Implication of Origins

Critias · Aug 10, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
you are missing the point of "take it to the master of the banquet"
like the command for the lepers to go to the priests, Jesus is confirming the miracles by involving those with the highest credentials to testify. That is one reason why having woman testify to the resurrection is so "odd", they could not testify in court.
He was a wine expert. He is also acting inadvertently as a prophet, like Caiaphas saying that it is better for one man to die then for a whole people to perish. Curious that these two events are at the beginning and the end of Jesus public ministry, having the wise of the world confirm what is going on even though they really miss the big point. Jesus' point is not that wisdom is bad but that it must be directed at the right goal.

......

It is to give equal opportunity for all to believe. Jesus was not asking for verification of what He had done.

He wasn't asking the master of the ceremony to confirm that He did indeed create the wine. Jesus never needed our confirmation to prove what He has done and did. It was always for us to see so that we might believe.

Jesus has chosen different vessels to carry His message of what He has done, but not for the sake of confirmation or the sake of someone testing it to make sure, but rather so that they too may see and believe.

Richard, please tell me you don't think Jesus was seeking approval of what He had done so that He too could believe He actually did it?

rmwilliamsll · Aug 10, 2005

Critias said:
It is to give equal opportunity for all to believe. Jesus was not asking for verification of what He had done.

He wasn't asking the master of the ceremony to confirm that He did indeed create the wine. Jesus never needed our confirmation to prove what He has done and did. It was always for us to see so that we might believe.

Jesus has chosen different vessels to carry His message of what He has done, but not for the sake of confirmation or the sake of someone testing it to make sure, but rather so that they too may see and believe.

Richard, please tell me you don't think Jesus was seeking approval of what He had done so that He too could believe He actually did it?

i am saying testify to the miracles.
approval is your idea.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

Rusticus said:
(This was after you had earlier said that the bible must always be taken literally; and then you then changed tack to say that some parts are metaphorical.)

You're just talking nonsense now. I never said the above. You're making it up.

Rusticus said:
Do you believe that salvation depends on a belief in a 6-day-young-earth-creation?

If no, why do you try to sow difficulties for other christians?

No, one can believe in the gospel without believing in Genesis. But Genesis is the logical foundation of the Gospel. So the one rejecting the 1st Adam is only accepting the 2nd Adam illogically. But I don't think God judges bad logic. Nevertheless when someone tries to remove the logical foundation of the gospel, christians must contend with such a notion.

And it seems you sow enough difficulties for yourself. You're trying to convince Ben his pastor is a fool (that's the word you used). I would contend you're making one out of yourself.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

fragmentsofdreams said:
In the ancient world, it was common for mythical geneologies to be connected to historical people.

Bluff called. Give me an example where mythical people are connected to historical people by long genealogical records as we have in Genesis.

fragmentsofdreams said:
It makes perfect sense to refute myths with myths once one understands that myth does not mean false.

Can you back this up somehow. It sounds silly at face value.

fragmentsofdreams said:
The geneologies serve the purpose of connecting the figures in Genesis.

For what purpose are they connected if they were never meant to be real?

fragmentsofdreams said:
Regarless of whether Abraham is mythical or historical (or a mix of both) it is informing the Hebrews that they have a special relationship with God.

How is their relationship special of it is no different than anyone else's. If genesis is all a myth, then they're just a people with myths like every other people.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 10, 2005

No, one can believe in the gospel without believing in Genesis. But Genesis is the logical foundation of the Gospel. So the one rejecting the 1st Adam is only accepting the 2nd Adam illogically. But I don't think God judges bad logic. Nevertheless when someone tries to remove the logical foundation of the gospel, christians must contend with such a notion.

evolution does not change the doctrine of federal headship. FH is a imputation, a forensic declaration on the part of God, a cutting of a covenant. None of which require Adam to be unique in the sense that he is the first human ever. The point is that he is the first human that God interacted with in this special way.

.....

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

gluadys said:
Let me get this straight.

You are agreeing that if we assume that God used strictly natural processes to bring the universe into being, we would have to conclude it is billions of years old.

The reason we don't do that is because God did not use strictly natural processes. God used miracles to create the earth in 6 days a few thousand years ago. And told us so in the bible.

I have no quarrel with that. Science never claims to tell us what the case would be if God intervened miraculously. Everything in science is based on the premise that no miracle occurred.

It seems you are agreeing that the scientific conclusions are correct, if no miracle occurred. The only thing that makes them wrong is that a miracle did occur.

Is that right?

In a nutshell this is correct. As AiG has been pointing out for years, the debate is over presuppositions, not the scientific method. This is perhaps why the debate is so confusing for so many. They think science can give us some great insight on our presuppositions. But this kind of thinking is illogical.

As you know there are at least four miracles in genesis that are worldwide in effect. The six day creation, the curse (which affected the ground, particularly the soil, plants, animals and human beings), the flood which was definitely a miraculous act of God perhaps from start to finish (this was no natural flood and therefore cannot be compared to natural floods), and the confusing of the languages at Babel. If your presuppositions don't include these, your scientific or other conclusions are going to be way off. I do think science can play a role in the debate, but it must come second to the philosophical components.

Critias · Aug 10, 2005

I agree Cal, this isn't about science per say, this is about philosophical concepts of whether what is presented in Genesis is correct in how the author intended for it to understood or not.

Yec's stand on the side of Genesis being a narrative account of what God did in the beginning.

TE's stand on the side of Genesis being a myth/poetic account of God being a Creator, not how He created. Science tells them what they believe God doesn't say in Genesis. Despite the chronological account given of what is created and when.

For even if it is a myth and poetic, it is out of order and still wrong in the eyes of science.

Countless times I hear TEs say, what science does is something we can see and touch. Yet, God calls us to something we cannot see. For Jesus said, blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. TEs call those who believe and do not see about creation in six days .... fools.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
that is exactly what He did. Take it to the master of the banquet, that is the experts, and have him confirm the miracle.

Yes to confirm the miracle to the ones whom Christ was speaking to. Not to confirm the actual age of the miracle. The expert didnt witness the miracle and had no idea a miracle was used.

John 2:9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.

Had you been the expert, you would have rejected the miracle seeing that it was real wine (which cannot be naturally made in just a few moments). After all a perfectly workable theory could have been put together on how the wine was made and how long it took to become what it was. Furthermore, you would have called the ones who brought you the wine unthinking and unintelligent for believing the wine was just a few moments old. Furthermore would you have acknowledged that Christ did make the wine, but that he must have done so using natural processes.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

artybloke said:
Well, as they are stories about human beings, the more accurate term would be legends, but so what? so they're legendary stories? So?

On the other hand, of course, the British royal family claim to be descended from some bloke called Arthur, and he probably didn't exist. So if he didn't exist, then the royal family mustn't exist and we're really a republic after all... Hurrah! Up the revolution!

Actually most historians believe Arthur did exist. Any other examples?

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

Ben_Hur said:
I'm aware of our (Christians') current interpretation of Revelation is. Thank you for making my point. So, while you are apparently saying that at least some of Revelation is metaphorical, NONE of Gen 1 could possibly be....ok.

Actually you missed in completely. I showed that the example you gave in revelation was literally true. A star (as it was literally defined by the author) could collide with earth and not completely destroy it. There is nothing metaphorical in that particular passage.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
Scripture is addressed to it's original readers. It is their language, their culture, their science which is being addressed, not ours. The Scripture uses a flat geocentric "language of appearances" motif to present its ideas.

So you actually believe the authors intended to convey a flat earth?

This line of reasoning doesnt make sense. Had the Holy Spirit conveyed the earth correctly what message would have been lost on the readers? What moral message would not have been understood had He not used a correct description of the earth?

rmwilliamsll said:
This does not mean these things are transcultural and have eternal teaching significance, they are being used, just like an envelope is being used to get a letter to its designation.

So what would have been lost had an accurate envelope been used?

rmwilliamsll said:
The mailman hands you an envelope with a letter inside. The envelope is not the same as the contents but was necessary for the process.

Now you're saying a flat earth message was necessary. How so? How would a sphere earth mess up the message?? If you cant answer this, this whole line if reasoning falls apart.

rmwilliamsll said:
The same way a flat geocentric universe was necessary for the process of communicating truth to us but it is not our scientific truth nor God's but the Hebrews.

So you're contending the Hebrews could not have understood these messages if God would have corrected them on the shape of the earth? I don't see the logic.

rmwilliamsll said:
in order to feel intelligent amongst men.
I am really tired of people telling me what my motivations are, you don't know me, nor do you know the struggles i've been through on these issues. Your remarks that TE's, in this case, me, are men pleasers is really a way of nasty underhanded way to convince yourself that you are trying to please God by holding to an unreasonable faith(how does it feel) . Why not just argue the issues and leave personalities out of it? isn't it complex enough without trying to pin motivations to everyone?

You know I find this ironic coming from you. Youre the one who, in this thread, said YECs are unreasoning and unintelligent. From there I deduced you feel coming off intelligent was important. I got this motive from you, I didnt make it up. What can I say? I think its a wrong motive.

And Im pretty sure that you know that YECs do reason though their positions carefully. So why is it okay for you to backhand them with your remarks, but get angry when we simply repeat what youve implied yourself?

gluadys · Aug 10, 2005

Calminian said:
In a nutshell this is correct. As AiG has been pointing out for years, the debate is over presuppositions, not the scientific method. This is perhaps why the debate is so confusing for so many. They think science can give us some great insight on our presuppositions. But this kind of thinking is illogical.

As you know there are at least four miracles in genesis that are worldwide in effect. The six day creation, the curse (which affected the ground, particularly the soil, plants, animals and human beings), the flood which was definitely a miraculous act of God perhaps from start to finish (this was no natural flood and therefore cannot be compared to natural floods), and the confusing of the languages at Babel. If your presuppositions don't include these, your scientific or other conclusions are going to be way off. I do think science can play a role in the debate, but it must come second to the philosophical components.

I think you missed something in there so I will highlight it again.

It seems you are agreeing that the scientific conclusions are correct, if no miracle occurred.

Is that correct? Are you agreeing that if we assume no miracle occurred, the scientific conclusions about the age of the earth, the flood, the evolution of humanity, etc. are correct?

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
i am saying testify to the miracles.
approval is your idea.

A simple reading of the text will reveal to you the "expert" did not testify to a miracle. He had no idea a miracle took place. He simply affirmed that good wine (which naturally takes a bit of time to make) had been given to him. Had he been asked to speculate on its age he would have guessed wrong (if he was indeed an expert), not being informed of its true origin.

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

gluadys said:
I think you missed something in there so I will highlight it again.

It seems you are agreeing that the scientific conclusions are correct, if no miracle occurred.

Is that correct?

Scientific deductions that start with naturalistic presuppositions can only be correct if those initial assumptions are true. Does that help?

gluadys said:
Are you agreeing that if we assume no miracle occurred, the scientific conclusions about the age of the earth, the flood, the evolution of humanity, etc. are correct?

Being that theories like this are always being adjusted and corrected it's best to say that evolution can only be correct if Genesis is a myth. But if the Bible is wrong I suppose the alien seed theory could be correct as well. I'm not a scientist so don't feel qualified to comment on scientific theories. There are some other creationists much more qualified than I (or is it than me? )

Calminian · Aug 10, 2005

Critias said:
Countless times I hear TEs say, what science does is something we can see and touch. Yet, God calls us to something we cannot see. For Jesus said, blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. TEs call those who believe and do not see about creation in six days .... fools.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

Ben_Hur · Aug 10, 2005

Calminian said:
Actually you missed in completely. I showed that the example you gave in revelation was literally true. A star (as it was literally defined by the author) could collide with earth and not completely destroy it. There is nothing metaphorical in that particular passage.

You also implied that it could be defined as an angel - My Pastor, consideres Rev to be talking about angels falling from heaven, not some sort of non-scientifically understood (by the authors) star [the star/angel was given the key to the bottomless pit]. You realize how much work goes into defining those stars as angels or meteors? It is not immediately apparent given a casual reading. I used to think the meaning was litteral sun-like stars for quite a while until people like my pastor pointed out how the word "star" is used in scripture. In fact, this brings up a point about your quote. Here is your quote again.

I think you need to familiarize your self with biblical terms. A "star" to the biblical writer did not mean the same thing that we mean today. Stars were simply heavenly lights that were not the Sun or Moon. Angels were also called stars. The angel that led the magi to Bethlehem was called a star. Biblically, a star is simply a light in the sky. Even today we call meteors (or is it meteorites?) falling stars. A large lit up object falling to earth would have been called a star by the biblical writers. So yes we are to believe it is possible a "star" (as they defined it) would not burn up the earth if it fell. You can take the passage literally if you let the writers define their own terms. Don't be confused by modern definitions.

If you note the bolded areas, you are still coming close to making my case for me on Gen 1. Interesting that you ignored the rest of that post, which showed how terms were defined by the "authors" - three arguments worth with more in the reference.

Are you just selectively making arguments for those things that you can hope to make me look foolish? Or was that post too long for you? I don't understand why I didn't get ANY response from you on more of that post.

Ben_Hur · Aug 10, 2005

Critias said:
I agree Cal, this isn't about science per say, this is about philosophical concepts of whether what is presented in Genesis is correct in how the author intended for it to understood or not.

Yec's stand on the side of Genesis being a narrative account of what God did in the beginning.

TE's stand on the side of Genesis being a myth/poetic account of God being a Creator, not how He created. Science tells them what they believe God doesn't say in Genesis. Despite the chronological account given of what is created and when.

For even if it is a myth and poetic, it is out of order and still wrong in the eyes of science.

Countless times I hear TEs say, what science does is something we can see and touch. Yet, God calls us to something we cannot see. For Jesus said, blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. TEs call those who believe and do not see about creation in six days .... fools.

Ignoring your overgeneralization in the last sentence, I have a hypothetical question just for fun.

If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese, how would you manage that since we've been to the moon to verify that it is not? Would you assume the moon landings were a conspiracy to remove God from society? Or would you re-think your interpretation of the passage?

Critias · Aug 10, 2005

gluadys said:
Why? I don't understand the reasoning that leads to this conclusion. I would see the jewish week as a miniature of creation week. Creation week can be any period of time divided into seven sections, metaphorically called days, and the command to keep the sabbath still makes sense.

The problem you run into Glaudy's is that "day" is defined in Genesis by evening and morning.

Critias · Aug 10, 2005

Rusticus said:
But the Bible cleraly states that the earth has 4 corners. So, is your Pastor into selective literal interpretation of the Bible?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that YE is just a lot of hogwash. And I think that the christians who believe in it on the basis of literal interpretation of the Bible need to - in order to be consistent and credible - apply that literal interpretation not selectively, but across the board.

If they were to do that, they would soon realise how untenable some of their beliefs are....

In my opinion the problem with taking everything literally is that some christians get so absorbed by the words that they completely miss the meaning, the Divine Message.

So, do you think the Scriptures were given by divine inspiration?

Can you find a creationist participating in this thread that believes every piece of the Bible is literal in meaning?

Do you understand Hermeneutics?

Critias · Aug 10, 2005

Rusticus said:
In order to be credible you can't have it both ways. You either believe in the Bible literally or you don't.

As soon as you say that some parts are metaphorical it then is up to the individual Christian - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - to work out which bits are metaphorical and which are not.

And I, and a large number of other Christians have come to the conclusion that the 6 days are metaphorical.

And you have come to a different conclusion.

And that's about all there is to say about it.

Really? You cannot understand something in the Bible literally and another part figuratively?

Then I take it you think everything in the Bible is a myth or figurative? Jesus wasn't real, ect...

You cannot have both ways you know - your words.

Implication of Origins

Critias

Guest

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Critias

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Me at the Races...

Me at the Races...

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency