If creationism is divinely inspired...

[pitabread]

... then why are there so many different forms of creationism?

Different creationists have very different views of the history of the planet. Just the dichotomy between OEC and YEC is huge; there is a vastly different view of the planet being 6000 years old versus billions of years old. Throw in "Appearance of Age" arguments into the mix and you have some very different ideas about the planet's history.

Then you have the stark disagreement over how biological life forms should be classified (there is no agreement on what a "kind" is), how Noah's Flood effected the planet (global, local, who knows?), and so on.

Now the immediate rebuttal is usually of the form, "oh yeah??? well, scientists don't agree on things either, so neener-neener-neener!".

The difference though is that findings in science aren't claiming divine inspiration for their views. Whereas all creationists would claim that the Bible is the Word of God. And many creationists also claim that their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I've encountered many creationists who claim one can't properly interpret or understand the Bible without the latter.

Yet is it still not uncommon to find disagreement among creationist views even with those claiming divinity as being the source of their particular view point.

So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?

 

[thecolorsblend]

It might be because a wide variety of people read the same three or four or five vaguely-worded chapters of scripture and take different things from them.

 

[HTacianas]

... then why are there so many different forms of creationism?

Different creationists have very different views of the history of the planet. Just the dichotomy between OEC and YEC is huge; there is a vastly different view of the planet being 6000 years old versus billions of years old. Throw in "Appearance of Age" arguments into the mix and you have some very different ideas about the planet's history.

Then you have the stark disagreement over how biological life forms should be classified (there is no agreement on what a "kind" is), how Noah's Flood effected the planet (global, local, who knows?), and so on.

Now the immediate rebuttal is usually of the form, "oh yeah??? well, scientists don't agree on things either, so neener-neener-neener!".

The difference though is that findings in science aren't claiming divine inspiration for their views. Whereas all creationists would claim that the Bible is the Word of God. And many creationists also claim that their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I've encountered many creationists who claim one can't properly interpret or understand the Bible without the latter.

Yet is it still not uncommon to find disagreement among creationist views even with those claiming divinity as being the source of their particular view point.

So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?

If you want to know "who is right" look to the authority on the interpretation. Any layman can give their opinion on the US constitution, but their opinion means nothing if it conflicts with the opinion of the supreme court.

The authority for interpreting scripture is vested in the Church, and the Church interpreted scripture long ago, and has no doctrinal teaching on the age of the earth. Anyone is free to hold whatever views they wish to hold on it.

And you are correct that evey layman expressing an opinion on it claims to be "inspired". When someone tells you they, and they only, have some "inspired" interpretation of anything, it is best to ignore it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you want to know "who is right" look to the authority on the interpretation.

Every one of these "versions" has people claiming to be the authority on the interpretation.
How are we, outsiders, to decide which one isn't lying or wrong?

The authority for interpreting scripture is vested in the Church

Which church? There are a LOT of them.
And why would "the church" have the correct interpretation?
I mean, you call it "the church", but they are also just humans reading the same text as the other humans who disagree. What makes those humans that you call "the church" better placed in interpreting these texts then other humans?

When someone tells you they, and they only, have some "inspired" interpretation of anything, it is best to ignore it.

Uhu, uhu....

You mean, like the people that you refer to as "the church"?

 

[tas8831]

It might be because a wide variety of people read the same three or four or five vaguely-worded chapters of scripture and take different things from them.

With each one claiming to be correct.

 

[thecolorsblend]

With each one claiming to be correct.

Quite true, yes.

Tbh, I don’t understand what the problem is with just saying “I don’t know”. God creating the universe and all forms of life can’t be reproduced in a lab. Neither can the full extent of evolutionary theory.

But debating evolutionists based on a handful of intentionally incomplete passages of scripture seems a little silly to me.

Disclosure: My view is that a certain amount of evolution is readily apparent in the universe and it doesn’t require laboratory conditions to observe and analyze.

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationism is divinely inspired, then why are there so many different forms of creationism?

Because science has sown tares into the story.

[Staff edit].

Different creationists have very different views of the history of the planet.

No argument there.

But every single one of us ever born again believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Does that carry more weight with you than our differences?

If so, why are you an agnostic?

If not, why are you poisoning the well with this point?

Just the dichotomy between OEC and YEC is huge;

As it should be.

... there is a vastly different view of the planet being 6000 years old versus billions of years old.

Yes ... it's simple math.

Throw in "Appearance of Age" arguments into the mix and you have some very different ideas about the planet's history.

Name ONE difference between YEC history and Appearance of Age history.

Just one.

Then you have the stark disagreement over how biological life forms should be classified (there is no agreement on what a "kind" is), how Noah's Flood effected the planet (global, local, who knows?), and so on.

All disagreements are a byproduct of science.

Now the immediate rebuttal is usually of the form, "oh yeah??? well, scientists don't agree on things either, so neener-neener-neener!".

That is correct -- such as how we got our moon.

The difference though is that findings in science aren't claiming divine inspiration for their views.

Divine inspiration has to do with how we got the Scriptures.

Your OP is confusing "divine inspiration" with "enlightenment."

Whereas all creationists would claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

Does that carry any weight with you?

Are you bragging or complaining?

And many creationists also claim that their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I've encountered many creationists who claim one can't properly interpret or understand the Bible without the latter.

What's the point of this thread?

[Staff edit].

Yet is it still not uncommon to find disagreement among creationist views even with those claiming divinity as being the source of their particular view point.

Why does that affect you so?

So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?

Serious question: What do you care?

If every single born again Christian believed in Appearance of age, would you drop your agnosticism?

 

[Speedwell]

But every single one of us ever born again believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Does that carry more weight with you than our differences?

No, because all Christians believe that, not just biblical literalists.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because all Christians believe that, not just biblical literalists.

That was a reference to his agnosticism, not his quandary.

He's wondering why we aren't in complete agreement with each other, if we are all indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, who leads us into all truth.

After all, the Holy Spirit was there ... we weren't.

So why isn't He telling those who are wrong that they are wrong?

And I'm saying that it wouldn't matter with pitabread whether we are in complete agreement or not.

 

[Speedwell]

That was a reference to his agnosticism, not his quandary.

He's wondering why we aren't in complete agreement with each other, if we are all indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, who leads us into all truth.

My answer would be that the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth of essential Christian doctrine. Biblical literalist creationism isn't essential doctrine. Essential doctrine is that which is found in the Creed. For the rest, you can believe what you like.

 

[AV1611VET]

My answer would be that the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth of essential Christian doctrine. Biblical literalist creationism isn't essential doctrine. Essential doctrine is that which is found in the Creed. For the rest, you can believe what you like.

Jesus said THY WORD IS TRUTH ... not THY CREED IS TRUTH.

Was Nymphas a "he" or a "she" in Colossians 4?

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

The difference isn't just one of gender, it is one of divine truth.

Is "heaven" singular or plural in Genesis 1?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The difference isn't just one of numbers, it is one of divine truth.

Anything else is just tares sown among the wheat.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus said THY WORD IS TRUTH ... not THY CREED IS TRUTH.

So the Creed is false?

 

[AV1611VET]

Essential doctrine is that which is found in the Creed. For the rest, you can believe what you like.

Jesus said THY WORD IS TRUTH ... not THY CREED IS TRUTH.

So the Creed is false?

Nice try.

 

[Aman777]

So why, if divine inspiration is meant to be the source of creationist beliefs, are there so many different creationist beliefs? Everyone can't be correct when views fundamentally don't agree with each other. That means at least some of the purported divine inspiration clearly isn't. But how would one tell who is right and who isn't?

Its' all a part of God's perfect plan, which insures that ONLY those with the gift of faith are born again Spiritually, since there are so many "religions" which will never agree, so if you don't have faith in what God tells us in His Holy Word, you are lost. This does NOT apply to those living in the last days since God is currently pouring out His Spirit of Truth through the "increased knowledge" Daniel 12:4 which is unlocked by Science in the last days.

 

[pitabread]

Its' all a part of God's perfect plan, which insures that ONLY those with the gift of faith are born again Spiritually, since there are so many "religions" which will never agree, so if you don't have faith in what God tells us in His Holy Word, you are lost.

I'm talking specifically about Bible-believing creationists, though. There seems to be little agreement among them.

 

[pitabread]

Name ONE difference between YEC history and Appearance of Age history.

YECs argue the Earth appears young. Those arguing in favor of appearance of age do not. The difference is in how they view how old the Earth appears.

Serious question: What do you care?

Because I'm curious as to why there are so many different creationist beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

YECs argue the Earth appears young. Those arguing in favor of appearance of age do not. The difference is in how they view how old the Earth appears.

Did you understand what asked for?

Because I'm curious as to why there are so many different creationist beliefs.

How long have you been this curious?

 

[Aman777]

I'm talking specifically about Bible-believing creationists, though. There seems to be little agreement among them.

It is exactly as God knew it would be since it requires the gift of faith to be born again Spiritually, BUT that doesn't mean that every Christian has taken the time to see if it agrees in every way with every true discovery of mankind. Most Biblical scholars study the religious beliefs of ancient Hebrews, who could NOT understand Scripture. If they had, they wouldn't have called for Jesus' crucifixion.

 

[pitabread]

It is exactly as God knew it would be since it requires the gift of faith to be born again Spiritually, BUT that doesn't mean that every Christian has taken the time to see if it agrees in every way with every true discovery of mankind.

If that were the case, creationists wouldn't exist in the first place...

 

[pitabread]

Did you understand what asked for?

I think you are missing a word or two in that sentence. Care to rephrase?

How long have you been this curious?

Since learning about creationism in the first place. But my own interest or motivation is neither here nor there.

I'm curious as to how creationists respond to the OP. The fact that creationists seem to have no way of differentiating from correct or incorrect creationist beliefs seems like a gaping issue. Yet most creationists seem unconcerned as to whether they have a way of validating their ideas with respect to others.

That's odd to me.