Scripture and Creation

[rmwilliamsll]

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.

i disagree. a naive reading of Gen 1 would be to find a justification of the Sabbath and a 7 day week, first and primary. the form, the constant evening and morning refrain, the stepwise heightening to the crescendo of the Lord God's Sabbath. all point to a justification of the Sabbath, not a recent creation, that is the framework but the meaning is Sabbath.

...

 

[vossler]

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?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Critias]

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.

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.

Evolutionists accept the theory and then take the theory and change the intended meaning of Scripture to support the evolutionary theory. Evolution is allowed to be the determining factor of how to interpret Scripture.

The contrast is remarkable.

 

[vossler]

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.

I will acknowledge that Paul was telling them of another Revelation, but this doesn't change the fact that they, the Bereans, compared what he had to say with Scripture in order to see if it was true or didn't prove false. I just don't see it as complicated as you do and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree here, because for me it's quite evident that God did, through His servants, write the Bible.

Thank you for the dialog and May God Bless you.

 

[mixin machine]

This is Jesus replying to the experts of the law.

50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

 

[shernren]

Wrong thread, mixin machine, we've been through this elsewhere already

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 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.

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.

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.

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? )

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.

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.

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.

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.)

More later - gtgtclass.

 

[gluadys]

Please provide Scriptural references.

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

All rather vague with no Scriptural basis.

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/outlines/generalspecialrevelation.html

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/stuart/cr.htm
(see 3rd paragraph)

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

Do you need a special command from God to use your eyes? Or is it enough that God gave you eyes?

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.

Any known truth can be used to correct false interpretations of scripture, since all truth comes from God.

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.

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.

I humbly disagree with this assessment, because if true then we would have little or no assurance.

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.

Whereas science takes a lot of liberty to promote man’s extremely limited knowledge of Creation and present it as truth.

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.

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.

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.

Without the Holy Spirit as an intercessor Scripture would require rational human deduction, which we all know isn’t always rational.

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.

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.

I don't see any basis for this conclusion. Much science is simple enough to teach to 5 year olds.

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.

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.

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.

I think most Christians would agree. But it still does not tell us everything.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

Scripture can never contradict Scripture,

Yet people who take this position have to work themselves into mental contortions to "reconcile" contradictions. IMO we should just let them stand.

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

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?

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 who God is and what God's will is, and of what God is doing in and through his Son.

The truths of Scripture are the only truths man requires or that matter.

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.

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.”

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.

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

Yes, that is the point of faith. But we are not called by faith to deny what is known.

Where does God tells us that?

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.

God tells us that in Luke 10:37. It time you began using God's gift of a mind.

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?

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.

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

Do you think that glorifies humanity? Or degrades humanity? How can it do either if it is fact?

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.

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?

Do you think God does not intend us to love what he loves and created with love?

Why do you need this spelled out in a specific command?

do you think that because animals are a part of God's Creation that we should therefore love them?

Absolutely.

If so, how should we love them, like one another or is there another degree of love we should use?

We should love them by being caring and compassionate about them, by helping to preserve their habitat from human overuse, by treating even those we intend to eat with kindness while they are in our care. If we loved animals as we ought, we would never accept the conditions in which they are forced to live on factory farms, for example. Nor would we permit the wholesale destruction of the rain forest that is happening right now. And we would get serious about putting the brakes on global warming. Just for starters.

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

Since we should love them, the point is moot.

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 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?

 

[gluadys]

And no where do you see it saying that the Jews changed the intended meaning of Scripture to support what Paul was teaching.

It may not say that, but evidently they did. Or rather they changed their minds about what the intended meaning of scripture was. The pre-Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 for example did not relate the suffering servant to the Messiah.

Evolutionists accept the theory and then take the theory and change the intended meaning of Scripture to support the evolutionary theory.

Not true. Few evolutionists use scripture to support evolutionary theory. However, they do take the fact of evolution into account when interpreting scripture, for truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[shernren]

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.

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.

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 )

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.

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.

Since evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible it's hard for our observations of it to conflict with Scripture. Bullseye!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[shernren]

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.

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!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Good point, shernren. Another example is Paul's take on Deuteronomy 25:4:

[bible]Deuteronomy 25:4[/bible]
Now, a literal, plain sense reading of that verse would lead one to think it had something to do with caring for oxen. Personally, I think God does care for oxen (as well as sparrows and the rest of his creation). But, according to Paul, not only does this passage have an allegorical meaning, but that meaning is the one that really matters! Rather than it being about care for oxen, it is written "altogether" for its human application.

[bible]1 Corinthians 9:9-10[/bible]

 

[Critias]

If you feel you are equal in theological insight as Paul was to do what Paul did with Scripture, then so be it.

I still think you aren't grasping what Paul was doing with Scripture. Paul wouldn't say that what he was quoting didn't happen in history as evolutionists will say six day creation didn't happen in history.

It isn't a hard thing to grasp to be able to see the contrast here, but denial of seeing makes it so.

Anyways, it is your choice, you can deny the history of Genesis as never happening and use Paul to say he did the same with Scripture, but you are still in error and without proof.

 

[vossler]

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.

I don’t know where you’re coming from because they are not promoting a scientific hypothesis based on anything other than the Bible. If the Bible doesn’t support their hypotheses then it sure won’t 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.

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.

We’re now delving into the science of it and that’s not the purpose of this thread. I will just say I think they’re just trying to fight fire with fire. Personally, I think they should just stick with the Word of God. But since I’m no scientist and don’t know how much of their position is easily supported by the evidence I’ll just plead ignorance.

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? )

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 don’t 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. It’s 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 I’m 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.

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.)

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 don’t hold to any of the doctrines that are unique to their faith.

So, having said that, going back to your point, I don’t think either of us has a problem with reading this passage, do we?

 

[vossler]

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/outlines/generalspecialrevelation.html

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/stuart/cr.htm
(see 3rd paragraph)

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.
As for the second link, while an interesting read, it certainly didn't provide any light for support of evolution.

Do you need a special command from God to use your eyes? Or is it enough that God gave you eyes?

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.

Any known truth can be used to correct false interpretations of scripture, since all truth comes from God.

Known truth…known to whom, you? A majority of scientists? Who exactly is the arbiter of truth?

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.

As it reads, there’s nothing wrong with this statement. However, when applied to what it is referring to then we’ve got a problem. Man’s truth, which is no truth, will never equal God’s truth.

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.

It’s funny when I used this line of logic you dismiss it when I said we’re not commanded to study Creation.

Science does have plenty of logic and objective evidence; I agree.

The problem isn't the evidence or the logic. It's your world view along with how the logic is applied to the evidence. I truly believe most scientists do in fact do honest work and, for the most part, apply accurate measurements to their findings. Their problem is, and will always be, their starting point. For most scientists God doesn't exist, at least not the same God I believe in. This therefore clouds their view and keeps them from seeing the truth.

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.

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 they’re common knowledge, just like when someone says an egg produces a chicken. Most of us know this to be true because we’ve 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 don’t believe this but it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that.

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.

I’ll 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.

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.

Wouldn’t you agree that in order to effectively grasp and understand the Holy Spirit’s guidance effectively we must give up our own understanding and desires?

I don't see any basis for this conclusion. Much science is simple enough to teach to 5 year olds.

Well I’m considerably older than a 5 year old and find evolution to be incredibly complex and difficult to understand, much less believe.

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.

Well when the Bible says 6 days and man’s study of Creation says 4.5 billion years, I’d say this is more than interpretation and a change has occurred.

I think most Christians would agree. But it still does not tell us everything.

Nor is it meant to. Its purpose is to tell us all we need to know.

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?

You sure put a lot of faith in man’s 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 don’t know much, but I do know this, I’ll trust what God tells me over anything man could ever dream up.

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.

Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Your lottery example isn’t too far from how I see this. It’s 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.

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?

Without a doubt there is much truth here. I don’t have a problem acknowledging that there are some things Scripture does not tell us. I’m 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.

Yet people who take this position have to work themselves into mental contortions to "reconcile" contradictions. IMO we should just let them stand.

That’s the easy way out.

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?

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, it’s 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.

The truth of who God is and what God's will is, and of what God is doing in and through his Son.

As an addendum I would submit “according to Scripture.” Scripture and the Holy Spirit are our arbiters of truth.

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.

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. It’s your prerogative to believe I’m wrong, but I will say this; if there’s one thing I’ve 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 isn’t whether something is true or not, but whether it glorifies God.

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.

Only if the Scriptures themselves don't speak of it.

Yes, that is the point of faith. But we are not called by faith to deny what is known.

Who said anything about denying what is known? Again, known by whom?

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.

If that were true, I don’t think I could be here debating you, because no one is helping me except the Holy Spirit.

 

[vossler]

God tells us that in Luke 10:37. It time you began using God's gift of a mind.

The gift of a mind as you put it, doesn’t 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.

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.

When truth is subject to such low scrutiny then it’s easy to see how evolution has taken such a foothold in the world.

Do you think that glorifies humanity? Or degrades humanity? How can it do either if it is fact?

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.

Again, man has put himself above God, we should humbly seek mercy at the very thought.

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?

Scripture has taken a turn I was never aware of.

So dominion equals love and man is to love animals just as he is to love his neighbor? Exactly where did God tell us this? I think one can have dominion without love, at least I know I can. If I loved all the animals like my neighbor then I think it would be a sin to kill them.

Do you think God does not intend us to love what he loves and created with love?

This again is quite fascinating, please show me where God says he loves animals?

Why do you need this spelled out in a specific command?

Because if I don’t 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 doesn’t say anything of the sort.

Is it any wonder how such teachings then stretch to those of evolution?

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?

Ah, but the problem is, what is truth? My truth, your truth, whose truth do we believe? When a claimed truth is based upon man’s knowledge of a subject he knows little to nothing about, it’s validity is, to say the least, in question.

 

[shernren]

I don’t know where you’re coming from because they are not promoting a scientific hypothesis based on anything other than the Bible. If the Bible doesn’t support their hypotheses then it sure won’t 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.

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.

We’re now delving into the science of it and that’s not the purpose of this thread. I will just say I think they’re just trying to fight fire with fire. Personally, I think they should just stick with the Word of God. But since I’m no scientist and don’t know how much of their position is easily supported by the evidence I’ll just plead ignorance.

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.

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 don’t 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. It’s 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 I’m 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.

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 I’m 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.

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 don’t hold to any of the doctrines that are unique to their faith.

So, having said that, going back to your point, I don’t think either of us has a problem with reading this passage, do we?

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?

 

[vossler]

You guys are going have to give me time to catch up. Some of us have jobs you know.

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 I’m 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 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.

Besides I'm having more than enough of a challenge keeping up with you and gluadys on this subject alone. I don't need to look for new material.

 

[vossler]

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.

I didn’t say anything about not investigating further. It’s 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 you’re like me, you’ll probably fail. I can acknowledge that I didn’t know anything but that isn’t going to stop me from continuing with the class. That’s how I see Creation, if you’re interested in learning about it fine, just don’t pretend to know something you don’t.

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 )

When you say reach people, I’m not sure what you mean, do you mean with the gospel?

Your mind must an awful lot bigger than mine because I can’t even grasp an understanding about this earth in which we live, much less the universe. Whew, my head is spinning just from the thought. How does my acknowledgement of that become “tantamount to denying the complete perfection of God’s Work”, that’s quite a bit for me to swallow.

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.

You know I find it interesting how you introduce phrases like “fudging data,” “deceiving masses through oversimplifications” etc. when I say biblical glasses. It’s quite fascinating when such an association is made without any substantiation. What is it about the Bible that seems to scare evolutionists.

Since evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible it's hard for our observations of it to conflict with Scripture. Bullseye!

Ahh, but information about the claims of evolution most certainly are in the Bible. And yes they most certainly do conflict.

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.

There you go again not addressing the actual claim but projecting it onto something totally different. I wish you wouldn’t take such ill-advised liberties. Anyone who reads this with an open mind can see right through that and it doesn’t serve you well at all.

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.

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, you’re 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. That’s 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, wouldn’t it be great if you could run 100 miles an hour, what would you do? I would…” and I’ll answer you the same way I’d answer him, that’s a waste of my time to entertain because it has no basis in reality.

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.

I have no qualms with this. The heaven are truthful, they do declare the glory of God.

 

[vossler]

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!

I’m no Bible scholar and won’t 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 I’ll give him liberty to use Scripture any way he sees fit.

I think this speaks to the glory of God and how he can use the same Scripture over different periods of time for His purpose to prove two entirely different points. Quite amazing!


How does that apply to us, well Paul is allowed to reinterpret Scripture because God authorizes it. You and I, as far as I know, haven’t been given that liberty yet.