For creationists: How would you know?

[CrimsonTideChristian]

Geocentrism, heliocentric, what does it matter. In the bible God is not trying to explain how the earth was created. He is telling you how you should live, why you should live, and who you should live for. Human nature would only lead us to question astronomy and evolution, but does it matter? I think it is all interesting, but the Bible tells you what is important, and obviously the earths postion in the universe is not necessary for our salvation.

 

[Mallon]

Couldn't agree more, CrimsonTideChristian. The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

The Lord does describe his creation in many areas of the Bible. That's true that it does talk about the more important things, but I believe that God wants to tell us about what he did for his glory. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Mallon]

That's true that it does talk about the more important things, but I believe that God wants to tell us about what he did for his glory. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But the question isn't whether you think there's anything wrong with it. It's whether such a view is biblical in origin.

 

[vossler]

It amazes me that you have no problem blowing off something like flat-earth geocentrism, which had been established for thousands of years based on the Scriptures, and yet get up-in-arms when a TE takes the opening chapters of Genesis figuratively (for the very same reason you take biblical geocentrism figuratively, I might add).

First of all, I don't 'blow off' anything in the Bible. Secondly, I've never read anything in the Bible to allude to the earth being flat, but I wouldn't be surprised if you have.

Also, geocentrism plays no role in anything. Tell me how whether we're geocentric or heliocentric makes any real difference to you or me.

As far as Genesis being read figuratively, well that makes a big difference, if it didn't then why are we hear continually discussing it?

 

[Mallon]

Secondly, I've never read anything in the Bible to allude to the earth being flat, but I wouldn't be surprised if you have.

That's because when the Bible refers to the "pillars" of the "fixed" earth that has "edges", the whole of which can be seen from a "high mountain", you conveniently chalk it up to figurative speech. You have this uncanny ability of just knowing which passages are meant literally and which are not, and yet cannot put it to words, remember? We've been through this before.

Also, geocentrism plays no role in anything. Tell me how whether we're geocentric or heliocentric makes any real difference to you or me.

To me, it doesn't. But it did to Calvin, and Luther, and every other pre-Copernian Christian. Their understanding was that God placed man at the centre of the universe, as the crowning achievement of His creation (or was that the Behemoth?). It was a popular view that many people had a very hard time letting go of because their traditional reading of the Bible wouldn't allow them to. Creationism is no different today.

 

[vossler]

You have this uncanny ability of just knowing which passages are meant literally and which are not, and yet cannot put it to words, remember? We've been through this before.

I claim no uncanny abilities other than those already gifted to me by the Holy Spirit. Now, for many those can be viewed or labeled uncanny.

To me, it doesn't.

Good if it doesn't then I hope we can finally put this one to bed.

 

[Mallon]

I claim no uncanny abilities other than those already gifted to me by the Holy Spirit. Now, for many those can be viewed or labeled uncanny.

Great! So what makes Heb 1:10, Ps 104:5, Ps 93:1, 1 Chron 16:30, 1 Sam 2:8, Ecc 1:5 or Ps 75:3 any less literal than Genesis 1?

Good if it doesn't then I hope we can finally put this one to bed.

I don't think you understand. The argument isn't over whether biblical geocentrism is a spiritual issue (for us, it isn't; for pre-Copernican Christians, it was). It is a historical issue -- one that differs very little from anti-evolutionists' current stance on the age of the earth. Luther and Calvin's fundamentalist take on the erroneous geocentric solar system provides an excellent example of using the Scriptures to support rediculous claims contrary to strong science. I don't think it's a story that anti-evolutionists should just brush off without having learned something from it.

 

[vossler]

Great! So what makes Heb 1:10, Ps 104:5, Ps 93:1, 1 Chron 16:30, 1 Sam 2:8, Ecc 1:5 or Ps 75:3 any less literal than Genesis 1?

Mallon, I'm not really interested in going around the same tree over and over again with you. You clearly read and interpret Scripture far different than I do, that much is obvious. The Scriptures you keep bringing up are not difficult for me to understand and discern, yet for some reason they are intriguing to you, unfortunately for apparently the wrong reasons. I believe it's better for us to just say we agree to disagree. How about it?

I don't think you understand. The argument isn't over whether biblical geocentrism is a spiritual issue (for us, it isn't; for pre-Copernican Christians, it was). It is a historical issue -- one that differs very little from anti-evolutionists' current stance on the age of the earth. Luther and Calvin's fundamentalist take on the erroneous geocentric solar system provides an excellent example of using the Scriptures to support rediculous claims contrary to strong science. I don't think it's a story that anti-evolutionists should just brush off without having learned something from it.

You are right, I don't understand. One can use Scripture to support a lot of crazy views, history is replete with examples of such. Each time it is misused we should learn from the mistake, unfortunately that isn't always the case. In the example you keep bringing up, well if it had some real significance to it I might research it further. However, I'm not that big of a history buff to do a complete study as to why Luther and Calvin believed what they did concerning this issue, quite frankly it's an issue that has little to no relevance and is just not that important to me.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, I'm not really interested in going around the same tree over and over again with you.

I agree that we often come back to this same question, vossler, but the reason why I keep asking is because you've never given an answer to what I consider to be a very simple question.

I believe it's better for us to just say we agree to disagree. How about it?

For the purposes of this thread, I will. I do hope that one day you will consider answering my question, though. If the Bible can plausibly interepreted in different ways, then I don't understand why so many YEC's are in a such a huff over the idea that their interpretation might be wrong. (You very likely feel the same way about scientific interpretation, but I will point out that science operated accoring to parsimony, and as such, only the single, simplest answer can be "right".)

P.S.

 

[Deamiter]

Mallon, I'm not really interested in going around the same tree over and over again with you. You clearly read and interpret Scripture far different than I do, that much is obvious. The Scriptures you keep bringing up are not difficult for me to understand and discern, yet for some reason they are intriguing to you, unfortunately for apparently the wrong reasons. I believe it's better for us to just say we agree to disagree. How about it?

You and other YECs claim that the scriptures are clear about when it's to be taken literally and when it's metaphor. Yet you interpret these metaphorically when there's no suggestion at all that it's not supposed to be literal. It's an incredibly inconsistant hermeneutic, but you ignore this by consistantly avoiding any verses like these.

You are right, I don't understand. One can use Scripture to support a lot of crazy views, history is replete with examples of such. Each time it is misused we should learn from the mistake, unfortunately that isn't always the case. In the example you keep bringing up, well if it had some real significance to it I might research it further. However, I'm not that big of a history buff to do a complete study as to why Luther and Calvin believed what they did concerning this issue, quite frankly it's an issue that has little to no relevance and is just not that important to me.

The issue is with your inconsistant standard of interpretation, not with the actual interpretation. People have found THESE verses just as important theologically as you find Genesis 1, but because you can't fit them into your literal framework, you can ignore them?

 

[vossler]

I agree that we often come back to this same question, vossler, but the reason why I keep asking is because you've never given an answer to what I consider to be a very simple question.

Given that you've apparently got an answer to this simple question, normally I'd ask you to enlighten me, but today I'll just let that go.

For the purposes of this thread, I will. I do hope that one day you will consider answering my question, though.

Maybe if I truly understood the question I'd be inclined to answer it more adequately. Given that I don't and am either too ignorant or naive to comprehend it, it is probably best that we leave it as is.

If the Bible can plausibly interepreted in different ways, then I don't understand why so many YEC's are in a such a huff over the idea that their interpretation might be wrong. (You very likely feel the same way about scientific interpretation, but I will point out that science operated accoring to parsimony, and as such, only the single, simplest answer can be "right".)

I personally don't believe the Bible can be properly interpreted in different ways, at least not in contradictory ones. Believe it or not I don't have too large a stake in the ground that I can't be biblically persuaded to change my view of Scripture. Over the years I've done so many times and I imagine I've still got some more learning to do.

P.S. Thanks for keeping this discussion on the pleasant side.

BTW - Just to let you know my time here will be diminished in the future. I'll be far more selective on the threads I choose to participate in. When I came here over two years ago it was with the intent of finding out who a TE was and the reasons they thought like they do. I also came with an open mind to hear more about the ToE and why so many Christians believe in it. Well I've got as much as I needed to know and feel quite enlightened. Besides, my input here has little to no effect on anyone - which in and of itself is fine - I say that only to point out it isn't time well spent, especially when there are so many other more productive things I can do for our Lord.

I will say this, the overall quality of discussion has risen considerably since my first days here. I can remember being put on report for blasphemy and/or idolatry just for calling the Bible the Word of God. I was utterly amazed at how the moderators could go along with that. Just mentioning those words would set off a few TEs, it was really quite remarkable. Today there is much more respect and usually a higher quality of discussion; personally I'm very thankful to you and others for that.

Thanks!

 

[vossler]

You and other YECs claim that the scriptures are clear about when it's to be taken literally and when it's metaphor. Yet you interpret these metaphorically when there's no suggestion at all that it's not supposed to be literal. It's an incredibly inconsistant hermeneutic, but you ignore this by consistantly avoiding any verses like these.

This is where clear differences will continually be raised and unfortunately never be resolved. TEs see things one way and YECs another, if I didn't know better it would appear we're both reading two entirely different books. Sadly we're not and I know my job isn't to help you see better but to keep working on and strengthening my focus to sharpen my own vision. I'm content with that.

The issue is with your inconsistant standard of interpretation, not with the actual interpretation. People have found THESE verses just as important theologically as you find Genesis 1, but because you can't fit them into your literal framework, you can ignore them?

This is another one of those statements that clearly differentiates us, I don't even for a second see the inconsistency and you do. Quite fascinating! I no longer have a problem letting you believe I'm being inconsistent or ignoring obvious facts. It's to be expected considering our different worldviews, if the conflict didn't exist then there would truly be something to discuss.

 

[laptoppop]

The basic problem is that giving too much weight for differing interpretations soon ends up in a situation where no interpretation can be trusted. This is a book with no value, because all value is in the individual reading it. While this is a nice neat fit with postmodern thinking, it has a hard time with external objective truth -- where there is one single way to salvation provided by a loving God through His only begotten Son, who is Himself God incarnate.

Instead, I see Scripture as a wonderful communication from the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God to His creation. Interpretation is not a private matter, wide open depending on the person reading or hearing it -- rather, the book has real meaning, real Truth -- put there by its Author.

I depend, not on my own intellect to determine the meaning, but on the ability of the Author to put meaning into the text, and on the ability of His Spirit to enlighten me to its real meaning - as I understand using spiritual discernment, not my own.

This is an imperfect process - not because of the Author, or His Spirit, but because of me. I'm not perfect, and do not follow Him as well as I ought to -- no one does. By gathering together (physically or virtually), we can share and learn from each other -- and can learn to appreciate and understand the incredible richness and depth of the Author's book.

Because of my flaws, I must doubt my own understanding, always seeking to correct it. However, the Author must always be the final authority. (not His book - the Author Himself) In particular, though, I must be especially careful if I try to correct my understanding of His specific revelation (Scripture) with observations, and even worse, theories and speculations, concerning the natural revelation (Science). This is especially true if my methods for evalutating the nature revelation specifically exclude the supernatural (the scientific method).

Let us be careful to seek His Truth -- to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

 

[shernren]

The basic problem is that giving too much weight for differing interpretations soon ends up in a situation where no interpretation can be trusted. This is a book with no value, because all value is in the individual reading it. While this is a nice neat fit with postmodern thinking, it has a hard time with external objective truth -- where there is one single way to salvation provided by a loving God through His only begotten Son, who is Himself God incarnate.

I don't see how differing interpretations of a book end up with a "book with no value, because all value is in the individual reading it". In the first place, what's wrong with putting all value in the individual reading the Bible, even if it were true? After all, God didn't give His Son for a book, He gave it for me. My relationship with God exists through Jesus Christ, and even though the Bible is an extremely valuable tool through which I learn about God, it is in the end just a tool. My relationship with God is mediated through Jesus Christ, not the Bible.

And I don't see that our interpretations differ so much that the Bible is reduced to nothing. After all, any interpretation is still an interpretation of the Bible and would not exist independently of the Bible. Very little of my theology has changed and what little has changed I deem to have changed for the better. After all, what would you learn from your view that God created the earth in six days 6,000 years ago, and what do I learn from my view that God created the earth over a long time ages ago? Surely we both learn that God is a Creator God, that nothing He creates is to be worshiped, that God is immanent, that God loved us in preparing a world for us. These are lessons independent of mere scientific details, and these are lessons the Bible enforces on all honest readers whether they accept or reject the use of external evidence in reading it. Just because we accept differing interpretations of the Bible doesn't make it "fuzzy" or "useless".

Why, Jesus Himself was brutally non-literal with the Torah in His day. What does it command concerning adulterers ... and what did Jesus actually do in John 8? Where the commandment says "Do not murder" He took things figuratively and interpreted it to mean that we should not harbor resentment or plot against our brothers; where the commandment says "Do not commit adultery" He took things figuratively and extended the command to the realm of emotions as much as to the physical realm. These were non-literal interpretations and they sure didn't cheapen the Torah, they made it even more valuable and precious for Christians today. In the same way I see my interpretation of Genesis making it more precious for me today, not less. It may not speak to science any more, but in the realm of the heart and the soul where it speaks (and aren't these realms just as real and important as the physical realm?) it is still clear and beautiful.

I depend, not on my own intellect to determine the meaning, but on the ability of the Author to put meaning into the text, and on the ability of His Spirit to enlighten me to its real meaning - as I understand using spiritual discernment, not my own.

How often does this "spiritual discernment" suggest to you an interpretation that does not make sense to your own intellect? If never, how would you know that this "spiritual discernment" ever operates independently of your own intellect?

I say this emphasis on "spiritual discernment" is precisely what relativizes things for Biblical interpretation today. For my spiritual discernment is necessarily something that is private and cannot be adjudicated by external evidence. Any possible use or abuse of Scripture can be justified by an appeal to "spiritual discernment" which of course would be opposed by coarse, undiscerning minds of any protesters who are certainly not thinking in the Spirit, or some such. It creates an internal standard with which one judges, and this standard has nothing to recommend it other than precisely because it is internal. If someone else suggested something, or if I need to refer to a scientific journal to see something, or if I need comparative literature studies or higher criticism or some such to understand something, then it must be suspect; but if the thought is unadulterably internal, if it is a thought that has been suggested inside my own head and not from anywhere else, then it is possibly "spiritual discernment" and likely valid in interpreting Scripture.

Isn't this dangerous? Isn't this precisely the kind of relativism that YEC and other fundamentalist approaches claim to want to eliminate?

 

[Servant222]

Whenever I read discussions like this, I am always reminded of how literally centuries of scholars came to believe that, according to their interpretation of the Bible, the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

As mounting evidence proved otherwise, they needed to resort to ever more far-fetched explanations to maintain their belief.

I think we are like a puppy dog that looks up at the screen of a television set and notices something, but never in a million years could ever figure out how that picture got there. We may be pompous enough to believe that we have the correct explanation, but I think, given how great God is, and how really puny we are, that we always have to maintain a very healthy respect for how little we really know, how badly we can misinterpret something, and therefore how humble we always have to be.

This is meant to be a neutral comment, and not one at all that questions the infallibility of the Bible.

 

[Gwenyfur]

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.

 

[artybloke]

No he doesn't, Gwen. He rejects any evidence that goes against his interpretation of the Bible. Basing your view of reality on your own interpretation of the Bible, without reference to reason and the actual makeup of reality, is Gnostic thinking.