Handing the enemy a weapon

[crawfish]

For the record, one of the things that finally changed me from the more traditional "inerrant" view of the bible was evaluating a list of biblical contradictions and problems, and discovering that although I could logically dismiss many of them, there were some that were impossible to resolve with a literal view, and taken overall it makes it clear that much of the bible CANNOT be taken purely literally. What do you do when you reach this point? Either you lose faith altogether, or you find another way to view scripture. Through years of prayer and study, I found the latter path, and my faith is stronger now than ever.

I have toyed with posting such a list here, but in the end I think that would be inappropriate in this venue. There are plenty of those lists online, typically on atheist/non-Christian sites, so if you want to see them feel free to search.

 

[theFijian]

As for the rest of your response, I'm (not? ) surprised to see you re-tread the same old tired ground. Evolutionists must be believing what they believe because they don't know the evidence for evolution and because they don't read their Bibles. I think that's pretty rich for someone who claims - no, prides himself - on not needing evidence to convince himself of his position. You have conceded before that you don't disbelieve evolution on scientific evidence. Well, why should you then be qualified in any way to judge whether or not the scientific evidence supports evolution? You cannot claim to be both ignorant and informed at once.

I ascertained this a while ago about the person in question, it became clear to me that a reasoned debate simply was not on the cards when evidence is ignored and viewpoints so readily misrepresented. I found the ignore function to be most helpful.

 

[vossler]

That is why.

Essentially you’re saying that parts of the Bible are too difficult for us to understand and that’s ok, especially for the unlearned, am I right? If so, then this now allows all Scripture to fall into the hands of only those who are able to interpret and understand the deeper meaning and then pass that knowledge onto those of us who are unable to grasp its depth and complexity. The less learned must need to recognize this and then submit to those who have the greater knowledge.

This is exactly how we can then take the plain and simple teaching of Scripture and cause people to believe they need an expert to give them the true hidden meaning. Tell them it's all to complicated for them to figure out. Yikes!

Your discomfort with geocentrism, I feel, reflects the fact that creationism simply can't deal with the numerous parallels involved, and quite frankly I think creationists deserve every bit of that discomfort, and that geocentrists have gotten quite a bad rap in being compared to creationists. But I respect that discomfort, for now at least. If you don't want to talk about geocentrism, we won't.

I choose not to talk about geocentrism because it is a non-issue and bears no value on any biblical teaching whatsoever. I personally have no discomfort with it other than being annoyed that TEs continually bring the issue to the table as if it were some sort of proof text. What amazes me is how TEs continually use it to put forth an argument that has no doctrinal value whatsoever? It is my personal belief that TEs do this in order to deflect and divert attention from their own theologically weak position concerning evolution.

We evolutionists think that the universal truth of the Bible simply cannot be changed by science. It's as simple as that.

Then why do you repeatedly insist on doing so? No matter how you slice it, when you take the particulars of this world and change the universal truth of Scripture in order to comply with your interpretation of the particulars, you’ve changed the universals.

We maintain the necessary distance between the Bible and its interpretation to realize that while interpretations like ours, come and go, the universal truth of the Bible remains unchanged.

How would you even know the universal truths of Scripture and what they consist of if your interpretation, as you say, can “come and go?” It sure doesn’t sound very universal if your interpretation of Scripture can “come and go” tomorrow, does it? But then again if the distance between your interpretation and the Bible is so great then it’s understandable why it can “come and go” so easily, it never was closely associated with Scripture to begin with.

But for you your interpretation is the universal truth. What happens then? Aren't you the one who thinks that scientific conclusions can change the universal truth of the Bible? Is the Bible that shaky, then?

I certainly don’t believe scientific conclusions can change the universal truths of the Bible, if you haven’t gathered that by now then you truly haven’t a clue where I stand. Plain and simple, I will never allow science or anything else to change the universal truths of the Bible. The funny thing is, that’s exactly what TEs do all the time. They minimize Scripture by claiming it isn’t inerrant, that it is written for people 2,000 years ago and not applicable today, etc. Just for fun you ought to check the profiles of the Christians who claim homosexuality is permissible. If you find a YEC that does I’d be shocked, but it won’t take you long to find a TE who does. The same holds true for abortion. Yes TEs minimize or change Scripture to comply with their own unbiblical beliefs all the time.

Would evolution's truth prove the Bible false? Would Christianity be pointless if we descended from apes? Suddenly you have tried to connect scientific conclusions: if evolution true / human descent from apes true to spiritual conclusions: then Bible false / Christianity pointless. And there you, like all the other creationists, have tried to find God under the microscope.

If there is one thing I definitely don’t do, it is try to find God under the microscope. I don’t have too, He’s already evident wherever I look, there is no need to try go through some mental gymnastics in order to find Him. His presence and fingerprints exist in almost every direction I look, all I need to do is to be aware of Him and then acknowledge Him. Questions like if evolution were proven to be true are on par with saying aliens came to earth millions of years ago and started the human race. Both are equally against the Bible and therefore equally dismissed.

What then? Should the creationists of yesteryears who could not prove that man was uniquely created be somehow less sure of the faith than you?

What you fail to see is that I don’t need someone to prove to me that man was uniquely created, my faith in God’s Word is sufficient and can stand on its own.

And should the geocentrists of 500 years ago - and today! - be considered wrong for how they interpret Scripture? What about all those who disagree doctrinally? We still agree with you on many doctrinal matters; on what basis would you engage then with the Roman Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox, or indeed the Ethiopian Orthodox who even have more books in their Bible than yours?

I have no problem with people who wish to take Scripture and interpret it to say that the sun rotates around the earth. I would accept them wholeheartedly as my brother in Christ. Why? Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with their standing with God or any doctrinal issues of God’s Word. Here’s how I see evolution and why it concerns me so much. Simply, it not only allows for but promotes the idea that humans were not created by a sovereign and all powerful God who loves them; who loves them so much that He sent His own Son to die for them. Evolution tells people that they are their own gods and that ultimately they are not responsible to anyone. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, with all their faults, don’t do that.

That's cute. Have you ever met a single TE who actually "puts God on the sidelines"? Or then think of Him as someone who "when I need Him, comes to my rescue"? Quite frankly, the creationist emphasis on the godlessness of science does more for that than TEism, which after all involves a deep and intimate consideration of what the relation between God and science is.

By believing in evolution every TE puts God on the sidelines. TEs don’t have exclusivity though on calling upon Him when in need though. Creationists love science and would never call it godless, we just call many of the scientist who claim science as their careers godless.

Well, read what you yourself said:

Do you see the fact that He didn’t spell out all the particulars as a challenge for us to investigate the past to the point where we can come up with our own conclusion, even if that conclusion changes the universal truth of His Word?

That is nothing less than a grand categorical imperative for all science to agree with your interpretation of Scripture or be kicked out of your mind.

Is it? I thought it was an imperative that I remember to keep the main thing the main thing and not allow the ideas of this world to change the truths that God has given us in His Word.

You said that atheists pretend to assume literalistic interpretations of the Bible just because they could use those literalistic interpretations to destroy the Bible's credibility. Well, if literalistic interpretations of the Bible can be used to destroy the Bible's credibility, how do you know that the creation scientists aren't doing just that - no matter how opposite their motives may be?

Sure you can paint it to look like that but the truth is our starting points couldn’t be further from one another. Imagine taking two people at opposite ends of a boxing ring getting ready to fight one another. Each is naturally opposed to the other and without even thinking about it they would each use similar tactics in order to win the fight. With each one believing in their own strengths and feeling as though they know their opponents weaknesses. I see atheists and creationists in a similar vein. All that is similar is the fight, what each of us stand for is completely and utterly different.

When has God ever revealed to you that He lets Creation deceive humanity on His behalf?

Creation doesn’t ever deceive humanity, it’s always humanity that deceives itself.

And of course many non-Christians have athletic ability, musical prowess, and even patience. We can thank God that some of us have these things. We can thank God that some of them have these things. But I speak of not crediting our faith in God unnecessarily for these things. And quite frankly I think mine is the more reverent position; to thank God as a giver is to recognize His supreme justice in sending rain on both the wicked and the righteous, whereas to thank ourselves as the ones who have faith in God to some extent exalts ourselves and smacks of manipulating the Creator (though it often isn't).

Wow, did you just in some off handed way imply that I’m advocating thanking and exalting myself through which I’m somehow attempting to manipulate God. Is this going to get any stranger??? Why should I even bother trying to explain anything if it will be twisted and distorted 180 degrees? Can our worldviews get any further apart?

As for the rest of your response, I'm (not? ) surprised to see you re-tread the same old tired ground. Evolutionists must be believing what they believe because they don't know the evidence for evolution and because they don't read their Bibles. I think that's pretty rich for someone who claims - no, prides himself - on not needing evidence to convince himself of his position.

Knowing the Bible is important, but not as important as knowing my Savior. It’s only by personally knowing Him that you will truly know and understand His Word. You’re right I will re-tread the same old tired ground of Scripture because it is the most reliable source of truth ever given to man.

You have conceded before that you don't disbelieve evolution on scientific evidence. Well, why should you then be qualified in any way to judge whether or not the scientific evidence supports evolution? You cannot claim to be both ignorant and informed at once.

Just so we’re clear on this, I believe there is evidence that can be viewed to support evolution, but that same evidence can be also viewed as not in support of it. It all depends on our presuppositions we carry into our deliberations. If we trust science and the scientific process more than Scripture then we’ll be inclined to believe evolution, but if we come to the evidence with the belief that the Word of God is true then we’ll see the evidence entirely different. So, I’m ignorant from the position of having full knowledge of evolutionary theory and processes, but not so much that I don’t know what it purports and the basic tenets of the belief. I don’t have to be physician to know how diabetes works and if it really exists, but I am ignorant enough of it that I know not to claim full knowledge of it. The same holds true for evolution.

And as for the argument about Scripture, I honestly cannot recall one occurrence when a TE has ever been forced to admit that their position contradicts Scripture.

I also can’t recall a TE ever being forced to admit that their position contradicts Scripture. If there’s one thing you guys are good at is not admitting to error no matter how blatantly it bares itself to you.

But which of these is really your problem? That evolution is unscientific, or that it is un-Scriptural? I submit that evolution could not possibly be the second, and has been shown quite conclusively not to be the first.

Without a doubt evolution is un-Scriptural. I also happen to believe it is unscientific, but that is secondary to its clearly anti-biblical message.

 

[Servant222]

For the record, one of the things that finally changed me from the more traditional "inerrant" view of the bible was evaluating a list of biblical contradictions and problems, and discovering that although I could logically dismiss many of them, there were some that were impossible to resolve with a literal view, and taken overall it makes it clear that much of the bible CANNOT be taken purely literally. What do you do when you reach this point? Either you lose faith altogether, or you find another way to view scripture. Through years of prayer and study, I found the latter path, and my faith is stronger now than ever.

Bravo!! My feelings exactly. It is fascinating to read some of the well-thought out comments here, but I would never, ever let one of these debates here detract from my faith. I may change my mind on some of these issues, but my faith in Jesus is solid as a rock, and will never change.

 

[Assyrian]

I choose not to talk about geocentrism because it is a non-issue and bears no value on any biblical teaching whatsoever. I personally have no discomfort with it other than being annoyed that TEs continually bring the issue to the table as if it were some sort of proof text. What amazes me is how TEs continually use it to put forth an argument that has no doctrinal value whatsoever? It is my personal belief that TEs do this in order to deflect and divert attention from their own theologically weak position concerning evolution.Then why do you repeatedly insist on doing so? No matter how you slice it, when you take the particulars of this world and change the universal truth of Scripture in order to comply with your interpretation of the particulars, you’ve changed the universals.How would you even know the universal truths of Scripture and what they consist of if your interpretation, as you say, can “come and go?” It sure doesn’t sound very universal if your interpretation of Scripture can “come and go” tomorrow, does it? But then again if the distance between your interpretation and the Bible is so great then it’s understandable why it can “come and go” so easily, it never was closely associated with Scripture to begin with.

Doesn't it hurt your brain to try to hold such absolute, but mutually contradictory views of scripture?

You claim:

He is true to His Word...
He told us how long He took...
this is about what He said...
and whether we will take His Word on it...
His Word is clear and unambiguous...
trust ourselves and our abilities over what God has said...
call into question His simple and easy to understand Word...
Why should God deceive us with such simplicity...
universal truth of His Word...
God told us how much time he too...
clearly against God’s own clearly stated universal truth...
makes God a deceiver and ultimately a liar...
what He clearly and without question said...
knowing the truth...
whether I could dismiss His written Word...
nothing to do with what man claims but with what God claims...
have faith in the ones He clearly stated...
He told us it took 6 days and I trust Him that it did...
the real question then is who are we to claim anything contrary to that...

Do we take God's word at its face value because that is what he said? Or do we pick and choose what parts of the God's word to believe, depending on what we think is doctrinally important, and ignore everything else God says and not have faith in what he clearly stated?

I am sure you are very familiar with 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work. How can you reject some scripture as unprofitable because, in your opinion, it does not teach doctrine? Paul says all scripture is inspired by God. Even if a passage is not teaching doctrine, there is still reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Which is exactly what TEs are doing. We use the geocentric passages to reprove and correct bad exegesis and badly handling the word of truth. These passages show up double standards, inconsistencies between the way YECs interpret different scriptures and the way they claim scripture should be interpreted. They expose the YEC claim not to allow science to influence interpretation, their claim that it is dishonouring God and makes him a liar if we do, when in fact they do the very same thing with geocentrism.

How can you reject correction from any scripture you do not deem 'doctrinally important'? Isn't it still scripture, inspired and profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?

 

[vossler]

You claim:

Do we take God's word at its face value because that is what he said? Or do we pick and choose what parts of the God's word to believe, depending on what we think is doctrinally important, and ignore everything else God says and not have faith in what he clearly stated?

True except that is an oversimplification of my position. The context, history, language, etc. all can and do play a role in any interpretation of Scripture.

I am sure you are very familiar with 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work. How can you reject some scripture as unprofitable because, in your opinion, it does not teach doctrine? Paul says all scripture is inspired by God.

I find this incredibly fascinating how you can apply this wonderful Scripture to me but not yourself. Now as tempting as it may be to toss this back to you I - for numerous reasons - choose not to because it is a charge I need to answer.

First of all, I never have said or implied that any scripture was unprofitable. That is a complete misrepresentation and I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see you make that charge. I've said, and will continue to say, the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism. Now if you believe that it does and wish to push that claim then you will have to convince me and others through a strong biblical exegesis that you are right. Otherwise I'll confidently stand where I am.

How can you reject correction from any scripture you do not deem 'doctrinally important'? Isn't it still scripture, inspired and profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?

I don't reject correction, I actually welcome it. Bring it on! That is of course if there is something to correct. Yes all Scripture is inspired and profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. (BTW, it's good to hear you say those things) However, I cannot address a claim such as this, without you specifically showing me where I've taken Scripture and either dismissed or rejected something that was being taught.

 

[laptoppop]

True except that is an oversimplification of my position. The context, history, language, etc. all can and do play a role in any interpretation of Scripture.
I find this incredibly fascinating how you can apply this wonderful Scripture to me but not yourself. Now as tempting as it may be to toss this back to you I - for numerous reasons - choose not to because it is a charge I need to answer.

First of all, I never have said or implied that any scripture was unprofitable. That is a complete misrepresentation and I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see you make that charge. I've said, and will continue to say, the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism. Now if you believe that it does and wish to push that claim then you will have to convince me and others through a strong biblical exegesis that you are right. Otherwise I'll confidently stand where I am.
I don't reject correction, I actually welcome it. Bring it on! That is of course if there is something to correct. Yes all Scripture is inspired and profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. (BTW, it's good to hear you say those things) However, I cannot address a claim such as this, without you specifically showing me where I've taken Scripture and either dismissed or rejected something that was being taught.

 

[crawfish]

I choose not to talk about geocentrism because it is a non-issue and bears no value on any biblical teaching whatsoever. I personally have no discomfort with it other than being annoyed that TEs continually bring the issue to the table as if it were some sort of proof text. What amazes me is how TEs continually use it to put forth an argument that has no doctrinal value whatsoever? It is my personal belief that TEs do this in order to deflect and divert attention from their own theologically weak position concerning evolution.

I think the entire point of the geocentrism debate is summed up by the quote "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

There is a strong argument for geocentrism if you use the bible as your sole base of knowledge. It is no longer interpreted that way because it's obviously not true; science has spoken and told us God did not create things that way. Eventually, all Christians will feel the same about creationism.

 

[shernren]

(I think I'll open another thread specifically to discuss geocentrism once again.)

Let me just boil it down to this:

Here’s how I see evolution and why it concerns me so much. Simply, it not only allows for but promotes the idea that humans were not created by a sovereign and all powerful God who loves them; who loves them so much that He sent His own Son to die for them. Evolution tells people that they are their own gods and that ultimately they are not responsible to anyone. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, with all their faults, don’t do that. By believing in evolution every TE puts God on the sidelines.
...
Without a doubt evolution is un-Scriptural. I also happen to believe it is unscientific, but that is secondary to its clearly anti-biblical message.

Well, the truth finally comes out. Do you remember when, so long ago in this same thread, you said this?

Yes I am disturbed that for some people scientific theories seem to have spiritual consequences, Mark and laptoppop notwithstanding. I myself have no interest in scientifically proving the Scriptures, at least not from a how to perspective, but I think we should most certainly be looking to do so from a historical perspective.

How can evolution tell people that "they are their own gods", "God did not create them", and that Jesus did not come to save them? Are you not doing the exact thing which troubled you?

I'm going to boil it down to two questions:

1. Is evolution, whether right or wrong, a scientific theory?

a. If no, then why do evolutionists always support evolution (rightly or wrongly) exclusively through scientific evidence? And why do creationists place such high emphasis on scientific evidence to combat evolution?

b. If yes, then how can its rightness or wrongness possibly affect the truth of the Bible, its spiritual revelation about human nature, or the validity of the Christian faith? (As you claimed it did in your previous post.)
​

2. Is it logically consistent to believe both in evolution and in a personal God who acts through history? (As you claimed it inconsistent in your previous post.)

a. If yes, then are you not simply wrong?

b. If no, then are you not claiming that every single TE here, from the mature and mellow to the brash and fiery, is immensely deceived, and simply doesn't know the basics of the Christian faith?
​

I know what I believe; I make no apologies for the fact that I have considered the creationist arguments and found them severely wanting. (Remember that I used to be a creationist too.) But do you know what we believe?

 

[juvenissun]

Now imagine if the farmer said that the rain had supernatural origins, that science couldn't possible explain it. Now the farmer believes in God because of this supernatural rain and he knows of God's existence because of it. He tells his friends because he wants them to believe in God too. The friend looks into it and finds out that meteorology can explain exactly why it rains and says "See, there is no God."

Improper comparison.

YEC people are not farmers. They are scientists. Whatever they could not explain, nobody else can.

 

[Mallon]

YEC people are not farmers. They are scientists.

 

[vossler]

How can evolution tell people that "they are their own gods", "God did not create them", and that Jesus did not come to save them? Are you not doing the exact thing which troubled you?

What exactly am I doing which troubled me? I've got an idea but I'd rather you be more specific with the question.

I'm going to boil it down to two questions:

1. Is evolution, whether right or wrong, a scientific theory?

a. If no, then why do evolutionists always support evolution (rightly or wrongly) exclusively through scientific evidence? And why do creationists place such high emphasis on scientific evidence to combat evolution?

b. If yes, then how can its rightness or wrongness possibly affect the truth of the Bible, its spiritual revelation about human nature, or the validity of the Christian faith? (As you claimed it did in your previous post.)​

b. This isn't very complicated. If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

2. Is it logically consistent to believe both in evolution and in a personal God who acts through history? (As you claimed it inconsistent in your previous post.)

a. If yes, then are you not simply wrong?

b. If no, then are you not claiming that every single TE here, from the mature and mellow to the brash and fiery, is immensely deceived, and simply doesn't know the basics of the Christian faith?​

b. No, yes I believe every single TE from the mature and mellow to the brash and fiery are immensely deceived. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they don't know the basics of the Christian faith because obviously many, including yourself, most certainly do.

I know what I believe; I make no apologies for the fact that I have considered the creationist arguments and found them severely wanting. (Remember that I used to be a creationist too.) But do you know what we believe?

I believe that I understand where you stand quite well and yes I feel I have a general understanding (based on the fact that TEs are all over the map on many issues) of what most TEs believe.

 

[shernren]

What exactly am I doing which troubled me? I've got an idea but I'd rather you be more specific with the question.

Well, you said a while back:

Yes I am disturbed that for some people scientific theories seem to have spiritual consequences, Mark and laptoppop notwithstanding. I myself have no interest in scientifically proving the Scriptures, at least not from a how to perspective, but I think we should most certainly be looking to do so from a historical perspective.

But then you yourself just said:

b. This isn't very complicated. If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

Now if you look at that, you are linking
evolution, which you yourself agree is a scientific theory, to
"God had no part in creating people", which is a spiritual conclusion.

Furthermore, you are saying that evolution is offensive because it tells people that their origins were entirely natural, i.e. entirely explicable by science. Therefore, since evolution tells people that their origins were entirely natural, those origins could not have involved God. Is that it? Because earlier on you also said:

Creationists love science and would never call it godless, we just call many of the scientist who claim science as their careers godless.

But again, you yourself agree that evolution is a scientific theory. How then can a scientific theory, right or wrong, be godless? According to you, you as a creationist love science. Yet your attitude towards evolution as science doesn't seem to match that. If evolution as science is wrong, the most it can be is wrong - not godless. And yet here you are saying evolution is godless, not even because it is wrong or right, but simply because it is "natural" - in other words, simply because it is science.

Is that right? Are you going to say on one day that you love science and on another that evolution is godless simply because it is science? Let's not even go into what you think we believe yet. Let's make sure of what you believe.

 

[artybloke]

b. This isn't very complicated. If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

How exactly? God created the world & life: that is the truth expressed in the story. How God created life (whether naturally or supernaturally) is surely irrelevant?

But I guess it does affect the kind of truth that the Genesis stories (though not the whole Bible) contain. If it's metaphorical truth or spiritual/analogical truth as opposed to fact, that doesn't stop it from being really true, though. Unless, of course, like the good materialist you are, you think that only factual truth is "real" truth.

But, being a good Christian, I don't believe that only factual truth is real truth. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to believe in God, as no-one yet has been able to distil God in a test-tube or spot him floating in the universe at the end of a telescope.

 

[juvenissun]

Blessed be the 18% high-school level onservative fundamentalist.

"But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden." -- Rev. 2:24

 

[Mallon]

Blessed be the 18% high-school level onservative fundamentalist.

Those are the supposed YEC "scientists" you were referring to earlier, right?

EDIT: Scientists indeed.

 

[shernren]

As an aside:

If evolution tells people that they rose up from some sort of primordial soup through a process that was entirely natural; I think that qualifies as something that affects the truth of the Bible.

It's ok if man came from dust, but not if he came from soup. Insta-heresy; just add hot water!

 

[crawfish]

As an aside:



It's ok if man came from dust, but not if he came from soup. Insta-heresy; just add hot water!

YMSSRA...

 

[vossler]

But again, you yourself agree that evolution is a scientific theory. How then can a scientific theory, right or wrong, be godless?

When that theory isn't based solely on science but also conjecture and speculation.

According to you, you as a creationist love science. Yet your attitude towards evolution as science doesn't seem to match that. If evolution as science is wrong, the most it can be is wrong - not godless.

Not if the science includes conjecture and speculation, it now no longer qualifies solely as science but it has become a belief system.

And yet here you are saying evolution is godless, not even because it is wrong or right, but simply because it is "natural" - in other words, simply because it is science.

I don't know, if something is a lie doesn't that also qualify it as being wrong?

Is that right? Are you going to say on one day that you love science and on another that evolution is godless simply because it is science? Let's not even go into what you think we believe yet. Let's make sure of what you believe.

I think you're finally getting to the main point. Science is objective and built on solid evidence, evolution is built on weak evidence sprinkled with conjecture and speculation. So, yes I do love science, just not evolution which is pseudo-science.

I hope that answers your questions.

It's ok if man came from dust, but not if he came from soup. Insta-heresy; just add hot water!

This really isn't that complicated, given that God told us one and not the other, I'd say yes evolution is heresy.

 

[Assyrian]

True except that is an oversimplification of my position. The context, history, language, etc. all can and do play a role in any interpretation of Scripture.

It is nice to hear you talk about the context, history, language etc. playing a role in any interpretation. Unfortunately there seem to be a multiple personality thing going on here. When we talk about scripture interpretation in general, the Vossler I chat with is a level headed mature bible scholar who understands and appreciates the way the bible has different styles and the importance of context and language. Then when the topic switches to Genesis he has a sip of Dr YECyll's potion and suddenly we have a tub thumping hyperliteralist claiming 'God told us' and 'do we take him at his word' as if the idea of God speaking in metaphor or parable was just an excuse for calling God a liar.

I cannot understand the inconsistency. With the geocentrist passages, (as long as you are not hiding behind 'it's not doctrinal so it doesn't matter, and I don't care'), your approach seems to be one where it is perfectly fine to adopt a non literal interpretation even when it isn't indicated in the text, that even though it says the sun moves and the earth is still, it doesn't really mean the sun moves and the earth is fixed.

Apply your 'God told us' and 'His Word is clear and unambiguous' approach to the geocentrist passages and they plainly teach geocentrism. But you don't, you reserve it for Genesis.

I find this incredibly fascinating how you can apply this wonderful Scripture to me but not yourself. Now as tempting as it may be to toss this back to you I - for numerous reasons - choose not to because it is a charge I need to answer.

I am sure you never thought that, and would never even dream of saying such a thing. It was however implied by your refusal to address the problems thrown up when your exegetical approach to Genesis is applied to these passages. You dismissed the issue as unimportant because the passages were not doctrinal.

First of all, I never have said or implied that any scripture was unprofitable. That is a complete misrepresentation and I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see you make that charge. I've said, and will continue to say, the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism. Now if you believe that it does and wish to push that claim then you will have to convince me and others through a strong biblical exegesis that you are right. Otherwise I'll confidently stand where I am.

I think the writers were geocentrists and some of their statements are clearly geocentrist, but I do not think that this is what the bible is teaching. The truth God is teaching and inspiring goes much deeper than the cosmology of the people he is communicating to us through.

Interpreting the texts as observation language is another very good non literal approach to the geocentrist passages. But you need to realise it is not the literal meaning. The literal meaning of the earth not moving and the sun rushing around the earth is, well, the the earth not moving and the sun rushing around us every day. Adopting a observational interpretation is done with out any suggestion in scripture that this is the approach to take. While you reconcile these passages with science on the basis of an unsupported nonliteral interpretation, you demand strong biblical exegesis before adopting a literal interpretation.

With the creation days in Genesis and Exodus, you insist on a literal interpretation that contadicts the science, although like the geocentrist passages, there are other non literal interpretations that fit quite well. And unlike your non literal interpretation of the geocentrist passages that has no biblical support, the non literal interpretation of the creation days has support in the texts themselves, and in the words of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation.

Geocentrist passages: interpretation is non literal inspite of having no biblical basis.
Creation days: you reject the non literal even though it does have a biblical basis.

I don't reject correction, I actually welcome it. Bring it on! That is of course if there is something to correct. Yes all Scripture is inspired and profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. (BTW, it's good to hear you say those things) However, I cannot address a claim such as this, without you specifically showing me where I've taken Scripture and either dismissed or rejected something that was being taught.

What we learn from the bible goes beyond what is being taught in a verse. It is also very important to learn learn how God speaks to us. Your whole YEC interpretation is built on a human idea of how God speaks in the bible and how we should interpret what he says. The geocentrist passages test our hermeneutics against God's word. They also show us how we should approach the problem of a conflict between science and our interpretation of scripture.