SBG said:
I wasn't intending it to come as a contradiction. I believe the Bible is correct in what it says about the creation the lights and that science is incorrect about its interpretation.
In short you are agreeing with my first thesis:
gluadys said:
Genesis 1 sets the time of the creation of the sun, moon and stars all on the same day, well after the creation of the earth. But we know from scientific investigation that trillions of stars existed, and even went through their whole development cycle and burned out/super-novaed before the sun, earth or moon came into existence.
Both statements cannot----simply cannot---be literally true.
You choose to believe it is the scientific statement which is not true.
If you do this strictly as a matter of faith, that is your prerogative. But it also follows that if you are wrong about the scientific statement being in error, you have effectively said that God's handiwork lies about itself and its Creator.
I believe Calminian gave a good point about this. The earth can look old because it was created in maturity and Genesis can still be literally true without God being a liar. Do you believe this is true?
Check the missing bellybuttons thread where we have thrashed out the difference between an appearance of maturity and an appearance of history.
I do not agree with appearance of age, because the earth shows much more than the appearance of maturity. It shows the undeniable remnants of a history---a very long history. And if the earth is young, that history is a lie, because it never happened.
You are correct. I will believe a literal interpretation of Genesis over scientists interpretation of man evolving, anyday. Why? Because it is consistent with the Bible, Jesus' teachings, Apostle teachings, and Church Father teachings.
None of whom, with the possible exception of Jesus, had any of the scientific knowledge we have. We cannot assume the bibical writers, the apostles or the church fathers would have denied scientific knowledge in order to cling to opinions formed without benefit of that knowledge. Jesus is a special case because we cannot pin down to what extent he had access to omniscience while in human form. Nor can we say what use he would have made of his omniscience in dealing with those around him.
We don't know for a fact who is wrong. But we do have an excellent Authority in the matter, God's word. As Augustine said, I will trust God above all men and His word is an Authority in all of these matters.
But we have to interpret that Word, and those interpretations have all the same built-in fallibility as scientific interpretations of God's work.
You have to realize that I don't base my interpretation off myself. I base it off of the Holy Spirit guiding me in reading of His word as well as the teachings of those who He called to teach on this subject.
And you have to realize that I also trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of my teachers in the Lord. Shall we argue over who is hearing the Spirit correctly? I don't want to go down that path.
It is not scientific evidence that means nothing. I think you are misrepresenting yec's here. It is the interpretation that we are told to follow that we reject.
The problem is that you reject it purely on the basis of theology. You do not test it against the evidence cited in its favour.
Again, can you show me where a rock has a voice to speak about its history?
Yes.
[This] is a bed of fossilized reptile footprints in the Coconino Sandstone, just off the Hermit Trail, which preserves the different sized tracks of several reptile species made in a wet sand dune after a rainfall. The largest tracks are equal in size to a cow's, note the 55mm lens cap at the bottom of the picture for scale. The sand humps preserved just behind the large tracks indicate that the animal pushed back loose sand behind its feet as it climbed its way up the dune.
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml
I dare say you now know something about the history of this rock.
Yes, I have seen these comments made by many yec's here. This is there stance: if the Bible is full of lies, why trust it?
Indeed. And if I thought the bible were full of lies, I would not trust it either. The point is that they are also saying "If a literal interpretation cannot be sustained, then the bible is full of lies." That is the point TEs do not agree with. Literal truth is not the only kind of truth, just as scientific truth is not the only kind of truth. Having to let go of a literal interpretation should not lead to the conclusion that the bible is full of lies.
I honestly don't see a lack of belief in the interpretation of scientists to be a dangerous theology, one where we rather put our trust in God's word and when we don't understand, we look to the the teachings of the Apostles and Church Fathers. If you find this destructive, then you find the whole early Church destructive.
In the first place you are not putting your trust in God's Word. You are saying that only a Word of God which is literally true is acceptable to you and if God chooses to provide his Word in figurative imagery, God is lying to you. And yes, I do find that destructive.
Secondly, I have no problem with the apostles and church fathers making the interpretations they did because they were people of their time. What I do have problem with is the unsupported assumption that, given the opportunity to do so, they would not have taken heliocentrism, geologic ages and evolution into account in making their interpretations.
Indeed, if the biblical writers had had knowledge of these things, I expect the bible would have been written quite differently in terms of the imagery used when referring to the cosmos. Yet all the essentials of Christian doctrine would still have been found in its pages: Creation, Providence, the Fall, the choosing of Israel, the giving of the Torah, the Messiah, the Crucifixion, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Holy Spirit, the Forgiveness of Sins and the Life Everlasting. The message would be conveyed in different words and images, but it would still be the same message.
It isn't science that is wrong, but the interpretation of scientists.
You don't know that because you have rejected their intepretation on principle without checking it against the evidence.
Rather you see a reason for being skeptical of the Bible, Apostles teachings and the early Church Fathers teachings.
No, I am not skeptical of the bible. How often does it have to be said that rejecting a literal interpretation of a scriptural text in no way implies a rejection of that scripture?
Nor am I skeptical of the interpretations of the early church. I simply factor in the time in which they lived to understand why they came to the conclusions they did and why we cannot assume they would come to those same conclusions in our time.
