Question about Preachers and Creationism defenders?

[PrincetonGuy]

I have experienced the indoctrination of evolution in the university classroom in the USA university PhD class in biology. When the professor interpreted a given matter in an evolutionary framework, I raised my hand and asked a few questions. He did not give me time to present evidence but he made his views about me very clear, 'Your views are blankety blank', and he swore at me with an ad hominem logical fallacy.

And you want me to believe that doctoral-level evolutionary scientists have a strong argument to make. I know that evolutionary biology professor I encountered in a doctoral class was indoctrinated in evolution and he did not want to argue any other view. Question begging fallacies are not what make for a reasonable defense of a position.

A professor’s job in the classroom is to teach—it is NOT to yield his teaching time to a student who desires to present a different view that has been proven false.

I notice your technique. You did not engage with what I stated about Leupold and his Hebrew scholarship. Put downs such as 'distinctly old school interpretation of Genesis' don't work for me because that is not dealing with the issues of the text. 'Old school' or 'new school' are perspectives that are not based on inductive exegesis of the text.

I do not know anything about Leupold’s knowledge of Hebrew. Dr. John Skinner, the author of the 1910 commentary on Genesis in the ICC series, was fluent in Hebrew and other ancient Semitic languages and frequently quotes literature in those languages. A comparison of his commentary with that of Leupold manifests that Leopold was decades behind in his interpretation. Indeed, he wrote on page 11 of his commentary,

5. Historical character of the Record

The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis. A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend.​

This view has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution—it is based upon studies of ancient Semitic literature.

What you have written so far in this thread indicates that you want to impose your secular evolutionary understanding on the biblical text. That's called eisegesis. When I see evolution coming from an exegesis of the biblical text, I'll believe you. In 40 years of exegesis of the text I have not found evolutionary means of creation by God to come from the Book of Genesis. But I've met my fair share of those like yourself who impose a secular evolutionary view on the text.

The Bible does not teach evolution or any other science, and I have NEVER suggested that it does.

As for scholars quoting Leupold in the last 30-40 years, I have heard a number of them - sound exegetes and expositors in the pulpits in the USA, Canada and here in Australia.

How many of those “scholars” were Old Testament scholars who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies?

 

[OzSpen]

A professor’s job in the classroom is to teach—it is NOT to yield his teaching time to a student who desires to present a different view that has been proven false.

A teacher's job in the classroom is NOT to swear at a student and NOT to put him down with the use of an ad hominem logical fallacy. A teacher's job in university is not to indoctrinate, but to provide evidence for his view.

I do not know anything about Leupold’s knowledge of Hebrew. Dr. John Skinner, the author of the 1910 commentary on Genesis in the ICC series, was fluent in Hebrew and other ancient Semitic languages and frequently quotes literature in those languages. A comparison of his commentary with that of Leupold manifests that Leopold was decades behind in his interpretation. Indeed, he wrote on page 11 of his commentary,

Of course you know Leupold's knowledge of Hebrew. All you have to do is read the commentary and his Hebrew knowledge is self evident.

You know that the International Critical Commentary series comes with a thorough-going modernism philosophy that dominates the interpretation.

5. Historical character of the Record

The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis. A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend.​

This view has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution—it is based upon studies of ancient Semitic literature.

It is not based on an inductive exegesis of the text but imposition of a worldview on the text.

The Bible does not teach evolution or any other science, and I have NEVER suggested that it does.

However, on this forum you are a promoter of an evolutionary view of understanding Genesis. How come, if you do not believe the Bible teaches evolution?

How many of those “scholars” were Old Testament scholars who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies?

You again commit a begging the question logical fallacy with this kind of comment.

 

[Alithis]

the OP desires answers..

yet asks people who cannot even begin to give such answers.
why do i say that?

because every idea,theory,scientific,philosophical or mere opinion is ultimately
conjecture founded in mans understanding..
the ONE thing we are told to NOT lean on .

"Trust in the LOrd with all your HEART and lean NOT on your own understanding"

that is the beginning of the only definitive answer there is.

 

[OzSpen]

the OP desires answers..

yet asks people who cannot even begin to give such answers.
why do i say that?

because every idea,theory,scientific,philosophical or mere opinion is ultimately
conjecture founded in mans understanding..
the ONE thing we are told to NOT lean on .

"Trust in the LOrd with all your HEART and lean NOT on your own understanding"

that is the beginning of the only definitive answer there is.

I find this to be an unfair assessment because the OP asked about Henry Morris and there were a number of posters who provided answers to the content of the OP. Yes, the OP desires answers re Henry Morris and he got them.

You stated:

every idea,theory,scientific,philosophical or mere opinion is ultimately conjecture founded in mans understanding..
the ONE thing we are told to NOT lean on .
​

Is your post also founded in a person's understanding?

You quoted that lovely, solid teaching: "Trust in the LOrd with all your HEART and lean NOT on your own understanding"

However, what is the meaning of 'heart'? I can't trust in the Lord with my 'heart' until I know what 'heart' means. Then, what is 'all your heart'? How can it be less than all?

I'm not being difficult, but there are a number of questions that arise for me from your statements that need answering.

Oz

 

[Alithis]

I find this to be an unfair assessment because the OP asked about Henry Morris and there were a number of posters who provided answers to the content of the OP. Yes, the OP desires answers re Henry Morris and he got them.

You stated:

every idea,theory,scientific,philosophical or mere opinion is ultimately conjecture founded in mans understanding..
the ONE thing we are told to NOT lean on .
​

Is your post also founded in a person's understanding?

You quoted that lovely, solid teaching: "Trust in the LOrd with all your HEART and lean NOT on your own understanding"

However, what is the meaning of 'heart'? I can't trust in the Lord with my 'heart' until I know what 'heart' means. Then, what is 'all your heart'? How can it be less than all?

I'm not being difficult, but there are a number of questions that arise for me from your statements that need answering.

Oz

you seriously don't know what it is to trust in the lord with all your heart?

do you perhaps know what it is to believe in Jesus with the heart?

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

...

how can one be a christian if one does not believe with the heart (not mind )?

 

[OzSpen]

you seriously don't know what it is to trust in the lord with all your heart?

do you perhaps know what it is to believe in Jesus with the heart?
...
how can one be a christian if one does not believe with the heart (not mind )?

I raised an issue regarding interpretation but you didn't take it seriously. You think you know what 'the heart' is, but you provided no evidence.

 

[Alithis]

I raised an issue regarding interpretation but you didn't take it seriously. You think you know what 'the heart' is, but you provided no evidence.

and you can?

for me it is to lay aside all humanistic reasoning and with abandonment to all self confidence ,"know" , that God is able to do all.

 

[OzSpen]

and you can?

for me it is to lay aside all humanistic reasoning and with abandonment to all self confidence ,"know" , that God is able to do all.

Michael,

Wouldn't a systematic theology approach be able to discern a biblical understanding of the meaning of 'heart'? I'm raising this issue as too often we accept the meaning of 'heart' with not too much thinking about what kardia means in the NT when it is applied to other than the physical heart of an individual.

Oz

 

[classicalhero]

Do let us know how that goes! I'd love to be there, but am halfway around the world right now, and would need most of that time and a lot of money to get there for it...

.

There should be showings around the world, so look up and see for one close to you. I know there is one in Perth that I am wanting to go to and it is not too far from where I live.

 

[classicalhero]

Membership rolls of very large mutually exclusive scientific societies include hundreds of thousands of members each. I used the number 3,000,000 because it is very easy to prove that there are today over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree—Dr.Sc., D.Sc., D.S., S.D., or Sc.D. In many countries, however, a Sc.D. is a higher degree than a Ph.D. in science, and requires substantially more education and a sustained contribution to scientific knowledge. For the past 40 years, creationist organizations have been searching for scientists who reject as untrue the theory of evolution. At this time, between 22 and 25 such scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science are known, and about five of these are currently employed as scientists (including teachers of a science at the college level). Most of the others are employed by religious organizations.

Science is never decided by numbers, but by facts. If that were the case then when you get sick you should bleed out the sickness and that will make you get better. Many times throughout history what was once scientific fact is science fiction the next decade.

Leopold’s commentary on Genesis was the first commentary on Genesis that I purchased. At the time that it was published, it presented a distinctly old school interpretation of Genesis. I have not seen it quoted by any scholars of Genesis in the last 30 or 40 years—have you?

There are several hundred Old Testament scholars who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies. The current interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is that it is a series of heavily redacted epic tales (or sagas, myths, or legends). This genre of literature is unique in the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 is more and more often being studied as a distinct and separate unit of Scripture. For a list of current academic-level commentaries on Genesis, please see here: Category: Books / Commentaries / Books of the Bible: Genesis / Difficulty: Technical - Christianbook.com Search

That is News to the New Testament writer who frequently referenced back to Geneisis and to the first 11 chapters also, o they must be "another section of scripture" also.
Genesis New Testament - creation.com

 

[Hammster]

That is News to the New Testament writer who frequently referenced back to Geneisis and to the first 11 chapters also, o they must be "another section of scripture" also.
Genesis New Testament - creation.com

Those guys didn't have the scholarship that's available today. Not even Jesus.

 

[classicalhero]

Are you saying that for thousands of years God hid the truth from us?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Science is never decided by numbers, but by facts. If that were the case then when you get sick you should bleed out the sickness and that will make you get better.

The practice of bloodletting began at least 2,500 years ago and continued to be a very common practice until the middle 1800’s when scientists challenged the misconceptions of surgeons and physicians and advocated for evidence-based medicine. The practice, however, did not stop until well in the 1900’s because some popular physicians refused to listen to the evidence against bloodletting.

Many times throughout history what was once scientific fact is science fiction the next decade.

Let us not confuse religion with science. What was once religious fact (geocentrism, for example) is religious fiction today. However, a very tiny percentage of “scientists” choose to believe an archaic interpretation of the Bible rather than the evidence from science.

That is News to the New Testament writer who frequently referenced back to Geneisis and to the first 11 chapters also, o they must be "another section of scripture" also.
Genesis New Testament - creation.com

The stories in Genesis 1-11 were very popular and were used by both Old and New Testament writers to teach lessons.

 

[OzSpen]

Science is never decided by numbers, but by facts. If that were the case then when you get sick you should bleed out the sickness and that will make you get better. Many times throughout history what was once scientific fact is science fiction the next decade.

That is News to the New Testament writer who frequently referenced back to Geneisis and to the first 11 chapters also, o they must be "another section of scripture" also.
Genesis New Testament - creation.com

Excellent points, Classical. I'm indeed grateful for those at CMI who have done the hard yards in demonstrating the NT use of the Book of Genesis that you provided in that link.

Thanks so much for your input.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

We find in the New Testament three places where the story of Noah and the ark is used to teach a lesson, and yet we know for certain that such a flood did not occur. Therefore, the story is an epic tale, a saga, a legend, or a myth. It is written in the very same genre as the rest of Genesis 1-11, and the only sustainable conclusion is that all of Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, legends, or myths.

The people as CMI are very much aware of the indescribably massive amount of evidence that the flood did not occur, but they insist upon teaching what is easily proven to be false. They are also very much aware of the damage that they are causing to the Christian faith by commingling the gospel with young-earth anti-evolution propaganda, but they keep on doing it!

 

[Hammster]

I know for an undeniable fact that the flood happened. And I have irrefutable proof.

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

We find in the New Testament three places where the story of Noah and the ark is used to teach a lesson, and yet we know for certain that such a flood did not occur. Therefore, the story is an epic tale, a saga, a legend, or a myth. It is written in the very same genre as the rest of Genesis 1-11, and the only sustainable conclusion is that all of Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, legends, or myths.

The people as CMI are very much aware of the indescribably massive amount of evidence that the flood did not occur, but they insist upon teaching what is easily proven to be false. They are also very much aware of the damage that they are causing to the Christian faith by commingling the gospel with young-earth anti-evolution propaganda, but they keep on doing it!

You have here imposed your presuppositions on the biblical text. There is not a word in the NT or anywhere else that I know of in the Bible that describes Noah's flood as an epic tale, saga, legend or myth. That is the language of modernist, historical criticism that denies the authority of Scripture.

And it seems to be your presupposition as well.

Why must you misrepresent CMI and what their research at both lay and scholarly level has concluded on Noah's Flood? This is but a sample of their articles and they refute your claim about CMI. They have dozens of articles online to refute your false allegation. I'm not here to defend CMI, but when you make statements contrary to fact, I need to expose them.

Here are a few samples of articles from CMI on Noah's Flood:

'Noah's flood covered the whole earth' (Creation Ministries International);

'The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah’s Flood in Australia' (Tas Walker, CMI);

'Seeing Noah’s Flood in geological maps' (Tas Walker, CMI);

'Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood' (Andrew Snelling & Steven Austin, CMI)

And there are stacks more articles in support of Noah's flood - not mythology, by actuality - at Creation Ministries International.

Here's additional evidence from CMI of whales in a desert. How come? '80 whales buried mysteriously in Chilean desert: Marine graveyard is evidence for Noah’s Flood' (Tas Walker, CMI)


Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I know for an undeniable fact that the flood happened. And I have irrefutable proof.

An assertion doesn't assist our cause. Please provide your 'irrefutable proof' and please don't do it by saying something like, 'I believe what the Bible says and that is all the proof I need'.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If anyone wants to know the truth about the Genesis flood, all they need to do is visit a pet shop that sells freshwater fish and saltwater fish and notice two things:

1. The saltwater fish and other marine animals are housed separately from the freshwater fish.

2. The saltwater fish and other marine animals are being kept alive by using expensive equipment.

The expensive equipment is necessary to keep the saltwater fish and other marine animals alive because they evolved in a constant ecosystem and, therefore, lack the ability to adapt to changes in their ecosystem. The expensive equipment keeps the ecosystem constant. Freshwater fish, on the other hand, evolved in a much less constant ecosystem and, therefore, have the ability to adapt to changes in their ecosystem. Hence, the expensive equipment is not necessary.

Had the Genesis flood occurred, the saltwater fish and other marine animals would have died. Indeed, the changes to the water chemistry would have been so severe that nearly all of the kinds of freshwater fish would have also died. CMI knows this, and they are constantly reminded of it, but their ministry is their livelihood.

 

[OzSpen]

If anyone wants to know the truth about the Genesis flood, all they need to do is visit a pet shop that sells freshwater fish and saltwater fish and notice two things:

1. The saltwater fish and other marine animals are housed separately from the freshwater fish.

2. The saltwater fish and other marine animals are being kept alive by using expensive equipment.

The expensive equipment is necessary to keep the saltwater fish and other marine animals alive because they evolved in a constant ecosystem and, therefore, lack the ability to adapt to changes in their ecosystem. The expensive equipment keeps the ecosystem constant. Freshwater fish, on the other hand, evolved in a much less constant ecosystem and, therefore, have the ability to adapt to changes in their ecosystem. Hence, the expensive equipment is not necessary.

Had the Genesis flood occurred, the saltwater fish and other marine animals would have died. Indeed, the changes to the water chemistry would have been so severe that nearly all of the kinds of freshwater fish would have also died. CMI knows this, and they are constantly reminded of it, but their ministry is their livelihood.

Why are you thinking as a naturalist and not as a Hebrew exegete of Scripture? Exegesis of the text gives meaning and not your presuppositional, evolutionary, mythological material. When will you allow the text to speak for itself?

I have presented evidence to contradict your view of CMI and their understanding of the universal flood in Noah's time. Why aren't you listening?

You state:

Had the Genesis flood occurred, the saltwater fish and other marine animals would have died.

You eliminate one critical person - the almighty Lord God of the supernatural. The flood in Noah's time was a supernatural event (see Gen 7:11-12, 19) and God's actions determined who survived and how they then lived on the earth.

Naturalism and historical critical assumptions seem to be dominating what you require of the flood in Noah's time. I don't buy into it. I'm sticking with exegesis of the text and that provides information that contradicts what you are presenting.