For creationists: How would you know?

[vossler]

But the idea that "science interpreting Scripture is inferior" would only occur if one maintains that Scripture is complete: that Scripture supplies its own interpretation and therefore for that interpretation to be "modified by science" would be wrong.

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

Why would it? After all, the Bible is not God ... is it?

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.

 

[theFijian]

Yeah, I think that my Bible says I can have multiple wives. Isn't it great how we can each have our own interpretation; what's so neat about it is that they always seem to match my desires.

How sad, still evading the issue I see. Strange how you decide to resort to sarcasm, having difficulty undertanding the issue?

 

[Assyrian]

I don't put limitations on God. If He wishes to speak to me through a burning bush, rock, or anything else I'm more than willing to listen.

Sure the Sovereign Lord can speak to you through a burning bush, but he is not able to speak through scripture unless it is 'inerrant'...

It is ironic, you firmly believe scripture is useful for teaching, reproof and correction, yet you have not been able to provide any scriptural basis to reprove and correct our misunderstanding of scripture.

Give me one and I'll do my best.

I am not talking about misunderstandings of specific passages you think we have, but a misunderstanding of scripture as a whole. You believe inerrancy is the biblical view of scripture yet you haven't been able to back it up from scripture. Even though the bible itself tells us scripture is useful for teaching, reproof and correction, you haven't been able to reprove or correct our view that inerrancy is an unbiblical concept.

It makes a difference to me. If someone told me that they made a person disappear and that there were witnesses to this fact, it would make a BIG difference as to whether I believed it if I actually saw it happen.

What if you saw someone disappear and scientific instruments told you no one had been there, weighing scales did not register any weight, infrared cameras detected no heat given out, and motion sensors didn't detect any movement before they disappeared? Would you throw out the instruments or get your eyes checked?

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?

They both may be facts to you, only one qualifies as such to me. Conjecture should never qualify as fact.

Apart from the fact that radiometric dating is not based 'on conjecture', if your approach to scripture and exegesis can fall apart with something as simple and observable as a mustard seed what makes you think it is reliable when contradicted by science.

I don't think errant or inerrant are words that apply to the bible. They are looking at God's inspired word the wrong way. But they can apply to some forms of scripture interpretation. Any system of interpretation that tries to extract inerrant science from the bible can be shown to be errant. 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. The difference in how you interpret them comes from how reliable you think the scientific evidence is, not what the bible says.

 

[vossler]

How sad, still evading the issue I see. Strange how you decide to resort to sarcasm, having difficulty undertanding the issue?

If I knew what the issue was I might be able to respond to it, instead you choose not to plainly ask what is obviously on your mind. I don't know what your hope is in doing that; maybe it's to get me to inadvertently say something that you can use to 'prove me wrong,' I don't know, but I'm not going to play games with you. Either you come out with a straight and honest question or don't voice your displeasure when I reply with a sarcastic response.

 

[vossler]

Sure the Sovereign Lord can speak to you through a burning bush, but he is not able to speak through scripture unless it is 'inerrant'...

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?

I am not talking about misunderstandings of specific passages you think we have, but a misunderstanding of scripture as a whole. You believe inerrancy is the biblical view of scripture yet you haven't been able to back it up from scripture. Even though the bible itself tells us scripture is useful for teaching, reproof and correction, you haven't been able to reprove or correct our view that inerrancy is an unbiblical concept.

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.



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:

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.

What if you saw someone disappear and scientific instruments told you no one had been there, weighing scales did not register any weight, infrared cameras detected no heat given out, and motion sensors didn't detect any movement before they disappeared? Would you throw out the instruments or get your eyes checked?

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.

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.

Apart from the fact that radiometric dating is not based 'on conjecture', if your approach to scripture and exegesis can fall apart with something as simple and observable as a mustard seed what makes you think it is reliable when contradicted by science.

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!

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.

I don't think errant or inerrant are words that apply to the bible. They are looking at God's inspired word the wrong way. But they can apply to some forms of scripture interpretation. Any system of interpretation that tries to extract inerrant science from the bible can be shown to be errant. 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. The difference in how you interpret them comes from how reliable you think the scientific evidence is, not what the bible says.

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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?

this is the problem of context. The Scriptures are not written to us, we are essentially shoulder surfing over those to whom the writings were first directed. Our context is not the same thing as theirs. I have a scientifically influenced worldview where many of the common sense, naive observer type of analysis of the world around us is false. The world is not flat, the solar system is not geocentric, slavery is not an acceptable social principle, life is not the same thing as breath and is not localized in the blood. Does that make what they believed false? depends, slavery is right or wrong, probably not true or false. Vitalism is probably false but i can't show it so. But the issue is context, their and ours.



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.

if this were true then the deep divisions in the Christian world would not exist. Something as simple as "this is my body" is not theologically simple, no matter how little history outside of your own community you know.

and on a more personal level, i suspect that anyone who makes the blanket claim that Scripture is simple, simply are not doing their homework. I've been working on Acts 6:1-7 for months, i've read literally a ton of books and have more to read now then i did when i started, and everyday i see something i missed before. or i read a commentary that points out something new i hadn't even considered. and this is just a few verses.

what is simple are some essential doctrines to salvation, but much past those it is neither simple nor easy enough for a child to explain, or for that matter easy enough to explain to educated adults without a lot of care and concern.

 

[vossler]

this is the problem of context. The Scriptures are not written to us, we are essentially shoulder surfing over those to whom the writings were first directed.

I believe the Scriptures transcend time and were written to all of equally.

if this were true then the deep divisions in the Christian world would not exist. Something as simple as "this is my body" is not theologically simple, no matter how little history outside of your own community you know.

This wasn't meant to say that all of Scripture was simple and easy to understand, most if it however is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
this is the problem of context. The Scriptures are not written to us, we are essentially shoulder surfing over those to whom the writings were first directed.
I believe the Scriptures transcend time and were written to all of equally.


the longer i engage in this CED debate, the more i am aware of this fundamental difference. i subscribe to the historical-grammatical system of hermeneutics and find that Scripture is culture bound, what is transcultural are the ideas, the basic meaning of the passages, the system of doctrine as taught by Scripture. But the liberal error is to think that inspiration resides at this meaning or interpretive level. it doesn't, the very words are what are inspired. However they are first human words, in a human context, that needs to be understood in the process of exegesis. Certainly they are God's words as well, but like the true presence in communion, God's words are in-through-under those human ones.

yes, i think this is probably a very basic distinction between YEC and most OEC. it is however not a liberal-conservative issue as many YECists seem to think it is.


Quote:
if this were true then the deep divisions in the Christian world would not exist. Something as simple as "this is my body" is not theologically simple, no matter how little history outside of your own community you know.
This wasn't meant to say that all of Scripture was simple and easy to understand, most if it however is.

i don't think that there is any passage in Scripture that is simple, except maybe the long lists of names and tribes and numbers. Underneath what appears at first to be simplicity is levels of complexity that make commentaries fill our bookshelves. It is in the nature of progressive revelation that history unfolds these meanings over time as the church learns more about the details of working out salvation, of doing in the real world what tasks God has assigned to the church. I don't think we will ever exhaust the levels of meaningfulness in Scripture. some is simple, but only in the beginning of your walk with God, if you pay attention even the simple passages yield a lifetime of thoughtfulness. as you unpack and interact with both biblical, systematic and historical theologies.

 

[vossler]

i don't think that there is any passage in Scripture that is simple, except maybe the long lists of names and tribes and numbers. Underneath what appears at first to be simplicity is levels of complexity that make commentaries fill our bookshelves. It is in the nature of progressive revelation that history unfolds these meanings over time as the church learns more about the details of working out salvation, of doing in the real world what tasks God has assigned to the church. I don't think we will ever exhaust the levels of meaningfulness in Scripture. some is simple, but only in the beginning of your walk with God, if you pay attention even the simple passages yield a lifetime of thoughtfulness. as you unpack and interact with both biblical, systematic and historical theologies.

I'll go along with the progressive revelation part. Still, most of Scripture has a simple, straight-forward and easy to understand basis, if it didn't then how do you explain the fact that children can understand it.

 

[Deamiter]

I'll go along with the progressive revelation part. Still, most of Scripture has a simple, straight-forward and easy to understand basis, if it didn't then how do you explain the fact that children can understand it.

Now THERE'S circular reasoning if I ever saw it! You've said again and again that you look at the Bible as written so that children could understand it. You look at each passage and throw out any interpretation that a child could NOT understand. Then you ask, "how do you explain the fact that children can understand it?"

Children will miss MANY lessons in scriptures -- from the parables to the direct moral commands -- unless they are taught the meaning along with the words. That's the whole point of sunday school!

If a child were taught NOTHING but the words in the Bible, their understanding of it would be utterly heretical to any modern Christian. To claim otherwise after putting children through years of weekly lessons designed to familiarize them with the culture and symbolism behind the texts is just dishonest!

 

[vossler]

Now THERE'S circular reasoning if I ever saw it! You've said again and again that you look at the Bible as written so that children could understand it. You look at each passage and throw out any interpretation that a child could NOT understand. Then you ask, "how do you explain the fact that children can understand it?"

First of all I'd like you to be truthful when making accusations. I've never stated I look at each passage and throw out any interpretation that a child could not understand. Your responses are usually more accurate, I really expected more from you.

 

[Mallon]

I've never stated I look at each passage and throw out any interpretation that a child could not understand. Your responses are usually more accurate, I really expected more from you.

I have to agree with Deamiter on this one. Your opinion is that Genesis was written in such a way that the most straightforward reading is what the author intended, is it not? In doing so, you dismiss out of hand any interpretation a child could not understand (read: metaphorical, figurative, non-literal, etc.). Then, as Deamiter said, you wonder how TEs cannot come to grips a fourth-grade reading level comprehension of Scripture. It IS circular reasoning, vossler. Circles make me dizzy.

 

[vossler]

I have to agree with Deamiter on this one. Your opinion is that Genesis was written in such a way that the most straightforward reading is what the author intended, is it not? In doing so, you dismiss out of hand any interpretation a child could not understand (read: metaphorical, figurative, non-literal, etc.). Then, as Deamiter said, you wonder how TEs cannot come to grips a fourth-grade reading level comprehension of Scripture. It IS circular reasoning, vossler. Circles make me dizzy.

Seeing how it is that you get dizzy so easy, maybe you should consider getting off the merry go round of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

Seeing how it is that you get dizzy so easy, maybe you should consider getting off the merry go round of evolution.

Funny joke (sorta), but I'll take your inability to address the point as concedence.

 

[vossler]

Funny joke (sorta), but I'll take your inability to address the point as concedence.

If it will keep you from getting sick... sure I'll do anything for a brother!

 

[busterdog]

I have to agree with Deamiter on this one. Your opinion is that Genesis was written in such a way that the most straightforward reading is what the author intended, is it not? In doing so, you dismiss out of hand any interpretation a child could not understand (read: metaphorical, figurative, non-literal, etc.). Then, as Deamiter said, you wonder how TEs cannot come to grips a fourth-grade reading level comprehension of Scripture. It IS circular reasoning, vossler. Circles make me dizzy.

I would agree with Vossler, but not dismiss out of hand other, more creative models. While there is lots of subtext in scripture, there is a surface text that is treat pretty matter of factly where the resurrection is concerned. A millenial kingdom, death being cast into the lake of fire, these are all concepts that are difficult to push into any area of creativity to overcome the surface text.

How about the parting of the red sea? Feeding with manna, water from the rock, healing of the woman with the issue of blood? All of those are surface text and the apparent meaning is elementary.

Where is the license to apply a different measuring stick to Genesis? The Bible usually tells you when it is using metaphor.

Also, if death is to die, must not death have entered in Genesis 3? And if so, how could there have been evolution before Gen. 3?

Dr. G.R. Morton suggests that the realization of Gen. 2 (God breathes life into Adam) reflects an evolved mutant who is stillborn (as one would expect), but into whom God breathes his spirit. Thus, Dr. Morton is literal, but still and evolutionist.

I admire Dr. Morton's efforts to be literal. And, I am ready to be surprised by anything the Lord might reveal to make such things true. I give the Lord a wide berth, but my reason simply cannot make such things a better read that the surface text.

The surface text (YEC, that is) is internally consistent throughout scripture. Its only conflict is with conventional science, which is a yardstick trust less than the word itself.

 

[Mallon]

Where is the license to apply a different measuring stick to Genesis? The Bible usually tells you when it is using metaphor.

The difference between touting the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts as historically factual, and the resurrection the same, lies in scientific falsifiability. The stories of the Creation and the Flood imply certain claims about the earth that should be readily visible in its recorded history (Romans 1:20, after all). All forms of dating, from isochron dating to dendrochronology to varve dating, should attest to a young earth. They do not. The stratigraphic and fossil record should attest to a single, brief, global catastrophe as inflicted by the flood waters. They do not.
The difference between Genesis 1-3 and the resurrection is that the latter cannot be falsified for we have no evidence left to test. We have no body, or for that matter, no empty tomb. We take it on faith, then, that Jesus is risen.

I also disagree with you that "The Bible usually tells you when it is using metaphor." It is a very easy thing to say now. I'm sure you feel that, say, Joshua 10:12-13 is just a metaphor, that the sun didn't actually come to halt, but the earth instead. It's easy to think, given what we know today.
But nearly 500 years ago, Luther didn't feel the same way. On the subject of heliocentric astronomy, he insisted that, "Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]." As far as I can tell, YECs stand today where Luther stood in 1539. And 100 years from now young earth creationism will have gone the route of geocentricity.

The surface text (YEC, that is) is internally consistent throughout scripture.

Even then I have my doubts (compare 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, for example). Certainly I view YECism as intellectually inconsistent, picking and chosing which bits of science to accept or disregard based on a simplistic reading of Genesis. Most creationists will claim that TEs are similarly theologically inconsistent, picking and chosing which Scriptures to take metaphorically based on current scientific understanding. But then again, as I've shown above, that's something we've all been guilty of for hundreds of years.

 

[theFijian]

If I knew what the issue was I might be able to respond to it, instead you choose not to plainly ask what is obviously on your mind. I don't know what your hope is in doing that; maybe it's to get me to inadvertently say something that you can use to 'prove me wrong,' I don't know, but I'm not going to play games with you. Either you come out with a straight and honest question or don't voice your displeasure when I reply with a sarcastic response.

What a joke, since you are still evading the issue for your benefit specifically I'll ask again:

Whose intepretation of the Bible should a christian adhere to?

 

[theFijian]

Funny joke (sorta), but I'll take your inability to address the point as concedence.

Vossler has previous form, he regularly avoids issues with sarcasm and jokes.

 

[theFijian]

If I knew what the issue was I might be able to respond to it, instead you choose not to plainly ask what is obviously on your mind. I don't know what your hope is in doing that; maybe it's to get me to inadvertently say something that you can use to 'prove me wrong,' I don't know, but I'm not going to play games with you. Either you come out with a straight and honest question or don't voice your displeasure when I reply with a sarcastic response.

For Vossler's benefit the issue is this:
Personal interpretation...or somebody elses?

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.

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.

Then when I attempted to clarify that a Christian is allowed to hold to a personal interpretation you decided to respond with scarcasm.

Then predictably you claim to not know what the issue is.

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?

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)