Philosophical / Logical problems with YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution

[TheLostCoin]

How do you handle the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after being dead three days?

I have no problem with the supernatural, or God directly getting involved in our reality. My problem is that if something like Flood Geology doesn't really have a lot of the empirical and logical evidence going for it, you have the problem of God lying, which is something He can't do - either He lied about Genesis - particularly the Flood which even Saint Peter believed in and condemned "scoffers" who would not believe in it, or He lied via Geology with manipulating the fossils and strata layers.

God cannot lie - even a point which was made with Elisha's apprentice, who prophesied extraneous information to Jehu, going against Elisha's orders - all of which came true.

 

[redleghunter]

I have no problem with the supernatural, or God directly getting involved in our reality. My problem is that if something like Flood Geology doesn't really have a lot of the empirical and logical evidence going for it, you have the problem of God lying, which is something He can't do - either He lied about Genesis - particularly the Flood which even Saint Peter believed in and condemned "scoffers" who would not believe in it, or He lied via Geology with manipulating the fossils.

Or one can question if the fossil records are fact. Or if there is even a conflict between the two.

 

[Deborah D]

I have no problem with the supernatural, or God directly getting involved in our reality. My problem is that if something like Flood Geology doesn't really have a lot of the empirical evidence going for it, you have the problem of God lying, which is something He can't do - either He lied about Genesis and how man was made vegetarian, and the Flood which even Saint Peter believed in and condemned "scoffers" who would not believe in it, or He lied via Geology with manipulating the fossils.

Yes, God made man vegetarian, but EVERYTHING changed when Adam disobeyed God. God killed the first animal in order to clothe Adam and Eve. In the Garden they didn't need an immune system, but out of grace, God saw to it that they somehow had one outside the Garden, or mankind wouldn't have survived as microbes turned deadly. All of this was a result of sin. The whole Creation was adversely affected.

As for the Flood, here's a link to an interesting article: http://www.creationinstruction.org/sites/default/files/ftb_55_mount_st_helens.pdf

 

[trophy33]

True, and Hegel seemed to have left his Christian roots, at least to an extent.

If we would use only Christian works, we cannot use this computer or internet.

I think that usefulness or truth is just it, we do not have to search how much the author was an orthodox Christian. We are not accepting his theology, but looking for a logical solution of what TheLostCoin sees as two contradicting truths.

 

[trophy33]

My problem is that if something like Flood Geology doesn't really have a lot of the empirical and logical evidence going for it, you have the problem of God lying, which is something He can't do - either He lied about Genesis

This is a non sequitur.

If the Flood was not global, it does not follow that God lied. There are more possibilities than just such dichotomy:

a) Genesis is not talking about the planet as such, but about a local inhabitant land
b) we read the Genesis text in a wrong way, its purpose is not scientific
c) the Genesis text about the Flood was not inspired on every word level or was not inspired at all, maybe its just Moses's story what he heard in Egypt
d) the Genesis text we have today is not the original one
e) other possibilites somebody can think of

God is more than a book and our Bibles have 5,000 years of history, editing and copying. If something in it seems to contradict reality, I would never make a dichotomy "therefore God had to lie". He did not appeare before you and did not say it into your face, you are just working with a very, very, very old ancient text.

Its better to say "this text is not literaly true" than to say "God lied". You did not hear Him to say it.

 

[Deborah D]

This is a non sequitur.

If the Flood was not global, it does not follow that God lied. There are more possibilities than just such dichotomy:

a) Genesis is not talking about the planet as such, but about a local inhabitant land
b) we read the Genesis text in a wrong way, its purpose is not scientific
c) the Genesis text was not inspired on every word level or was not inspired at all, maybe its just Moses's story what he heard in Egypt
d) the Genesis text we have today is not the original one
e) other possibilites somebody can think of

God is more than a book and our Bibles have 5,000 years of history, editing and copying. If something in it seems to contradict reality, I would never make a dichotomy "therefore God had to lie". He did not appeare before you and did not say it into your face, you are just working with a very, very, very old ancient text.

Its better to say "this text is not literaly true" than to say "God lied". You did not hear Him to say it.

That's a slippery slope. Once you start saying the text of a certain passage in the Bible isn't true, where do you stop???

 

[trophy33]

That's a slippery slope. Once you start saying the text of a certain passage in the Bible isn't true, where do you stop???

Still better than to live a whole life in believing some error in the text and saying that either God had to lie or the reality must be a huge conspiracy, IMHO.

And that many texts in the bible are later editions is a known fact.

Bible of the 21st century in the American English is not God.

 

[Deborah D]

Still better than to live a whole life in believing some error in the text and saying that either God had to lie or the reality must be a huge conspiracy, IMHO.

And that many texts in the bible are later editions is a known fact.

Bible of the 21st century in the American English is not God.

Certainly, it's always a good thing to say that God never lies. That's what the Bible tells us, but if we question the inerrancy of the Bible, how do we know that verse is true...? See the problem? I think that God can oversee the translation of his words into other languages if the translators are intent on being true to the original text.

Edit: BTW, I'm aware that the original manuscripts are NOT in American English.

 

[trophy33]

Certainly, it's always a good thing to say that God never lies. That's what the Bible tells us, but if we question the inerrancy of the Bible, how do we know that verse is true...? See the problem? I think that God can oversee the translation of his words into other languages if the translators are intent on being true to the original text.

Edit: BTW, I'm aware that the original manuscripts are NOT in American English.

No, I do not see any problem, because the Bible is not the only source about God. There is also church, logic, theology, other Christian writings, science, reason etc. I do not accept the extreme view of the Sola Scriptura, if you do...

God did not give us the Bible to speculate about scientific history. But to know about the message of salvation. He does not care if you believe that Adam was riding a dinosaur.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

...there's really more to this than what you're implying here, TLC. Have you read anything from Conrad Hyers or from BioLogos, among others?

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.

Well then, what you need to do is take a book like Jerry Coyne's "Fact or Fiction" and just drill the heck out of it analytically, as well as study the Philosophy of Science and N.O.S. more deeply. Then, you won't have to concern yourself so much with maintaining a state of compartmentalization, because you'll come to see that this is how you SHOULD handle these two fields of thought.

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.

 

[Deborah D]

No, I do not see any problem, because the Bible is not the only source about God. There is also church, logic, theology, other Christian writings, science, reason etc. I do not accept the extreme view of the Sola Scriptura, if you do...

God did not give us the Bible to speculate about scientific history. But to know about the message of salvation. He does not care if you believe that Adam was riding a dinosaur.

You "sound" very combative about this. I'm just having a friendly discussion.

Edit: BTW, even though the Bible isn't a science book, it has a lot of science in it. Here's an interesting article you may want to read. I'm just full of them tonight!
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

 

[trophy33]

You "sound" very combative about this. I'm just having a friendly discussion.

Edit: BTW, even though the Bible isn't a science book, it has a lot of science in it.

I sound sound ;-) I have been to this many times. People trying to say "you must believe in the YEC or you are against God" etc.

No church creed in history was about such things.

Bible has also many mythological topics, poetry, drama etc. Its goal is not to give us biology or geology lessons. It was not written for the 21st century mindset. The OT was written for a primitive agricultural society that came out of Egypt and we must read it with that mindset.

 

[Deborah D]

I sound sound ;-) I have been to this many times. People trying to say "you must believe in the YEC or you are against God" etc.

No church creed in history was about such things.

Bible has also many mythological topics, poetry, drama etc. Its goal is not to give us biology or geology lessons.

I have no idea what YEC stands for, and no, the Bible doesn't contain mythology (except for some references to pagan mythology). That was mainly the Romans and Greeks. Did you look at the article I linked to?

 

[trophy33]

I have no idea what YEC stands for, and no, the Bible doesn't contain mythology. That was mainly the Romans and Greeks. Did you look at the article I linked to?

Mythology:
Leviathan in the sea
Leviathan trying to eat the sun

These two are just to prove the concept, I am too lazy too google it ;-) Just from the top of my head.

No, I did not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no idea what YEC stands for, and no, the Bible doesn't contain mythology. That was mainly the Romans and Greeks. Did you look at the article I linked to?

YEC simply stands for Young Earth Creationism, Sister Deborah D.

 

[Deborah D]

Mythology:
Leviathan in the sea
Leviathan trying to eat the sun

These two are just to prove the concept, I am too lazy too google it ;-) Just from the top of my head.

No, I did not.

Nope, not mythology at all! Leviathan was a real creature! Trying to eat the sun? What?

I found another interesting article: Leviathan real or symbolic - creation.com

 

[trophy33]

Nope, not mythology at all! Leviathan was a real creature! Trying to eat the sun?

Ok, if you believe that

"May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan." Jb 3:8
- in the ancient mythology, leviathan was to eat the sun; the text here means, that if it would happen, Job would not be born and therefore his suffering would not happen etc.

 

[Deborah D]

Ok, if you believe that

"May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan." Jb 3:8
- in the ancient mythology, leviathan was to eat the sun; the text here means, that if it would happen, Job would not be born and therefore his suffering would not happen etc.

I've never read anything about Leviathan eating the sun when Job cursed the day he was born. You have very different ideas about those passages.

 

[trophy33]

I've never read anything about Leviathan eating the sun when Job cursed the day he was born. You have very different ideas about those passages.

The cursing was about arousing the Leviathan. Therefore the day of his birth would not come. What else should it mean?

I know, you will not get this info on creation.com, icr.org and similar, trust me

I have this explanation in my Bible, below the text in marginal notes.

 

[Deborah D]

The cursing was about arousing the Leviathan. Therefore the day of his birth would not come. What else should it mean?

I know, you will not get this info on creation.com, icr.org and similar, trust me

I have this explanation in my Bible, below the text in marginal notes.

OK, but my point is that this doesn't mean that Leviathan was a mythological creature. No links this time!