Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Thank you for inadvertently proving my point: this Scripture in fact backs up my contention because it says the Bereans were "examining the Scriptures to see if they supported what he said", they didn't compare to to other revelations, but to Scripture. They were making sure that the Scriptures supported what Paul was saying. This is my motto 100% and why I don't support evolution.stumpjumper said: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
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?
vossler said:Thank you for inadvertently proving my point: this Scripture in fact backs up my contention because it says the Bereans were "examining the Scriptures to see if they supported what he said", they didn't compare to to other revelations, but to Scripture. They were making sure that the Scriptures supported what Paul was saying. This is my motto 100% and why I don't support evolution.
stumpjumper said:I am not inadvertently proving your point. Instead of waiting for the argument to get to Acts 17 I just put it out there. I have spent some time on AIG as well and it is Ken Ham's favorite argument. That and "its not what God could have done but what God told us He did". As if God wrote the Bible.
Perhaps you missed the fact that Paul was telling them about another Revelation. The Revelation of when the Word became flesh. They were comparing God's revelation in Jesus Christ to their written record. There were no Gospels yet (possibly a pre-Markan passion narrative and a sayings gospel) so they had Paul's spoken word about a Revelation from God. If the Berean's followed your criteria for what to accept or reject they probably would not have followed Paul.
Obviously we have a difference in how we see this Scripture, as if that wasn't obvious.stumpjumper said:I am not inadvertently proving your point. Instead of waiting for the argument to get to Acts 17 I just put it out there. I have spent some time on AIG as well and it is Ken Ham's favorite argument. That and "its not what God could have done but what God told us He did". As if God wrote the Bible.
Perhaps you missed the fact that Paul was telling them about another Revelation. The Revelation of when the Word became flesh. They were comparing God's revelation in Jesus Christ to their written record. There were no Gospels yet (possibly a pre-Markan passion narrative and a sayings gospel) so they had Paul's spoken word about a Revelation from God. If the Berean's followed your criteria for what to accept or reject they probably would not have followed Paul.
I agree there is nothing in what youve shown to support the idea that the Bible should overrule normal scientific experimentation for the purpose of learning science. But then I didnt make such a claim.
The claim Im making is that God commands us to study Scripture, and youve 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, mans or Gods. So, then to infer that God isnt 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 Gods 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.
Well if those possibilities youre looking to rule out include contradicting Gods 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, wouldnt you think the rest of us ignorant fools would get it too.
Doesnt 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.
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
vossler said:Please provide Scriptural references.
How does that substantiate that this isnt something concocted?
All rather vague with no Scriptural basis.
Well for one, God doesnt tell us to use it.
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 mans very limited knowledge of Creation and then take the liberty to fill in a lot of blanks that ought not to be filled in.
I humbly disagree with this assessment, because if true then we would have little or no assurance.
Whereas science takes a lot of liberty to promote mans extremely limited knowledge of Creation and present it as truth.
The sooner we realize mans limitations and accept them the better off well all be and the more well turn to God as our source of truth.
Without the Holy Spirit as an intercessor Scripture would require rational human deduction, which we all know isnt always rational.
Let also not forget that interpreting Scripture doesnt require nearly as much education as interpreting Creation and that man is commanded to do the former and not the latter.
Obviously we do this through a study of the days of Jesus. Like I said before, I dont have a problem looking to outside sources to help with some basic descriptions that arent 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 does more that just provide sufficient knowledge essential to salvation, for me its my life blood, my sustenance and without it Id 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?
Well 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,
Once again, interpretations that are humanly derived are not all we have; we have the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit.
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 truths of Scripture are the only truths man requires or that matter.
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.
Faith based on His Word. Romans 10:17 states: So then faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Isnt that the point, that were to go beyond what is known?
Where does God tells us that?
Alright lets use your analogy only Ill dispute your 10%. I believe we dont even know 1% of Gods Creation, but Ill be generous and use 1%. With 1% knowledge man likes to think he knows the remaining 99%, isnt that extremely arrogant? Now how can they possibly be considered on equal footing with Scripture?
It does when it says man came from an amoeba or an ape.
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.
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?
This sums up much of the difference between us. Mans miniscule knowledge of Creation, based solely on mans 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?
Critias said:And no where do you see it saying that the Jews changed the intended meaning of Scripture to support what Paul was teaching.
Evolutionists accept the theory and then take the theory and change the intended meaning of Scripture to support the evolutionary theory.
Precisely my point, when we put mans spin on Creation we muddle it tremendously. We are not commanded to figure it out so why dont we just accept Creation for what it is, something we as humans will never understand, at least on this side of heaven. Lets just acknowledge that we dont 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.
I refer to my previous point. Since gravity isnt mentioned in the Bible its hard for our observations of it to conflict with Scripture.
Again, this 1% is in direct conflict with Scripture, thereby rendering it null and void.
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.
Thanks for referring me to that wonderful Psalm, I havent 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. Isnt Scripture just wonderful, thanks for sharing.
And no where do you see it saying that the Jews changed the intended meaning of Scripture to support what Paul was teaching. Instead of allowing Paul's teaching to be the determining factor of interpreting Scripture, they interpreted Scripture and compared it against what Paul said.
I dont know where youre coming from because they are not promoting a scientific hypothesis based on anything other than the Bible. If the Bible doesnt support their hypotheses then it sure wont be contrary to it either. How is it you can say that they are not promoting a Bible derived idea? 6 days is clearly biblically derived.shernren said:You know what? Scripture, our source of truth, is rarely if ever used to support the view and ideas of scientific creationists either. Why do I dare say that? Sure AiG and ICR have peppy Bible verses posted on their statements of faith. Sure they appeal to the conservative Christian movement for Bible-support. But when you get to the gist of it, these guys aren't promoting a spiritual Bible-derived idea, they're promoting a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis may be motivated by Scripture but is not then supported and pushed by Scripture.
Were now delving into the science of it and thats not the purpose of this thread. I will just say I think theyre just trying to fight fire with fire. Personally, I think they should just stick with the Word of God. But since Im no scientist and dont know how much of their position is easily supported by the evidence Ill just plead ignorance.shernren said:It is revealing that the Islamic creationist movement is able to draw much material from our own AiG and ICR although our Scriptures are radically different in role and content. Why? Because in the end AiG and ICR aren't really promoting a way to interpret Scripture, they are promoting a scientific conclusion based on "scientific" *coughcough* evidence. For example, they say that there is too much radiogenic helium trapped in zircons for their date to be a few million years old. Therefore the zircons are only 6000 years old. Why? It could be because God created them young, or Allah created them young, or because the inveterate use of mana by ancient magicians accidentally aged the earth (as proposed in Larry Niven's fantasy world The Magic Goes Away). Through and through this is a scientific statement, not a Biblical one. If this were a Biblical statement they should feel confident saying "The earth is young because God says so" without bothering with the mechanics of helium diffusion in zircons.
Afraid, certainly not, I hope we have far more in common than we could ever be apart on.shernren said:Really? It's easy to deal in generalities but give me an example of a day-to-day decision on which you and I would differ because you're a creationist and I a TE. (Or are you afraid to find that your opponent is a lot more like you than you supposed?)
Those darn Catholics always throwing flies in the ointment.shernren said:I know this has been said to death but God's Word - as read by who?
Here's another example of a "plain reading", this time from a Catholic perspective. (Coming closer and closer to home ... ) from John 6.
Now with a "plain reading" this passage says that Jesus invites us to eat Him. Hmm. Catholics actually do assimilate this into their doctrine with their teaching of transubstantiation which says that the bread and the wine do miraculously become Jesus' body and Jesus' blood in the Holy Communion. Do you believe that? Or are you not believing the plain reading of Scripture? (Or are you going to say that you have the Holy Spirit which guides you to the right though complex reading of the Scripture, while all the transubstantiationists don't? Because I bet they're saying the exact same thing about us.)
I thought the first link was quite interesting and found the Scriptures quoted enjoyable but without any substance to support evolution from this special revelation of which you speak. If it's there you'll have to be more specific because I certainly didn't see it.gluadys said:
If my eyes saw anything that even remotely looked like evolution then we'd have something to talk about, but they don't. Now they do see what God's own Word has said about this subject and they didn't need a strong microscope and/or telescope along with a group scientists to interpret it for me either.gluadys said:Do you need a special command from God to use your eyes? Or is it enough that God gave you eyes?
Known truth known to whom, you? A majority of scientists? Who exactly is the arbiter of truth?gluadys said:Any known truth can be used to correct false interpretations of scripture, since all truth comes from God.
As it reads, theres nothing wrong with this statement. However, when applied to what it is referring to then weve got a problem. Mans truth, which is no truth, will never equal Gods truth.gluadys said:Faith as small as a mustard seed is still enough faith to move mountains. The smallest truth is still true and qualifies as a standard of truth.
Its funny when I used this line of logic you dismiss it when I said were not commanded to study Creation.gluadys said:We have the assurance of faith. By definition that means we do not have the assurance of logic or objective evidence.
Science by contrast has plenty of logic and objective evidence, but no assurance of faith.
So how do we know something to be true? If something is based on extremely limited evidence and then extrapolated back billions of years, how can anyone possibly, with any confidence, state this to be true? You make these assertions of truth as though theyre common knowledge, just like when someone says an egg produces a chicken. Most of us know this to be true because weve seen it, yet we can easily be deceived when looking at the egg; it could produce something other than the chicken. The point being, if the egg wasn't observed being laid one wouldn't truly know it was a chicken. No one, not a single human being, has seen either with their own eyes or through the testimony of another what it is you pitch. My friend, I know you dont believe this but it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that.gluadys said:Not at all. Scientific method is quite rigorous and doesn't permit much in the way of liberties. Everything must be tested against predicted observation. So, however, limited our knowledge of nature, we can have confidence in the validity of what we know. It is not how much we know that counts, but whether what we know is true. Just as it is not how much faith we have that counts, but whether we have faith in the one true God.
Ill go along with the idea of exploring nature is exploring the wonders God. Creation is most certainly a source of the truth of God, but not in the sense of what I find would then change the plain and simple meaning of Scripture.gluadys said:You are assuming an opposition between the exploration of nature and turning to God as our source of truth. But nature is the work of God. To explore nature is as much turning to God as a source of truth as studying scripture is.
Wouldnt you agree that in order to effectively grasp and understand the Holy Spirits guidance effectively we must give up our own understanding and desires?gluadys said:Even with the Spirit we still need to use rational human deduction, since we cannot make sense of what the Spirit reveals without it. It is not as if the Spirit will bypass our mind.
Rationality is not always rational, but it is not always irrational either, and in both science and logic safe-guards have been developed to minimize, if not eliminate, irrational lines of thought. After all, rationality or logic is one expression of Logos. One of those human characteristics which implies the image of God. We do have to be careful not to misuse reason, but we cannot take a general stance that all rational conclusions are wrong. Most are not. So you have to be specific when casting aspersions of irrationality. It cannot be the basis of a general rejection of a whole concept. You need to show specifically where irrationality has infected the argument and invalidated the conclusion reached.
Well Im considerably older than a 5 year old and find evolution to be incredibly complex and difficult to understand, much less believe.gluadys said:I don't see any basis for this conclusion. Much science is simple enough to teach to 5 year olds.
Well when the Bible says 6 days and mans study of Creation says 4.5 billion years, Id say this is more than interpretation and a change has occurred.gluadys said:Likewise the study of creation sometimes illuminates scripture. Remember, nothing changes scripture. The text is fixed. All that can change is a human interpretation of the scripture.
Nor is it meant to. Its purpose is to tell us all we need to know.gluadys said:I think most Christians would agree. But it still does not tell us everything.
You sure put a lot of faith in mans ability to accurately surmise truths based on so little information. Heck, in my lifetime alone man has told me about so many foods that were once good, then turned bad and then once again good. I dont know much, but I do know this, Ill trust what God tells me over anything man could ever dream up.gluadys said:Because our little fraction would not be what it is if the rest of earth's history had not been what it was. The observations of the present, therefore, tell us of the past. Mars, so far as we know, has no liquid water in the present. Yet observations of its surface by robot explorers tell us there was liquid water on Mars in the past. Do you really think that is unknowable?
Well well just have to agree to disagree. Your lottery example isnt too far from how I see this. Its like someone saying they know the winning numbers to the lottery and then bet everything on it in hopes of winning. Then instead of a random drawing of balls they pick and choose the ones they want and, what do you know, they won.gluadys said:Nevertheless, the age of the earth has been determined. So it can't be impossible after all. This sort of argument is like saying I can't win a lottery because the odds are so stacked against it after my number has already been drawn. Yes the chances of winning are slim, but I still won. (Or I might have if I had bought a ticket.). The chances of figuring out the age of the earth and other scientific matters may be slim. but once it is done it is done, and no muttering about the impossibility of doing so undoes the fact that it has already been done.
Without a doubt there is much truth here. I dont have a problem acknowledging that there are some things Scripture does not tell us. Im more reluctant to say there are things on which it is ambiguous; I think the ambiguity is a result of our lack not the Scriptures. I will also say that on the main point in dispute, 6 days, the Bible is anything but ambiguous.gluadys said:And therefore will interpret scripture in line with his self-serving propensity. I don't deny that comparing one part of scripture with another can be very helpful in determining the meaning, but it is still a human mind that has to make the connections, and is prone to make the connections that please the interpreter's wants and needs. This is no different from the biases that can misinterpret creation.
In both cases, bias is eliminated by the give and take of argument and evidence---the employment of human reason under (we pray) the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Even deciding what is scripture took centuries of discussion, sometimes quite vituperous. Furthermore, denominational differences show that we have no accord on many issues despite millennia of comparing scripture to scripture.
Why do we not just acknowledge that there are some things scripture does not tell us, and some things on which it is ambiguous?
Thats the easy way out.gluadys said:Yet people who take this position have to work themselves into mental contortions to "reconcile" contradictions. IMO we should just let them stand.
There are some things many of us will never figure out this side of heaven. Some are gifted with wisdom and knowledge, some are not, its not for me to question but to accept. The Holy Spirit will either lead you to knowledge and wisdom or to the one who possess it.gluadys said:And we have Spirit-guided people who sincerely disagree with each other. So we still have to figure out -- using human reasoning -- which ones are correctly interpreting the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How do you know who is correct, for example about whether we should gather for corporate worship on Saturday or Sunday or if it matters at all?
As an addendum I would submit according to Scripture. Scripture and the Holy Spirit are our arbiters of truth.gluadys said:The truth of who God is and what God's will is, and of what God is doing in and through his Son.
Again, I said The truths of Scripture are the only truths man requires or that matter. No where did I even imply anything about other truths not being permitted. Of course they are, they just are not required or matter to a Christian. Its your prerogative to believe Im wrong, but I will say this; if theres one thing Ive learned over the years of my life as a Christian, it is that the only absolutely essential truth that I need or matters is Scripture. Everything else is secondary and has no bearing on obeying and glorifying my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or my salvation. So, to me, the issue isnt whether something is true or not, but whether it glorifies God.gluadys said:Does that mean they are the only truths we are permitted to know? Some truths are trivial--like the formula for making nail polish. Does that mean we should not know it? Also, scientific information often matters very much to our physical well-being. Knowing the facts about the importance of hygiene saves lives.
Maybe in some grand scheme of things you can claim this is not required knowledge and doesn't "matter". Frankly, I think you are wrong. I think these things do matter, even to God. Yet whether or not they matter is still not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are true.
Only if the Scriptures themselves don't speak of it.gluadys said:It depends on the topic. On matters of salvation and righteousness and knowing God, of course the scriptures are a primary source. On matters relating to the natural world, nature is the primary source.
Who said anything about denying what is known? Again, known by whom?gluadys said:Yes, that is the point of faith. But we are not called by faith to deny what is known.
If that were true, I dont think I could be here debating you, because no one is helping me except the Holy Spirit.gluadys said:Gee, you truly do have an aversion to using the mind God gave you, don't you? You have to be told everything and refuse to figure out anything for yourself.
The gift of a mind as you put it, doesnt exist, at least not in any of the gifts that I know in Scripture. The Scripture you did cite Luke 10:27 however did say we were to love the Lord our God with all our mind. That is a good use of our mind.gluadys said:God tells us that in Luke 10:37. It time you began using God's gift of a mind.
When truth is subject to such low scrutiny then its easy to see how evolution has taken such a foothold in the world.gluadys said:Dispute it all you like. They are numbers drawn from a hat anyway. The percentages don't matter. What matters is whether or not the 10% or the 1% is true. All truth is on a par with the truth of scripture because all truth is one as God is one.
Man sure likes to play loose with certain words. Fact and love are two that come to mind. We dilute the real meaning of both when we use them so frivolously. The term fact to me is equated with truth and to boldly say it is a fact that man came from an amoeba or an ape is incredulous.gluadys said:Do you think that glorifies humanity? Or degrades humanity? How can it do either if it is fact?
Scripture has taken a turn I was never aware of.gluadys said:God gave us dominion over his earthly creation and told us to care for it. Do you think he intended us to fulfill these commands without love?
This again is quite fascinating, please show me where God says he loves animals?gluadys said:Do you think God does not intend us to love what he loves and created with love?
Because if I dont get it spelled out people will start telling me that God loves animals and wants us to care for them with love, when the Bible clearly doesnt say anything of the sort.gluadys said:Why do you need this spelled out in a specific command?
Ah, but the problem is, what is truth? My truth, your truth, whose truth do we believe? When a claimed truth is based upon mans knowledge of a subject he knows little to nothing about, its validity is, to say the least, in question.gluadys said:You keep confusing quantity with quality. Is not a grain of salt still salt? Is not a grain of truth still truth? How can even the smallest grain of truth be less true than the truth of scripture?
vossler said:I dont know where youre coming from because they are not promoting a scientific hypothesis based on anything other than the Bible. If the Bible doesnt support their hypotheses then it sure wont be contrary to it either. How is it you can say that they are not promoting a Bible derived idea? 6 days is clearly biblically derived.
Were now delving into the science of it and thats not the purpose of this thread. I will just say I think theyre just trying to fight fire with fire. Personally, I think they should just stick with the Word of God. But since Im no scientist and dont know how much of their position is easily supported by the evidence Ill just plead ignorance.
Afraid, certainly not, I hope we have far more in common than we could ever be apart on. As far as day to day decisions, well I dont know you well enough to say where we would differ spiritually. I will say that how each of us approaches Scripture is clearly different and I suppose that could lead to some rather spirited debates. Its possible that my view of Scripture, it being primarily a literal one, would lead me to see many things differently than you. We would probably not go to the same church because my fundamentalist leanings would probably keep me out of your church, at least Im guessing. As for an actual decision, one might be how we approach the lost; my focus would be on sin and redemption while I imagine grace would be the primary focus for you. Like I said, without knowing you better this is hard to answer.
Those darn Catholics always throwing flies in the ointment. In order to not offend any Catholics or ex Catholics I will refrain or minimize my comments on their beliefs. It is another subject for another forum. What I will say is that I dont hold to any of the doctrines that are unique to their faith.
So, having said that, going back to your point, I dont think either of us has a problem with reading this passage, do we?
I enjoyed reading what you had to say and it proves my point about how not knowing you I will make false observations. However, all of this is secondary to the questions I posed in my OP. So we'll just have to save this for another time and place.shernren said:If I believed that the earth was made in 6 days because I believed the Bible told me so, it would be a theological hypothesis. I'd prove it from the Bible using arguments like the context of yowm and the quoting in NT and all those things and I wouldn't have to touch anything to do with radioactive atoms and such. I admire such creationists (like Critias) more because at least they do have valid grounds for dissent. If it is a theological hypothesis it does not ask for scientific proofs and it does not require scientific research.
On the other hand, if I believed that the earth was made in 6 days because there's too much radiogenic helium in rocks, that would be a scientific hypothesis. I'd prove it from laboratory experiments and field sample analysis and all those without having to touch anything to do with Hebrew or the Bible. And I dislike such creationists. Because they rely on science they lose the uniqueness of their Christian outlook on origins. A Muslim can easily come along, support your data and then say that it proves that Allah created the earth 6000 years ago. Scientists do not need the Bible to analyze rocks.
It is ironic that while AiG decries "atheistic science" it actually revels in the same thing. A scientist making a scientific statement does not need the Bible to back him up. As far as I've read of AiG (which isn't much, admittedly, but I think I get the general tenor of their statements), they harp a lot on how this finding or that discovery validates the ancient truth of the Scriptures. It seems that what they are saying is "We read the Bible as such, and because we have all these scientific findings to back us up it seems we are right!" which is exceedingly dangerous because any Muslim (I know I'm repeating myself but they really are a very good example) can jolly well pick up those findings to validate their precious Koran and indeed they do.
Whereas if they were really putting forward Biblically derived theological hypotheses and statements they would say "We read the Bible as such, and because the Bible itself says this and that and this and that it seems we are right!" But I find their emphasis leans far more towards rubbing their "achievements" in the face of "the evil massive majority of heathen scientists" than teaching Bible-believing Christians how they should read their Bibles.
[/font][/color]
Fine. I'm not wanting to discuss science here either, just raising the example. For your knowledge, the helium in zircon thing is basically that some zircons (a type of rock) are dated by conventional methods to be a few million years old, but creationists say that helium is leaching out of those rocks so fast that if they were really that old they wouldn't have that much helium left in them. I use this because honestly speaking I'm also too far out of my depth to properly examine the for and against back-and-forths between the two sides, and the creationist argument does seem more credible than most.
This is fun! Let's go through this thoroughly.
- my view of Scripture, it being primarily a literal one, would lead me to see many things differently than you.
Aw come on. You guys always shoot at us for calling you over-literalists. Well why do you think I allegorize the whole Bible? I just don't see any good reason to treat much of the rest of the Bible as myth or "non-historical truth". In fact I'm a bit more literal and straight-edged than many; for example about the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel that many people refer to as talking about Lucifer ... I actually believe those were talking about literal kings of Tyre and Babylon. And I don't like the idea of misapplying verses like was done with the prayer of Jabez.
- We would probably not go to the same church because my fundamentalist leanings would probably keep me out of your church, at least Im guessing.
Why not? I go to a rather fundamentalist church - in my opinion; I'm not really sure where or how the fundies are in Malaysia but I reckon my church is among one of them. We have a rather hardline stance on things such as embryonic research, abortion, etc. I don't think any of my church members know I'm a TE, actually; it's not something I make a big deal out of, although with my divergent views I'd probably shy away from teaching Sunday School. "Kids, Genesis 1 is a metaphorical non-historical truth." XD My leanings don't affect the "hymns" (now more Hillsongs, sadly) I feel I can sing or the way I play bass or the offerings I give.
- one might be how we approach the lost; my focus would be on sin and redemption while I imagine grace would be the primary focus for you.
Hmm. How does one focus on sin and redemption without focussing on grace?But I don't really like the sinner's prayer; for me I would put a lot of emphasis on getting things right with God. For a non-believer I find that most of them empathise with the concept of sin. Whether or not they were born with it doesn't really matter at that point; all they need to know is that they've been sinning like hell since then, while Jesus never did.
No both of us are on the same side with this. But you do get my point, right? What is plain reading to one Christian is heresy to the other. At least that belief of transubstantiation is predominantly Catholic, but I'm sure you're aware of any of the dozens of issues I could bring up that divide the modern church like women in leadership, homosexual relationships (which I'm against. More fundy leanings!), the political role of the Church, assimilating popular arts and culture for worship and adoration, eschatology, etc. For any one of these issues both sides believe they are right. Is there any difference between the cr-evo divide and these? How do you know that the people on both sides of the homosexual (say) divide are equally good Christians while the people on the opposite side of the cr-evo one aren't?
I didnt say anything about not investigating further. Its like this, when you take a class in world history and at the beginning of the class the instructor gives you a quiz without you reading any of the material, well, if youre like me, youll probably fail. I can acknowledge that I didnt know anything but that isnt going to stop me from continuing with the class. Thats how I see Creation, if youre interested in learning about it fine, just dont pretend to know something you dont.shernren said:Mmm? How do you think Newton would have liked Let's just acknowledge that we don't understand it and go on with that? On one hand YECs gladly point to Newton as a rational Bible-believing Christian scientist (despite his documented Arian and alchemistic leanings) and on the other hand they quite happily drop his ideas that the universe is made to be understood every time some "anomaly" can't fit into a tidy 6000-year-old universe.
When you say reach people, Im not sure what you mean, do you mean with the gospel?shernren said:Why did God give us minds? After all, we can't reach God by reasoning alone, so they're not theological in purpose. We can't reach people by reasoning alone either, so they're not social in purpose. The main purpose of the mind, I would postulate, is purely for the understanding of the universe. The mind is more a tool for science than anything else. The universe is the one thing our mind can actually hold and stomach on its own. Anything else blows it away, but it can't be a coincidence that God gave rational minds to beings who live in a rational universe? Thus to turn around and say that the universe is probably just too darn hard for our minds to wrap themselves around it is tantamount to denying the complete perfection of God's work when He made the human mind (whether or not He formed it from dust or from ape brain)
You know I find it interesting how you introduce phrases like fudging data, deceiving masses through oversimplifications etc. when I say biblical glasses. Its quite fascinating when such an association is made without any substantiation. What is it about the Bible that seems to scare evolutionists.shernren said:And if studying the universe with "Biblical glasses on" means fudging data, deceiving masses through oversimplifications, justifying bad theology and taking personal pot shots at people who don't like the way we think, I wonder just how Biblical those glasses are.
Ahh, but information about the claims of evolution most certainly are in the Bible. And yes they most certainly do conflict.shernren said:Since evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible it's hard for our observations of it to conflict with Scripture. Bullseye!
There you go again not addressing the actual claim but projecting it onto something totally different. I wish you wouldnt take such ill-advised liberties. Anyone who reads this with an open mind can see right through that and it doesnt serve you well at all.shernren said:So God's creation is null and void? Who gave you the authority to say that? And if God's creation is in conflict with God's scripture then either God is not self-consistent and faith is a massive joke or God did not create one of them. You choose.
Well because man was created in the image of God and you are of man then it goes without saying that you were born in the image of God. What, I think, youre trying to say is if God created the amoeba and the amoeba became, through some process, became a man would you be born of God. Thats a hypothetical that has no basis in fact and so therefore falls into the category of something my son would ask me. He loves to ask my hypothetical questions like Dad, wouldnt it be great if you could run 100 miles an hour, what would you do? I would and Ill answer you the same way Id answer him, thats a waste of my time to entertain because it has no basis in reality.shernren said:So if I am born of man and not of God I am still created in the image of God. Does it make any difference if I'm born (though obviously not very directly) of an amoeba and not of God? Biologically speaking, of course, in both cases.
I have no qualms with this. The heaven are truthful, they do declare the glory of God.shernren said:I am struck by verse 1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." If the heavens lie then isn't the glory of God a deception? So the heavens must be as truthful as the Scriptures.
Im no Bible scholar and wont pretend to know the answers to what you presented. However, what I will do is say that since Paul was an Apostle, chosen by God to be His spokesperson; I think Ill give him liberty to use Scripture any way he sees fit.shernren said:Well, Paul often changed the intended meaning of Scripture to support what Paul was teaching. Here's an interesting example. From Ephesians 4:
7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it[a] says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."[b] 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
Well I'll tell you what "he ascended" means. In the quoted Psalm, Psalm 68:
17 The chariots of God are tens of thousands
and thousands of thousands;
the Lord has come from Sinai into his sanctuary. 18 When you ascended on high,
you led captives in your train;
you received gifts from men,
even from [e] the rebellious
that you, [f] O LORD God, might dwell there.
(NIV; the KJV/NKJV is less clear about this with "The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place. (emphasis in original)" but I think the meaning is still there.)
What does "He ascended" mean? Well, it refers to the glorious presence of the Presence of God, with the Ark of the Covenant, in Jerusalem in Israel. The ascension of this passage is the move of God from the wilderness of Sinai to the Holy Place of Jerusalem in Israel, and it could never have been imagined by David to refer to the Resurrection or Ascension of Jesus which Paul forces it to allude to.
Force he does! He actually changes the passage so that its subject is Jesus giving gifts instead of gifts being given to God. Why doesn't he quote the whole thing? Because there's no way he can make his emendation click with the rest of the passage which talks about God wrenching gifts from rebels. In Paul's use of the passage he makes out that these gifts are ministry gifts namely the call to apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers - gifts from the Holy Spirit and not from rebels!
The issue is simply that Paul took an Old Testament, pre-Messianic Scripture and twisted it to fit his post-Messianic ideas. When we "reinterpret" Scripture it's called "disrespecting Scripture", "not listening to the Holy Spirit", "not reading the Bible as it was meant to" and any other number of insults. When Paul "reinterprets" Scripture it's called, well, Scripture!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?