• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Learn the lessons of history

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This bit is from another thread, but is probably better as a separate discussion:

As for the evidence of God's Creation, let's consider the Geocentrism fiasco for a moment. The Church believed that the Sun and the stars revolved around the earth, and insisted that Scripture mandated this was true, and yes, a plain reading without taking the evidence of God's creation into account would indicate Geocentrism. They believed that to deny geocentrism was to deny the validity of the Scripture. Then camea time when we were better able to observe and understand the evidence of God's Creation. Based on that evidence, the Christian community had to finally acknowledge that their initial interpretation of Scripture was faulty, even though it WAS based on a plain, literal reading.

In short, without taking into consideration BOTH the Scripture and the Creation, it can sometimes be difficult for us to choose between two or more possible interpretations of a given Scripture. There had always been more than one interpretation and the Scripture had ALWAYS been correct, but it was not until man chose the correct interpretation (even though it was the less "plain" one) that the conflict was resolved.

I am sure that for a long time after the truth became obvious about geocentrism, there were stubborn groups who insisted that the majority of Christians (who had accepted the scientific facts and realized that the alternate interpretation was correct) had just compromised their beliefs to accomodate the World. The clung to their geocentrist interpretation and believed that they were the ones standing firm for God and the Scripture. They were wrong, of course.

I believe the same is happening now. The majority of the Christian community has accepted an old earth, and even the truth of evolution to some degree. They have realized that their human interpretation of Genesis had been faulty. There still is, however, a group which is following in the philosophical footsteps of the "geocentrist holdouts", and they are the YEC's.

BTW, there are still some people who hold out for Geocentrism to this day.
 

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Vance said:
In short, without taking into consideration BOTH the Scripture and the Creation, it can sometimes be difficult for us to choose between two or more possible interpretations of a given Scripture. There had always been more than one interpretation and the Scripture had ALWAYS been correct, but it was not until man chose the correct interpretation (even though it was the less "plain" one) that the conflict was resolved.

Interesting that you make this post that cuts Ross off at the knees and then make a post advocating Ross. :scratch: Are you thinking thru the consequences of what you are saying?

Ross said that you have to have a literal intrerpretation of Genesis. At least a literal interpretation of direct creation of most species -- including humans.

I am sure that for a long time after the truth became obvious about geocentrism, there were stubborn groups who insisted that the majority of Christians (who had accepted the scientific facts and realized that the alternate interpretation was correct) had just compromised their beliefs to accomodate the World. The clung to their geocentrist interpretation and believed that they were the ones standing firm for God and the Scripture. They were wrong, of course.

And Ross is wrong to insist on special creation. As are all other creationists.

BTW, evangelical Christians made your point in a lot fewer words over 170 years ago when they said:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

As you say, some people simply don't want to change THEIR human, fallible, interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, I don't agree with everything Ross says, that is for sure. The long lives of early humans, for example. And I think he discounts the extent to which evolution explains our biodiversity for another. I do believe in a special creation as well, however, just not in the same way as him. In short, he gets it right in the old-earth and regional flood points, especially the former, due to his astrophysicist background, but I think he still suffers a bit from evolution-phobia.

My difference is that, while I believe that a special creation took place (not only as a first cause, but an ongoing presence), I am not arrogant enough to assume I know how and where He took such actions.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Vance said:
My difference is that, while I believe that a special creation took place (not only as a first cause, but an ongoing presence), I am not arrogant enough to assume I know how and where He took such actions.

Ross is useful when YECers claim that Big Bang is anti-Christian, since Ross thinks BB actually proves direct creation by God.

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "special creation ... an ongoing presence". Do you think there are discontinuities in creation as God zapped particular entities into existence without any connection to previous entities?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.