Romans 14

[YahwehLove]

you have the right interpretation - in violation of your own proclamation- Or not?

Im glad someone got brave enough to point this out.

I cant figure out how so adamant about a pov that isnt even decided on 100% yet.

Which is why no one will talk me into common decent again.

 

[Vance]

Well Vance,

You've got a bit of a problem here. On the one hand you contend for a particular interpretation. In so doing, you insinuate others, like myself are arrogant and wrong in our own convictions. Yet you continue on to say:

"To assert that you, or your church, or your denomination, etc, is the ONE among the multitude that has gotten it all right would be . . . Well, it would be wrong, for one thing."​

So I do not know how you can take a firm stance. Do you feel you have the right interpretation - in violation of your own proclamation- Or not?

Or could you be simply stating: "I don't know what the truth is, I just know nobody has it."?

I contend for a particular interpretation because it is the one I Think is most likely true. I am very convinced of it, but I am humble enough to realize I could be mistaken. You and some other YEC's do not have the same approach. You believe that you are, indeed, omniscient on Biblical interpretive matters, which is not only arrogant, but full of pride and hubris.

And my firm stance is that it is simply not possible that you are the one, out of the millions of Christians who has every interpretive matter entirely correct. Of this I am sure, since no human is perfect, and the Holy Spirit does not guide you any more than it guides me or the millions of other Christians who have reached different conclusions.

And yes, I do indeed believe that nobody has the entire truth on every single interpretive issue in Scripture. Are you willing to say that you are that one person in the history of Christianity who has it all correct, 100%?

If not, then you are saying, correctly, that you can be wrong on some interpretive issues. That doesn't mean you don't have confidence that you are right, only that you recognize that, in any given interpretation you could be wrong, and that you know that you must be wrong on at least one interpretation somewhere.

 

[YahwehLove]

I contend for a particular interpretation because it is the one I Think is most likely true. I am very convinced of it, but I am humble enough to realize I could be mistaken. You and some other YEC's do not have the same approach. You believe that you are, indeed, omniscient on Biblical interpretive matters, which is not only arrogant, but full of pride and hubris.

This is just absurd.
Youre saying that its arrogant to say it says 6 days WHEN WHAT?!?!
IT SAYS 6 DAYS

And my firm stance is that it is simply not possible that you are the one, out of the millions of Christians who has every interpretive matter entirely correct. Of this I am sure, since no human is perfect, and the Holy Spirit does not guide you any more than it guides me or the millions of other Christians who have reached different conclusions.

but the text SAYS 6 DAYS

And yes, I do indeed believe that nobody has the entire truth on every single interpretive issue in Scripture. Are you willing to say that you are that one person in the history of Christianity who has it all correct, 100%?

Were not talking trying to understand predestination here with its seemingly conflicting passages.
The bible ONLY teaches a 6 day creation and i challenge you to show it does otherwise

If not, then you are saying, correctly, that you can be wrong on some interpretive issues. That doesn't mean you don't have confidence that you are right, only that you recognize that, in any given interpretation you could be wrong, and that you know that you must be wrong on at least one interpretation somewhere.

We can all be wrong in things like OSAS or predestination as passages seem to conflict.
They do NOT conflict with a 6 day creation ever.
a 6 day creation ONLY conflicts with mans inability to accept that God could have done it just the way He said.

 

[California Tim]

And yes, I do indeed believe that nobody has the entire truth on every single interpretive issue in Scripture. Are you willing to say that you are that one person in the history of Christianity who has it all correct, 100%?

We're not talking about "every single" interpretive issue, we're focusing on ONE issue. At least I am anyway. If you want my opinion on other issues, feel free to ask, but in this forum we are talking origins and in particular Genesis 1. Insofar as this ONE issue is concerned, there is a right interpretation and a wrong one. Since we stand on polar opposites, I think we may safely conclude at least one of us is wrong - on this ONE issue.

So far, the basis for my interpetation is centered on the Bible itself, it's reliability, its internal guide to interpetation, acceptance of infallibility and its final authority on all issues contained within. The arguments levelled against this approach, so far, have been extra-Biblical, including secular science, fallible human interpretations of unrelated scripture, doubt about the sanctity of the Holy Spirit in preserving His word through translations and cultures, human logic and philosophy - all indicating that the Bible takes a subservient position when in presumed contradiction with scientific or humanistic philosophical conclusions. It's hard for me to release my dependence on God's word as the final authority on issues discussed within its pages, therefore I cannot retreat to a "neutral" position simply to satisfy others who've yet to be convinced of the accuracy and reliablity of His word.

 

[versastyle]

I think we may safely conclude at least one of us is wrong - on this ONE issue.

I think you are both wrong. Go figure.

 

[Vance]

Yahwehlove:

If you still can not grasp the idea of how the use of the six days language can be a figurative use, then this is simply not worth my time. I would recommend you do some reading on the subject. Seriously. If you are interested in learning about the exegetical possibilities beyond your current presumptions, then here are a few places to start:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-96Kline.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making%20Sense%20of%20Genesis%201

http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science%A0

 

[Vance]

"So far, the basis for my interpetation is centered on the Bible itself, it's reliability, its internal guide to interpetation, acceptance of infallibility and its final authority on all issues contained within."

Oddly this is my basis as well.

My point of the question is to find out whether you acknowledge you could be wrong on interpretive issues. If you agree that you can be, then this means that you could be on this very issue. Now, we can debate the pros and cons of our different approaches, but neither one of us can possibly be 100% sure that our viewpoint is correct. The difference is that I accept this fact, but I am not sure you do. I don't think you are in the same boat YL is in, but I would like confirmation of that.

 

[Vance]

And here is a review of The Genesis Debate:

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?56

While I do not hold to any of these three views completely, it shows that there are, indeed, strong supported views for views other than the six, 24-hour days.

 

[YahwehLove]

Now dont get me wrong friend.
Im not saying I dont understand how it could be taken as allegory.
I was TE till i was about 34 or so.
I do grasp OE and long ages.
I used to believe that the days were symbolic of long ages.
So please dont think I dont understand where your coming from, I do very much so.
In about 85 or 86 I was working with these people who were YEC and I was old earth/TE.
I remember the long debates and trying to get them to see that a ''day'' didnt mean a ''day'' as we understand it.

I remember very well that side of the tracks.
I totally understand your pov and agree 100% from a naturalistic stance that evolution seems to make sense. Well, other than a few sticking points about genetic information loss/gain.

But I was taking sciences stance without understanding what Gods word really was saying

you know, its funny.
When it happened, I wasnt looking to disprove TE or anything.
I just started to fall in love with Gods word.
I couldnt get enough of reading and praying.
I remember my 3 day weekend for New years one year.
I chased the ex wife and kids out of my room and locked the door and spent 3 of the most wonderful days with God and my bible Ive ever experienced.

it was around that time that I really gave up TE.
Not sure if it was then tho.
It wasnt an immediate change either.
I remember struggling because TE makes so much sense to the mind.
But I had to accept what Gods word says.
What it draws attention to and why.

But I know some have done just the opposite. So it doesnt mean much to anyone else.

Anyway, please dont think I dont understand where your coming from. I really do

Yahwehlove:

If you still can not grasp the idea of how the use of the six days language can be a figurative use, then this is simply not worth my time. I would recommend you do some reading on the subject. Seriously. If you are interested in learning about the exegetical possibilities beyond your current presumptions, then here are a few places to start:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-96Kline.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making%20Sense%20of%20Genesis%201

http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science%A0

 

[Vance]

Well, if you think I am arguing for yom meaning long ages, then I think you are still limiting your perspective. I would still recommend a review of those essays I linked so you can see what I am talking about.

 

[California Tim]

"So far, the basis for my interpetation is centered on the Bible itself, it's reliability, its internal guide to interpetation, acceptance of infallibility and its final authority on all issues contained within."

Oddly this is my basis as well.

My point of the question is to find out whether you acknowledge you could be wrong on interpretive issues. If you agree that you can be, then this means that you could be on this very issue. Now, we can debate the pros and cons of our different approaches, but neither one of us can possibly be 100% sure that our viewpoint is correct. The difference is that I accept this fact, but I am not sure you do. I don't think you are in the same boat YL is in, but I would like confirmation of that.

On an issue that is not directly related to my salvation, there is a degree of lattitude I am willing to concede in my ability to correctly interpret what the Bible is saying. On the other hand, if I felt I was wrong, or even if there was a reasonable likelihood I was wrong, I would not present a defense of that position, but rather would be either questioning the apparent loose ends that prevented me from fully accepting the given position, or I would be elsewhere researching the matter. Could I be wrong? Yes. Am I wrong on this issue? I don't think so. Could I also be wrong about Christ and salvation? Sure - if the Bible is wrong. Am I wrong about it? I doubt it and hope not. (actually I am certain of it - even though I used it as an example) Are the two connected? I believe so, insofar as the acceptance of scriptural authority is concerned.

I would like to clarify one last time where I formulate my opinion on matters like the Genesis account after beginning with prayer and willingness to accept what is revealed in His word:

Step #1 (for me): Accept the Bible as the true, inspired, innerrant word preserved even for me to this day.
Step #2 (for me): Read what the Bible says directly about a subject in question - if anything
Step #3 (for me): Read what the Bible says indirectly about what I just read directly in the Bible about the subject in question.
Step #4 (for me) Read what the Bible says indirectly about about the subject even when a direct passage is unavailable
Step #5 (for me) Consider the character and attributes of God and accept His desire to reveal Himself even to me.
Step #6 (for me): Apply what was revealed in the process of Steps #1-5 in interpretation of any extra-Biblical evidence, proposals or conclusions to see if they are true and accurate - then adjust the interpretation of the EVIDENCE accordingly​

As I mentioned earlier, what is asked of me here apparently is to allow secular scientific conclusions to guide me and alter my interpretation of the Holy word where human origins are concerned or where there is an apparent contradiction. Yet the very same evidence and very same processes provided to refute the literal creation account are used to refute the Gospel account - and as far as I am concerned should not be approached with a ten-foot pole - let alone be accepted. To question what part of the Bible is accurate, which is properly translated, which is reliable based on what the world has to offer in comparison is not worth the risk IMO.

 

[Vance]

"Could I be wrong? Yes. Am I wrong on this issue? I don't think so."

See, we both think exactly the same thing. :0)

I also use very much the same approach as you in interpreting Scripture. Except for step six, since it is perfectly reasonable to allow the evidence of God's Creation to correct my fallible Biblical interpretive abilities, even after going through 1-5.

But, no, you are wrong when you say that you are being asked to allow "secular scientific conclusions to guide you in interpretation". Inform yes, be considered as part of the analysis, yes. Be the guiding force, of course not. No one has ever suggested that.

And I would like you to show me where the same evidence and logic that TE's have used on this forum refuting a literal creation account have been used by anyone, anywhere, to refute the Gospel account. Remember, our refutation has nothing at all to do with discounting the supernatural, the miraculous or in any way limiting God's powers to do such things.

Also, you continue to use the "slippery slope" argument, which I think is very weak for all the reasons I have given before.

 

[California Tim]

And I would like you to show me where the same evidence and logic that TE's have used on this forum refuting a literal creation account have been used by anyone, anywhere, to refute the Gospel account. Remember, our refutation has nothing at all to do with discounting the supernatural, the miraculous or in any way limiting God's powers to do such things.

For the sake of brevity I neglected to clarify that I do not insinuate TE'ists by and large discount the Gospel. What I am suggesting is that the conclusions they accept are predominantly offered by secular humanist scientists who begin interpreting evidence by litmus, on the premise that there is no God, no miracles capable of violating the laws of nature and no possibility that the Genesis account if read literally is possible. Those same people (secular scientists) use the same tactics, evidence and procedures to attempt to discredit the validity of the Bible, the authority of scripture and the theme of the Gospel.

Do you still want examples, or do you see what I am saying?

 

[versastyle]

What I am suggesting is that the conclusions they accept are predominantly offered by secular humanist scientists

Not true. It doesn't take a single scientific mind to recognize the implications of varves, starlights and moon meteors on a young earth/universe pov.

 

[California Tim]

Not true. It doesn't take a single scientific mind to recognize the implications of varves, starlights and moon meteors on a young earth/universe pov.

OK.. we disagree. For example, what is the speed of light and does it suggest a young earth or young universe is physically impossible?

 

[versastyle]

OK.. we disagree. For example, what is the speed of light and does it suggest a young earth or young universe is physically impossible?

Without invoking the supernatural, starlight observation falsifies a young earth/universe theory.

 

[Vance]

For the sake of brevity I neglected to clarify that I do not insinuate TE'ists by and large discount the Gospel. What I am suggesting is that the conclusions they accept are predominantly offered by secular humanist scientists who begin interpreting evidence by litmus, on the premise that there is no God, no miracles capable of violating the laws of nature and no possibility that the Genesis account if read literally is possible. Those same people (secular scientists) use the same tactics, evidence and procedures to attempt to discredit the validity of the Bible, the authority of scripture and the theme of the Gospel.

Do you still want examples, or do you see what I am saying?

I see what you are saying, you are just wrong about why we believe what we believe. You are in error in assuming that TE's accept scientific conclusions that are based on those philosophical naturalistic presumptions. Not in the least. You are once again confusing the science and certain scientists, and confusing naturalistic methodology with naturalistic philosophy. We accept scientific conclusions that are supported by the evidence, plain and simple.

1. Take a scientist who is a Christian, who uses naturalistic methodologies (as is necessary), but rejects naturalistic philosophies, and does not have ANY of the humanistic presumptions you describe (much less use such presumptions to attack Scripture!).

2. Then take a scientist who is not a Christian, IS a secular humanist and has adopted a naturalistic philosophy, and does have those presumptions you mention.

These two scientists can review the evidence and both come to the same conclusion regarding photosynthesis, I think you would agree. The fact that the scientist #2 believes it does not make it wrong, of course.

Now, the two can also review the evidence for the age of the earth, and they could both come to the same conclusion: old. Now, scientist #2 may also believe that this is an argument against the Bible, and may even want to use it against the Bible, but this misuse of the evidence or the misuse of the conclusion of age does not mean that the evidence or the conclusion of age was incorrect.

Scientist #2 did not come to his conclusion for the age of the earth based on his atheistic presumptions, but on the same evidence that our Christian scientist did. He just erred in where he went from there.

Let's consider two historians (being an historian by training, this fits me better) each with the same background as our two scientists. They are both studying the medieval church. They both review the evidence and conclude that was lots of corruption, pogroms, inquisitions, etc, etc. The historian #2 writes a book using all this evidence and the factual conclusions and argues from them that the Church was inherently evil, and thus Christianity must be false.

Now, the fact that he is wrong in his arguments, and the fact that he is using the historic conclusions about the Church incorrectly does not mean that the facts are not correct. There WAS a lot of corruption, etc. The Christian historian still understands this and accepts it fully, but without slipping down the slope to believe that the Church was evil.

The point is that it would entirely wrong of that Christian historian to refuse to consider those facts, or to reject them simply because someone else, whose philosophy he abhors, also reaches those same conclusions. Even when the atheistic historian writes his book using those conclusions to argue against the Church, it would be wrong of our Christian historian to reject the facts supported by the evidence just to distance himself from the incorrect teachings of the atheist or to avoid slipping down the slope himself.

 

[California Tim]

Without invoking the supernatural, starlight observation falsifies a young earth/universe theory.

That is my point. The natural explanation is inadequate where supernatural events occur.

 

[Tenacious-D]

That is my point. The natural explanation is inadequate where supernatural events occur.

This is ridiculous. The problem is the natural explanation is adequate. You are invoking the supernatural when it is not needed.

 

[Vance]

Beware of creating a "God of the Gaps".