of the mustard seed the longer we can divert the discussion. The TE interpretative methodology, if there even is one, seemingly allows for anything and everything as long as it complies with the demands of scientific speculation. This by the way is also exhibited in many other ways. I’ve personally seen TEs to be much more liberal with the Scriptures on matters such as homosexuality and premarital sex. It would appear to be a methodology that asks first, what is it that I wish to see and then to twist the Scriptures in order to comply with it.

Tell me, what would your 'man of low intelligence' make of what Jesus said about the mustard seed? Would he think, ah good, now I can get that question right in the pub quiz if they ask about the world's smallest seed? Or would he think maybe he doesn't need to be super clever, or have a world famous faith ministry. All he has to do is take his little mustard seed of faith and put that faith in Jesus.

He would think God demonstrated to him an awesome story about how God could use the smallest of seeds to produce the biggest of harvests if he plants that seed of faith into Jesus. If he were a TE he would look for ways to shoots holes in the story because he/she doesn’t see the mustard seed as the smallest of seeds and thereby allowing distraction and confusion into the story by casting doubt to its authenticity.

Mark 4:30And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,
31 although actually the smallest seed commonly cultivated seed is the poppy, you know the one your granny smokes when she gets the gitters,
31b verily, the kingdom of God is like a narcotic plant seed. No that won't do.
31c the kingdom of God is like a South American orchid seed the smallest of all the seeds on earth, which grows into a pretty flower...
31d and Peter said unto him "what is an orchid?" and the other disciples asked "where is South America?
31e and Matthew asked of the Lord "Do you want me to write all this down..."

Funny that’s exactly how I envisioned TEs discussing this very topic. Instead of just believing at face value what God said they would gather their enormous collective wisdom to dispute the factual basis of the claims.

Who is talking about God 'doing his best? God sovereignly chose to reach down to man. He sovereignly chose to communicate to us the way we were, with all our limitations, rather than teach us advanced cosmology, astronomy, geology, meteorology, botany and reproductive biology before telling who he was, how we should live our lives and how we could have fellowship with him. What chance would your 'man of low intelligence' if we all had to learn perfectly accurate science before getting to know God?

That’s just it, we don’t and the man of low intelligence doesn’t need to be persuaded by man’s arguments that God’s Word isn’t true and is somehow in question.

Which is more important for mankind to learn first, nuclear physics or how to love our neighbour?

Exactly, that’s what God put His emphasis on and we should do likewise instead of attempting to reinvent His Word.

When the 3 million year date was given, it came with a margin of error, 3.0 ± 0.2 Ma, Lucy was between 3.2 and 2.8 million years old. Your 1.5% is less than the margin or error in the original K/Ar measurements.

But the main point was that even scientists themselves don’t hold as tight to the radiometric dating as they once did. I’m convinced that as time goes on they’ll be even less convinced. Let me ask you something. Doesn’t it even concern you just a little wee bit that scientists as a whole have a far lower percentage of belief than the rest of society? Many many atheist/agnostic scientists are leading the way in most of these discoveries while men of God are holding fast to His Word.

That is why you never hear the church kids club arguing about the relationship between predestination and foreknowledge. It is all very simple to them. It is a pity we all have to grow up.

Yeah it’s too bad with today’s liberal interpretative means of biblical exegesis they’re too caught up in having to first discuss the lighter material like whether evolutionary theory, whether gay behavior and premarital sex is acceptable to God.

How can you claim God word hasn't spoke about the size of mustard seeds but has spoken about the length of creation?

I never made such a claim.

 

[busterdog]

The difference between touting the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts as historically factual, and the resurrection the same, lies in scientific falsifiability.

Elsewhere, I think I made the same point about falsifiability of TE and they are sill laughing at my ignorance.

Scientifically, indeed, the nature of reason, our post-fall knowledge of good and evil, demands that we consider falsifiability. Wittgenstein went so far as to require that we falisify the proposition, "This is my hand." And he had to, logically.

As an answer to the fall itself, to know Christ, as Paul wrote, is an entirely different kettle of fish. If Jesus is to offer redemption, once we know what the fall is, there would logically seem to be a remedy to the problem of reason itself.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), if there is a remedy for that process, it is hard to imagine that this source can speak out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[shernren]

I, conscientiously, do identify the Bible with God, He inspired it, didn't He? So why wouldn't I identify it with Him? I liken it to the Model T, it was built by many men but always identified or associated with Henry Ford.

I forget that people don't live in my world of terminology, for me "identify" has a very precise sense in theological discussions. But that's more due to my obsession with words than anything you read wrong. I'll explain what I mean by working with your example.

The Model-T wouldn't tell you everything about Henry Ford. Looking at the Model-T and knowing that he invented it, you wouldn't know that Henry Ford was a male, say, or that he had two eyes (he could jolly well be blind) or how many sisters and brothers he had, etc. etc.

More importantly, the expertise or not in fabrication of the Model-T doesn't tell us merely about Henry Ford, it also tells us about the times he lived in. For example, the Model-T had only three gear settings: reverse, neutral, and drive. Was Ford an idiot? Shouldn't he have put in more settings like what cars today have? If I "identified" the Model-T with Ford in the sense that I can know everything about Ford from the Model-T, I would have assumed that Ford was pretty dumb for not putting in more gear settings. But the answer is obvious: cars of the day didn't move fast enough to warrant higher gear settings, and the fact that the Model-T had only three tells us more about the early 1900s than about Ford.

In the same way, scientific omissions and errors in the Bible tell us more about the pre/ascientific Jews that God had to work with, rather than about God. In particular, it tells me that God's message is so cross-cultural that it can be delivered to and through a culture which doesn't even have the slightest notion of electricity or say combustion engines. To me it casts no slur on God.

Now that isn't something I could get my arms around at all; if God who is sovereign can't produce an infallible book then I can't believe He is a sovereign God.

But why?

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.


Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.

-Galileo, 1615

​

All I need to do is test it and see if any of it is false, if any of it is proven to be wrong then I would dismiss it like so many do today. The only difference between me and the many is I've tested it. This is a good place to again bring up 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which covers this nicely:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.​

But if you will not admit any external evidence that could possibly disprove your interpretation, how would you ever know if your interpretation is wrong?

I believe this to be one of those arguments where if you wish to find a flaw, you will find it whether it's truly a flaw or not.

Fair enough, but that in itself doesn't prove me wrong. I'll simplify it: how do we know that the Jews' interpretation of Genesis 1, that "the heavens" were simply the atmosphere, is wrong? How do we know that "the heavens" are actually outer space?

I have no reason to believe it wasn't an actual daily account of things given. The words do not give us a reason to think otherwise, just as Genesis doesn't either. You're free to believe Genesis 1 is a song, but the words, my study and spirit would beg to differ.

But the Twelve Days of Christmas probably was composed precisely as an allegorical account of love between Christ and the church:

http://www.cresourcei.org/cy12days.html

or, barring that, a "nonsense song":

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]Although the specific origins of the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" are not known, it possibly began as a Twelfth Night "memory-and-forfeits" game in which the leader recited a verse, each of the players repeated the verse, the leader added another verse, and so on until one of the players made a mistake, with the player who erred having to pay a penalty, such as a offering up a kiss or a sweet. This is how the song was presented in its earliest known printed version, in the 1780 children's book Mirth Without Mischief.[/FONT]​

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/12days.asp

Sure the text itself would have seemed perfectly like an actual daily account of things given ... and in walks external evidence. Aren't we glad for alternative interpretations?

For now??? If we won't know until we're home, what good are the Words? God always has a purpose for everything He does, this is no different.

What good are the words? You should know better than anyone else:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

which Genesis 1 is, whether or not it is a historical account or a song.

True, but all of those sources of evidence would confirm what is written. That's the point! If they didn't then you'd have a problem, that's where evolution has it's BIG problem. The evidence doesn't conform with the text.

You're missing my point. The atheist has an interpretation of the text ("it's all bogus") which we cannot rectify with internal evidence (which to him "is all bogus"). What do we do? Enter external evidence.

Whereas the YEC has an interpretation of Genesis 1 ("it's historical") which we cannot rectify with internal evidence (since the Jews obviously never heard of evolution). What do we do? Enter external evidence.

What's the difference between the two?

For non-Christians that's to be expected. 1 Corinthians 2:14 states:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.​

People don't come to know Jesus by the evidence so much as by the longing or whole in their hearts.

I'm starting to disagree with this one, Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus or atheists can have warm fuzzy feelings in their hearts too. Christianity has to be believed for being real, not being nice.

 

[vossler]

The Model-T wouldn't tell you everything about Henry Ford. Looking at the Model-T and knowing that he invented it, you wouldn't know that Henry Ford was a male, say, or that he had two eyes (he could jolly well be blind) or how many sisters and brothers he had, etc. etc.

My original intent with the Model T analogy was just to prove a point, it certainly isn't an adequate example for comparison; but since it's on the table I'll use it one more time. It isn't important for us to know that Henry Ford was a male had two eyes or whether he had sisters in order to operate his vehicle. If it was that information would be provided. What information is provided is essential for us to know about the vehicle in question; information that assists us in its safe operation. Nothing more is required.

In the same way, scientific omissions and errors in the Bible tell us more about the pre/ascientific Jews that God had to work with, rather than about God. In particular, it tells me that God's message is so cross-cultural that it can be delivered to and through a culture which doesn't even have the slightest notion of electricity or say combustion engines. To me it casts no slur on God.

That's just it, it's not suppose to tell you more about the Jews God had to deal with, but about God Himself, His character, His love, His grace, His power and sovereignty. In the process it told us how His people in turn repeatedly turned away from Him.

But if you will not admit any external evidence that could possibly disprove your interpretation, how would you ever know if your interpretation is wrong?

I will not admit any external evidence that could possibly disprove what the Bible actually says without some strong contextual biblical backing. That would more accurately describe my feelings.

Fair enough, but that in itself doesn't prove me wrong. I'll simplify it: how do we know that the Jews' interpretation of Genesis 1, that "the heavens" were simply the atmosphere, is wrong? How do we know that "the heavens" are actually outer space?

To be honest, we don't, or more accurately at least, I don't. I'm not here to say I really know what it specifically says.

But the Twelve Days of Christmas probably was composed precisely as an allegorical account of love between Christ and the church:

http://www.cresourcei.org/cy12days.html

or, barring that, a "nonsense song":

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]Although the specific origins of the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" are not known, it possibly began as a Twelfth Night "memory-and-forfeits" game in which the leader recited a verse, each of the players repeated the verse, the leader added another verse, and so on until one of the players made a mistake, with the player who erred having to pay a penalty, such as a offering up a kiss or a sweet. This is how the song was presented in its earliest known printed version, in the 1780 children's book Mirth Without Mischief.[/FONT]​

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/12days.asp

Sure the text itself would have seemed perfectly like an actual daily account of things given ... and in walks external evidence. Aren't we glad for alternative interpretations?

In this case, probably yes. However I don't believe it can used as a fair comparison to God's Word. It certainly isn't something I've ever thought about until you mentioned it.

What good are the words? You should know better than anyone else:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

which Genesis 1 is, whether or not it is a historical account or a song.

Not if they say two completely different things. If you don't see it as historical then you automatically allow for a lot of different theories that can take you down many different paths. That's especially critical because there is only one path and as Jesus said, it is narrow.

You stated we may not have been given enough to discriminate, I'm saying we don't need to discriminate about something that is plainly spoken. Unless of course there is a strong biblically based reason to do so.

You're missing my point. The atheist has an interpretation of the text ("it's all bogus") which we cannot rectify with internal evidence (which to him "is all bogus"). What do we do? Enter external evidence.

The thing is we're not called to rectify it, just believe it. Whenever the rectification process steps outside of the Word of God and then comes back to reinterpret it to say something it clearly doesn't say, well that should send up immediate red flares to everyone.

Whereas the YEC has an interpretation of Genesis 1 ("it's historical") which we cannot rectify with internal evidence (since the Jews obviously never heard of evolution). What do we do? Enter external evidence.

It rectifies far better to the evidence than you or most people will acknowledge.

What's the difference between the two?

Most of that difference comes from our different worldviews and not the evidence.

I'm starting to disagree with this one, Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus or atheists can have warm fuzzy feelings in their hearts too. Christianity has to be believed for being real, not being nice.

Hey, we all get warm fuzzy feelings, this isn't about that. But you are right this is about being real.

 

[shernren]

My original intent with the Model T analogy was just to prove a point, it certainly isn't an adequate example for comparison; but since it's on the table I'll use it one more time. It isn't important for us to know that Henry Ford was a male had two eyes or whether he had sisters in order to operate his vehicle. If it was that information would be provided. What information is provided is essential for us to know about the vehicle in question; information that assists us in its safe operation. Nothing more is required.

It actually communicates what I'm trying to say better than anything I tried

The thing is, what can we conclude from the Model T about Henry Ford's creativeness and innovation? Someone might look at the Model T and say "the guy only put three gear settings and one of them was reverse. Obviously he was some kind of nutjob who didn't realize that cars could use more than that."

But then you would point out: most cars of the time had exactly the same settings, anyways, so that inadequacy is not an inadequacy of Ford's, it's an inadequacy of the 1900s.

In the same way, when I see how the "science" in the Bible is really limited to what the Jews of the day knew and little more, I don't see that as a problem with God - I see that as a problem with the Jews He used. And if He thought that He could use them, geocentrism and all, to get His point across, who am I to criticise and say He should have been more exact?

Not if they say two completely different things. If you don't see it as historical then you automatically allow for a lot of different theories that can take you down many different paths. That's especially critical because there is only one path and as Jesus said, it is narrow.

How much theological difference do we have? We both believe that Jesus is real, that He actually died on the cross and rose again, that the Bible is fully trustworthy in matters of salvation (I know people who would reject this and yet have said some of the wisest Christian things I've heard), and on almost everything outside Genesis 1-11. Per Genesis 1-11 itself, we agree that the Creation stories show God's might in creation, that the Flood shows God's wrath against sin, and that Babel shows how man often tries to be God.

All we disagree on is whether these are historical or non-historical descriptions of these things. Is that really "many different paths"? Is that really enough difference to suspect that either of us could be off the straight and narrow?

It rectifies far better to the evidence than you or most people will acknowledge.

Well, I did acknowledge as such at one point, but not any more. So it's not really fair to say that I wouldn't ever acknowledge YECism. I know what the burden of proof to support it is and if enough external evidence ever arose to support it I'd be a YEC again faster than you could ask me to. I've thought about what it would take for me to be a YEC. Have you ever thought about what would convince you to accept evolution, or do you just assume that none would ever be enough?

More to the point, if external evidence exists that corroborates YECism, why does external evidence exist to support evolution that has to be stubbornly rejected? If a view is to be externally consistent shouldn't it be consistent with all known external evidence? If a theory explains only some evidence, but other evidence needs to be consciously ignored to support it, doesn't that show that something is wrong with that theory?

 

[Mallon]

Elsewhere, I think I made the same point about falsifiability of TE and they are sill laughing at my ignorance.

What do you mean by "falsifiability of TE"? How would you go about falsifying theistic evolution? You may falsify evolution, but you cannot falsify the "thestic" part. If you could, all Christians would be left without a leg to stand on.

 

[vossler]

First of all I'd like to say I'm enjoying our dialog. Thanks for making it so.

In the same way, when I see how the "science" in the Bible is really limited to what the Jews of the day knew and little more, I don't see that as a problem with God - I see that as a problem with the Jews He used. And if He thought that He could use them, geocentrism and all, to get His point across, who am I to criticise and say He should have been more exact?

Think about what you're saying. God didn't think the Jew was able to understand heliocentrism and so He taught them geocentrism. I don't believe for a minute that whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa that the Jew would have really cared. The understanding isn't something difficult to comprehend, even when putting myself back in their day. The same holds true for six days and billions of years. God could have easily conveyed billions of years without getting too technical about it, but He didn't.

How much theological difference do we have? We both believe that Jesus is real, that He actually died on the cross and rose again, that the Bible is fully trustworthy in matters of salvation (I know people who would reject this and yet have said some of the wisest Christian things I've heard), and on almost everything outside Genesis 1-11. Per Genesis 1-11 itself, we agree that the Creation stories show God's might in creation, that the Flood shows God's wrath against sin, and that Babel shows how man often tries to be God.

All we disagree on is whether these are historical or non-historical descriptions of these things. Is that really "many different paths"? Is that really enough difference to suspect that either of us could be off the straight and narrow?

You and I probably have very few theological differences, but as for TEs as a whole I'd say the gulf is pretty wide. Many, many TEs believe that homosexuality, pre-marital sex and other ills are fully permissible and even good. What TEism does is open the Scriptures to a much wider interpretation. This is where Adam and Eve no longer really existed, there was no world wide flood, etc. That's my big problem with it.

Well, I did acknowledge as such at one point, but not any more. So it's not really fair to say that I wouldn't ever acknowledge YECism. I know what the burden of proof to support it is and if enough external evidence ever arose to support it I'd be a YEC again faster than you could ask me to. I've thought about what it would take for me to be a YEC. Have you ever thought about what would convince you to accept evolution, or do you just assume that none would ever be enough?

I don't believe I said or implied that you don't acknowledge YECism. I just said it rectifies better than you believe it does.

I'm glad to hear that you still have an open mind towards it, I know some of your recent statements didn't give me that impression anymore.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't given it much thought as to what would convince me to accept evolution. The whole idea has so many holes in it that I can't imagine something being able to fill them all. The one evolutionary idea that I have thought about is the age of the earth. If there is a YEC theme that has a remote possibility of having some validity to it, it's that.

More to the point, if external evidence exists that corroborates YECism, why does external evidence exist to support evolution that has to be stubbornly rejected? If a view is to be externally consistent shouldn't it be consistent with all known external evidence? If a theory explains only some evidence, but other evidence needs to be consciously ignored to support it, doesn't that show that something is wrong with that theory?

I don't put as much stock into external evidence as most YECs do. I accept it if it aligns with Scripture, but I don't spend much time thinking about it or using it in arguments. I agree that all evidence should be consistent and when it isn't that should be a warning to everyone that something isn't right. That holds true for both sides of this argument. YECs can be very dogmatic about things that, in my opinion, are not based on such a solid footing as they would like to think. Oh well, that's human nature.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Think about what you're saying. God didn't think the Jew was able to understand heliocentrism and so He taught them geocentrism. I don't believe for a minute that whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa that the Jew would have really cared.

what is the idea of inspiration?
that God overwhelmed the cultural matrix that the Scripture writers had received from their culture and taught them eternal truths?

or that God uses means, one means is the cultural, historical, political matrix that every human is part of from birth. He uniquely shaped the culture and the individual and guided his thoughts so that what was written down was human words, embedded in a human community, yet truely God's words as well?

Until i saw it expressed here, i didn't realize that some Christians have an "easter egg" idea of revelation. That God taught the writer's things they could not possibly know, and that humanity would not know for generations. So that these things "pop out" in subsequent reader's times and poof-proof of inspiration, they knew impossible to know things- therefore like prophecy God must have did it.

It is this word "taught" in the quotation above that needs to be looked at closely. What exactly, and how exactly did God teach the writer's of Scripture?

The Scriptures are throughly children of their times, as are the Scripture writers. They are certainly embedded in a very definite culture and a specific timeframe, there is afaik nothing about the writers that makes their observations about the natural world different than their culture.
The writer(s) of Genesis certainly believe that the earth is flat, that it is bounded by the nations that they know of, that the heavens are a solid firmament and that rain is through holes in it. That the planets, sun, moon and stars are like lanterns inside the firmament. This is all straightforward 2nd millennium BC cosmology as taught in Egypt and Babylon as well as Israel. God does not apparently override these cultural artifacts in order to write Scripture.
so what did He do?

 

[Assyrian]

I’ve been thinking about this lately, trying to understand the TE viewpoint. Try as I might, I can’t come to a logical conclusion other than you want to find things wrong in the Bible in order to justify you evolutionary position.

Technically that is an 'appeal to motive' a form of ad hominem argument which qualifies as a fallacy rather than a logical conclusion. Another possibility is that your viewpoint wrong, which seems reasonable given you inability to justify your interpretation biblically.

By focusing on things like the seed and geocentrism where even if you are correct and the Bible is wrong it still doesn’t change the message one iota. But by focusing on the trivial you can divert the attention from the more substantive things. The longer we can talk about the size of the mustard seed the longer we can divert the discussion. The TE interpretative methodology, if there even is one, seemingly allows for anything and everything as long as it complies with the demands of scientific speculation.

Which is why I specifically look at examples which you consider fact rather 'speculation'.

What makes you think I am saying the bible is wrong? The bible is the word of God. What we need to do is understand how he speaks to us. I don't think the bible is wrong about mustard seed, the solar system, or the age of the earth. But they do show how the simplistic 'plain sense' literalism gets things seriously wrong.

I am not trying to divert attention. I have provided plenty of good biblical evidence for the six days being metaphorical, which you haven't seemed to give any biblical answers to other than the Holy Spirit told you, your common sense tells you, or an eight year old kid told you (and eight year olds are not great at spotting metaphors). These things aren't trivia as long as you can't show how a plain reading interpretation can distinguish between them.

He would think God demonstrated to him an awesome story about how God could use the smallest of seeds to produce the biggest of harvests if he plants that seed of faith into Jesus. If he were a TE he would look for ways to shoots holes in the story because he/she doesn’t see the mustard seed as the smallest of seeds and thereby allowing distraction and confusion into the story by casting doubt to its authenticity.

I don't doubt the story's authenticity and I read the exact same lessons of faith in the story. In Gen 1-3 I also read the message of God as creator of the universe, forming mankind in his own image, to have fellowship with him, of our falling into the snare of Satan, our sin and rejection of God, and God's promise of a redeemer. Yet I see YEC leave aside the meaning of Genesis and concentrating on a simplistic literal interpretation that would be trivial if it wasn't a tragic denial of reality that is bringing Christianity and the bible into disrepute.

Mark 4:30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,
31 although actually the smallest seed commonly cultivated seed is the poppy, you know the one your granny smokes when she gets the jitters,
31b verily, the kingdom of God is like a narcotic plant seed. No that won't do.
31c the kingdom of God is like a South American orchid seed the smallest of all the seeds on earth, which grows into a pretty flower...
31d and Peter said unto him "what is an orchid?" and the other disciples asked "where is South America?
31e and Matthew asked of the Lord "Do you want me to write all this down..."

Funny that’s exactly how I envisioned TEs discussing this very topic. Instead of just believing at face value what God said they would gather their enormous collective wisdom to dispute the factual basis of the claims.

Yet you don't believe the mustard seed is the smallest seed do you? You don't take what Jesus said at face value. You insist the bible is a fount of literal and inerrant science, I was simply showing how the lesson could have been given with inerrant science. That doesn't seem to have been Jesus' intention.

That’s just it, we don’t and the man of low intelligence doesn’t need to be persuaded by man’s arguments that God’s Word isn’t true and is somehow in question.

I don't think anyone needs to be persuaded God's word isn't true or in question. But that's what happens when people insist a 'plain reading' interpretation is the correct interpretation even when it is contradicted by the plain facts of science. Mustard is simply not the smallest seed. The sun does not travel around the earth. And the world much more than 6,000 years old.

Exactly, that’s what God put His emphasis on and we should do likewise instead of attempting to reinvent His Word.

If God is more interested in teaching us to love one another than science, why do you insist the bible has to be read as a text book on cosmology, astronomy, geology, meteorology, botany and reproductive biology?

But the main point was that even scientists themselves don’t hold as tight to the radiometric dating as they once did. I’m convinced that as time goes on they’ll be even less convinced.

You may be convinced, but that is not what the evidence says. Scientists are looking for tiny changes in universal constants and in decay rates over billions of years. There actually is evidence for very small changes. But that is little comfort to you because it says that science is capable of measuring decay rates and universal constants in ancient rock and in galaxies billions of light years away. If as the scientists have discovered there has been very little change, then dates established by decay rates are reliable. Of course a change in universal constants over the history of the universe will revolutionise science as we come to understand how and why it happens. But a difference of a fraction of a percent 12 billion years ago is no help to YEC.

Let me ask you something. Doesn’t it even concern you just a little wee bit that scientists as a whole have a far lower percentage of belief than the rest of society? Many many atheist/agnostic scientists are leading the way in most of these discoveries while men of God are holding fast to His Word.

The guilt by association fallacy. Science is wrong because more scientists are atheists. Education must be wrong too because the higher people's education the more likely they are not to believe in God. Conclusion: Christians should not get an education? Of perhaps Christians should not have abandoned education and science the way so many did.

From your 1st paragraph:

...This by the way is also exhibited in many other ways. I’ve personally seen TEs to be much more liberal with the Scriptures on matters such as homosexuality and premarital sex. It would appear to be a methodology that asks first, what is it that I wish to see and then to twist the Scriptures in order to comply with it.

TEs are found across the entire range of Christianity, from highly conservative and evangelical to extreme liberal, whereas YEC is limited to the conservative Christians. Obviously you will get TEs who are liberal about all areas of sexuality. But that comes from their being liberal rather than being TE.

Yeah it’s too bad with today’s liberal interpretative means of biblical exegesis they’re too caught up in having to first discuss the lighter material like whether evolutionary theory, whether gay behavior and premarital sex is acceptable to God.

That's right, tar evolution with the same brush as homosexuality and premarital sex You didn't answer my point though that the bible is not so simply children can understand everything. That is the problem Vossler, you are not answering my discussion of what the bible actually says and my biblical examples of how we should approach exegesis.

I never made such a claim.

I said: Your approach cannot differentiate between the 'plain reading' of a six day creation, the 'plain reading' of geocentrism, or the 'plain reading' of a mustard seed being the smallest seed on earth.

You claimed: if God's Word doesn't speak on an issue then scientific evidence and even speculation can be taken into account. So the difference isn't based upon the reliability of scientific findings but upon whether the Bible speaks on the issue.

Clearly you think the bible hasn't spoken about the size of mustard seeds, the motion of the earth and sun, but has spoken about the age of the universe. Or at least you feel free to reinterpret the 'plain reading' of what the bible says about mustard seeds, the movement of the sun around the earth, but believe it is an error (leading to atheism or liberal attitudes to premarital sex and homosexuality), to reinterpret what you see as the 'plain reading' of a six day creation. What biblical basis do you have to differentiate between mustard seeds, geocentrism and a literal six days?

 

[Assyrian]

Think about what you're saying. God didn't think the Jew was able to understand heliocentrism and so He taught them geocentrism. I don't believe for a minute that whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa that the Jew would have really cared. The understanding isn't something difficult to comprehend, even when putting myself back in their day. The same holds true for six days and billions of years. God could have easily conveyed billions of years without getting too technical about it, but He didn't.

God could have taught a heliocentric solar system. The idea is counter intuitive to people who see the sun travelling across the sky, but they would probably have got the idea, or at least accepted it on faith. So, why didn't he? Why does God speak in geocentric terms to ancient near eastern geocentrists?

God could have conveyed billions of years, though it would have been much more difficult to grasp than heliocentism. Why do you think that if geological ages are true, God would have conveyed the idea of billions of years, when didn't do that with heliocentrism?

 

[shernren]

First of all I'd like to say I'm enjoying our dialog. Thanks for making it so.

It's mutual. Thank you too and you're welcome.

Think about what you're saying. God didn't think the Jew was able to understand heliocentrism and so He taught them geocentrism. I don't believe for a minute that whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa that the Jew would have really cared. The understanding isn't something difficult to comprehend, even when putting myself back in their day. The same holds true for six days and billions of years. God could have easily conveyed billions of years without getting too technical about it, but He didn't.

rmwilliamsll hit it on the dot, God did not really "teach" geocentrism, but He used human authors who believed in geocentrism and saw no need to correct them. Ditto the young creation. A little research shows that most creation myths of the time are divided into two types - myths where the earth was recently created, and frequently as the result of sudden catastrophe, or "myths" such as the Greek philosophers' where the universe had existed forever.

I see God's writing Genesis as a choice between recent creation and an infinitely old universe (which couldn't have been created, not without some serious philosophical contortions), and I can see why He would have chosen to communicate His truths through a model of recent creation.

You and I probably have very few theological differences, but as for TEs as a whole I'd say the gulf is pretty wide. Many, many TEs believe that homosexuality, pre-marital sex and other ills are fully permissible and even good. What TEism does is open the Scriptures to a much wider interpretation. This is where Adam and Eve no longer really existed, there was no world wide flood, etc. That's my big problem with it.

You listed "alternative interpretations" that broadly fall into two categories:

1. Ethical prescriptions: "homosexuality, premarital sex, and other ills are fully permissible and even good"
2. Historical descriptions: "Adam and Eve no longer really existed, there was no worldwide flood"

With regards to ethical prescriptions, I doubt I disagree much with you. I would also say that merely knowing that something is sinful does not deter sinful action, so that even a proper knowledge of ethical prescriptions will never substitute for a relationship with the Living God (not that I am calling anybody's into question). I have made my stance on homosexuality (the temptation is normal, the act is sinful, and the person is still to be loved) and premarital sex quite clear in other posts before so if you have problems with other TEs take it up with them.

With regards to historical descriptions, is a matter of differing opinions really that important? Of course, if it leads to a difference in ethical prescriptions, then it would be a matter of concern; as it is, I don't see why I would live any differently just because certain things historically happened or did not happen.

I'm glad to hear that you still have an open mind towards it, I know some of your recent statements didn't give me that impression anymore.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't given it much thought as to what would convince me to accept evolution. The whole idea has so many holes in it that I can't imagine something being able to fill them all. The one evolutionary idea that I have thought about is the age of the earth. If there is a YEC theme that has a remote possibility of having some validity to it, it's that.

I know what sort of evidence would convince me but I am also aware that the current set of evidence I have seen (including all the things creationists have said) falls far short of that and points savagely in the opposite direction, for me at least thus far.

I don't put as much stock into external evidence as most YECs do. I accept it if it aligns with Scripture, but I don't spend much time thinking about it or using it in arguments. I agree that all evidence should be consistent and when it isn't that should be a warning to everyone that something isn't right. That holds true for both sides of this argument. YECs can be very dogmatic about things that, in my opinion, are not based on such a solid footing as they would like to think. Oh well, that's human nature.

That's just it, why shouldn't your interpretation of the Bible be subject to the demands of external evidence?

 

[vossler]

[/color]
Technically that is an 'appeal to motive' a form of ad hominem argument which qualifies as a fallacy rather than a logical conclusion.

It may not be logical for you, but given that nothing else makes sense, it is for me.

What makes you think I am saying the bible is wrong? The bible is the word of God. What we need to do is understand how he speaks to us. I don't think the bible is wrong about mustard seed, the solar system, or the age of the earth. But they do show how the simplistic 'plain sense' literalism gets things seriously wrong.

Well then there’s another thing where we disagree, the definition or understanding of how we use and see wrong. Not true or right equals false or wrong for me.

I am not trying to divert attention. I have provided plenty of good biblical evidence for the six days being metaphorical, which you haven't seemed to give any biblical answers to other than the Holy Spirit told you, your common sense tells you, or an eight year old kid told you (and eight year olds are not great at spotting metaphors). These things aren't trivia as long as you can't show how a plain reading interpretation can distinguish between them.

I’m sorry but I didn’t see any strong or effective biblical evidence. If you could, please just provide the best and strongest evidence there is. BTW, God isn’t in the business of cleverly deceiving us by presenting material as historical but disguising it as metaphor.

I don't doubt the story's authenticity and I read the exact same lessons of faith in the story. In Gen 1-3 I also read the message of God as creator of the universe, forming mankind in his own image, to have fellowship with him, of our falling into the snare of Satan, our sin and rejection of God, and God's promise of a redeemer. Yet I see YEC leave aside the meaning of Genesis and concentrating on a simplistic literal interpretation that would be trivial if it wasn't a tragic denial of reality that is bringing Christianity and the bible into disrepute.

I’ve never known a YEC to leave aside the meaning of Genesis, in fact that’s quite the opposite. What is happening is that when the foundation to the story is dismantled, as in the case of TE, then we tend to get single-minded at times to rebuilding that foundation.

Yet you don't believe the mustard seed is the smallest seed do you? You don't take what Jesus said at face value. You insist the bible is a fount of literal and inerrant science, I was simply showing how the lesson could have been given with inerrant science. That doesn't seem to have been Jesus' intention.

In the case of this story I do see the mustard seed as the smallest seed. I’ve always thought of it that way, it wasn’t until TEs tried to tell me otherwise that it ever crossed my mind that it wasn’t. I always accepted it at face value, I had no reason not to. Once you start calling into question many of the stated facts in the Bible you call into question the entire book. I refuse to do that. Every morning I read “My Utmost for His Highest” and today’s (Nov 6th) devotional is directly applicable to this discussion. Here it is:

Intimate Theology ​

Do you believe this? —John 11:26​

Martha believed in the power available to Jesus Christ; she believed that if He had been there He could have healed her brother; she also believed that Jesus had a special intimacy with God, and that whatever He asked of God, God would do. But— she needed a closer personal intimacy with Jesus. Martha’s theology had its fulfillment in the future. But Jesus continued to attract and draw her in until her belief became an intimate possession. It then slowly emerged into a personal inheritance— "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ . . ." (John 11:27).​

Is the Lord dealing with you in the same way? Is Jesus teaching you to have a personal intimacy with Himself? Allow Him to drive His question home to you— "Do you believe this?" Are you facing an area of doubt in your life? Have you come, like Martha, to a crossroads of overwhelming circumstances where your theology is about to become a very personal belief? This happens only when a personal problem brings the awareness of our personal need.​

To believe is to commit. In the area of intellectual learning I commit myself mentally, and reject anything not related to that belief. In the realm of personal belief I commit myself morally to my convictions and refuse to compromise. But in intimate personal belief I commit myself spiritually to Jesus Christ and make a determination to be dominated by Him alone.​

Then, when I stand face to face with Jesus Christ and He says to me, "Do you believe this?" I find that faith is as natural as breathing. And I am staggered when I think how foolish I have been in not trusting Him earlier.​

The highlighted text is exactly how I see this issue. I’ve committed myself to trust the Word of God as true and without error. I reject anything that in any way tears down that belief and I’ve committed myself morally to my convictions and refuse to compromise.

I don't think anyone needs to be persuaded God's word isn't true or in question. But that's what happens when people insist a 'plain reading' interpretation is the correct interpretation even when it is contradicted by the plain facts of science. Mustard is simply not the smallest seed. The sun does not travel around the earth. And the world much more than 6,000 years old.

The plain facts of science, as you wish to call them are anything but plain. They’re certainly not plain to me. Lot’s of science is plain and easy to understand and supported with facts, evolutionary ‘science’ isn’t. It is based on a few facts and then sprinkled with a lot of conjecture and speculation.

If God is more interested in teaching us to love one another than science, why do you insist the bible has to be read as a text book on cosmology, astronomy, geology, meteorology, botany and reproductive biology?

I make no such claim. My sole claim is that I trust the Word of God to be accurate wherever and whenever it speaks on a subject. It is science that comes in to persuade people that God’s Word isn’t true or in question.

The guilt by association fallacy. Science is wrong because more scientists are atheists. Education must be wrong too because the higher people's education the more likely they are not to believe in God. Conclusion: Christians should not get an education? Of perhaps Christians should not have abandoned education and science the way so many did.

Who you associate with tells a lot about who you are.



2 Corinthian 6:14-15 states:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?​

TEs are found across the entire range of Christianity, from highly conservative and evangelical to extreme liberal, whereas YEC is limited to the conservative Christians. Obviously you will get TEs who are liberal about all areas of sexuality. But that comes from their being liberal rather than being TE.

I have no doubt there are some conservative TEs, but the percentage, at least from my observations, show they greatly congregate onto the liberal side of issues.


Your post helps illuminate my point, and that is if I’m liberal I have little to no chance of seeing the YEC perspective.

That's right, tar evolution with the same brush as homosexuality and premarital sex

I’m sorry my intent isn’t to tar anyone but to provide evidence of association. Does that mean that all TEs believe in homosexuality etc., obviously not, nothing is absolute except for God Himself. Yet it does shed some interesting light.

That is the problem Vossler, you are not answering my discussion of what the bible actually says and my biblical examples of how we should approach exegesis.

I’m sorry, I’ll try to do better. Can you be specific and I’ll do my best to answer you question. I don’t recall seeing any biblical examples of how we should approach exegesis. Please refresh my memory.

I said: Your approach cannot differentiate between the 'plain reading' of a six day creation, the 'plain reading' of geocentrism, or the 'plain reading' of a mustard seed being the smallest seed on earth.

You claimed: if God's Word doesn't speak on an issue then scientific evidence and even speculation can be taken into account. So the difference isn't based upon the reliability of scientific findings but upon whether the Bible speaks on the issue.

Clearly you think the bible hasn't spoken about the size of mustard seeds, the motion of the earth and sun, but has spoken about the age of the universe. Or at least you feel free to reinterpret the 'plain reading' of what the bible says about mustard seeds, the movement of the sun around the earth, but believe it is an error (leading to atheism or liberal attitudes to premarital sex and homosexuality), to reinterpret what you see as the 'plain reading' of a six day creation. What biblical basis do you have to differentiate between mustard seeds, geocentrism and a literal six days?

I don’t know where you got the idea that I think the Bible hasn’t spoken about the size of a mustard seed or even the motion of the sun, clearly it speaks. In neither story is the seed or geocentrism the primary point, yet creation is the point of the story and it is here that God does speak in a very general but also definitive manner. He doesn’t give us the specifics of how He created, nor are they needed, but He is specific on the time frame and why He created. Those are needed for us to know. There is purpose in everything He does.

 

[vossler]

It's mutual. Thank you too and you're welcome.

It’s always so much better when we respect each other. It allows us to be frank without always interpreting things as personal.

rmwilliamsll hit it on the dot, God did not really "teach" geocentrism, but He used human authors who believed in geocentrism and saw no need to correct them.

Don’t you think that’s because it wasn’t all that important?

Ditto the young creation. A little research shows that most creation myths of the time are divided into two types - myths where the earth was recently created, and frequently as the result of sudden catastrophe, or "myths" such as the Greek philosophers' where the universe had existed forever.

But geocentrism and creation are so very much different and cannot be fairly compared. Wouldn’t you agree?

I see God's writing Genesis as a choice between recent creation and an infinitely old universe (which couldn't have been created, not without some serious philosophical contortions), and I can see why He would have chosen to communicate His truths through a model of recent creation.

Then why misinform, why not leave it vague and ambiguous?

You listed "alternative interpretations" that broadly fall into two categories:

1. Ethical prescriptions: "homosexuality, premarital sex, and other ills are fully permissible and even good"
2. Historical descriptions: "Adam and Eve no longer really existed, there was no worldwide flood"

With regards to ethical prescriptions, I doubt I disagree much with you. I would also say that merely knowing that something is sinful does not deter sinful action, so that even a proper knowledge of ethical prescriptions will never substitute for a relationship with the Living God (not that I am calling anybody's into question). I have made my stance on homosexuality (the temptation is normal, the act is sinful, and the person is still to be loved) and premarital sex quite clear in other posts before so if you have problems with other TEs take it up with them.

I would say you’re the exception and definitely not the rule. That’s part of the reason I like you so much.

With regards to historical descriptions, is a matter of differing opinions really that important? Of course, if it leads to a difference in ethical prescriptions, then it would be a matter of concern; as it is, I don't see why I would live any differently just because certain things historically happened or did not happen.

You don’t believe the foundation to a story has much relevance to the core of the story?

I know what sort of evidence would convince me but I am also aware that the current set of evidence I have seen (including all the things creationists have said) falls far short of that and points savagely in the opposite direction, for me at least thus far.

If you’re stuck on scientific findings to support YEC then I agree, you’ll probably never be convinced.

That's just it, why shouldn't your interpretation of the Bible be subject to the demands of external evidence?

Oh they are, but that evidence cannot contradict the plain reading of Scripture without some very strong biblically based hermeneutics and exegesis.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry for the delay getting back to you vossler

It may not be logical for you, but given that nothing else makes sense, it is for me.

Sorry vossler, logic is not a matter of subjective opinion. You simply don't know my motivation for looking at what is said about mustard seeds. Even if you were right that I was 'trying to find things wrong with the bible', which I am not, you still have the problem that your exegesis cannot distinguish between a literal six day creation, geocentrism, or mustard seeds being the smallest seed on earth. So regardless of my motivation, your defence of YEC still cannot deal with these problems.

Well then there’s another thing where we disagree, the definition or understanding of how we use and see wrong. Not true or right equals false or wrong for me.

Think about what you are saying. It is not true that mustard seeds are the smallest seed on earth. If not true equals false or wrong to you, then you are saying Jesus said things that are false or wrong. I could not agree with that.

I’m sorry but I didn’t see any strong or effective biblical evidence. If you could, please just provide the best and strongest evidence there is. BTW, God isn’t in the business of cleverly deceiving us by presenting material as historical but disguising it as metaphor.

1. Moses didn't take God's day literally as he tells us in his Psalm about the creation, Psalm 90.
2. Jesus didn't take the reference to ceasing work literally. Compare Gen 2:2&3, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17 with John 5:17
3. Jesus didn't take the explanation for the Sabbath given in Exodus literally. Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. However Exodus says the Sabbath command was instituted to commemorate God resting on the Seventh day and making it holy.
4. A literal reading of the Sabbath command tells us that God was worn out after creating the world and was refreshed after having a rest. This cannot be taken literally. In Exodus God also uses the very rare word 'refreshed' to describe weary labourers recovering their strength. God does not get tired, but the description of him resting and being refreshed works very well as an anthropomorphic metaphor where God identifies with the weary and heavy laden. That means though that the six days are part of an metaphorical description of the creation, not a literal one.
5. The same Sabbath command in Deuteronomy is also illustrated using an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God freeing the Israelites from captivity. If God's 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' cannot be taken literally, then there is no basis for saying God's six day creation has to be literal.
6. The writer of Hebrew describes God's seventh day rest as a rest we can still enter today, telling us the Seventh day of creation is still going on, or refers to continuing state and relationship with God we need to be part of.

I’ve never known a YEC to leave aside the meaning of Genesis, in fact that’s quite the opposite. What is happening is that when the foundation to the story is dismantled, as in the case of TE, then we tend to get single-minded at times to rebuilding that foundation.

Do you think belief in a literal Good Samaritan is foundational to the story? And what is foundational to Genesis? The fact that God created everything, or what you perceive as his timetable?

In the case of this story I do see the mustard seed as the smallest seed. I’ve always thought of it that way, it wasn’t until TEs tried to tell me otherwise that it ever crossed my mind that it wasn’t. I always accepted it at face value, I had no reason not to. Once you start calling into question many of the stated facts in the Bible you call into question the entire book. I refuse to do that. Every morning I read “My Utmost for His Highest” and today’s (Nov 6th) devotional is directly applicable to this discussion. Here it is...The highlighted text is exactly how I see this issue. I’ve committed myself to trust the Word of God as true and without error. I reject anything that in any way tears down that belief and I’ve committed myself morally to my convictions and refuse to compromise.

So are you saying you have decided to continue to believe that mustard seeds are the smallest seed in spite of poppy seeds being smaller That is really strange. Christianity is all about faith. But it doesn't mean believing things that simply aren't true. If your interpretation is contradicted by the facts, it is time to reassess the way you interpreted it.

The plain facts of science, as you wish to call them are anything but plain. They’re certainly not plain to me. Lot’s of science is plain and easy to understand and supported with facts, evolutionary ‘science’ isn’t. It is based on a few facts and then sprinkled with a lot of conjecture and speculation.

If you want to believe that feel free. It isn't true though.

Don't confuse the plain facts of science with the research, experiments and maths used to verify them being easy to understand by non scientists. But they are well established. I am sure you feel heliocentrism is plain easy to understand and supported with facts. But do you understand Kepler's laws of planetary motion? Newton's law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion? How about Albert Einstein's general relativity? All these are part of a scientific understanding of the plain facts of our heliocentric solar system. But you are more familiar with antievolution arguments than say, astronomy.

It is easy to establish the scientific plain scientific fact that mustard is simply not the smallest seed. The science is a bit more complex demonstrating that sun does not travel around the earth and that the world much more than 6,000 years old. But they are still plain facts of science.

I make no such claim. My sole claim is that I trust the Word of God to be accurate wherever and whenever it speaks on a subject. It is science that comes in to persuade people that God’s Word isn’t true or in question.

The difficulty you have is knowing when the word of God is speaking on a subject rather than believing it will be accurate when it does. It is not science's job to persuade people God's word isn't true. It's job is simply to tell us about the universe. If you believe, as you and I both do, that Jesus as telling his disciples the truth. The only conclusion is that he wasn't telling them about mustard seeds. That passage in the word of God is speaking about faith not horticulture. The passage where Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still is telling us about God's mighty miraculous power, it is not teaching astronomy or the relative motion of the sun moon and earth. Exodus 20:11 is speaking about the Sabbath, not teaching age of the universe.
The only alternative is to live in a fantasy world believing mustard has the smallest seed, the sun goes around the earth and the world is only 6,000 years old. That does not bring honour to God, his word, or the world he created.

Who you associate with tells a lot about who you are.




2 Corinthian 6:14-15 states:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?​

I think one of the biggest mistakes Christianity keep making is when they turn their back on knowledge, science, and education. God did not feel the same way apparently and some of the most mightily used men of God have been highly educated in the best secular education of the time: Moses, Daniel, Paul.

This is not the first time this argument has been used by Christians to reject secular knowledge and education. You should really read: The Fourth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes

Or how can waters be contained on a rotating sphere? or how when the stars fall at the final consummation, can such spheres as yours be preserved? or what can be the use of them? Is it not evident that you argue against the hope held out by the Christian doctrine? For these views can not be consistently held except by pagans, who have no hope of another and better state, and who consequently suppose that the world is eternal, in order that the rich abundance of the spheres in which the planets will accomplish their courses may be preserved for them -- while in another sphere are the fixed stars -- and their error has some show of reason in its favor. But ye advance arguments altogether incredible, and will have it that there is a multitude of spheres, and that there is no final consummation of the world since ye are unable to tell what is the necessity of these things. And in like manner ye will have it that the waters above the spheres rotate -- a most ridiculous idea and altogether idiotic, and ye advance arguments that are self-contradictory and opposed to the nature of things. And though ye allow that the universe was created in six days, yet ye find no mention of the making of a third heaven, and far less of the eight or nine which ye venture to affirm. How great is your knowledge! how great is your wisdom! how great your intelligence! how great your inconsistency. No man can serve two masters, (Matt. 6:24) as has well been said by the lord, but if one will serve God, let him serve him, or if Mammon, then Mammon. And again he says through Paul: Ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. (1Cor 10:21) And again: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with lawlessness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2Cor 6:14-16 )

Apparently your 2Cor quote works just as well in rejecting the pagan notions of a spherical earth.

I have no doubt there are some conservative TEs, but the percentage, at least from my observations, show they greatly congregate onto the liberal side of issues.

Isn't this irrelevant? It is not a question of how many liberal Christians there are or whether they outnumber the conservatives Christians, or whether there are more conservative YECs or TEs. It is not a referendum.

Your post helps illuminate my point, and that is if I’m liberal I have little to no chance of seeing the YEC perspective.

No simply that liberals as a whole don't like to deny the facts of science. You won't get many liberal geocentrists or micromustardists either.

I’m sorry my intent isn’t to tar anyone but to provide evidence of association. Does that mean that all TEs believe in homosexuality etc., obviously not, nothing is absolute except for God Himself. Yet it does shed some interesting light.

The 'interesting light' is called guilt by association. You wouldn't have like some of the people Jesus hung around with either. Sorry vossler you are really struggling here. You can't answer the scripture so you are resorting to maligning people who believe in evilution.

I’m sorry, I’ll try to do better. Can you be specific and I’ll do my best to answer you question. I don’t recall seeing any biblical examples of how we should approach exegesis. Please refresh my memory.

We were looking at the way God speaks to us in his word and how literalism can read things into his word that are simply wrong, as well as missing what God is saying to us. Specifically I was looking at two places where there is no metaphor flagged up to warn literalists, there are no scripture passages contradicting it or suggesting an alternative interpretation, and the plain sense of Scripture does make common sense, at least to people without extrascriptural information that poppy seeds are smaller than mustard and that the earth rotates instead of the sun moving around us. If these are rightly reinterpreted in the light of evidence, then why not look at different interpretations of the Genesis days?

I don’t know where you got the idea that I think the Bible hasn’t spoken about the size of a mustard seed or even the motion of the sun, clearly it speaks. In neither story is the seed or geocentrism the primary point, yet creation is the point of the story and it is here that God does speak in a very general but also definitive manner. He doesn’t give us the specifics of how He created, nor are they needed, but He is specific on the time frame and why He created. Those are needed for us to know. There is purpose in everything He does.

If the bible speaks about the size of a mustard seed and the motion of the sun, then according to your view, scientific evidence and speculation cannot be taken into account. It shouldn't matter whether mustard seeds and geocentrism are the primary point or not, if the bible has spoken clearly, your hermeneutic does not allow you to disagree, no matter what the external evidence from science or even your own eyes.

Creation is not the point of Exodus 20:11 the Sabbath is, while creation is the point of Genesis, a six day creation isn't. Genesis doesn't say the world was created in six days, and instead of emphasising a single clear meaning to 'day', uses the word in three or four different ways in just the first two chapters. As we have seen Moses himself, who wrote the Pentateuch, didn't think God's days had to be literal. If God's timetable was the primary meaning we wouldn't see two completely different orders of creation in Gen 1 & 2.

I want to agree with shernren. I am enjoying really our conversations with you.

 

[busterdog]

rmwilliamsll hit it on the dot, God did not really "teach" geocentrism, but He used human authors who believed in geocentrism and saw no need to correct them. Ditto the young creation. A little research shows that most creation myths of the time are divided into two types - myths where the earth was recently created, and frequently as the result of sudden catastrophe, or "myths" such as the Greek philosophers' where the universe had existed forever.

Agreed about what God didn't teach.

However, was Fidler On the Roof also by Ptolomeic authors? (Ie, the sun of course does not really "rise") Why must we attribute a belief system to the writers of the Bible at all?