If you read the genealogies literally . . .

[Vance]

Okay. I'm going to try this one last time. My time is short anyway, so you won't have to deal with me much longer. I'll use all the qualifying words so there isn't any misunderstanding.

If you argue against the literal interpretation that to some is required to maintain the authority of the Scripture (at least in their opinion); and you happen to convince them that this interpretation is wrong, thereby convincing them, at least in their opinion, that Scripture is untrustworthy, then they will reject Christianity as has been stated. I encourage you to argue against this opinion, but you won’t convince anyone that it can be read another way with threads like this one. You’ll only have a chance to convince them that the Scripture is wrong.

I hope that is clearer. Sorry if the grammar is bad. I don’t have time to clean it up.

I hear what you are saying, but what I say is that simply doesn't happen. Those who are inextricably attached to a literal reading will usually not budge off of it. Those who are willing to budge off of it will, in every case I have ever seen, including probably a dozen on these very boards, simply realize that it was the interpretation itself that was wrong, not Scripture.

But to the extent that there is someone who so strongly clings to a literal interpretation that they lose faith in Scripture, I would say this just shows the danger of promoting such a dogmatic literalism. The fewer people who cling that tightly, and don't even know that there is another possibility, the fewer who will face such a dilemma.

Now, what I HAVE seen are those who have been raised to hold exclusively to a literal reading of the Creation accounts, and a young earth creationism, and then they come in contact with the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Now, to the extent they find this evidence convincing is the extent to which they begin to doubt Scripture. Why? Because they are convinced that the literal reading is the only possible one, and if it is wrong, Scripture is wrong. When confronted with that (usually when working with youth), I have seen some serious crises of faith. And this is based solely on the tension between the dogmatic literalism and YEC'ism and the evidence itself. I then present the statement similar to what I have suggested elsewhere, and explained that Scripture is true regardless, that they don't have to doubt Scripture, that many devout, Bible-believing Christians simply don't read that text in a way that is in conflict with the evidence they find so convincing. This works. Faith solidified. Good fruit.

 

[Remus]

I hear what you are saying, but what I say is that simply doesn't happen.

And if you're wrong?

 

[Vance]

And if you're wrong?

I have to go with what I actually see happening, and how best to deal with it. I have seen the problem raised by YEC literalism, both personally in my interrelations with other Christians, and even on these very forums, and I have seen those problems lessened or even resolved by what TE's are saying. I have also seen many YEC's simply accept the possibility of a figurative reading without a problem at all, meaning they were not ardent literalists at all. No damage to them whatsoever. You can ask them, they are all over these boards. Go ask ConsideringLily, for example.

What I have never seen is a YEC literalist who became convinced by the TE message that Scripture can be figurative and lost faith in Scripture. Never once.

So, I have seen the message do a lot of good, but have never seen it have a negative effect.

Should I abandon the good and positive results that we can see due to some phantom dangers we don't see?

And what if the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism is wrong?

 

[Remus]

What I have never seen is a YEC literalist who became convinced by the TE message that Scripture can be figurative and lost faith in Scripture. Never once.

But I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this message. It's, threads like this one that I'm talking about. Let's go back a post:

"...and then they come in contact with the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Now, to the extent they find this evidence convincing is the extent to which they begin to doubt Scripture. Why? Because they are convinced that the literal reading is the only possible one, and if it is wrong, Scripture is wrong."

Wouldn't it be better to simply argue that Scripture could be read differently instead of trying to show "evidence for evolution and an old earth" and risk someone falling away?

 

[Vance]

But I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this message. It's, threads like this one that I'm talking about. Let's go back a post:

"...and then they come in contact with the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Now, to the extent they find this evidence convincing is the extent to which they begin to doubt Scripture. Why? Because they are convinced that the literal reading is the only possible one, and if it is wrong, Scripture is wrong."

Wouldn't it be better to simply argue that Scripture could be read differently instead of trying to show "evidence for evolution and an old earth" and risk someone falling away?

But the evidence is already out there! It is all over the place, it is not TE's who are exclusively presenting this evidence. If they hear this evidence without the corresponding message that this can all still be true and not conflict with Scripture (which is what we TE's say all over this board and elsewhere), then they will just hear the evidence without the reason to still accept Scripture.

Now, in a forum like this, where we are here to debate whether the young earth creationism position or the theistic evolution position is correct, one of the valid areas of discussion is whether the evidence from God's Creation itself indicates one or the other. Or, whether history and literary analysis provides some clue as to whether the literal or figurative reading is best.

The YEC's say that there reading of Scripture is correct, and the TE's say their reading of Scripture is correct. While I do think that both SHOULD say that regardless of which is correct on this specific issue is not a salvation issue, there is still some value in determining which is correct. Is it meant to be literal or figurative? TE's say the history and science can help us determine this, can help us determine which reading is correct.

Also, we have these "Creation Scientists" out there attempting to prove SCIENTIFICALLY that the earth is young, a global flood occured and evolution did not happen. TE's think this does more harm to Christianity than good, and is just plain wrong. So, we show why those messages are wrong.

Lastly, the more YEC's realize that the evidence really is very strong against a young earth and a global flood, the less likely they are to preach those YEC positions dogmatically, which would be a very good thing.

 

[Remus]

Well, I did my best.

 

[Vance]

Let me ask you, should AiG and ICR and Hovind and all the rest cease and desist from their activities because what they do can very easily cause some Christians to fall away (because they become convinced from those ministries that evolution and Scriputre are wholly incompatible and then come to accept evolution)? Or cause some non-Christians to fail to consider Christianity at all?

I would love for them to cease altogether, but since they believe their belief is correct, I can not expect them to stop. But what I can do is ask them to at least not teach it as dogmatism, and acknowledge that there are other views held by devout Christians. Instead, they argue why TE is bad, a danger, etc. And I think this message of theirs is, itself, bad for Christianity and the Gospel message. It sounds like you want AiG and ICR and all the Creationist ministries to be able to go on teaching their view, and why every other view is wrong, but want us to just state "there is another view", but not explain why we think it is the right view.

Ultimately, I say this:

Let's all feel free to express our views on all these subjects, theology, science, Biblical interpretation, etc, and debate all the pros and cons of each, but at the same time be willing to say that regardless, Scripture is true and valid and trustworthy and however you believe on this issue does not effect your salvation.

 

[Biliskner]

I hear what you are saying, but what I say is that simply doesn't happen. Those who are inextricably attached to a literal reading will usually not budge off of it. Those who are willing to budge off of it will, in every case I have ever seen, including probably a dozen on these very boards, simply realize that it was the interpretation itself that was wrong, not Scripture.

I used to be a card carrying paygan with evolution as my fighting tool against religons of all sorts. when i became a Christian all these issues popped up, and Creation/Evol. was the one for me. I still have hard-core Jesus Christ believing Christians who hold to evolution as true science.

For me, I have gone to Creationism, because when I scratched the surface of Evolution the theory died, literally. The book that did it was Michael J Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". After that I looked into other critiques of Darwinism as in Origins. All I will say is that Darwinian theory (as held by Huxley, Dawkins, Singer etc.) is a farce, one mega wool pulled over the eyes. Like Neo, you need to take the red pill - but that is just my opinion
(the scientific validity of Darwinian theory as a "true science" like physics is debatable to perhaps no end, and maybe not for a discussion on this thread.)

But to the extent that there is someone who so strongly clings to a literal interpretation that they lose faith in Scripture, I would say this just shows the danger of promoting such a dogmatic literalism. The fewer people who cling that tightly, and don't even know that there is another possibility, the fewer who will face such a dilemma.

if Scripture is to hold conscisly for generations to come until our Lord's Second Coming, then there is some... err... as you put it "dogmatic literalism" that must hold true. Scripture is trans-cultural and trans-human-philosophy. I mean, that is one of the things that keeps me a Christian (and the Holy Spirit too) - why would I stay a Christian if the Bible can be re-interpreted to fit "our agendas?" I might as well as stayed as a card carrying paygan, making and modifying the rules as I see fit day by day.

The Psalmist says: "where else have we to go when you alone have the words of eternal life?"

Jesus died, Jesus rose. Would you say that was "dogmatic literalism?" Would you water down the message of Christ if people found that offensive? anti-semitic? The controversy stirred when Mel Gibson released his Passion movie is a great example. He was accused of all and everything the paygan world could throw at him, yet by what I'm reading on this thread one could also ascribe Gibson to 'dogmatic literalism'. Just firing questions...

Now, what I HAVE seen are those who have been raised to hold exclusively to a literal reading of the Creation accounts, and a young earth creationism, and then they come in contact with the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Now, to the extent they find this evidence convincing is the extent to which they begin to doubt Scripture. Why? Because they are convinced that the literal reading is the only possible one, and if it is wrong, Scripture is wrong. When confronted with that (usually when working with youth), I have seen some serious crises of faith. And this is based solely on the tension between the dogmatic literalism and YEC'ism and the evidence itself. I then present the statement similar to what I have suggested elsewhere, and explained that Scripture is true regardless, that they don't have to doubt Scripture, that many devout, Bible-believing Christians simply don't read that text in a way that is in conflict with the evidence they find so convincing. This works. Faith solidified. Good fruit.

That brings me to my next point - Evolution has not been proven and CANNOT be proven. The SAME goes with Creationism.

Point:
1. Facts DO NOT speak for themselves.
2. Dig up fossil - INTERPRET in YOUR Worldview, Evolutionist? or Creationist.
3. Authority - Creationist - hold Authority of Bible, Fossil is 5,000 YO.
Evolutionist - hold Authority of Self, Fossil is 5,000 MYO (that's million years old.)

Now the validity of both arguments are sound (Creation + Evolution). So as a philosopher, one naturally pokes at the roots of these two paradigms. Which is more scientifically valid? At this point it might turn metaphysical upon investigation.
I can expound more but won't unless ppl ask Q's

I will say that the evidence (that we dig) fits better with Creation Science AND a Global Flood. Without the Flood, there are gaping holes the size of the Andromeda galaxy in our earthly fossil records. ONE that comes to mind is the Cambrian Explosion. gg Evolutionists trying to explain that one. Also, if you want Astronomy I can give you some evidence that refutes the current paradigm - Disc theory or Disc model.

I doubt the science, build on man's fallible theories.
I don't doubt the Scriptures (don't even get me started on trying to take Gen1-2 allegorically - 'cos in the Hebrew the Psalms read like 5,000,000 times differently than to Genesis, meaning that Psalms are poetry, and Genesis is not.) On that I can point people to extremely large portions on the Hebrew grammer usage, and whether it is allegorical or not - just on the text of Gen1-2.

In Christ

 

[Biliskner]

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

Vance, You do realize that Mr. Augustine argued for different interpretations of Genesis 'cos he believed that God created the WHOLE world with all that is in it within a matter of a few minute seconds, and not that God used evolution/long millions of years to create the world, yes?

 

[Scholar in training]

When Christians debate over whether the Scripture teaches predestination or not, are those who disagree with your position on this "undermining Scripture"?

The difference between evolution and predestination is that as long as you realize that you are saved by grace (not of your own doing) through faith, then predestination is rather non-essential.

Evolution as a creation concept, however, is very much at odds with the Bible. I think that some TE's would assert that Adam and Eve's existance is questionable; but without the existance of Adam and Eve, we take original sin out of the picture, meaning that the concept of original sin is bunk (that might be acceptable, but I doubt it...) and Christ died for an allegorical Fall (not acceptable).

I don't know about you, but that presents a serious difficulty for me when it comes to understanding Scripture.

 

[Vance]

Biliskner, a few points:

1. You do know that Behe believes in an earth that is billions of years old, that speceis developed through some sort of evolutionary process over those billions of years, and finds young earth creationism a joke?

2. I completely agree that the philosophy about origins propounded by Dawkins is complete bunk, but that does not invalidate the scientific evidence for evolution whatsoever.

3. Just because one Scripture should be read literally does not mean all should. Do you read all the Psalms literally, the parables, Revelation? You have to look at the cultural and historical setting to determine what literary genre is intended by God through the human author. It has nothing at all to do with "agendas".

4. Evolution is a scientific THEORY. No scientific theories are EVER proven. You do not try or expect to prove theories. The current theory for anything is simply the best explanation for the data we have. The key question is whether it has been falsified. It has not, but most of Creation science has.

5. Read my post about the problem with Creation science here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14825019#post14825019

6. As for Augustine, yes, if you had read through the posts here, you would realize that I am fully aware of everything Augustine said on the subject. He rejected a literal six day creation and thought all was created all at one time, but not everything was present all at once, with "seminal seeds" that would come to fruition at their appointed time and place. Very much like a Theistic Evolutionist would describe it, really.

 

[Biliskner]

Biliskner, a few points:
1. You do know that Behe believes in an earth that is billions of years old, that speceis developed through some sort of evolutionary process over those billions of years, and finds young earth creationism a joke?

He has points that throw Darwinian theory out of the water. Whether he believes in YEC of OEC is not the point. I'm arguing that Darwinism is a theory with gaping holes that it simply becomes philosophy.
I have a feeling that we're using the same words but not in the same meaning(s).

2. I completely agree that the philosophy about origins propounded by Dawkins is complete bunk, but that does not invalidate the scientific evidence for evolution whatsoever.

that is what i'm arguning, and you agree. that's a winner.
so my question now is, why try and 'merge' that with Christianity?
evolution, the very word: "evolution" is:

"the accidental random chaotic mess of whatever = human being + 6 billion years."

agree with my summarization, or not?

3. Just because one Scripture should be read literally does not mean all should. Do you read all the Psalms literally, the parables, Revelation? You have to look at the cultural and historical setting to determine what literary genre is intended by God through the human author. It has nothing at all to do with "agendas".

don't assume too much brother. the answer to your question is:
"i have. Genesis is narrative."

www . grisda.org/origins/21005 . htm

4. Evolution is a scientific THEORY. No scientific theories are EVER proven. You do not try or expect to prove theories. The current theory for anything is simply the best explanation for the data we have. The key question is whether it has been falsified. It has not, but most of Creation science has.

disagree. Evolution is DOGMA; a wolf in sheep clothing. dressed up to be all pretty in scientists' clothing.

agreed with your "current theory for anything is simply the best explanation for the data we have"

disagree re: "It has not, but most of Creation science has."
point 1. Evolution is UNFALSIFIABLE - so agreed, evolution has NOT been falsified, 'cos it cannot be. gg.

Most of creation science has? oh show me, and i bet i can show you the evidence to say otherwise, and then i bet that you'll say "that's absurd" then i bet the conclusion will be: "i lose, you win" - sound about right?
(i don't really bet, 'cos James has something to say about that.)

6. As for Augustine, yes, if you had read through the posts here, you would realize that I am fully aware of everything Augustine said on the subject. He rejected a literal six day creation and thought all was created all at one time, but not everything was present all at once, with "seminal seeds" that would come to fruition at their appointed time and place. Very much like a Theistic Evolutionist would describe it, really.

so as we both can see, humans will always try to ascribe the theories of man to our 'made' worldview and if it heavily contradicts the Scriptures we try to interpret those holy Words into something that fits our worldview. it's kind of sad. but i probably can think of some bits which i am guilty too. however, "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains
for ever." Ec. 1:4. if i'm wrong that's fine, but i've researched the Hebrew. Genesis is narrative. but each to their own interpretation... i guess...

 

[Vance]

Biliskner: until you actually know what evolution says, it is no use discussing the matter with you. How can you expect anyone, even your fellow YEC's who are more knowledgeable on this subject to take ANYTHING you say seriously when you show that you don't even know what evolution is? In one thread, you say it is geology, in this one you present a completely false definition. What I would suggest is that you go and do some reading up on the subject before you attempt to argue against it.

Here is a hint: attempting to learn about evolution from Creationist sources is like attempting to learn about Christianity from atheistic sources. You will learn little and what you do learn will be incorrect.

 

[Biliskner]

Biliskner: until you actually know what evolution says, it is no use discussing the matter with you. How can you expect anyone, even your fellow YEC's who are more knowledgeable on this subject to take ANYTHING you say seriously when you show that you don't even know what evolution is? In one thread, you say it is geology, in this one you present a completely false definition. What I would suggest is that you go and do some reading up on the subject before you attempt to argue against it.

Here is a hint: attempting to learn about evolution from Creationist sources is like attempting to learn about Christianity from atheistic sources. You will learn little and what you do learn will be incorrect.

Evolution:

• [size=-1][size=-1]development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"[/size][/size]
• [size=-1][size=-1](biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms[/size][/size]

I know what evolution is, i simply paraphrased it - but apparently you didn't like my paraphrase. FYI, I started off as a paygan. I converted to Jesus Christ. I stayed in the "evolution" camp with a few Christian friends. I looked into it myself - did essays on the "scientific validity" (Popper's book on Falsification, Kuhn on Scientific Paradigms) of evolution. I found evolution to be false. My Christian friends in the evolution camp that i lived with all spoke what you (and other OAE's have said... and after about 1 year i'm like: *sigh*). Now I'm YECs. You cannot sit there and seriously tell me evolution is not flawed.... if you open your mind to the fact that evolution might be flawed, you might actually become a YEC.

Evolution has infiltrated all parts of our scientific world. Sure it isn't "pure" geology, but neither is it "pure" genetics, yet when you get a run down of all those subjects in their classes evolution pokes its silly head out. Just go into a museum tomorrow.

 

[SBG]

Biliskner: until you actually know what evolution says, it is no use discussing the matter with you. How can you expect anyone, even your fellow YEC's who are more knowledgeable on this subject to take ANYTHING you say seriously when you show that you don't even know what evolution is?

You are aware that te's here have given different definitions for the same word 'evolution' here over time, correct? So I suggest, a sticky be made that gives a simple, easy to understand definition of evolution, if our dictionaries and science book definitions are not good enough for you.

In one thread, you say it is geology, in this one you present a completely false definition. What I would suggest is that you go and do some reading up on the subject before you attempt to argue against it.

You know, I read this thread and I don't remember him saying evolution is geology. He said evolution and geology are related and used together for the evolutionary theory. That is true, btw, otherwise lets throw out all of the geology stuff that morton talks about, and say it is worthless for this or any discussion on the evolutionary theory as a whole.

It is said so often here, that is is redundant, that yec's ought to read up on science in order to understand the THEOLOGY of origins.

Here is a hint: attempting to learn about evolution from Creationist sources is like attempting to learn about Christianity from atheistic sources. You will learn little and what you do learn will be incorrect.

Attempting to understand Theology from science is like attempting to learn about Christianity from an atheists. You will learn little and what you do learn will be incorrect.

That is my take on your old sig.

 

[Vance]

SBG, I am talking about in the Varves thread where he asked how evolution could explain Ayr's rock!

Evolution is biology. Ayr's rock is geology. There are connecting areas, of course, in that geology shows that the earth is billions of years old and helps us age fossils. But to ask how "evolution" can explain a geological formation makes no sense.

As for a definition, like gravity or any other scientific theory, there are many facets to it and it can be explained in various ways that do not contradict each other in the least. Occassionally, an atheist will provide a definition that incorporates naturalistic philosophy and this causes confusion. But the basic definitions are still correct.

 

[PaladinValer]

There goes YECism

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vance again.

**Keeps hitting the rep icon anyway**

 

[SBG]

Where did Yecism go?

 

[AliOgg]

Well, I did my best.

Happy Birthday Remus

And God Bless All His Peoples.