Not interested in God's word?

[philadiddle]

I wonder why some YECs reject other understandings of God's word, without even looking into them. The word "liberal" gets thrown out there as if that's an excuse to reject centuries of theological work done by followers of Jesus.

If you believe that the bible is God's word, and someone says to you "Hey, look at how the ancient culture understood it and look at how that meaning applies to us!" then why would you put your fingers in your ears and yell "LIBERAL GARBAGE!!" This is the word of God, if someone can give me insight into it's meaning then why wouldn't I want to hear it? Even if I don't fully agree, I can still learn what it means to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

How many times have Christians gone back to a passage in the New Testament and gotten something new out of it? I always reread passages and God shows me something new. Why can't that happen with some YECs and the creation account? It seems to me that some people have to protect their interpretation of the creation account as if it was their god.

You don't know how many times I've said on this board "We can understand how the ancient people interpretted this and we can apply that meaning to us" and the YEC response has been "I don't even want to ask you about it, you're wrong."

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

Perhaps it might be better to authenticate what you're saying with some verified facts. Let's try.

What is believed by followers of the Lord today that was not believed or practiced between 50-100 AD, and what evidence do you have to substantiate any claim you might make?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

hi phil,

Perhaps it might be better to authenticate what you're saying with some verified facts. Let's try.

What is believed by followers of the Lord today that was not believed or practiced between 50-100 AD, and what evidence do you have to substantiate any claim you might make?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

William Lane Craig quotes Christian scholarship (and of course he is also a scholar) about the necessity of creationism. The second half he has statistical objections but that section of the video is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. He includes quotes from St. Augustine which predate Darwin by 1500 years.

William Lane Craig describes EVOLUTION from a christian standpoint - YouTube

Yet despite how the vast majority of scholars see the issue, the layman who has visited the AiG site keeps saying "Nuh-uh, they must be liberal scholars." Why not hear what they have to say? What do you think you would lose if someone explained the context of the creation account to you and the meaning we can derive from that?

 

[juvenissun]

I wonder why some YECs reject other understandings of God's word, without even looking into them. The word "liberal" gets thrown out there as if that's an excuse to reject centuries of theological work done by followers of Jesus.

If you believe that the bible is God's word, and someone says to you "Hey, look at how the ancient culture understood it and look at how that meaning applies to us!" then why would you put your fingers in your ears and yell "LIBERAL GARBAGE!!" This is the word of God, if someone can give me insight into it's meaning then why wouldn't I want to hear it? Even if I don't fully agree, I can still learn what it means to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

How many times have Christians gone back to a passage in the New Testament and gotten something new out of it? I always reread passages and God shows me something new. Why can't that happen with some YECs and the creation account? It seems to me that some people have to protect their interpretation of the creation account as if it was their god.

You don't know how many times I've said on this board "We can understand how the ancient people interpretted this and we can apply that meaning to us" and the YEC response has been "I don't even want to ask you about it, you're wrong."

Hey, don't make mistake on this. I agree with you on your interpretation. It is simple and intuitive and reasonable. There is nothing wrong with it.

But YEC's interpretation is hard and is debatable. It is not I do not agree with you. It is YOU do not agree with me. For example, you may give any meaning you have to the Noah's Flood, I think I can agree with you. Except when you started to say: it is not a true flood.

 

[philadiddle]

But YEC's interpretation is hard and is debatable. It is not I do not agree with you. It is YOU do not agree with me. For example, you may give any meaning you have to the Noah's Flood, I think I can agree with you. Except when you started to say: it is not a true flood.

Thank you for posting this, it allows me to clarify what I mean.

I don't agree with you, but I still accept that your view is a valid Christian view to have. I constantly get told by YECs (though not you) that my understanding is a liberal cop-out that conforms to the thoughts of man and calls God a liar. I'm told that my view isn't really Christian and the meaning is bogus.

While I don't agree with you on the historocity of the flood, I still think that the meaning you give it is a valid meaning that is compatible with the message of the gospel.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

Well, I can understand your position regarding how you understand the creation account, however, you're 'assumption' that those of us who believe otherwise are somehow fearful to investigate your position is invalid. Friend, I have heard, listened to and pondered all of the claims; all of the various 'interpretations', but I am convicted by the Spirit, the word, prayer and study and more prayer and more study and just who I know God to be and the power and majesty and wisdom and knowledge that He is, that what He wrote in the creation account as regards the time and duration of His work in miraculously forming and creating all that is in this realm in which man lives, is accurate in what the Holy Spirit had written to us.

I am confirmed by two perfectly logical and sound reasons. Throughout all of God's word when 'yom' is used and it is attached to a number it is always in every other case in all of the Scriptures referring to a specific day as we understand a day. Second, that God, through His Spirit did confirm and further identify the word 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning. Friend, I have set this challenge out over and over again and no one has taken me up on it. You claim that I'm not the one who will consider your side, well, I'm sitting here right this moment saying to you, "Hey, you consider my issues." Give me answers to explain how I might be misunderstanding what I'm basing my faith on."

Nowhere in all the Scriptures or even in the writings of men since the days of Adam, has there ever been written that an age, eon, or any other understanding of the word 'yom' been defined as an evening and a morning. So, there it is! Go ahead! Knock yourself out. Reply back to me with even a singular example that would make me to think, "Oh, I could be wrong!"

As far as scientific methods, no, you're not likely to sway me with the intelligence of men. First of all, I understand that by the very definition of 'miracle' it is an event that occurs that has no reasonabe, logical, scientific explanation. The creation was a miracle. You can explain to me the speed of light and I fully understand how fast and by what method light travels. You'll get no argument from me that light travels just as scientists tell us that it does. But the creation of light, well now that's a bit of a different subject. You see, the God I know, when He said let there be stars and planets and heavenly bodies in the universe for man to tell times and seasons, He has the power to make that light immediately visible to every eye in the whole of the universe - and then, after it's initial creation light operates under natural laws.

I posted on another thread yesterday this question based on the Scriptures:

Hezekiah had asked Isaiah, "What will be the sign that the LORD will heal me and that I will go up to the temple of the LORD on the third day from now?" Isaiah answered, "This is the LORD's signhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 to you that the LORD will do what he has promised: Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?" "It is a simplehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps," said Hezekiah. "Rather, have it go back ten steps." Then the prophet Isaiah called upon the LORD, and the LORD made the shadow go backhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.

How did God do that? How did God make a shadow, an apparition that is only created by the light of the sun shining over an object go backwards the distance of ten steps?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

Friend, I have heard, listened to and pondered all of the claims; all of the various 'interpretations',

Since you have already heard and pondered other claims this should be an easy question for you.

Can you briefly explain how theologians understand the flood account in light of the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, explain the differences, explain what that means to us today, and then tell me why you don't accept that meaning?

Throughout all of God's word when 'yom' is used and it is attached to a number it is always in every other case in all of the Scriptures referring to a specific day as we understand a day.

I agree with you here, it does mean "day". Just like when God opens up the windows of heaven to make it rain, the word literally means "windows". But that doesn't mean it is referring to actual windows. Why use the word then? Because the ancient isrealites actually thought there were windows in the firmament.

Are there other reasons they could have used the word "day" even though they might not have been referring to an historical day?

Second, that God, through His Spirit did confirm and further identify the word 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning.

Could there have been other reasons they repeated "evening and morning" that have more meaning to the ancient audience? Or were they only interested in a science lesson?

Friend, I have set this challenge out over and over again and no one has taken me up on it. You claim that I'm not the one who will consider your side, well, I'm sitting here right this moment saying to you, "Hey, you consider my issues." Give me answers to explain how I might be misunderstanding what I'm basing my faith on."

Sure, let me know what other issues you have.

Nowhere in all the Scriptures or even in the writings of men since the days of Adam, has there ever been written that an age, eon, or any other understanding of the word 'yom' been defined as an evening and a morning. So, there it is! Go ahead! Knock yourself out. Reply back to me with even a singular example that would make me to think, "Oh, I could be wrong!"

I don't think I'm going to convince you in one go that you could be wrong, but let's start with my questions above and go from there.

I cut the rest of your post because the science stuff isn't the focus here, and we both agree that God can do miracles. Those aren't the issues.

 

[juvenissun]

Thank you for posting this, it allows me to clarify what I mean.

I don't agree with you, but I still accept that your view is a valid Christian view to have. I constantly get told by YECs (though not you) that my understanding is a liberal cop-out that conforms to the thoughts of man and calls God a liar. I'm told that my view isn't really Christian and the meaning is bogus.

While I don't agree with you on the historocity of the flood, I still think that the meaning you give it is a valid meaning that is compatible with the message of the gospel.

Again, YEC criticize you because you reject YEC's interpretation. But not because YEC does not agree with your (positive) interpretation.

You should say: The Flood means: ....
But not say: The Flood does not mean ...

 

[philadiddle]

Again, YEC criticize you because you reject YEC's interpretation. But not because YEC does not agree with your (positive) interpretation.

You should say: The Flood means: ....
But not say: The Flood does not mean ...

That is true for some, but there are also some YECs who tell me that my view isn't biblical and that my view leads to the rejection of the gospel. The latter group is the one that I am addressing here.

 

[juvenissun]

That is true for some, but there are also some YECs who tell me that my view isn't biblical and that my view leads to the rejection of the gospel. The latter group is the one that I am addressing here.

Example, please. What did you say is taken as a rejection of the Gospel?

 

[philadiddle]

Example, please. What did you say is taken as a rejection of the Gospel?

The view that original sin didn't take place as described in Genesis is taken by some to be a rejection of the Gospel.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

You asked: Can you briefly explain how theologians understand the flood account in light of the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, explain the differences, explain what that means to us today, and then tell me why you don't accept that meaning?

I'm not sure that the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamish is a myth. The account opens up explaining that Gilgamesh knew of things that happened before the flood. If we read the Scriptures account of the descendents of the three sons of Noah we know that, just as in the days after Adam and Eve, men began to build nations and the sons of Noah lived very long lives. They lived before the flood and endured the flood and would have been able to tell people of things before the flood. The only issue here is the name Gilgamesh is not found in the Scriptures, but it's very common that different cultures often spelled or called personal names differently. For example, even today, you cannot really spell Mohammar Ghaddafi's name in english and so we use a phonetic spelling. This is actually very common with names of different cultures, esp. middle east.

As to how theologians might explain these events in light of the Gilgamesh account, honestly, you'd have to ask them. Many of the one's I've read claim that the Gilgamesh account does actually verify that there was apparently a great flood. Earth changing.

You then posted: I agree with you here, it does mean "day". Just like when God opens up the windows of heaven to make it rain, the word literally means "windows". But that doesn't mean it is referring to actual windows.

Yes, but God doesn't then say, I shall open the windows of heaven, made of glass panes... My argument is that I fully agree with you that 'yom' could have a metaphorical intent until God then defines each day as consisting of an evening and a morning.

You asked: Could there have been other reasons they repeated "evening and morning" that have more meaning to the ancient audience? Or were they only interested in a science lesson?

Well, that's exactly what I'm asking of you. Show me where such a grammatical structure was ever used anywhere else, even in the writings of man. And, friend, it's not that God was interested in giving us a science lesson, it's that God was interested in telling us the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[juvenissun]

The view that original sin didn't take place as described in Genesis is taken by some to be a rejection of the Gospel.

First, this has little to do with creationism.
Second, I think the theology of original sin is developed in the New Testament, not in the Genesis nor in the Old Testament.

So, if you have a different view on the origin of sin, you are debating on New Testament Books.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

First, this has little to do with creationism.
Second, I think the theology of original sin is developed in the New Testament, not in the Genesis nor in the Old Testament.

So, if you have a different view on the origin of sin, you are debating on New Testament Books.

He hasn't got a clue about the origin of sin....or death.

 

[dannyevans]

Hi Phil,
You have brought up a good topic! William Lane Craig is not a liberal theologian. He has said that he is open to where the evidence leads. But I would like to make an important point here, these are secondary issues and should not be brought in the topic of rejecting the gospel. The age of the universe in any way does not affect a person's salvation.
Bible is silent on the issue how did God create?(I mean the procedure). Theistic evolutionists have their view and so do progressive creationists. We should not think our fellow believers on the other camps with their own world view are inferior or in anyway bad in terms of being religious. Listen to Francis Collins, he will have his own view. For example, how old adam would have been when he was created? Did he just pop into existence or in a progressive manner? But if you see the order in which the creation progresses you can see the parallel between scientific findings and the Biblical account.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

I think the theology of original sin is developed in the New Testament, not in the Genesis nor in the Old Testament.

So, if you have a different view on the origin of sin, you are debating on New Testament Books.

Yes, that seems clear - no mention of original sin in the OT.

danny wrote:

But if you see the order in which the creation progresses you can see the parallel between scientific findings and the Biblical account.

Except the fossil record/other scientific evidence doesn't match the order in Genesis. A comparison is below. Usually, it is first claimed that they match, then when looking at Genesis shows that they don't, creationists move the goalposts to say that they aren't supposed to be chronological, but instead are in "topical order" or some other evasion.


Day
Thing Created
Comment




Initial State
Watery abyss
Land has always existed on Earth



1
Light (no Sun yet)
Light without sun?



2
Firmament/inverted bowl
Hebrew word shows this to be solid



3
Dry land, then All land plants
But sea animals preceded land plants



4
Moon, Sun and the whole universe
After land plants? but all that actually preceded land plants



5
Aquatic Animals & Birds
Birds before animals on land? Aquatic animals after land plants?


6
Land animals and humans
Different order than Genesis 2


Papias

 

[dannyevans]

Hi Papias,
Sun and moon were already created on day 1(I don't mean 24 hour day and will remain same for all the days I mention) they became visible when the atmosphere of earth becomes transparent.

day1
Heavens and earth are created(biblical) big bang(science)
day2
waters separate(b) earth's atmosphere changes(s)
day3
dry land appears plant life begins(b) bacteria and algae grow(s)
day4
sun moon and stars are visible(b) earth's atmosphere changes(s)
day5
first animal life in water and air(b) multicellular life appears in water, winged insects appear(s)
day6
land animals and humans appear(b) land animals appear and later human life appears(s).

you have said that universe is created on day 4. that's not the case. The heavens and earth are created in the beginning out of nothing. Ex nihil nihil fit!

 

[Kirkwhisper]

But if you see the order in which the creation progresses you can see the parallel between scientific findings and the Biblical account.

There is no parallel. They are antithetical.

 

[philadiddle]

First, this has little to do with creationism.
Second, I think the theology of original sin is developed in the New Testament, not in the Genesis nor in the Old Testament.

So, if you have a different view on the origin of sin, you are debating on New Testament Books.

Like I said, it may not be you who thinks my views of original sin discredit the gospel message, but there are others who think it does. This thread obviously isn't directed at you.

 

[dannyevans]

List the reasons for why do you think they are antithetical.