Interesting....

[Gold Dragon]

The folly of claiming that God's inspired word is absolute truth, and then making it subordinate to man's scientific theories should be self evident.

Fortunately, this statement is not true. The bible is not subordinate to evolution. TEs believe that the bible is independent of constantly redefined theories of evolution since the bible isn't talking about the scientific hows of origins that evolution deals with.

YECs take the bible out of its literary context by turning it into a science text and thus make it subordinate to their view of origins.

 

[Vance]

Right, the Bible is not subordinate in the least to anything. It is our understanding of both God's natural creation, through scientific analysis, and exactly what the Bible says, through reading and interpretation, that is fallible.

I think this is one of the biggest YEC straw men. They want SO much to believe that non-YEC's do not value Scripture to the same degree they do, since this will provide a tidy explanation for the difference in how we view origins. With this tucked away as a fall-back position, they never have to face up to the fact that their own literal interpretation may just be wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

I forgot. These days the TE's have two 'reasons' why we shouldn't accept the historical account of creation taught in Genesis. One is that 'science' proves Scripture is wrong, and as I recall it wasn't that long ago that Vance was posting statements by Bacon to promote that view. And the other reason is that there were some other stories doing the rounds at the time, the Mespotamian myths, that are alleged to be similar to the Creation story, and since they were myths, we are told to accept that the Creation story is myth.

The internal evidence of Scripture is clear that the Creation story is to be understood as a historical record of Creation. TE's place man's interpretation of this external evidence above the message of Scripture. Having turned the Creation story into a fairy tale, they then embelish the story with gay abandon and try to make it fit in with 'scientific theories' on origins.

Ever wondered how anyone could come up with the notion from Scripture that man evolved. I note the question was posed elsewhere, and no one was able to provide references from Scripture that support this notion.

I'd be interested to know if Vance and Gold Dragon:

1. Accept that Scripture is absolute truth.
2.Believe that evolution, and the notion that the Creation account must be myth because some people think it was like stories doing the rounds at the time, are abolute truth.

 

[gluadys]

The internal evidence of Scripture is clear that the Creation story is to be understood as a historical record of Creation.

No, the internal evidence does not point in that direction at all.

 

[Vance]

Well, no, you are still getting it WAY wrong, Micaiah. TE's never say that Scripture is wrong, much less that science has proved it wrong. Why do you keep saying this when we tell you over and over we are not saying that at all. This is simply misrepresentation of what we say.

As for your questions, yes, I believe the Scripture is absolutely true. I can not make heads or tails of your number 2, though.

 

[Micaiah]

Do you consider evolution, and the notion that the Creation account must be myth because some people think it sounds like stories doing the rounds at the time, to be absolute truth.

What about those who try to reconcile TE theology with Scripture.

Let:

HR = Human reason in the form of interpretation of archaeological and scientific evidence that contradicts the historical record of Scripture.

ST = Historical account of Creation given in Genesis.

ES = TE's interpretation of Genesis

CT = Absolute truth on Creation taught in Scripture.

| | represent the degree of truthfulness of the source of knowledge

=! means not equal to.

TE's claim |HR| = |ES|. The ones on this thread also state that Scripture is inspired and is therefore absolute truth. Therefore |HR| = |ES| = |CT|.

They take the plain comments on Genesis and make it assert something that is completely foreign to the passage.

The TE's on this thread have openly admitted that HR is far from perfect.

Therefore, since |HR| = |ES|, and |HR|=!|CT|, then |ES|=!|CT|. QED.

Human reasoning on creation and the teaching of Scripture are not compatible.

In spite of this, TE's effectively make |HR|=|ES|>|CT|, which logically contradicts the previous order.



In contrast, YEC's assert that the plain teaching of Scripture provides an accurate historical record of Creation. They claim |ST|=|CT|. Where HR=!ST, then HR is wrong. This gives the correct order |CT|>|HR|.

TE's claim that ST=!CT. The basis of that claim is essentially that since HR=!ST, then ST is wrong. In this case HR becomes the arbitrator on what Scripture does or doesn't teach on Creation, which as we have shown is flawed. YEC's say we should accept the plain truth taught in Scripture without imposing on it an interpretation that forces it to be aligned to HR.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

The problem with your analysis is that there is no need to look at Genesis as historical. You claim it is historical while others claim it is not. Evidence tells us it is not.

All you have done in your previous post is to lay out your personal views and call them absolute truth. Basically you are saying that

[Evidence left in the creation by the creator] < [Micaiah's interpretation of scripture]

See how that works? You are claiming that your interpretation is greater than evidence left by God.

Genesis is truth because it is scripture. That does not make it fact or history. The parables and poetry of scripture are truth and contain truth but that does not make it fact or history. There is no logical problem with TE's beliefs. It is illogical to deny the evidence to the contrary of literalist scripture. You deny that creation is fact, truth, and history all wrapped up into one. TE's can't simply look the other way on this and need to understand their creator.

We've been over this before yet you continue to try to paint TE (or basically all non literalist beliefs) as something that they are not.

 

[Micaiah]

Sorry, those comments only serve to reinforce what I have stated above.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I forgot. These days the TE's have two 'reasons' why we shouldn't accept the historical account of creation taught in Genesis. One is that 'science' proves Scripture is wrong, and as I recall it wasn't that long ago that Vance was posting statements by Bacon to promote that view. And the other reason is that there were some other stories doing the rounds at the time, the Mespotamian myths, that are alleged to be similar to the Creation story, and since they were myths, we are told to accept that the Creation story is myth.

The internal evidence of Scripture is clear that the Creation story is to be understood as a historical record of Creation. TE's place man's interpretation of this external evidence above the message of Scripture. Having turned the Creation story into a fairy tale, they then embelish the story with gay abandon and try to make it fit in with 'scientific theories' on origins.

If you replace all instances of "Scripture" with "Micaiah's interpretation of Scripture" then your statements about TEs are correct. Fortunately, none of what you say is true about Scripture not jiving with evolution, only Micaiah's interpretation of it.

I have addressed the idea of myth in GodSaves' thread.

Ever wondered how anyone could come up with the notion from Scripture that man evolved. I note the question was posed elsewhere, and no one was able to provide references from Scripture that support this notion.

The same way that the notion of quantum mechanics came from Scripture.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'd be interested to know if Vance and Gold Dragon:

1. Accept that Scripture is absolute truth.

Yes

2.Believe that evolution, and the notion that the Creation account must be myth because some people think it was like stories doing the rounds at the time, are abolute truth.

This question isn't very coherent but with regards to the idea of myth, I addressed it in this thread. So it is possible (I know you can't wrap your mind around this) for myth to be truth. Not all truth is historical truth or scientific truth.

Myth does not always equal to false or untrue. While our most dominant examples of mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse) are considered strongly on the side of fiction, there are also applications of the word myth for non-fiction.

Wikipedia - Myth
...
Although myths are often considered to be accounts of events that have not happened, many historians consider that myths can also be accounts of actual events that have become highly imbued with symbolic meaning, or that have been transformed, shifted in time or place, or even reversed. One way of conceptualizing this process is to view 'myths' as lying at the far end of a continuum ranging from a 'dispassionate account' to 'legendary occurrence' to 'mythical status'. As an event progresses towards the mythical end of this continuum, what people think, feel and say about the event takes on progressively greater historical significance while the facts become less important. By the time one reaches the mythical end of the spectrum the story has taken on a life of its own and the facts of the original event have become almost irrelevant.

This method or technique of interpreting myths as accounts of actual events, evhemerist exegesis, dates from antiguity and can be traced back (from Spencer) to Evhémère's Histoire sacrée (300 BCE) which describes the inhabitants of the island of Panchaia, Everything-Good, in the Indian Ocean as normal people deified by popular naivety. As Roland Barthes affirms, "Myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things" (Mâche 1992, p.20).
...

With that said, the bible is obviously not all myth but certain sections do carry a mythological literary style to them, which doesn't mean that the account is false.

 

[Micaiah]

Again, you are elevating human reason above Scripture. That is the basic problem with TE theology.

 

[Vance]

Again, you are elevating human reason above Scripture. That is the basic problem with TE theology.

Again, your statement begs the question of what Scripture actually says.

If I actually believed that Scripture said something different than what human reason said, I would choose Scripture every time. So, no, you are simply dead wrong. I would NEVER elevate human reason above Scripture.

You seem to forget that I first realized that the non-literal reading of Genesis was much more likely the correct reading long before I had ANY inclination to accept evolution or an old earth. So, it was not any type of scientific evidence which compelled my reading of Scripture. Once I became aware of the evidence, however, it all fit together perfectly.

 

[statrei]

Again, you are elevating human reason above Scripture.

Pray tell, what is this supposed to mean? Where does human reason come from? Did humans develop it on their own? What do you think humans use to understand the Scripture? There is no such thing as human reason. God is the creator of reason. It is a gift He gave to humans to use in the acquisition of knowledge.

 

[herev]

Again, you are elevating human reason above Scripture. That is the basic problem with TE theology.

scary thought here, Does this mean you think scripture is unreasonable?

 

[Micaiah]

I am talking about man's attempt to explain evidence outside of Scripture that impact on origins. I'm not suggesting that reason is not a useful tool, but that it is subordinate to the truth revealed in God's inspired word.

 

[herev]

I am talking about man's attempt to explain evidence outside of Scripture that impact on origins. I'm not suggesting that reason is not a useful tool, but that it is subordinate to the truth revealed in God's inspired word.

but that one is subordinate--doesn't that suggest they are not the same? I'm not trying to be coy. I really don't understand. To me, God's word is reason at it's highest.

 

[versastyle]

quote of me of the day:

I am rational, therefore my irrational statements are true. I am a zigglebunny.

 

[Micaiah]

but that one is subordinate--doesn't that suggest they are not the same? I'm not trying to be coy. I really don't understand. To me, God's word is reason at it's highest.

Sorry, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean. Your comments seem to confirm what I have stated ie. man's reason must be subordinate to God's truth, and if a conflict exists, God's truth is upheld.

Man reads an ancient myth...thinks it sounds a lot like Genesis...considers there are aspects of Genesis that contradict current geological theories. Conclusion - Genesis must be myth. That is human reasoning.

Scripture is clear that Genesis is an historical record of origins. Therefore the above line of reasoning should be rejected.

 

[Micaiah]

quote of me of the day:

I am rational, therefore my irrational statements are true. I am a zigglebunny.

Another form of human reasoning is along teh lines there is no such thing as absolute truth, it is all relative. I had a maths teachers text book that had a section along the lines that facts are really what we perceive them to be, not what they are intrinsically. So Versastyle, if you think you are zigglebunny, then according to constructivist theory, who am I to argue.

Now go have your medication, then come back and tell us who you are again.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Scripture is clear that Genesis is an historical record of origins

If it was clear then all Christians would agree on the basic principles.
Obviously we do not, therefore it is not clear.
that is the point of the discussion, actually why do we disagree? and what are the points of disagreement?

even within my own denomination there is a serious disagreement over basic principles:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html

this is evidence that even within a very narrow confessionalism, with a very high level of theological sophistication and knowledge that the issue of the interpretation of Genesis 1 is not clear. To assert otherwise is simply ignorance of the depth of the divisions.