just wondering!

[random_guy]

I guess the same could be said if TalkOrigins didn't exist.

But talkorigins advocates science. ICR and AiG doesn't. Talkorigins also doesn't say that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. ICR and AiG does. The analogy doesn't hold.

 

[heatherwayno]

Here is an excert from this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biologYou see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.y, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Makes perfect sense to me. TE's should read the whole article- I am curious as to how they would respond.

 

[heatherwayno]

Just what do YOU think the meaning of this story is?



Hint: if you think it is about the origin of different peoples and languages, you've missed the point.

Who has given you the authority to say that is not what is is about? Are you God's interpreter?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

AiG's argument is that any revision of Scriptural interpretation set into motion by conflict with science diminishes the authority of Scripture.

nonsense.

in fact, it is the exact same argument that the flat earthers, and the geocentrics use towards YECism.

see:
http://www.fixedearth.com/

compromise with the world is treason to God.

What drives this thinking is a mildly manichean idea of the world, the flesh and the devil. The world is thought to belong to Satan and therefore you must not allow even the smallest influence from it to effect the real but spiritual world of God, the Bible and the church.

Most of this thinking has infected the church lately because of dispensationalism and pre-millennialism both of which are world-escaping.

the world is God's, creation is from His hands and general revelation is a book for us to read to understand some of the attributes of God. The two books need to be read together not opposed to each other as if creation belongs to the devil and only heaven to God.

 

[Jase]

Who has given you the authority to say that is not what is is about? Are you God's interpreter?

It works both ways. Who has given you the authority to decide the Bible should be taken completely literally, when history and studying the history of the Bible has shown that literalism is a modern invention?

 

[gluadys]

Who has given you the authority to say that is not what is is about? Are you God's interpreter?

I am a Christian educator qualified to teach biblical studies. Yes, I am a biblical interpreter.

And the story of the Tower of Babel is only secondarily about peoples and languages. This is its function as a folk myth.

But its theological meaning---its meaning for us today as in ancient times---is much more significant. It would not be in the bible if it was only about the division of humankind into tribal groups. Much more important is the reason given for dividing people into tribal groups.


Why did people begin to build the tower? Why did God stop them? Those are the key questions that lead to the essential meaning. A meaning which is theological and moral, not historical.

If you do not know this, your education in the scriptures is sadly lacking. You are missing some of its most important messages.

 

[gluadys]

Makes perfect sense to me. TE's should read the whole article- I am curious as to how they would respond.

I read the whole article. Here are some comments.

Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.​

What the author omits saying here is that it is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator when it is interpreted literally. That is what is clearly implied by AiG's whole theology. But nothing in the preceding phrases: Word of God, infallible revelation, omniscient God---requires a literal interpretation of the Bible. So why does AiG make this the gold standard of interpretation?

I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!​

Again he leaves out a key word. What he apparently means to say is "I must interpret Scripture only with Scripture."

Yet he himself does not, unless he is a flat-earther. He notes that many well-known and respected Christian leaders admit that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. It is equally true that if you take the Old Testament in a straight-forward way, it clearly states that the earth is set on foundations, does not move, and is situated under a dome-like sky through which the sun does move along with the moon and stars.

If the author believes the earth is a spherical planet circling the sun, he has imposed the teaching of extra-biblical science on Scripture and can no longer claim to interpret Scripture only through Scripture.

If you can accept some science from outside the bible when interpreting it, there is no point at which you are required to stop. Especially when the age of the earth is something the bible does not mention. It doesn't teach about billions of years, but it doesn't contradict it either. It does contradict the scientific concept of a moving earth though, yet most YECists are more prepared to deny the plain word of Scripture that the earth does not move, than a fallible human inference from scripture that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either.​

This is a bare-faced lie.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.​

A domino theory based on bad logic. He is claiming that if one believes X (a scientific proposition) one must also believe Y ( an immoral proposition).

But he has nothing to base that claim on. In fact thousands of God-fearing scientists and science-minded Christians do believe X while rejecting Y. They are simply not logically tied together.

 

[vossler]

What the author omits saying here is that it is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator when it is interpreted literally. That is what is clearly implied by AiG's whole theology. But nothing in the preceding phrases: Word of God, infallible revelation, omniscient God---requires a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I just love the way we like to discount interpreting things the way the were written because God didn't tell us to do so.

According to this line of thinking, who really knows, Genesis could have been an epiphany of Moses, or an allegorical tale, a myth, saga, plain fiction or reflexive fiction, maybe it was a surreal experience, one of many metaphors, how about a satire, then again it sure seems like a paradox, wait its figurative, or how about just a plain narration of what actually happened, nah that's absurd. Since God didn’t tell us which one, I guess we’re all going to have to come up with our own idea so that it will comply with our worldview.

Yeah that's the ticket!

 

[gluadys]

I just love the way we like to discount interpreting things the way the were written because God didn't tell us to do so.

And you keep confusing "the way they were written" with "literal". Those are two different concepts. If it was intentionally written as a myth, metaphor, allegory, whatever, then to interpret it literally is to fail to read it "as it was written".

 

[Jase]

I just love the way we like to discount interpreting things the way the were written because God didn't tell us to do so.

You are not interpreting things the way they were written. You are interpreting the way they were translated into English. What do you not understand about Hebrew not translating perfectly into English? Genesis, or Bereshit was never intended to even be read. It is in parallel, lyrical poetry, intended to be sung.

Since God didn’t tell us which one, I guess we’re all going to have to come up with our own idea so that it will comply with our worldview.

That's already being done. It's called denominations and sects. Of which there are tens of thousands.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!


the canon, the very table of contents of Scripture is itself not part of Scripture but part of general revelation, in particular, early church history.


You can not even define what is Scripture, what books are included and what books are excluded without looking outside the book itself.

 

[vossler]

If it was intentionally written as a myth, metaphor, allegory, whatever, then to interpret it literally is to fail to read it "as it was written".

True, but since even you can't claim how it was written, we're free to interpret as we see fit, right?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Who has given you the authority to say that is not what is is about? Are you God's interpreter?

Are you?

God gave us all brains, and a understanding that we would use them... even thousands of years later.

 

[The Lady Kate]

True, but since even you can't claim how it was written, we're free to interpret as we see fit, right?

Would you prefer we interpret as you see fit?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I just love the way we like to discount interpreting things the way the were written because God didn't tell us to do so.

According to this line of thinking, who really knows, Genesis could have been an epiphany of Moses, or an allegorical tale, a myth, saga, plain fiction or reflexive fiction, maybe it was a surreal experience, one of many metaphors, how about a satire, then again it sure seems like a paradox, wait its figurative, or how about just a plain narration of what actually happened, nah that's absurd. Since God didn’t tell us which one, I guess we’re all going to have to come up with our own idea so that it will comply with our worldview.

Yeah that's the ticket!

Could've been.... why are you afriad to rely on faith?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Because dominate societies though out history have invaded and conquered large portions of territory and either forced their language upon the conquered populations or had their language incorporated into the native languages.

Look at English. Half the world speaks English because the British Empire went around and conquered them all and today the center of the economic, social and cultural world is an English dominated society.

Similarly, most European languages are based on Latin... thanks to the Roman Empire.

 

[vossler]

Could've been.... why are you afraid to rely on faith?

Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God"

Which interpretation of the Word, yours, mine, gluadys, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God"

Which interpretation of the Word, yours, mine, gluadys, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

Word (capial W) = not the Bible.

Faith comes from Christ, the true Word of God. Why limit yourself to a literal Bible?

 

[vossler]

Word (capial W) = not the Bible.

Faith comes from Christ, the true Word of God. Why limit yourself to a literal Bible?

Ahh yes the age old TE argument. The Word of God isn't the Bible, how could I forget.

 

[theFijian]

Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God"

Which interpretation of the Word, yours, mine, gluadys, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

Well obviously you think we should all go by your interpretation, or are you going Roman Catholic on us again?