just wondering!

vossler said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

heatherwayno said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

heatherwayno said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

heatherwayno said:

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

Click to expand...

I read the whole article. Here are some comments.


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?


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.



This is a bare-faced lie.




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.

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

vossler said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

vossler said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

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.

gluadys said:

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".

Click to expand...

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

heatherwayno said:

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

Click to expand...

Are you?

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

vossler said:

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

Click to expand...

Would you prefer we interpret as you see fit?

vossler said:

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!

Click to expand...

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

MezzaMorta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

The Lady Kate said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

vossler said:

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.

Click to expand...

Word (capial W) = not the Bible.

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

The Lady Kate said:

Word (capial W) = not the Bible.

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

Click to expand...

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

vossler said:

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.

Click to expand...

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