Scripture and Creation

[vossler]

First of all I’d like to ask when responding to this thread that we keep in mind that as Christians all of us should be able to respond with the love and respect that comes with being a child of God. This should be second nature for us and not too difficult to live up to.

This topic is primarily addressed to theistic evolutionists, but others are welcome if they have something to contribute that would benefit us all. For TEs my main desire is that you stay on topic and keep the scientific explanations or terminology, if possible, out.

Also, if someone from your side of the discussion steps over the line of decorum it would be best if they are admonished from someone they’re more likely to know and respect, rather than someone from the opposing view.

So with that out of the way – here we go.

Scripture and Creation

Overview

Many here claim both are God’s revelation. So do I. My desire with this thread is to discuss the approach we take to both Scripture and Creation and to determine the priority one may or may not have over the other.

Personal Observations

I believe Scripture was given to us in order that we may study and apply it to our lives. It was given to us for our enjoyment, but it was also given to admonish us. We’re commanded to study it for the truths and instructions that lie within it. By itself this isn’t enough, we’re also commanded to follow and obey its precepts because we love its author and of our desire to please Him. It was also given to us as a guidebook or map that leads us to sanctification and ultimately glorification. Its jewels are mined through prayerful meditation and thought. Once revealed its truths enlighten and ultimately bring joy and peace to all who partake.

Whereas I believe Creation was given to us, at least initially, for our enjoyment. Creation’s awesome and beautiful wonder defies logic or words, yet testifies to the very glory of God. There is nothing I enjoy more than to be out in His Creation and to marvel at it. I do not believe God wanted us to ‘figure out’ His Creation, but to explore and discover all that it has to offer. I believe He asks us to have faith and trust Him that He created it just as He said He did.

Both revelations are given to us for our enjoyment and exploration, one as an intense intellectual study and the other as a sensory smorgasbord of beauty and wonder.

Findings


God clearly tells us, through Scripture, that He created the universe and earth in 6 days. The Bible is pretty clear and straight-forward; as to what it says, there is no dispute. So where does man get the authority to take Creation - for which God told us about in His book – apply his measurements and ideas to it in order to develop a hypothesis which clearly doesn’t correspond with the simple reading of Scripture? Then state it is an interpretation of creation and should be held with the same regard as an interpretation of Scripture?

I think it would be safe to say that if all the scientific evidence that existed pointed to an earth that was 6,000 years old that the term evolution would not exist because all Christians would be singing off the same sheet of music.

But because creation itself tells many scientists - through measurements developed by man - that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, some of the scientists, at least those that consider themselves to be Christian, modify their view or interpretation of Scripture to say it clearly must be telling us something else. In other words, there is more to Scripture than what apparently meets the eye.

Based on this line of logic, I feel it is clearly safe to say that man’s own observations and extrapolations of creation are held with such high a regard that they can and do change how we read Scripture.

When this happens man has suddenly, either inadvertently or purposely, put himself on equal footing with God. Once that barrier has been breached then, just like the levees in New Orleans, the effects are wide-spread. This all begins when evolutionists wish to take man’s interpretations of Creation to justify changing the plain reading of Scripture. Once this is accepted then all of Scripture can be subject to individual interpretations and it then begins to lose its saltiness.

For me it’s rather simple, God, through His Holy Word, the Bible, commands man to study Scripture but He gave no such command regarding Creation. Scripture speaks of Creation, while Creation has nothing to say about Scripture, yet Scripture tells us all we need to know about His Creation.

Challenge

If you choose to respond I only ask that your responses cover all of three main points I listed below.

They are:

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

Scripture is not used to defend any scientific theories, and I'm perplexed as to why you think the origins of biodiversity and mechanisms of genotypic change should be an exception.

Secondly, it's not about looking for loopholes. It's about asking "How, given what I already know to be true, do I apply the spiritual messages within these narratives".

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

The simple meaning is of no theological consequence. The significant meaning of Genesis 1-3 is not "the world was made in six days". Is that really the important teaching you get from it? How does such a supposed factoid affect our relationship with God and our behaviour today? It doesn't. The teaching that we are estranged from God by sin, that God created us originally for relationship with Him, and that God will Himself heal that rift because we can't, however does have great importance for today. And that is not modified. The plain details - the six days - are merely a vehicle for the important teachings contained within the narratives.

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

It's not about comparing importance, which is like comparing apples and oranges. Scripture doesn't touch the subject of science, and so is not a source for it, important or otherwise. Creation itself as studied by the scientific method doesn't address theology, and so is not a source, important or otherwise, for that. Better than apples and oranges, perhaps, it's like comparing the scientific method with art appreciation. I don't apply the scientific method to appreciating the Mona Lisa, and not because I value art appreciation above science, but because one is the appropriate tool and the other is not.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

i think that the ancient metaphor of the two books is the best way to visualize and discuss these issues.

the Book of God's Words-Scripture is not separate from or above and outside of the Book of Works-Creation but is embedded within it.

I tried earlier to demonstrate that the list of books included-the table of contents, is itself not part of Scripture but is part of the Book of Works in particular history. In fact, we have at least 3 major differing canons, and the canon-rules for including and excluding is itself not anywhere in Scripture. So even to print a Bible, you must consult with the book of Works to create the table of contents.

The Bible does not contain a dictionary nor an atlas. For us to know where Jerusalem is we must consult the world, it's coordinates and location are not specified in Scripture.

Nor is text itself set within the Scripture, the variant readings, the families such as Alexandrian and Palestininan are not part of Scripture but part of the science of textual criticism. Even the words themselves vary from Bible to Bible.

so the table of contents and the very words of Scripture are not fixed, not within Scripture, nor even within the book of history!

So it is not a case of if the world effects the interpretation of Scriptures, it already does, deeply so, the issue is how not if.

Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

the confusion of levels raises its ugly head again. Scripture does not address issues like evolution, nor how to tune up my car to pass emissions testing and to get better gas mileage. What it does is inform my heart and mind to know why and towards what goals those actions are to be taken. Science is all about means, not goals not motivations. Scripture is primarily addressed to goals, objectives, motivations, the two:Scripture and science exist on very different levels and often intersect but don't overlap. Many things exist in one and not in the other.

We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

because of the nature of Scripture and of the world. Scripture is embedded in a matrix that matrix exists in the world and knowledge of the world effects that matrix and necessarily feedbacks into our Scriptural interpretation and modifies it.

the short answer:
because God is the author of both books, both books reflect His nature, although different aspects of it, and God is truthful and the books agree in presenting a single truth.

<i>simple meaning</i>
if Scripture has a single simple meaning then years of hermeneutical study is to no avail. these words "simple meaning" are nonsense when compared to the actual historical study of Scripture and are further made nonsense by the presence of thousands of Christian denominations all claiming to teach just the simple meaning and all different. obviously simple meaning is not simple.

No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

it wasn't necessary to give a command to study the world, you started doing it when you first opened your eyes and looked around for your mom's breast to eat. There was no need for a command to eat, it was built into your very nature. likewise the need to explore and understand God's creation is built into our very nature and needs no reinforcement from Scripture. Likewise our attention to God's word is falturing and often lacking greatly, the command is necessary to put things into their proper prespective.

Where Scripture speaks, it is authoritative and demands the Christians attention and assent. But Scripture tells me with what attitudes to study the world, with what goals to keep in mind as i do so, but it doesn't tell me what i will find there, science does.


....

 

[vossler]

First of all I'd like to thank you for answering all the questions.

Scripture is not used to defend any scientific theories, and I'm perplexed as to why you think the origins of biodiversity and mechanisms of genotypic change should be an exception.

Secondly, it's not about looking for loopholes. It's about asking "How, given what I already know to be true, do I apply the spiritual messages within these narratives".

Exactly, scientific theories are man derived and centered so therefore they shouldn’t have any role in how we approach Scripture. Yet when Scripture is used to support Creation, other Christians bring science to the table as a justification for changing the way Scripture is interpreted. This is, IMO, looking for a loophole in order to use man-centered scientific findings to support Creation and counter Scripture.

You said it yourself, when you said “How, given what I already know to be true, do I apply the spiritual messages within these narratives.” What is it you already know to be true? I’m assuming that you are speaking of the scientific findings that you are aware of as opposed to the spiritual knowledge you’ve accumulated.

I would say all that I know to be true is what God has told me through His Scripture and Holy Spirit.

The simple meaning is of no theological consequence. The significant meaning of Genesis 1-3 is not "the world was made in six days". Is that really the important teaching you get from it? How does such a supposed factoid affect our relationship with God and our behaviour today? It doesn't. The teaching that we are estranged from God by sin, that God created us originally for relationship with Him, and that God will Himself heal that rift because we can't, however does have great importance for today. And that is not modified. The plain details - the six days - are merely a vehicle for the important teachings contained within the narratives.

So your point is that six days has little or no importance? Isn’t it the model we are to use for our work week according to Exodus 20:9 – 11. I would think this has a tremendous affect on our relationship with God.

You would have to admit our knowledge of Creation is, at best, extremely limited. Yet we take that extremely limited knowledge and put it right along side Scripture and say “Our knowledge tells us that God created like…” Quite fascinating when you think about it.

It's not about comparing importance, which is like comparing apples and oranges. Scripture doesn't touch the subject of science, and so is not a source for it, important or otherwise. Creation itself as studied by the scientific method doesn't address theology, and so is not a source, important or otherwise, for that. Better than apples and oranges, perhaps, it's like comparing the scientific method with art appreciation. I don't apply the scientific method to appreciating the Mona Lisa, and not because I value art appreciation above science, but because one is the appropriate tool and the other is not.

Scripture does touch on Creation (the subject of this thread) and is the source for all truth on whatever it touches. Creation when studied by the scientific method, which happens to be man’s knowledge outside of Scripture, shouldn’t address theology, yet evolutionists allow it to. I agree on not applying the scientific method with art appreciation; however the point is the method that is applied is another one of man’s methods. See the comparison here is between two different man centered tools of measurement, whereas Scripture uses a God centered method of measurement or analysis.

Going back to my question, since we are commanded, by God, to study Scripture and not Creation, why then don’t evolutionists place Scripture above Creation?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Vossler - what, really, is the point of this?


Let's distill it:

Vossler: Why do TEs place science above Scripture?

Karl-LB and rmwilliams: We don't. This is how we see it.

Vossler: Why do TEs place science above Scripture?

I don't see a point in continuing. I've stated my position. You have argued from certain propositions that I do not share:

*Biblical inerrancy
*The Bible being literally correct in everything it touches on
*As testified in your sig., the literal interpretation of Scripture being the best one

Your conclusion that TEs place science above Scripture only follows if those propositionsare accepted. Since I don't accept those, from my position I am not doing what you say I am. Since I don't think I'm doing it, I don't have a reason why I'm doing it. But you tend to insist on interpreting my position as if those propositions were a shared basis which they are not. If we're going to work that way, then there is no possibility of constructive debate.

 

[vossler]

Again, thanks for answering all the questions.

the Book of God's Words-Scripture is not separate from or above and outside of the Book of Works-Creation but is embedded within it.

I don’t have a problem with this statement other than the use of the term Book of Works, but I'll go with it, at least for now.

I tried earlier to demonstrate that the list of books included-the table of contents, is itself not part of Scripture but is part of the Book of Works in particular history. In fact, we have at least 3 major differing canons, and the canon-rules for including and excluding is itself not anywhere in Scripture. So even to print a Bible, you must consult with the book of Works to create the table of contents.

So are you saying that Creation is the table of contents for Scripture?

As for the differing canons, I would say that there is only one canon, the one that you and I use each day. Anything else may have some truths within it but wasn't designated by God to be important enough for inclusion.

So are you saying that man is to consult with Creation in order to know what is to be included within Scripture?

The Bible does not contain a dictionary nor an atlas. For us to know where Jerusalem is we must consult the world, it's coordinates and location are not specified in Scripture.

It doesn’t contain these things because they are not absolutely necessary.

Nor is text itself set within the Scripture, the variant readings, the families such as Alexandrian and Palestininan are not part of Scripture but part of the science of textual criticism. Even the words themselves vary from Bible to Bible.

so the table of contents and the very words of Scripture are not fixed, not within Scripture, nor even within the book of history!

So it is not a case of if the world effects the interpretation of Scriptures, it already does, deeply so, the issue is how not if.

I’m sorry but this really makes little sense to me. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us that Scripture has changed very little over the years. The only thing that really has changed is man lifting himself up in importance, to the point where Scripture is no longer held with such high regard.

the confusion of levels raises its ugly head again. Scripture does not address issues like evolution, nor how to tune up my car to pass emissions testing and to get better gas mileage. What it does is inform my heart and mind to know why and towards what goals those actions are to be taken. Science is all about means, not goals not motivations. Scripture is primarily addressed to goals, objectives, motivations, the two:Scripture and science exist on very different levels and often intersect but don't overlap. Many things exist in one and not in the other.

Exactly my point, so why is evolution then used to describe Creation? As you say science should be about means and not goals or motivations. I would add that in order to ensure the means we should only include evidence that can be observed because once we allow other evidences we introduce goals and motivations.

Now here is a critical point; where scripture and science intersect Scripture should take precedence.

because of the nature of Scripture and of the world. Scripture is embedded in a matrix that matrix exists in the world and knowledge of the world effects that matrix and necessarily feedbacks into our Scriptural interpretation and modifies it.

the short answer:
because God is the author of both books, both books reflect His nature, although different aspects of it, and God is truthful and the books agree in presenting a single truth.

O.K. an honest answer that shows how man, through his very limited means, justifies his interpretation of Scripture and modifies it to his understanding.

<i>simple meaning</i>

if Scripture has a single simple meaning then years of hermeneutical study is to no avail. these words "simple meaning" are nonsense when compared to the actual historical study of Scripture and are further made nonsense by the presence of thousands of Christian denominations all claiming to teach just the simple meaning and all different. obviously simple meaning is not simple.

I understand your point. However, not every verse requires 'years of hermeneutical study' in order to understand it's meaning. Yet if you can show me through hermeneutics how the 6 days of creation are metaphorical, mythical or allegorical please do. The only reason the simple meaning no longer is simple is because man has his own agenda to promote and when that happens the simple somehow becomes complex.

it wasn't necessary to give a command to study the world, you started doing it when you first opened your eyes and looked around for your mom's breast to eat. There was no need for a command to eat, it was built into your very nature. likewise the need to explore and understand God's creation is built into our very nature and needs no reinforcement from Scripture. Likewise our attention to God's word is falturing and often lacking greatly, the command is necessary to put things into their proper prespective.

Where Scripture speaks, it is authoritative and demands the Christians attention and assent. But Scripture tells me with what attitudes to study the world, with what goals to keep in mind as i do so, but it doesn't tell me what i will find there, science does.

I won’t argue that we have a natural desire to explore, observe and participate in Creation. However, my nature or natural desire to have sex with as many women as I can, to lie in order to get my way, to covet other people’s belongings, etc. All of God’s commands were given to us for our benefit, if there was no benefit to it then God didn’t command it.

How does Scripture tell you with what attitudes and goals you should study the world?

 

[vossler]

Vossler - what, really, is the point of this?


Let's distill it:

Vossler: Why do TEs place science above Scripture?

Karl-LB and rmwilliams: We don't. This is how we see it.

Vossler: Why do TEs place science above Scripture?

I don't see a point in continuing. I've stated my position. You have argued from certain propositions that I do not share:

*Biblical inerrancy
*The Bible being literally correct in everything it touches on
*As testified in your sig., the literal interpretation of Scripture being the best one

Your conclusion that TEs place science above Scripture only follows if those propositionsare accepted. Since I don't accept those, from my position I am not doing what you say I am. Since I don't think I'm doing it, I don't have a reason why I'm doing it. But you tend to insist on interpreting my position as if those propositions were a shared basis which they are not. If we're going to work that way, then there is no possibility of constructive debate.

Thanks for your participation.

May God Bless You.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So are you saying that Creation is the table of contents for Scripture?

As for the differing canons, I would say that there is only one canon, the one that you and I use each day. Anything else may have some truths within it but wasn't designated by God to be important enough for inclusion.

So are you saying that man is to consult with Creation in order to know what is to be included within Scripture?

there isn't one canon. depending on how small of a group you want to look at there are from 3 to about 20 different canons.
the canon, that is the list of books in any given Bible is an historical issue, it is not in Scripture, it is located in various church councils and decisions. This is the book of Works, that is the universe and it's history. From the very beginning the book of Words is embedded in the Book of Works, that is the Table of Contents of your Bible is not in the Scripture but in history.

 

[gluadys]

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

Because scripture is a special revelation for a special purpose. As rmwilliamsll put it, scripture and any special revelation is imbedded in the general revelation of creation. It is not the purpose of special revelation to tell us much about general revelation since that is available to all. Scripture is given to convey what the general revelation of creation cannot. So scripture is not cited to support theories related to nature, but does sometimes point to nature as a witness to the creative activity of God, to his glory. To support the theory of evolution the proper place to look is to created nature itself, not to scripture.

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

We have a limited knowledge and view of Scripture too. There is every reason to modify that view when it is shown to be inadequate as there is to modify our views of created nature when they are shown to be inadequate. A simple meaning is only of value when it is the correct meaning. Simplicity per se does not assure correctness. If the apparent simple meaning is wrong, it ought to be modified. And if a complex and abstruse meaning is wrong, it, too, ought to be modified. It is neither simplicity nor complexity which should be the issue, but truth.

btw, you are making that level switch again. You are assuming that we can and do have a correct understanding of scripture, but that we can't and don't have a correct understanding of creation. But we use the same rational faculties when studying one as the other. Both can be and have been misinterpreted. Both can also be interpreted correctly.

It is not fair to set a supposedly accurate knowledge of scripture against an assumed inaccurate knowledge of creation. In fact, our knowledge of both is incomplete and probably inaccurate in some respects. But to the extent that we are capable of understanding scripture accurately, we are also capable of understanding created nature accurately. So they should be treated as equals in terms of being revelations of God.

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

Not in so many words, but I think it is implicit in some passages. For example, Genesis 1:14 tells us the lights of heaven are for telling times and seasons. Applying this knowledge takes study. Proverbs 12:10 tells us the righteous know the needs of their animals. Such knowledge comes from study. And again in Proverbs 15:15 it is written that the mind of one who has understanding seeks knowledge. Ecclesiates 3 tells us that to everything there is a time and season. Knowing what season it is, whether in the affairs of nature or or humans, requires study. Genesis 2: 15 tells us God put man in the garden to till it and keep it. That also requires study.

We are certainly never forbidden to study nature, and given how often Jesus and others appealed to nature for their lessons, (Look at the birds of the air, Consider the lilies of the field, The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, etc. etc.) it would seem that a knowledge of nature, gained through study, is very much in line with the will of God for us.

The importance of creation as revelation is not lowered by the existence of scripture because both are necessary for different purposes. The purpose of special revelation in prophecy and gospel and scripture does not negate the truth of the general revelation in created nature or make it in any way unnecessary or unimportant.

 

[vossler]

Because scripture is a special revelation for a special purpose. As rmwilliamsll put it, scripture and any special revelation is imbedded in the general revelation of creation. It is not the purpose of special revelation to tell us much about general revelation since that is available to all. Scripture is given to convey what the general revelation of creation cannot. So scripture is not cited to support theories related to nature, but does sometimes point to nature as a witness to the creative activity of God, to his glory. To support the theory of evolution the proper place to look is to created nature itself, not to scripture.

This special revelation of which you speak that is imbedded in the general revelation of Creation; where exactly is this revealed to us? How are we to know, as you do, that there is such a revelation and that it isn’t something you and other evolutionists concocted in order to substantiate your claims?

I’m sorry but this appears to me as another attempt at looking for loopholes. Created nature is in and of itself not a vehicle from which to interpret Scripture, yet evolutionists do this very thing. To do as you say, look to nature (science) and not Scripture, is to look to man because science can only tell us so much, man then has to fill in all the blanks. And there are a lot of blanks to fill in.

We have a limited knowledge and view of Scripture too. There is every reason to modify that view when it is shown to be inadequate as there is to modify our views of created nature when they are shown to be inadequate. A simple meaning is only of value when it is the correct meaning. Simplicity per se does not assure correctness. If the apparent simple meaning is wrong, it ought to be modified. And if a complex and abstruse meaning is wrong, it, too, ought to be modified. It is neither simplicity nor complexity which should be the issue, but truth.

Yes most of us do have a limited knowledge and view of Scripture. However, whatever inadequacies that may exist are due to our own lack of pursuit in filling those voids. It is not the result of the information not being available to us within Scripture itself and us therefore needing to look for an alternative source to determine it’s meaning. Yes, Scripture can be complex and at times frustrating, but ultimately Scripture is its own interpreter. So the modifier is always Scripture, never anything man derived. Yes, truth is the issue, but it’s where we look for it that determines its validity. When we look within we always will be disappointed, yet when we look to Scripture we’ll always be rewarded. Our source for truth is first and foremost the Holy Scriptures.

btw, you are making that level switch again. You are assuming that we can and do have a correct understanding of scripture, but that we can't and don't have a correct understanding of creation. But we use the same rational faculties when studying one as the other. Both can be and have been misinterpreted. Both can also be interpreted correctly.

If we can’t assume that we have a correct understanding of Scripture then how are we to make any decisions that are pleasing to God? Personally, I don’t like the word assume because it gives the impression that our beliefs are fickle or not sure. I would prefer to substitute the word believe and it would describe me more accurately. God tells us that we can have a correct understanding of Scripture through prayerful meditation and submission. He doesn’t tell us that about Creation.

It is not fair to set a supposedly accurate knowledge of scripture against an assumed inaccurate knowledge of creation. In fact, our knowledge of both is incomplete and probably inaccurate in some respects. But to the extent that we are capable of understanding scripture accurately, we are also capable of understanding created nature accurately. So they should be treated as equals in terms of being revelations of God.

I would agree that our knowledge of both is incomplete. But to in some way imply that they are equally incomplete is far from the truth. Our knowledge of Creation is miniscule compared to our knowledge of Scripture. So for that reason alone they can’t be treated as equals.

Not in so many words, but I think it is implicit in some passages. For example, Genesis 1:14 tells us the lights of heaven are for telling times and seasons. Applying this knowledge takes study. Proverbs 12:10 tells us the righteous know the needs of their animals. Such knowledge comes from study. And again in Proverbs 15:15 it is written that the mind of one who has understanding seeks knowledge. Ecclesiates 3 tells us that to everything there is a time and season. Knowing what season it is, whether in the affairs of nature or or humans, requires study. Genesis 2: 15 tells us God put man in the garden to till it and keep it. That also requires study.

These studies are also in the here and now, relevant and beneficial in everyday life, not something that occurred supposedly billions of years ago and serve no benefit other than for man’s glorification and ultimately, IMO, God’s degradation.

So our studies should always be tempered with the knowledge that we as human beings are nothing and God is everything. If we should find ourselves being glorified we’ve lost site of what the object of our glory should be, Jesus Christ, nothing else.

We are certainly never forbidden to study nature, and given how often Jesus and others appealed to nature for their lessons, (Look at the birds of the air, Consider the lilies of the field, The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, etc. etc.) it would seem that a knowledge of nature, gained through study, is very much in line with the will of God for us.

I would never claim or presume otherwise.

The importance of creation as revelation is not lowered by the existence of scripture because both are necessary for different purposes. The purpose of special revelation in prophecy and gospel and scripture does not negate the truth of the general revelation in created nature or make it in any way unnecessary or unimportant.

Where is there an implication that the importance of creation being lowered? What I am trying to accomplish is to raise the importance of Scripture to its rightful place. Creation is in no way unnecessary or unimportant, if it were we wouldn’t be having this conversation. However, within the context of both, Scripture is to be exalted over Creation, if for no other reason because God, through omission, commanded it. This is as it should be because Scripture is our life manual, whereas Creation is provided, IMO, to be an awe-inspiring witness to the awesome power and majesty of God. It is also something through which we, as human beings, can be humbled and remain submissive to its creator, God Almighty.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This special revelation of which you speak that is imbedded in the general revelation of Creation; where exactly is this revealed to us? How are we to know, as you do, that there is such a revelation and that it isn’t something you and other evolutionists concocted in order to substantiate your claims?

I’m sorry but this appears to me as another attempt at looking for loopholes. Created nature is in and of itself not a vehicle from which to interpret Scripture, yet evolutionists do this very thing. To do as you say, look to nature (science) and not Scripture, is to look to man because science can only tell us so much, man then has to fill in all the blanks. And there are a lot of blanks to fill in.

where is Jerusalem?
how do you know that? are the directions to get there in Scripture?

what does the word adoption mean?
can you explain Paul's use of the word adoption without reference to Roman paterfamilias and Roman adoption law?
is the word defined in Scripture? where?

Where does in say in Scripture that the book of Judith or Tobith or Maccabees is not part of Scripture? or where does it say James is? even more simply, where is the rule (canon) on how to include or exclude books from the Scripture written in Scripture itself? how do you know what books are supposed to be in your Bible?

that is what it means for special revelation to be embedded in general.
the words, the canon, the geography, the history etc etc that Scripture uses are all part of general not special revelation.

.....

 

[vossler]

where is Jerusalem?
how do you know that? are the directions to get there in Scripture?

what does the word adoption mean?
can you explain Paul's use of the word adoption without reference to Roman paterfamilias and Roman adoption law?
is the word defined in Scripture? where?

Where does in say in Scripture that the book of Judith or Tobith or Maccabees is not part of Scripture? or where does it say James is? even more simply, where is the rule (canon) on how to include or exclude books from the Scripture written in Scripture itself? how do you know what books are supposed to be in your Bible?

that is what it means for special revelation to be embedded in general.
the words, the canon, the geography, the history etc etc that Scripture uses are all part of general not special revelation.

.....

Biblically, why is it important for me to know the precise place where Jerusalem is?

If you’re asking whether or not we should look outside Scripture for definitions, well if they’re not known within Scripture itself, of course we should. But then all we do is bring the definition itself and not other knowledge along with it.

Scripture doesn’t need to say what is or isn’t Scripture, God already has. God being all powerful and omnipotent has already taken care of that.

You didn’t answer the question of where this special revelation that is imbedded within Creation is revealed to us? How are we to know that this isn’t some hoax or false teaching? Why didn’t Jesus, the apostles or the Bible speak of this ‘special revelation?’

 

[The Lady Kate]

So your point is that six days has little or no importance? Isn’t it the model we are to use for our work week according to Exodus 20:9 – 11. I would think this has a tremendous affect on our relationship with God.

How so? Would our relationship with God somehow be strained if we suddenly switched to a nine-day work week?

You would have to admit our knowledge of Creation is, at best, extremely limited. Yet we take that extremely limited knowledge and put it right along side Scripture and say “Our knowledge tells us that God created like…” Quite fascinating when you think about it.

No less fascinating than using the Bible without what little knowledge we've gained so far... Just because our knowledge is "extremely limited" is no reason to disregard it.

 

[gluadys]

This special revelation of which you speak that is imbedded in the general revelation of Creation; where exactly is this revealed to us?

In prophecy. In the proclamation of the gospel. In the revelations of the Holy Spirit to Abraham and Moses and the prophets and in the revelation of Christ incarnate to the apostles. And much of this revelation is recorded in scripture.

How are we to know, as you do, that there is such a revelation and that it isn’t something you and other evolutionists concocted in order to substantiate your claims?

I think that would surprise Isaiah and Jeremiah and Peter and Paul very much.

I’m sorry but this appears to me as another attempt at looking for loopholes.

History disproves that, for the distinction of general and special revelation goes back at least to the writings of Thomas Aquinas and AFAIK right back to the early Fathers of the church. I haven't researched just how far back the distinction was made, but I do know it precedes any thought of evolution by at least 5 centuries. Calvin, for one, makes that distinction in his Institutes. And he speaks of it as a known and settled thing, not an idea he invented.

Created nature is in and of itself not a vehicle from which to interpret Scripture,

Why not? Why would the work of God's hands not be a source of reliable interpretation of scripture?

yet evolutionists do this very thing. To do as you say, look to nature (science) and not Scripture, is to look to man because science can only tell us so much, man then has to fill in all the blanks. And there are a lot of blanks to fill in.

Now you are using that double standard again. You speak as if creation only existed in the minds of scientists and has no existence in and of itself. Yet you accord to scripture an ontological reality apart from human interpretation. You can't have it both ways. If God made a real creation, one that exists whether or not humans exist, then that creation can reveal itself to inquisitive minds and with study humans can draw true knowledge from the created world, just as we do from scripture.

And what you say of the limitations of science in telling about nature apply with equal force to the limitations of theology in telling us about scripture. There is much that scripture does not reveal and we fill in the blanks as best we can. And we don't always agree on how they should be filled. Look at the controversy in the early church over the Trinity. Look at the differences still today over whether or not the children of believers may be baptized. Look at the differences in theology over the meaning of the Lord's Supper. What does the bible mean in the Ten Commandments when it says don't kill? Does it mean all Christians should be pacifists and not participate in war? That is what virtually all Christians believed for the first three centuries of the Christian era.

There is really no fundamental difference between how we interpret nature and how we interpret scripture. In both cases our knowledge is incomplete and we use rational deduction to try and fill in the blanks. And we are not always wrong in either case.

Yes most of us do have a limited knowledge and view of Scripture. However, whatever inadequacies that may exist are due to our own lack of pursuit in filling those voids. It is not the result of the information not being available to us within Scripture itself and us therefore needing to look for an alternative source to determine it’s meaning.

Well sometimes it is lack of information in scripture itself. For example, when Jesus spoke about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven as equivalent to that of a camel going through the eye of a needle, was he using a dramatic figure of speech or referring to a particularly narrow gate in the wall of Jerusalem? Some people think the latter. But how would they even know about such a gate from scripture alone? And even if such a gate did exist, how can we tell, from scripture alone, whether Jesus was referring to the gate or to a sewing needle as most read this passage? And does it make any difference to Jesus' point?

Scripture makes no pretension of providing all knowledge and in fact specifically disavows that it says all that can be said. The position of the Reformers was not that scripture gives complete knowledge, but that it provides sufficient knowledge essential to salvation. This in opposition to the Catholic claim that tradition was an essential supplement to scripture.

Nature also cannot give complete information. Much about the history of the universe and the earth is lost since the evidence has long since been destroyed. But it does give us sufficient information to understand a great deal. It is not an all or none proposition. Partial knowledge is still knowledge.

Yes, Scripture can be complex and at times frustrating, but ultimately Scripture is its own interpreter.

I disagree. It is the human mind that interprets scripture, hopefully under the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The notion that scripture interprets itself is a fairly recent theological position. Certainly one part of scripture can shed light on another, but it still takes a human mind to make the connections. And there is still much in scripture that can only be understood by studying the social and temporal context in which it was written. Scripture itself seldom tells us that, as the writers take it for granted and see no need to explain it.

So the modifier is always Scripture, never anything man derived.

Since all interpretations whether of nature or of scripture are human interpretations all are humanly derived. That, in the final analysis, is all we have.

Yes, truth is the issue, but it’s where we look for it that determines its validity.

No, truth is truth wherever we find it. Validate something as truth and it doesn't matter where it was found.

When we look within we always will be disappointed,

Why would we be? It is within our hearts that the Holy Spirit dwells, the One who leads us into truth. Does the Holy Spirit disappoint?

Our source for truth is first and foremost the Holy Scriptures.

No, our source for truth is first and foremost God. And God does not limit truth to the confines of scripture. We will find truth in scripture, but not only in scripture. We must be prepared to submit to truth wherever it is revealed.

If we can’t assume that we have a correct understanding of Scripture then how are we to make any decisions that are pleasing to God?

By faith. Knowing that we may be wrong we act on the basis of what we believe to be true. And scripture assures us that it is only by faith that we can please God.

Personally, I don’t like the word assume because it gives the impression that our beliefs are fickle or not sure. I would prefer to substitute the word believe and it would describe me more accurately.

Semantics. Belief is assuming something is true when one does not have certain knowledge that it is. Belief can be very strong, amounting to a conviction of certainty, but it always goes beyond knowledge. It always assumes something that is not known.

God tells us that we can have a correct understanding of Scripture through prayerful meditation and submission. He doesn’t tell us that about Creation.

For the very good reason that it is not by prayerful meditation that we learn about nature, but by the use of sense and reason. To each kind of knowledge its proper tools and methods. What we can know by sense, we learn by sense. What we can only know by spiritual means, we learn only by spiritual means. That does not make one the judge of the other. Both sorts of knowledge are valid.

I would agree that our knowledge of both is incomplete. But to in some way imply that they are equally incomplete is far from the truth. Our knowledge of Creation is miniscule compared to our knowledge of Scripture. So for that reason alone they can’t be treated as equals.

The proportions are irrelevant. If we know 90% of scripture correctly, the remaining 10% is still not correct. If we know only 10% of nature correctly, that 10% is still correct and it is just as correct as scripture. So in so far as we know creation correctly, it is equal in its truth value to what we know of scripture correctly.

These studies are also in the here and now, relevant and beneficial in everyday life, not something that occurred supposedly billions of years ago and serve no benefit other than for man’s glorification and ultimately, IMO, God’s degradation.

This is one of those areas where creationists offer contradictory analyses. You say the study of our biological history glorifies humans and degrades God. Yet I have often seen creationists oppose evolution on the grounds that it degrades humans by making them "just animals".

I don't see evolution doing either one. It is your prejudice that is adding to the theory--whether you are adding an illegitimate glorification of humanity or an illegitimate degradation of humanity. Evolution no more glorifies or degrades humanity than the hydrological cycle glorifies or degrades rain. It does not change what we are: creatures made in the image of God and fallen from grace. That is all the glory and all the degradation we need. And it comes from scripture, not science.

So our studies should always be tempered with the knowledge that we as human beings are nothing and God is everything. If we should find ourselves being glorified we’ve lost site of what the object of our glory should be, Jesus Christ, nothing else.

Agreed.

However, within the context of both, Scripture is to be exalted over Creation, if for no other reason because God, through omission, commanded it.

I disagree. Commands are not made through omission. Nor do I know of any basis for elevating scripture above creation. The only revelation which is to be exalted above others is the revelation of the Word made flesh, for he is the source of both creation and scripture.

This is as it should be because Scripture is our life manual, whereas Creation is provided, IMO, to be an awe-inspiring witness to the awesome power and majesty of God. It is also something through which we, as human beings, can be humbled and remain submissive to its creator, God Almighty.

Scripture may be our life-manual, but that does not make it any more true than creation. Knowledge of creation may not be essential to salvation and so in some sense is less important knowledge than the knowledge necessary to salvation which is enshrined in scripture. But being less important is not the same thing as being less true. Knowing that birds are derived from dinosaurs is trivial knowledge compared to knowing Christ died so that we could be reconciled to God. But both are equally true. And that is the bottom line.

 

[vossler]

In prophecy. In the proclamation of the gospel. In the revelations of the Holy Spirit to Abraham and Moses and the prophets and in the revelation of Christ incarnate to the apostles. And much of this revelation is recorded in scripture.

Please provide Scriptural references.

I think that would surprise Isaiah and Jeremiah and Peter and Paul very much.

How does that substantiate that this isn’t something concocted?

History disproves that, for the distinction of general and special revelation goes back at least to the writings of Thomas Aquinas and AFAIK right back to the early Fathers of the church. I haven't researched just how far back the distinction was made, but I do know it precedes any thought of evolution by at least 5 centuries. Calvin, for one, makes that distinction in his Institutes. And he speaks of it as a known and settled thing, not an idea he invented.

All rather vague with no Scriptural basis.

Why not? Why would the work of God's hands not be a source of reliable interpretation of scripture?

Well for one, God doesn’t tell us to use it.

Now you are using that double standard again. You speak as if creation only existed in the minds of scientists and has no existence in and of itself. Yet you accord to scripture an ontological reality apart from human interpretation. You can't have it both ways. If God made a real creation, one that exists whether or not humans exist, then that creation can reveal itself to inquisitive minds and with study humans can draw true knowledge from the created world, just as we do from scripture.

No, Scripture obviously requires human interpretation, that is not in dispute. The dispute centers on to what degree human derived measurements and ideas, which have no Scriptural basis, can and should be used in such interpretation.

Evolutionists dip deeply into solely human developed hypotheses and reasoning which are based on man’s very limited knowledge of Creation and then take the liberty to fill in a lot of blanks that ought not to be filled in.

And what you say of the limitations of science in telling about nature apply with equal force to the limitations of theology in telling us about scripture. There is much that scripture does not reveal and we fill in the blanks as best we can. And we don't always agree on how they should be filled. Look at the controversy in the early church over the Trinity. Look at the differences still today over whether or not the children of believers may be baptized. Look at the differences in theology over the meaning of the Lord's Supper. What does the bible mean in the Ten Commandments when it says don't kill? Does it mean all Christians should be pacifists and not participate in war? That is what virtually all Christians believed for the first three centuries of the Christian era.

I humbly disagree with this assessment, because if true then we would have little or no assurance. If Scripture were as vast and unknown as Creation each and every promise of God could be called into question. These controversies that you mention don’t change the basic truths that come from a plain reading of Scripture and if we’re to cast doubt on any of these truths then all of Scripture could be held hostage. Whereas science takes a lot of liberty to promote man’s extremely limited knowledge of Creation and present it as truth. The sooner we realize man’s limitations and accept them the better off we’ll all be and the more we’ll turn to God as our source of truth.

There is really no fundamental difference between how we interpret nature and how we interpret scripture. In both cases our knowledge is incomplete and we use rational deduction to try and fill in the blanks. And we are not always wrong in either case.

Once again, you’ve not acknowledged the role of the Holy Spirit in man’s interpretation of Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit as an intercessor Scripture would require rational human deduction, which we all know isn’t always rational. Let’ also not forget that interpreting Scripture doesn’t require nearly as much education as interpreting Creation and that man is commanded to do the former and not the latter.

Well sometimes it is lack of information in scripture itself. For example, when Jesus spoke about the difficulty of a rich man entering heaven as equivalent to that of a camel going through the eye of a needle, was he using a dramatic figure of speech or referring to a particularly narrow gate in the wall of Jerusalem? Some people think the latter. But how would they even know about such a gate from scripture alone? And even if such a gate did exist, how can we tell, from scripture alone, whether Jesus was referring to the gate or to a sewing needle as most read this passage? And does it make any difference to Jesus' point?

Obviously we do this through a study of the days of Jesus. Like I said before, I don’t have a problem looking to outside sources to help with some basic descriptions that aren’t within Scripture itself. The difference or important point is that these descriptions or definitions in no way change Scripture but help illuminate it. If it does anything other than that it is not from God.

Scripture makes no pretension of providing all knowledge and in fact specifically disavows that it says all that can be said. The position of the Reformers was not that scripture gives complete knowledge, but that it provides sufficient knowledge essential to salvation. This in opposition to the Catholic claim that tradition was an essential supplement to scripture.

Nature also cannot give complete information. Much about the history of the universe and the earth is lost since the evidence has long since been destroyed. But it does give us sufficient information to understand a great deal. It is not an all or none proposition. Partial knowledge is still knowledge.

Scripture does more that just provide ‘sufficient knowledge essential to salvation,’ for me it’s my life blood, my sustenance and without it I’d be rudderless. I know to some of you this is sanctimonious and borders on idolatry, but that is what I believe.

How is it that we believe that with our tiny little fraction of a slice of history, which according to evolutionists is 1/22500000 of the historical pie, that we can honestly believe we know with any degree of certainty what transpired back then. How arrogant can we be to think that with such a limited piece of the Creation history that we somehow can determine the age of the earth, our origins and everything else evolutionists claim?

I disagree. It is the human mind that interprets scripture, hopefully under the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The notion that scripture interprets itself is a fairly recent theological position. Certainly one part of scripture can shed light on another, but it still takes a human mind to make the connections. And there is still much in scripture that can only be understood by studying the social and temporal context in which it was written. Scripture itself seldom tells us that, as the writers take it for granted and see no need to explain it.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Scripture will always be its own best interpreter. If for no other reason because man is notoriously self serving and will twist it to fit his wants and needs. Scripture can never contradict Scripture, if one thinks that it does one hasn’t put enough effort into it and should again resubmit themselves to the Holy Spirit’s guidance through prayer and meditation.

Since all interpretations whether of nature or of scripture are human interpretations all are humanly derived. That, in the final analysis, is all we have.

Once again, interpretations that are humanly derived are not all we have; we have the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, truth is truth wherever we find it. Validate something as truth and it doesn't matter where it was found.

Truth has but one known source, God. Jesus, in John 18:37, said He came to testify to the truth. What truth do you think He spoke of? The truth of Scripture no less; any other truth is, at best, secondary and insufficient. The truths of Scripture are the only truths man requires or that matter.

Why would we be? It is within our hearts that the Holy Spirit dwells, the One who leads us into truth. Does the Holy Spirit disappoint?

Yes the Holy Spirit, as you accurately say, leads us into truth, which btw it's good to hear you acknowledge Him so freely. When I said within, the context I’m speaking of is man and his knowledge.

No, our source for truth is first and foremost God. And God does not limit truth to the confines of scripture. We will find truth in scripture, but not only in scripture. We must be prepared to submit to truth wherever it is revealed.

So how does God primarily speak to us? I would submit through His Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. He never tells us to look elsewhere, but He does tells us to look there.

By faith. Knowing that we may be wrong we act on the basis of what we believe to be true. And scripture assures us that it is only by faith that we can please God.

Faith based on His Word. Romans 10:17 states: “So then faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Semantics. Belief is assuming something is true when one does not have certain knowledge that it is. Belief can be very strong, amounting to a conviction of certainty, but it always goes beyond knowledge. It always assumes something that is not known.

Isn’t that the point, that we’re to go beyond what is known?

For the very good reason that it is not by prayerful meditation that we learn about nature, but by the use of sense and reason. To each kind of knowledge its proper tools and methods. What we can know by sense, we learn by sense. What we can only know by spiritual means, we learn only by spiritual means. That does not make one the judge of the other. Both sorts of knowledge are valid.

Where does God tells us that?

The proportions are irrelevant. If we know 90% of scripture correctly, the remaining 10% is still not correct. If we know only 10% of nature correctly, that 10% is still correct and it is just as correct as scripture. So in so far as we know creation correctly, it is equal in its truth value to what we know of scripture correctly.

Alright let’s use your analogy only I’ll dispute your 10%. I believe we don’t even know 1% of God’s Creation, but I’ll be generous and use 1%. With 1% knowledge man likes to think he knows the remaining 99%, isn’t that extremely arrogant? Now how can they possibly be considered on equal footing with Scripture?

This is one of those areas where creationists offer contradictory analyses. You say the study of our biological history glorifies humans and degrades God. Yet I have often seen creationists oppose evolution on the grounds that it degrades humans by making them "just animals".

I don't see evolution doing either one. It is your prejudice that is adding to the theory--whether you are adding an illegitimate glorification of humanity or an illegitimate degradation of humanity. Evolution no more glorifies or degrades humanity than the hydrological cycle glorifies or degrades rain. It does not change what we are: creatures made in the image of God and fallen from grace. That is all the glory and all the degradation we need. And it comes from scripture, not science.

It does when it says man came from an amoeba or an ape.

Yes were are creatures made in the image of God and God was no ape or amoeba.

I disagree. Commands are not made through omission. Nor do I know of any basis for elevating scripture above creation. The only revelation which is to be exalted above others is the revelation of the Word made flesh, for he is the source of both creation and scripture.

God commands us to love one another but he doesn't command us to love the animals, yet many people do, some love them even more than people. Since there wasn't a command to love animals and yet many of us do, do you think that because animals are a part of God's Creation that we should therefore love them? If so, how should we love them, like one another or is there another degree of love we should use?

If we shouldn't love them, wouldn't we in turn be elevating Scripture above Creation?

Scripture may be our life-manual, but that does not make it any more true than creation. Knowledge of creation may not be essential to salvation and so in some sense is less important knowledge than the knowledge necessary to salvation which is enshrined in scripture. But being less important is not the same thing as being less true. Knowing that birds are derived from dinosaurs is trivial knowledge compared to knowing Christ died so that we could be reconciled to God. But both are equally true. And that is the bottom line.

This sums up much of the difference between us. Man’s miniscule knowledge of Creation, based solely on man’s limited scope and creative imagination, is considered truth that is just as valid as the truth based on Scripture. What more needs to be said?

 

[shernren]

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

What did God really say in those two verses?

Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

In the first place this verse refers to the Book of the Law and would not cover the whole Bible. But Genesis which is our contention falls under this mandate so it's a moot point. Secondly what is Joshua commanded to do with this book? He is to "meditate day and night" on it that he may "do everything in it". In other words he is to formulate his actions based on this book, not necessarily his knowledge. Now I know this will seem (and probably is) a very artificial dichotomy, but think about it: what is the difference in my actions if I take Genesis 1 as a myth designed to form the foundations of my worldview to teach me that God honors rest, that God is above all created things, etc ... and if I take Genesis 1 as a literal scientific history?

Therefore there is no conflict between Joshua 1:8 and taking the Bible to be silent on evolution. Again:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Firstly: if "in righteousness" covers all four verbs (i.e. "useful for teaching in righteouosness, rebuking in righteousness, correcting in righteousness and training in righteousness") then the argument is over because being righteous has nothing to do with believing evolution or not, and thus the Bible which is given to us for the purpose of righteousness need not say anything about evolution.

But even if not here are the meanings of the Greek roots for the four verbs in question:

didaskalia <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1319&page=1>
elegchos <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1650&page=1>
epanorthosis <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1882&page=1>
paideia <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=3809&page=1>

and I find that there is nothing in any of these four verbs that I see can be used to support the idea that the Bible should overrule normal scientific experimentation for the purpose of learning science.

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

Firstly, our limited knowledge and view of Creation doesn't mean we can't already start ruling out possibilities. A scientific 6-day 6000 years ago creation contradicts even our limited knowledge of Creation. It's like when I'm looking at a tree from far. I don't know enough to tell you what tree it is, but I can tell you with confidence (and gratitude!) that it isn't moving towards me!

Secondly how do you know what Scripture's simple meaning is? For example when a Buddhist reads John 3:16 he believes that God is weak because for a person to desire ("love") is weakness! That is John 3:16's "simple meaning" to him! From this we see that even a "simple meaning" actually involves many layers of pre-analysis. TE only proposes to change these layers of analysis, not the Scripture itself we are analyzing.

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

Nowhere are we commanded to elect leaders, only to pray for them; therefore democracy is not as important as Scripture. Nowhere are we commanded to exact taxes and charge interest, only to pay taxes; therefore economics is not as important as Scripture. The fact is that Scripture is designed to be relevant to the elements of humanity common to both the times of Scripture and the times of today. Namely, the human himself; and thus it is not wrong nor degrading for the Scriptures to be a wee bit "out of touch" with contemporary politics and economics and science.

But I digress. Why do we degrade Scripture compared to Creation? Welll, we don't. What do you mean by "degrading Scripture compared to Creation" anyway? It's like saying my mum is more important to me than my dad because she could breastfeed me and he couldn't! Scripture and Creation are given to glorify God in two different ways and as long as we don't muddle them both they do their jobs splendidly.

Truth has but one known source, God. Jesus, in John 18:37, said He came to testify to the truth. What truth do you think He spoke of? The truth of Scripture no less; any other truth is, at best, secondary and insufficient. The truths of Scripture are the only truths man requires or that matter.

So Creation can't supply truth? If God is the source of all truth and Creation can't supply truth it simply adds up to the assertion that God is not the source of Creation. Hmmm.

No, Scripture obviously requires human interpretation, that is not in dispute. The dispute centers on to what degree human derived measurements and ideas, which have no Scriptural basis, can and should be used in such interpretation.

But human-derived measurements and ideas are still human-derived from God's truth in Creation. When a ball falls to the earth and people measure its rate of descent, did humans cause the ball to fall? Did humans create gravity? No; we are just observing its effects. We are just observing God's truth in action through Creation; just as when we read the Bible, we are observing God's truth in action through Scripture.

Alright let’s use your analogy only I’ll dispute your 10%. I believe we don’t even know 1% of God’s Creation, but I’ll be generous and use 1%. With 1% knowledge man likes to think he knows the remaining 99%, isn’t that extremely arrogant? Now how can they possibly be considered on equal footing with Scripture?

To agree with your analogy: let's say I truly do know only 1% of God's creation. I don't think I know the other 99%. But I do know that the 1% I know contradicts a scientific idea of a 6000-year-old earth.

It does when it says man came from an amoeba or an ape.

Yes were are creatures made in the image of God and God was no ape or amoeba.

I came from a Teochew dad and a Hainanese mum. Does that mean that I am now not a creature made in the image of God?

This sums up much of the difference between us. Man’s miniscule knowledge of Creation, based solely on man’s limited scope and creative imagination, is considered truth that is just as valid as the truth based on Scripture. What more needs to be said?

You don't give a lot of credit to man for being made "in the image of God", do you?

Read Psalm 19. The psalmist delighted in both Creation and Scripture and put them side-by-side to enjoy the way they glorified God. So why can't we?

 

[stumpjumper]

1. God’s command is to study Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Joshua 1:8). Yet why is Scripture rarely if ever used to support evolution instead of looking for loopholes?

2 Timothy 3:16 is Paul's letter in which he was showing that all scripture was written by those who were inspired by God. Theopneustos is the Greek word used for inspiration and it means "God breathed" it is also used to denote divine origin of dreams. It does not mean verbal inspiration even though many use it to support inerrancy. It certainly can not be used to support a literal reading of scripture above other methods. I personally do not use scripture to support evolution. I use God's creation as evidence for how God created. Show me in scripture where God specially created ex-nihilo human DNA.

2. We take our limited knowledge and view of Creation, put it along side Scripture, and modify Scripture’s simple meaning. Why?

Who is modifying scriptures meaning? The six day creation week was a way of putting the incomprehensible into words and show how God relates to the world. Last I checked my calendar still has a seven day week. YEC's are the ones who are putting specifics about creation where there is a more general claim. God created everything and He called it good. Genesis is not meant to say this is the exact method God used to create and no one should do any further investigation into our natural world.

3. No where are we commanded to study Creation. Why doesn’t this lower its importance, compared to Scripture, to evolutionists?

No where are we commanded to study dreaded diseases and look for cures. The Bible is a book of faith and is useful for our human relationships and our relationship with God. The next time you go to a mechanic to get your car fixed would you prefer he look in the Bible for how to fix a timing belt or a car repair manual.

 

[vossler]

Thanks for a well thought response to all questions.

What did God really say in those two verses?

In the first place this verse refers to the Book of the Law and would not cover the whole Bible. But Genesis which is our contention falls under this mandate so it's a moot point. Secondly what is Joshua commanded to do with this book? He is to "meditate day and night" on it that he may "do everything in it". In other words he is to formulate his actions based on this book, not necessarily his knowledge. Now I know this will seem (and probably is) a very artificial dichotomy, but think about it: what is the difference in my actions if I take Genesis 1 as a myth designed to form the foundations of my worldview to teach me that God honors rest, that God is above all created things, etc ... and if I take Genesis 1 as a literal scientific history?

Therefore there is no conflict between Joshua 1:8 and taking the Bible to be silent on evolution. Again:

Firstly: if "in righteousness" covers all four verbs (i.e. "useful for teaching in righteouosness, rebuking in righteousness, correcting in righteousness and training in righteousness") then the argument is over because being righteous has nothing to do with believing evolution or not, and thus the Bible which is given to us for the purpose of righteousness need not say anything about evolution.

But even if not here are the meanings of the Greek roots for the four verbs in question:

didaskalia <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1319&page=1>
elegchos <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1650&page=1>
epanorthosis <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=1882&page=1>
paideia <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=3809&page=1>

and I find that there is nothing in any of these four verbs that I see can be used to support the idea that the Bible should overrule normal scientific experimentation for the purpose of learning science.

I agree there is nothing in what you’ve shown to “support the idea that the Bible should overrule normal scientific experimentation for the purpose of learning science.” But then I didn’t make such a claim.

The claim I’m making is that God commands us to study Scripture, and you’ve acknowledged that. However, Scripture, our source of truth, is rarely if ever used to support the views and ideas of evolutionists. So when Joshua is, as you say, “to formulate his actions based on this book, not necessarily his knowledge,” I would ask you are not all actions based on knowledge of some sort? The question will then be what knowledge, man’s or God’s. So, then to infer that God isn’t so much concerned with my knowledge and only my actions is clearly a false dichotomy. Our actions are very much dependent upon our knowledge.

You then asked; what is the difference in my actions? Well if my knowledge of God’s Word tells me that he created everything in 6 days as opposed to billions of years then my actions would be reflected in that knowledge. I would be less susceptible to interpreting Scripture in a manner that makes sense to me. This in turn would be contrary to the world and further distinguish me from the world, making me salt and light. Finally, and most importantly, it would allow Scripture to be the discerner of truth, rather than man.

Firstly, our limited knowledge and view of Creation doesn't mean we can't already start ruling out possibilities. A scientific 6-day 6000 years ago creation contradicts even our limited knowledge of Creation. It's like when I'm looking at a tree from far. I don't know enough to tell you what tree it is, but I can tell you with confidence (and gratitude!) that it isn't moving towards me!

Secondly how do you know what Scripture's simple meaning is? For example when a Buddhist reads John 3:16 he believes that God is weak because for a person to desire ("love") is weakness! That is John 3:16's "simple meaning" to him! From this we see that even a "simple meaning" actually involves many layers of pre-analysis. TE only proposes to change these layers of analysis, not the Scripture itself we are analyzing.

Well if those possibilities you’re looking to rule out include contradicting God’s own Word, then I think you better think again. With your tree example you give the impression that even only a small fraction of Creation is simple and easy to discern. If it were that easy, wouldn’t you think the rest of us ignorant fools would get it too.

Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 2:14 state “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” So that cuts out any Buddhist or other religions that cannot discern the simple meaning of Scripture.

Nowhere are we commanded to elect leaders, only to pray for them; therefore democracy is not as important as Scripture. Nowhere are we commanded to exact taxes and charge interest, only to pay taxes; therefore economics is not as important as Scripture. The fact is that Scripture is designed to be relevant to the elements of humanity common to both the times of Scripture and the times of today. Namely, the human himself; and thus it is not wrong nor degrading for the Scriptures to be a wee bit "out of touch" with contemporary politics and economics and science.

But I digress. Why do we degrade Scripture compared to Creation? Welll, we don't. What do you mean by "degrading Scripture compared to Creation" anyway? It's like saying my mum is more important to me than my dad because she could breastfeed me and he couldn't! Scripture and Creation are given to glorify God in two different ways and as long as we don't muddle them both they do their jobs splendidly.

Precisely my point, when we put man’s spin on Creation we muddle it tremendously. We are not commanded to “figure it out” so why don’t we just accept Creation for what it is, something we as humans will never understand, at least on this side of heaven. Let’s just acknowledge that we don’t understand it and go with that? If we feel compelled to study it, fine, just do it, as AiG says , with our biblical glasses on.

So Creation can't supply truth? If God is the source of all truth and Creation can't supply truth it simply adds up to the assertion that God is not the source of Creation. Hmmm.

Not if it conflicts with Scripture. A newly discovered “truth” can never conflict with an existing truth.

But human-derived measurements and ideas are still human-derived from God's truth in Creation. When a ball falls to the earth and people measure its rate of descent, did humans cause the ball to fall? Did humans create gravity? No; we are just observing its effects. We are just observing God's truth in action through Creation; just as when we read the Bible, we are observing God's truth in action through Scripture.

I refer to my previous point. Since gravity isn’t mentioned in the Bible it’s hard for our observations of it to conflict with Scripture.

To agree with your analogy: let's say I truly do know only 1% of God's creation. I don't think I know the other 99%. But I do know that the 1% I know contradicts a scientific idea of a 6000-year-old earth.

Again, this 1% is in direct conflict with Scripture, thereby rendering it null and void.

I came from a Teochew dad and a Hainanese mum. Does that mean that I am now not a creature made in the image of God?

No you are a creature, still called a man, because you were born of man. Apes or amoebas had nothing to do with your existence.

You don't give a lot of credit to man for being made "in the image of God", do you?

Read Psalm 19. The psalmist delighted in both Creation and Scripture and put them side-by-side to enjoy the way they glorified God. So why can't we?

Thanks for referring me to that wonderful Psalm, I haven’t read it in quite some time. I was struck by verse 7b “the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” and how it clearly spoke to me about Genesis. Isn’t Scripture just wonderful, thanks for sharing.

 

[vossler]

Thank you for answering all the questions.

2 Timothy 3:16 is Paul's letter in which he was showing that all scripture was written by those who were inspired by God. Theopneustos is the Greek word used for inspiration and it means "God breathed" it is also used to denote divine origin of dreams. It does not mean verbal inspiration even though many use it to support inerrancy. It certainly can not be used to support a literal reading of scripture above other methods. I personally do not use scripture to support evolution. I use God's creation as evidence for how God created. Show me in scripture where God specially created ex-nihilo human DNA.

The point is that Scripture can be used to support a young earth but can’t be used to support evolution. With Scripture being our primary source of truth, wouldn’t you think that if evolution were true that Scripture would speak of it?

Who is modifying scriptures meaning? The six day creation week was a way of putting the incomprehensible into words and show how God relates to the world. Last I checked my calendar still has a seven day week. YEC's are the ones who are putting specifics about creation where there is a more general claim. God created everything and He called it good. Genesis is not meant to say this is the exact method God used to create and no one should do any further investigation into our natural world.

If this were true; why would Scripture say: “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace;” and why didn’t He just say that He created the universe and earth over a long period of time. This is still comprehensible, wouldn’t you agree?

Is stating God created in 6 days putting specifics where specifics don’t exist?

No where are we commanded to study dreaded diseases and look for cures. The Bible is a book of faith and is useful for our human relationships and our relationship with God. The next time you go to a mechanic to get your car fixed would you prefer he look in the Bible for how to fix a timing belt or a car repair manual.

That’s right, we’re not commanded to do those things. We can and do those things but not if they are contrary to Scripture. For instance, as part of our pursuit to study and find a cure for a disease, does that allow us to kill babies, so that we may acquire their stem cells? I would say no, because Scripture backs this up. It all comes back to Scripture and what it says first.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thank you for answering all the questions.

Thank you for asking them.

The point is that Scripture can be used to support a young earth but can’t be used to support evolution. With Scripture being our primary source of truth, wouldn’t you think that if evolution were true that Scripture would speak of it?

I'll give you the first one. From an initial reading of Genesis with no knowledge of the authors' intentions and looking at it from a historical perspective one would conclude that it is listing an account of a recent creation. However, if you look at and uncover the historical climate in which it was written, compare it to other mythical creation accounts, and carefully examine the wording and clear allegorical implication one would realize that it is not the method or age of creation that is important. What is important is that God created and He called His creation good.

ACTS 10-12

Berea
10That night, under cover of darkness, their friends got Paul and Silas out of town as fast as they could. They sent them to Berea, where they again met with the Jewish community. 11They were treated a lot better there than in Thessalonica. The Jews received Paul's message with enthusiasm and met with him daily, examining the Scriptures to see if they supported what he said. 12A lot of them became believers, including many Greeks who were prominent in the community, women and men of influence.

What were the Berean's comparing to scripture? They were comparing Pauls declaration of the final Revelation of God to humanity in Jesus. They were accepting information from outside scripture and comparing it to scripture to examine its accuracy. You can use God's revelation in nature and compare it to scripture to determine if we are understanding our world correctly. In all honesty, recent scientific discoveries and knowledge support a creative intelligence in the universe and human freedom as a part of creation.

I have read others use the Acts passage to show that if something is not in Scripture then it must be incorrect. But the point of the passage is that we should compare other knowledge that we acquire and compare it to our faith and what God has revealed to us in many different ways. The Bible is the written word of God but there are many other ways that God has revealed himself to humanity. Why limit our understanding of the world to what is literally written in scripture?