For creationists: How would you know?

[Mallon]

There have been a few posts from a certain few creationists that have caught my attention lately. Posts like this one:

No Creationists do allow for outside elements such as science to supplement the Bible. The key here is to supplement, not to change. As long as something from outside the Bible doesn't change the Bible it, in my opinion, can be incorporated into my studies and faith.

With such attitudes in mind, my question for creationists is this: By rejecting all evidence that contradicts your worldview and accepting only that which you can incorporate into your "studies and faith", how could you ever know if you were wrong? By not opening yourself up to the possibility of fallibility, how can you be so sure that your understanding of the Bible or of the world is without fault? What could possibly convince you that you're mistaken if you're only willing to listen to what agrees with you?

It's a genuine question.

 

[vossler]

With such attitudes in mind, my question for creationists is this: By rejecting all evidence that contradicts your worldview and accepting only that which you can incorporate into your "studies and faith", how could you ever know if you were wrong? By not opening yourself up to the possibility of fallibility, how can you be so sure that your understanding of the Bible or of the world is without fault? What could possibly convince you that you're mistaken if you're only willing to listen to what agrees with you?

If you're going to ask the question, it's best to ask it correctly. I reject all evidence that contradicts the Bible, not my worldview.

 

[Mallon]

If you're going to ask the question, it's best to ask it correctly. I reject all evidence that contradicts the Bible, not my worldview.

Let me rephrase that, then: By rejecting all evidence that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible and accepting only that which you can incorporate into your "studies and faith", how could you ever know if you were wrong?
I hope you'll be able to answer the question now.

 

[vossler]

Let me rephrase that, then: By rejecting all evidence that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible and accepting only that which you can incorporate into your "studies and faith", how could you ever know if you were wrong?
I hope you'll be able to answer the question now.

By rejecting all of man's evidence that contradicts the Bible I'm stating that God and His Word are superior to man and his findings. I'm wrong when someone or the Holy Spirit can show me biblically what I believe the Bible to say is incorrect.

 

[Assyrian]

But if the Holy Spirit was to correct you, wouldn't you 'test every spirit' against what you know the bible says and and reject his prompting as unbiblical and obviously not the Holy Spirit?

 

[jeffweeder]

I want to believe the truth, and the Spirit leads you into all truth. I have no reason to believe Gen in any other way, than what i think he is telling me it means.

If a child read Gen up to chap 8, and then if you were to ask ,How did you understand it child ?
What do you think the response would be?
would be a little YEC i reckon.

 

[vossler]

But if the Holy Spirit was to correct you, wouldn't you 'test every spirit' against what you know the bible says and and reject his prompting as unbiblical and obviously not the Holy Spirit?

Possibly, it all depends.

 

[shernren]

I want to believe the truth, and the Spirit leads you into all truth. I have no reason to believe Gen in any other way, than what i think he is telling me it means.

If a child read Gen up to chap 8, and then if you were to ask ,How did you understand it child ?
What do you think the response would be?
would be a little YEC i reckon.

Why don't you let the little tyke read John 6. Would he figure out that Jesus wasn't advocating cannibalism?

Or the parable of the Shrewd Manager. Would he start quoting Luke 16 every time his big bro asks him to give back that pencil he "borrowed" two months ago?

What about 1 Corinthians 11, will the little kid still let Aunty May teach him in Sunday School? Will he bring a little headscarf for his mother every Sunday?

As a kid, Ephesians 6:4a and Colossians 3:21 were among my favourite verses.

====

If kiddie exegesis doesn't work for the Lord's very words, and for clearly doctrinal passages, why should we expect it to work for a narrative couched in a highly cultural society which had never even heard of dinosaurs or steel?

 

[artybloke]

By rejecting all of man's evidence that contradicts the Bible

Here we go again with the fundie claim that they're not interpreting the Bible, they're only saying "what it says". There's no such thing as an unintepreted Bible, and you're interpreting it every bit as much (and through 19th Century empiricist presuppositions that you pretend not to have at that) as anyone who takes the Bible symbolically.

This is what is know as a total lack of reflexivity (or the inability to acknowledge your own presuppositions.)

 

[Assyrian]

I want to believe the truth, and the Spirit leads you into all truth. I have no reason to believe Gen in any other way, than what i think he is telling me it means.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1Pet 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

So none of that eager examining the scriptures, no careful searching and inquiry to see what the scriptures actually say? God told you and that settles it.

How do you know what if a teaching is true? You test the spirits 1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

How do you test the spirits? You compare what they say to scripture. 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

How do you know what the scriptures mean? The Holy Spirit tells you.

How do you know that was the Holy Spirit? You test the spirits 1John 4:1... Oh dear.

I think maybe the Bereans had the right idea.

If a child read Gen up to chap 8, and then if you were to ask ,How did you understand it child ?
What do you think the response would be?
would be a little YEC i reckon.

I remember reading Genesis in my kids' bible and thinking, wow that's just like the stuff about where dinosaurs came from. I read about the flood too and liked the pictures of the zebras, but I don't remember thinking, that must have been a global flood. In fact I wouldn't have known what that meant.

But is sticking to a childish first impression the way we are meant to learn God's word?

Heb 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Yes we receive the kingdom with the trust and simplicity of a little child. But it doesn't mean we are to remain childish.

1Cor 14:20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

 

[David Brider]

FWIW, personally I'm inclined against an evolutionary model of origins because I'm not convinced that the available evidence points unequivocally in that direction. I'll freely admit that I'm no scientist, and I've not looked into in anything like the depth that some people may have done; although a friend of mine is a biologist and chemist and she's not convinced by evolutionary evidence. And she's a reasonably intelligent woman (just in the middle of working on her doctorate), so if nothing else she gives me confidence that it's possible to be a.) intelligent, b.) knowledgeable in the relevant areas, and c.) not believe evolution to be true.

I'm inclined towards a six-day creation because that seems to me the most reasonable reading of the Bible.

If other people are more convinced than I am by the evidence for evolution, or reckon the Bible text is symbollic in this particular area, then that's fine by me. All any of us can do is come to our own interpretation and understanding of the evidence and the text.

Just IMO.

David.

 

[cerafim]

Here's the thing that I don't ever understand. I learned something by listening to a guy that helped me with some of my sales methodologies. In this statement he posed a very elemental question, with statement below, here was the question. How many assumptions are built into the statement below. How man can you name? I've done this excercise, try it....

"The Solution to the Problem is....."



How about...

- There's actually a problem
- We both see the same problem
- There is only one solution
- This is the right solution
- The problem, needs a solution... etc....

Here's how I mechanically apply that to an orgin theology discussion. All of our modern sciences are MAN MADE CONSTRUCTS.

1 + 1 = 2 was designed by man to function as a means of comprehension for computing necessities.
The Scientific Method was created to assign a universal means by which discoverers could record and track findings.

Math and the Scientific method are simplistic models that are representative of my intial postulate. The evidence demonstrates that our constructs are far more advanced than this and yet we've never really taken the time to figure out how to account for the DRAMATIC and Inconclusively supportable assumptions. Simply put, we make a lot of assumptions and pass them off as fact.

In many respects it might be said that the Bible is a man made construct. My evidence against that is this.

The Bible is a historical compilation, there is enough archeological, independent eyewitness records, medical evidence and en masse volumes of collected data that support that. It wasn't created to pop out theories, it was written as a record of what happened.
[Read the "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel"]

 

[artybloke]

The Bible is a historical compilation, there is enough archeological, independent eyewitness records, medical evidence and en masse volumes of collected data that support that. It wasn't created to pop out theories, it was written as a record of what happened.

The Bible was not however written as history. It was written to teach spiritual lessons. It's a book whose main purpose is not to tell us how things happened, or what things happened; but about how God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us despite ourselves.

And the evidence of the Bible's historicity - certainly pre-return from exile - is nowhere near as safe as Lee Strobel assumes. There is almost no independent evidence of even such a major event as the Exodus from Egypt, and the evidence for King David isn't clear.

A lot of the stories in the Bible may well be based on historical events - but more in the manner of the stories in the Iliad of Homer: nobody nowadays doubts the existence of Troy; but that doesn't mean that there were real characters called Achiles and Paris and Helen of Troy. But there might have been.

That doesn't detract from the spiritual & universal truths that the Bible was intended to relate.

 

[Deamiter]

It might also be noted that language, culture, written communication... also man-made.

In many respects it might be said that the Bible is a man made construct. My evidence against that is this.

Your evidence against the Bible being man-made is that parts of it have been verified? Are text books then NOT man-made because most of them too are verified?

Why can't the Bible be man-made, yet the content be inspired by God in his followers who seek to pass down their understanding of our Lord and Savior?

 

[cerafim]

The Bible was not however written as history. It was written to teach spiritual lessons. It's a book whose main purpose is not to tell us how things happened, or what things happened; but about how God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us despite ourselves.

And the evidence of the Bible's historicity - certainly pre-return from exile - is nowhere near as safe as Lee Strobel assumes.

Lee Strobel wasn't a Christian when he began writing this book. In fact in the very beginning he describes how this was a case that lacked evidence and if he was ever going to show his wife that her faith, while rather useful in times of trial and stress were nothing more than habits that help people cope. The amount of gross evidence compiled is simply to respectable to make a statement like that.

<quote>
A lot of the stories in the Bible may well be based on historical events - but more in the manner of the stories in the Iliad of Homer: nobody nowadays doubts the existence of Troy; but that doesn't mean that there were real characters called Achiles and Paris and Helen of Troy. But there might have been.

[/quote]

Hey I'm glad that you brought up homers illiad, b/c is referenced in the book by Lee Strobel during his investigation. In fact it is the second most widley accepted historical piece of evidence besides the Bible based on a few criteria. However, it was written nearly 1000 years or more after the supposed time of Homer, and there are NO remaining documents that prove it ever existed. It's only mentioned in other documents and common folklore allows for the scientists and archeologists to peiece together what they think it "meant".

The Bible on the other hand, has 47 copies of the book of Mark, all of which are original and identical, dating back to about 70 AD, which if your counting put thems somewhere around 30-40 years after christs death. The book of Acts earliest (written by Paul) are dated in their earliest known copies are dated to being written only 2 years after christs death and resurrection. There are today, over 5000 living, independent sources for the Bibles authenticity...nothing compares to that. Nothing.

Historical document...I think yes.

 

[cerafim]

It might also be noted that language, culture, written communication... also man-made.


Your evidence against the Bible being man-made is that parts of it have been verified? Are text books then NOT man-made because most of them too are verified?

Why can't the Bible be man-made, yet the content be inspired by God in his followers who seek to pass down their understanding of our Lord and Savior?

I'm not sure I fully understand your post. Can you expound?

 

[artybloke]

Most the Old Testament was written many hundreds of years after the events they supposedly relate to. Including the story of the Exodus, which had nothing to do with Moses' authorship but is most probably multi-authored over a long period of time from before to just after the Exilic period (600-300BC). So in that sense, it's just like Homer.

The Genesis stories are either poems (Chap 1) or fables (2et al) and were never intended to be literal. In fact, you can't simply read the OT as historical because it contains poetry, prophecy, story and many other genres of writing. You have to pay attention to the genre of the writing (the kind of book it is intended to be) because that will affect whether it is intended to be historical or not.

The Gospels, of course, were intended to be historica. But certainly not in the modern sense; they were not written in order to satisfy modern academic standards of historiography.

With all respect to Lee Strobel, he's not a theologian, and from what I've seen of his writing, he's not much of a writer either.

 

[artybloke]

The Bible on the other hand, has 47 copies of the book of Mark, all of which are original and identical, dating back to about 70 AD,

This isn't actually true. The earliest fragment of the NT we have is from 150AD ish, is a tiny fragment of John's Gospel and curently resides somewhere in my fair city of Manchester, England, in the John Rylands Library.

The 70AD refers to what most scholars would say is the aproximate time of composition of the Gospel of Mark.

As for the book of Acts being composed only 2 years after the death of Christ, considering that the events described take place over a period of about 20 years (the Council of Jerusalem - Acts 15 I think - was aprox. AD50), this would mean that the author would have to travel back in time in the Tardis to write it.

As for the 5000 pieces of the NT - this includes fragments no bigger than your thumb as well as variously complete or incomplete whole manuscripts.

And what difference would it make anyway? We have lots of copies of Oliver Twist and are pretty certain about the text but that doesn't make it any less fictional. Of course, Oliver Twist was intentionally fictional, and the Gospels are intentionally historical. But having lots of manuscripts to prove that the text is accurately transcribed is one thing (and - with some reservations - most scholars are pretty certain it is) and proving that an event the text wrote about actually historically occured is another. For that, you need independent, verifiable physical evidence.

Some of which, we have, some of which, we don't.

 

[shernren]

Lee Strobel wasn't a Christian when he began writing this book. In fact in the very beginning he describes how this was a case that lacked evidence and if he was ever going to show his wife that her faith, while rather useful in times of trial and stress were nothing more than habits that help people cope. The amount of gross evidence compiled is simply to respectable to make a statement like that.

A lot of the stories in the Bible may well be based on historical events - but more in the manner of the stories in the Iliad of Homer: nobody nowadays doubts the existence of Troy; but that doesn't mean that there were real characters called Achiles and Paris and Helen of Troy. But there might have been.

Hey I'm glad that you brought up homers illiad, b/c is referenced in the book by Lee Strobel during his investigation. In fact it is the second most widley accepted historical piece of evidence besides the Bible based on a few criteria. However, it was written nearly 1000 years or more after the supposed time of Homer, and there are NO remaining documents that prove it ever existed. It's only mentioned in other documents and common folklore allows for the scientists and archeologists to peiece together what they think it "meant".

The Bible on the other hand, has 47 copies of the book of Mark, all of which are original and identical, dating back to about 70 AD, which if your counting put thems somewhere around 30-40 years after christs death. The book of Acts earliest (written by Paul) are dated in their earliest known copies are dated to being written only 2 years after christs death and resurrection. There are today, over 5000 living, independent sources for the Bibles authenticity...nothing compares to that. Nothing.

Historical document...I think yes.

Firstly, that says nothing about Genesis.

Secondly, the point about Mark is not necessarily that Mark is true and historical. Mind you, even if Mark was only written 30-40 years after Jesus died, that wouldn't prove anything. I could well have written in AD30 that "Jesus is alive!" even if I had personally seen a body in the tomb that Easter morning - if there was some reason for me to do so. (And you had better be ready because this is exactly the sort of argument non-Christians will bring against statements like yours in the way that you formulated them.)

What the "identicality" of the Mark fragments does prove is that the (orthodox) Christian community early on already had a unified response to the life and work of Jesus Christ. A named document unanimously testified to His being resurrected. The importance of this can be seen by comparing it to a "what-if" world where those fragments of Mark all had different endings. Imagine if a fragment had Jesus whisking Himself off the cross, another one having the tomb with a body inside, another one had Jesus appearing to His disciples weak, labored, and bleeding ... instead of these various conflicting records we have one unanimous witness that yes, Jesus did rise from the dead.

Might it all have been a deception, and the disciples have been writing of a man they knew to be dead. Perhaps. But if it was a deception, then it must have been (in a few literal senses) one hell of a deception to pull off.

 

[artybloke]

The importance of this can be seen by comparing it to a "what-if" world where those fragments of Mark all had different endings.

Actually, there are at least two different endings of the Gospel of Mark. These days, most scholars reject the longer version as authentic; though you'll still find it, usually with a note explaining this attached.