Scripture and Creation

[gluadys]

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.

The links have nothing to do with evolution. The purpose was to show you that the distinction of general and special revelation is part of orthodox Christian theology and not a post-Darwinian concoction.

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.

Irrelevant. The point is that you do not wait for a specific command to be written in scripture to use faculties you were created to use.

There is no specific command in scripture to put an end to slavery. Yet Christians did eventually come to the conclusion that slavery and a profession of Christian faith were incompatible.

So the notion that everything must be spelled out in plain words in the bible before it has any validity just does not hold water.

We do not need a specific command to study nature. It’s there. We have to relate to it. We are curious about it. So we study it. The only reason not to study nature would be if there were a specific command forbidding it.

Apparently we do need a specific command to study scripture. I don’t find that surprising.

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

Inter-subjective agreement and concordance of evidence from different sources. Note that this is not an absolute guarantee of absolute truth. But it is the most reliable form of truth we have when it comes to the natural world.

When many people from many different backgrounds affected by many different biases and self-interests come to agree after careful analysis of evidence from many different sources, that one theoretical model better agrees with the evidence than all other candidates, it is likely that they are right. Not certain that they are—but highly probable.

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.

And creation is God’s truth.

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

Puzzled I don’t see what you are getting at.

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.

Well I have never yet seen any way a world view can change the evidence, nor have I seen a way that it can render a logical argument valid or invalid depending on one’s bias. Perhaps you can demonstrate how this happens.

So how do we know something to be true?

Ultimately that is a philosophical question of epistemology.

Science does not deal much with epistemology. Scientists pragmatically assume that what they investigate is a real and knowable world and that truth is what accords with that reality. What works in terms of predicting the course of nature is what is true about nature.

Now they could be wrong about the world being real and knowable. They could be wrong about the course of nature being reliable. But then so would most Christians be wrong in believing God created a world that bears the imprint of God’s own orderliness and rationality. Jesus, Paul and others would be wrong in directing our attention to nature as a testimony to the character, power and glory of God. We could not count on “first the blade, then the ear and then the full corn in the ear.” We could not count on the regular return of “summer and winter, seedtime and harvest”. We could not count on a “time to every purpose under heaven.” And we could not have any such thing as science. Only magic.

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 are putting the cart before the horse. You can, if you will, learn how this is done. Then you will find your question is unnecessary, because you will understand why scientists can make pronouncements about long past events with confidence.

If you assume the impossibility, and then don’t study the methods based on your a priori assumption, then of course it will always seem improbable to you that scientists can do this. Just as it would have seemed improbable to a medieval peasant that humans could ever set foot on the moon without the aid of a miracle.

You make these assertions of truth as though they’re common knowledge, just like when someone says an egg produces a chicken.

They are common knowledge to those who don’t wear blindfolds.

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.

But they have seen indisputable evidence that permits no other logical explanation.

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.

No one is attempting to change the meaning of scripture. What is to be changed is a defective understanding of scripture. If we have the meaning of scripture wrong, then we need to change our understanding of scripture to agree with its actual meaning. If creation tells us something which contradicts our understanding of scripture, and if, upon examination of the matter, we find no fault in our understanding of creation, then we need to re-examine our understanding of scripture.

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?

Yes. We must always be ready to change our understanding. This is true in any field of science. It is also true when studying the scriptures. Interpretations of both creation and scripture must always be held with a degree of tentativeness. If we become too attached to our own personal interpretation we will not heed the Holy Spirit when our interpretation needs to be corrected.

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

The detail can be overwhelming, but it is not too difficult to grasp the basic processes. Often, I find that people who know little about evolution want to jump in at a level beyond their current comprehension without learning the basics first. They ask PhD level questions before they have developed a junior high level of comprehension. But if one begins at the beginning and takes it one step at a time, it is not as complex as you think.

If you are genuinely interested, send me a pm and we could begin an e-mail correspondence covering the process of evolution and the evidence that is happens and has happened.

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.

No, it is interpretation. No one is contending that the bible says anything other than 6 days. The issue is how to interpret what is meant by 6 days. Is it necessarily a solar day? Or could it be a divine day? Long before evolution was thought of—even before the birth of Christ, it was a rabbinical understanding that the days of creation were divine days more or less equivalent to 1,000 years each in human terms.

Is it an historical day or a “day of proclamation” or a day established by the framework of the story and the author’s intent to validate the Sabbath by grounding it in creation?

The claim that it must be an historical solar day occurring as recently as 6,000 years ago, is just one possible interpretation. It does happen that geology and cosmology do not accord with that interpretation. But that is not at all as saying they do not accord with the bible. Still less does it mean they do not accord with God’s Word. If the scientists are right about the age of the universe and the earth, that is God’s Word on the matter, revealed in creation itself.

 

[gluadys]

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

That’s what I said. Now are you contending that what we need to know is all that we can know or all that we should seek to know? Or is there knowledge over and above what we need to know that is practically useful in this life or which it is interesting to know for its own sake? Are we forbidden to seek such knowledge over and above what we need to know?

You sure put a lot of faith in man’s ability to accurately surmise truths based on so little information.

Faith is not required when evidence is so readily available. After all, even if our scientific knowledge is only a drop in the bucket, it is still a lot bigger drop in the bucket than what was known 500 or 5000 years ago.

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.

You missed the point. I said your reasoning was like reasoning I couldn’t win the lottery after I had already confirmed I held the winning ticket. Before the winning number is made known, all your reasoning could be right. But it has no force when the draw has already been held as we know someone has won. The same goes for all the statistical arguments against evolution. They are made obsolete by the fact of evolution.

. 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.

I think ambiguity is rooted in asking the wrong questions. E.g. predestination or free will? The answer is probably both, but to us it seems ambiguous because we can’t fit “both” into our logic.

That’s the easy way out.

Also honest.

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.

And truth always glorifies God. So it still comes back to the bottom line of whether or not evolution or geology or cosmology is a true description of created nature. To the extent they are true, they do glorify God.

By the same token, if evolution, etc. is true and you deny that truth, it is you who fails to glorify God. Contending that you were upholding “scriptural truth” in opposition to the truth of creation only means you failed to understand the truth of both.

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

Even when the scriptures speak of it, for scripture normally speaks of scientific matters as an aside without telling us much about them. So nature is still the primary reference here.

Who said anything about denying what is known.

It is definitely something I have seen creationists say, though I don’t know if you personally have done so. That even if the science is sound and cannot be disputed, we should still hold the contrary to be true by faith.

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.

If you are referring to spiritual gifts, remember they are given for the upbuilding of the church and are not given to everyone. The mind is given to everyone as a part of human nature.

Sorry about the incorrect reference. I have always been poor at remembering numerals even for the few seconds it takes to move my eyes from one window to another. Ask me for any number other than my address and phone number and I will probably give you the wrong sequence. Of course, I have had 30 years practice learning those two numbers.

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

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.

Well those are a couple of irrelevant responses. You are jumping to all sorts of assumptions such as “low scrutiny” and “frivolous use” which were not implied at all. Let’s stick to the topic.

The term fact to me is equated with truth

A fine example of the modernist, Enlightenment-derived restriction of truth to fact that is an essential base of creationism. This is why creationists cannot comprehend the value of myth as a conveyor of truth. If its not “fact” its not “true” hence the accusation lodged against TEs that identifying myth in biblical literature is equivalent to “dismissing” the bible or that part of the bible.

This kind of thinking is quite outdated in philosophy. It was certainly not the understanding of the biblical writers, nor of the church fathers or the medieval interpreters of scripture. And it is high time such a narrow POV was eliminated entirely from scriptural interpretation. It deprives people of so much of the richness of scripture.

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.

It’s not bold to say it is a fact when it is a fact. Nor is it putting man above God. If it is a fact, it is God’s truth and it would be putting ourself above God to deny it.

Scripture has taken a turn I was never aware of.

Always glad to help someone understand scripture more deeply.

So dominion equals love and man is to love animals just as he is to love his neighbor?

No, dominion does not equal love, but as God is love, it is obvious that God expects us to exercise dominion in love, and not with harshness or indifference to those subjected to us. I trust you can follow this logic?

If I loved all the animals like my neighbor then I think it would be a sin to kill them.

Maybe it is. I have not drawn that conclusion yet, but some have.

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

Genesis 1:20-25 for starters. I’ll look some more up later if you want.

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.

See, you have already decided scripture doesn’t say this before you have even looked. Take some time to study, pray and reflect. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may be surprised at what you find.

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.

Well, that would put everything we know about God in question.

 

[vossler]

Irrelevant. The point is that you do not wait for a specific command to be written in scripture to use faculties you were created to use.

There is no specific command in scripture to put an end to slavery. Yet Christians did eventually come to the conclusion that slavery and a profession of Christian faith were incompatible.

So the notion that everything must be spelled out in plain words in the bible before it has any validity just does not hold water.

We do not need a specific command to study nature. It’s there. We have to relate to it. We are curious about it. So we study it. The only reason not to study nature would be if there were a specific command forbidding it.

Apparently we do need a specific command to study scripture. I don’t find that surprising.

No the point is that you don't allow your own personal biases, based on 'evidence' not supported within the Bible, to dictate your understanding of Scripture.
There is no one purporting that if something isn't spelled out in plain words in the Bible it doesn't have any validity, just that if something is stated in plain words, those words are valid and they hold water.

Yes, nature or God's Creation is there, just because it's there doesn't mean we are called to study it. Yes, if we choose to do so, because we are curious, fine, study it. Just make sure that it doesn't take precedence over what God called us to study, His Word.

Inter-subjective agreement and concordance of evidence from different sources. Note that this is not an absolute guarantee of absolute truth. But it is the most reliable form of truth we have when it comes to the natural world.

When many people from many different backgrounds affected by many different biases and self-interests come to agree after careful analysis of evidence from many different sources, that one theoretical model better agrees with the evidence than all other candidates, it is likely that they are right. Not certain that they are—but highly probable.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a bunch of hypebole!

However, I did note that you stated "this is not an absolute guarantee of absolute truth. But it is the most reliable form of truth we have when it comes to the natural world" . At best, evolution could, if based on solid empirical evidence, fit into this type of truth. Yet, even then it won't hold a candle to the absolute truth of the Bible.
When as many different people from all the backgrounds you noted agree on something, you've got to know its at best a watered down limp and lifeless agreement. The U.N. comes to mind when I say that. The last thing I think of when you have that kind of consensus is truth. Remember, this consensus is derived from almost exclusively secular people. Shouldn't that alone be an alarm?

And creation is God’s truth.

Yes it is!

Well I have never yet seen any way a world view can change the evidence, nor have I seen a way that it can render a logical argument valid or invalid depending on one’s bias. Perhaps you can demonstrate how this happens.

Ah, but it changes how you approach the evidence. If you come into your scientific studies with a world-view of billions of years you will be looking for things to substantiate that view, it's human nature. It would be the same for the young earth creationist.

Ultimately that is a philosophical question of epistemology.

Science does not deal much with epistemology. Scientists pragmatically assume that what they investigate is a real and knowable world and that truth is what accords with that reality. What works in terms of predicting the course of nature is what is true about nature.

Now they could be wrong about the world being real and knowable. They could be wrong about the course of nature being reliable. But then so would most Christians be wrong in believing God created a world that bears the imprint of God’s own orderliness and rationality. Jesus, Paul and others would be wrong in directing our attention to nature as a testimony to the character, power and glory of God. We could not count on “first the blade, then the ear and then the full corn in the ear.” We could not count on the regular return of “summer and winter, seedtime and harvest”. We could not count on a “time to every purpose under heaven.” And we could not have any such thing as science. Only magic.

I would submit no magic, just the only true source of truth that matters, the Holy Bible. On this I count my life upon. The rest of the 'truth' that exists is of little consequence and importance. If God would reveal to me that there are other things that I should spend my time on, like studying evolution, I will most certainly do so.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You can, if you will, learn how this is done. Then you will find your question is unnecessary, because you will understand why scientists can make pronouncements about long past events with confidence.

If you assume the impossibility, and then don’t study the methods based on your a priori assumption, then of course it will always seem improbable to you that scientists can do this. Just as it would have seemed improbable to a medieval peasant that humans could ever set foot on the moon without the aid of a miracle.

Again, I'm no scientist, but I am aware of the methods. But you forget there are scientists on the other side of the aisle that have their own evidence and it reads much easier.

But they have seen indisputable evidence that permits no other logical explanation.

How can it be considered indisputable if there are many people who dispute it?

No one is attempting to change the meaning of scripture. What is to be changed is a defective understanding of scripture. If we have the meaning of scripture wrong, then we need to change our understanding of scripture to agree with its actual meaning. If creation tells us something which contradicts our understanding of scripture, and if, upon examination of the matter, we find no fault in our understanding of creation, then we need to re-examine our understanding of scripture.

This defective understanding is from a man based science, not Scripture. I find lot's of fault with evolution and so therefore won't even consider it's claims. When one wishes to change the plain and simple meaning of Scripture the task becomes greater than almost anything else.

The detail can be overwhelming, but it is not too difficult to grasp the basic processes. Often, I find that people who know little about evolution want to jump in at a level beyond their current comprehension without learning the basics first. They ask PhD level questions before they have developed a junior high level of comprehension. But if one begins at the beginning and takes it one step at a time, it is not as complex as you think.

If you are genuinely interested, send me a pm and we could begin an e-mail correspondence covering the process of evolution and the evidence that is happens and has happened.

I don't have a problem with the basic processes. I've studied the subject enough to know them better than the average person. That's the problem, the more I know the less I believe and the more skeptical I become. Now if all I did was hear one side of the debate it would be easy to become persuaded to that side. But I've listened to both sides and the more I hear the more persuaded I become.
[size=+0][/size]It is as you say, detail oriented, and the details are very, very difficult to grasp when your world-view is one of a Creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

No, it is interpretation. No one is contending that the bible says anything other than 6 days. The issue is how to interpret what is meant by 6 days. Is it necessarily a solar day? Or could it be a divine day? Long before evolution was thought of—even before the birth of Christ, it was a rabbinical understanding that the days of creation were divine days more or less equivalent to 1,000 years each in human terms.

Is it an historical day or a “day of proclamation” or a day established by the framework of the story and the author’s intent to validate the Sabbath by grounding it in creation?

The claim that it must be an historical solar day occurring as recently as 6,000 years ago, is just one possible interpretation. It does happen that geology and cosmology do not accord with that interpretation. But that is not at all as saying they do not accord with the bible. Still less does it mean they do not accord with God’s Word. If the scientists are right about the age of the universe and the earth, that is God’s Word on the matter, revealed in creation itself.

So did Adam himself make the claim that a day is a solar day?

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that the Bible actually says 6 days. Did the Bible speak of solar days? No. Did it speak of divine days? No. So, without biblical evidence, evolutionists wish to change the meaning of 6 days into 4.5 billion years and you say it's a matter of interpretation. I hope and pray you can see how this opens the Bible up to all sorts of interpretations that in the end do nothing but weaken its message.

 

[vossler]

That’s what I said. Now are you contending that what we need to know is all that we can know or all that we should seek to know? Or is there knowledge over and above what we need to know that is practically useful in this life or which it is interesting to know for its own sake? Are we forbidden to seek such knowledge over and above what we need to know?

Yes there is knowledge over and above what we need to know that is practical and useful in this life and/or interesting to know for its own sake and no it is not forbidden to seek it.

Faith is not required when evidence is so readily available. After all, even if our scientific knowledge is only a drop in the bucket, it is still a lot bigger drop in the bucket than what was known 500 or 5000 years ago.

So by your definition, if we have a bigger drop of knowledge in our bucket today than we did 500 years ago, no faith is required to ascertain the knowledge missing in the bucket. Hmmmm...and evolutionists wonder why we have so many doubts.

You missed the point. I said your reasoning was like reasoning I couldn’t win the lottery after I had already confirmed I held the winning ticket. Before the winning number is made known, all your reasoning could be right. But it has no force when the draw has already been held as we know someone has won. The same goes for all the statistical arguments against evolution. They are made obsolete by the fact of evolution.

Well that's quite a stretch you've got there. You've won the lottery on our origins. Since the 'game' is over, so to speak, everything else is obsolete. Tell me, how many times over the past 150 years has evolution itself evolved into something different? At what point, during this time, did the 'game' end; and if it has ended with only a drop (a big one at that) of the evidence in the bucket, what does that say about the rules that evolution operates under? The answer is; the rules themselves, based on changing evidence, have evolved also over the same period of time.

Then this drop of evidence, which is based on years of study by many people, is now called truth, and this new truth has thereby called all arguments against it obsolete.

So to recap, we have a drop of evidence in a bucket of unknown knowledge that now equals the truth of evolution.

Quite fascinating!

And truth always glorifies God. So it still comes back to the bottom line of whether or not evolution or geology or cosmology is a true description of created nature. To the extent they are true, they do glorify God.

Agreed!

By the same token, if evolution, etc. is true and you deny that truth, it is you who fails to glorify God. Contending that you were upholding “scriptural truth” in opposition to the truth of creation only means you failed to understand the truth of both.

If evolution were true and I denied it, it would be me who failed to accept the evidence man accumulated in his effort to find the truth of God's Creation and thereby I would have failed in my effort, or lack thereof, to find the truth. It was up to me, throught the evidence, to have figured out that God was speaking allogorically or mythologically when He said 6 days. This should, according to you, be considered a failure to glorify God.

If a young earth is true and you denied it, it would be you who failed to trust that when God said 6 days He actually meant 6 days. But because you trusted man's measurements and intelligence and not God's word, you will have failed in your attempt to figure out His Creation. It would be true that you denied the truth of His Word and thereby you would have failed to honor and glorify God, but honored and glorified yourself.

Even when the scriptures speak of it, for scripture normally speaks of scientific matters as an aside without telling us much about them. So nature is still the primary reference here.

Even if it is, as you say, an aside, that doesn't make it any less true.

A fine example of the modernist, Enlightenment-derived restriction of truth to fact that is an essential base of creationism. This is why creationists cannot comprehend the value of myth as a conveyor of truth. If its not “fact” its not “true” hence the accusation lodged against TEs that identifying myth in biblical literature is equivalent to “dismissing” the bible or that part of the bible.

This kind of thinking is quite outdated in philosophy. It was certainly not the understanding of the biblical writers, nor of the church fathers or the medieval interpreters of scripture. And it is high time such a narrow POV was eliminated entirely from scriptural interpretation. It deprives people of so much of the richness of scripture.

Here is the definition of truth: Conformity to fact or actuality.

So if you wish to believe this is some sort of "modernist, Enlightenment-derived restriction," feel free.

It’s not bold to say it is a fact when it is a fact. Nor is it putting man above God. If it is a fact, it is God’s truth and it would be putting ourself above God to deny it.

As far as I can see, we have a hard enough time determining present history with any clarity, yet accounts of what happened 'millions' of years ago seem to become very easy, quite clear and factual to the point of being considered truth for you. Interesting!

No, dominion does not equal love, but as God is love, it is obvious that God expects us to exercise dominion in love, and not with harshness or indifference to those subjected to us. I trust you can follow this logic?

I think I'm following your logic.

Here is what I've heard. God is love. No problem here, very true!

Now, according to your statement, if I were to exercise dominion without loving the animals you would consider that harsh and indifferent. So how is a rancher to do his job without being, in some way indifferent and even harsh to the animals he raises and slaughters? What about the man who raises chickens? Certainly these people are not loving these animals, so according to you; are these people sinners? Do they need to repent and fall on their faces before God?

[size=+0][/size]Am I following your logic?

Genesis 1:20-25 for starters. I’ll look some more up later if you want.

Here is Genesis 1:20-25

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

I don’t see anything where God tells us that He loves animals or that we’re to love the animals.

See, you have already decided scripture doesn’t say this before you have even looked. Take some time to study, pray and reflect. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may be surprised at what you find.

No, I looked before I spoke and I think you’ll find that there isn’t a single place in Scripture where God tells me that He loves animals and wants us to care for them with love.

So, there we have it another round complete with probably nothing accomplished.

If you wish we can keep this going, however my next response will probably not be as timely. I have some commitments for this weekend that are quite extensive.

God Bless

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Try the last verse of Jonah, Vossler.

 

[gluadys]

If you wish we can keep this going, however my next response will probably not be as timely. I have some commitments for this weekend that are quite extensive.

God Bless

No problem. I will be away this weekend too. Get back to you next week.

 

[vossler]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion of this topic.

I have some comments on the replies given for each question and I'll follow that with some final thoughts.

The first question I asked was:

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

There wasn’t much of a significant response given other than some theories presented as to revelation and just what Scripture does command. None of these were supported by Scripture or really anything else. Lots of opinion, but little support.

The second question was:

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

Again, here we didn’t get much more than unsupported opinion, opinion that is based solely on man’s knowledge or evidence of Creation.

The last question:

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

Now here we have an attempt to bring some scriptural support for the opinions being expressed, however most of it was not applicable to the question. But when all is said and done, we once again have a lot of unsupported opinion, but with little substance.

There was also lots of talk about special revelation and some other theories were presented.

Since there isn’t any other interest on this topic I’ll submit my personal closing thoughts.

I believe that Creation is being used as an idol by evolutionists. I say that because the sources that evolutionists rely or base their views on are all man-made; that in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. Everything must begin with God and what He says. As this discussion has shown, Scripture has played little or no role in their hypotheses. Yeah, the argument will be made that Creation is God’s revelation, and it is, but that doesn’t give one license to take the creation account presented in Scripture and change it to suit man's findings.

Science isn’t the problem because it operates under the rules that man gives it. The science, for the most part, is accurate, at least when pressed into the models that scientists operate under. The problem isn’t with science, but with its man-made models. If it doesn’t show you what you’re looking for, it isn’t too difficult to manipulate the findings to coincide with what it is you want. This is born out when we see that man is at the center of the vast majority of all major scientific findings. Rarely, if ever is God mentioned, and if He is it isn’t usually in a manner He would approve of.

Well if you look at evolution and its origins, you’ll find the biggest authors and proponents of it are atheists or agnostics. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to Christians. Anything that shows God to be wrong is right up their alley. No big surprise here. However, what is a surprise is how quickly and easily well meaning Christians also follow these atheists/agnostics. This is continually revealed by man’s inherent desire to exalt himself. It is difficult for man to do that while acknowledging God.

That’s how it all comes back to a form of idol worship. The idol in this case isn’t a golden calf but the knowledge of man being lifted above God’s very own Scripture and Creation.

All the other things, terms or theories which are promoted are forms of distraction provided by the enemy all in an effort to cast doubt among the believers. The enemy is very sly and manipulative when we allow him an inroad. In this case the inroad is the very idea of evolution. An idea that is, IMO, at it’s very core anti-God.

I just read this quote today and felt it says a lot about this current debate.

Creating a universe through evolution would be just a difficult as creating it in 6 days. The problem is the Bible says it was in six days, and few thousand years ago. Why not believe it? If we pick and choose which sections to believe we give license to those who want to do the same.

So it all just comes down to whether or not one believes Scripture or man. If it’s man then he is glorified and if it’s God He is glorified.

I know where I stand.

 

[shernren]

I believe that Creation is being used as an idol by evolutionists.

How ironic - how many times have we seen Gluadys and Didas take potshots at creationists for using the Bible as an idol? looks like you can just go on believing that we on the other side of the fence simply have no reason to believe what we believe.

 

[vossler]

How ironic - how many times have we seen Gluadys and Didas take potshots at creationists for using the Bible as an idol? looks like you can just go on believing that we on the other side of the fence simply have no reason to believe what we believe.

shernren, obviously you and other evolutionists have reasons for your belief, I'm simply saying they're not biblically based.

 

[The Lady Kate]

shernren, obviously you and other evolutionists have reasons for your belief, I'm simply saying they're not biblically based.

To which I for one respond that perhaps our relationship with God should not be limited by the Bible... or at least not by any one particular interpretation of it.

 

[Critias]

To which I for one respond that perhaps our relationship with God should not be limited by the Bible... or at least not by any one particular interpretation of it.

I am curious to hear your explanation. What do you mean your relationship with God shouldn't be limited to the Bible?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I am curious to hear your explanation. What do you mean your relationship with God shouldn't be limited to the Bible?

I'll try my best to put it into words: My point is that even thought the Bible is the word of God, our interpretation of it is not the last word.

Our understanding of God's word and our understanding of God's acts (creation) must reconcile with each other... and if they don't then something has to change. And we cannot be afraid to change our understanding of Scripture (if that's what it takes) to reconcile God's words and deeds.

When I say that my relationship with God shouldn't be "limited" by the Bible, I mean (and I hope I say this right) that how I choose to read Scripture, and more importantly, how other people tell me to read Scripture, should not be allowed limit God in any way.

God is more than even what the Bible says He is... it would be naive of us to assume that even Scripture is a complete depiction of God. He cannot be contained by any one book... not even by the Bible.

 

[Critias]

I'll try my best to put it into words: My point is that even thought the Bible is the word of God, our interpretation of it is not the last word.

I would agree with that.

Our understanding of God's word and our understanding of God's acts (creation) must reconcile with each other... and if they don't then something has to change. And we cannot be afraid to change our understanding of Scripture (if that's what it takes) to reconcile God's words and deeds.

The thing that gets me is that TEs often equate creation with the interpretation of creation given by scientists.

Without trying to be argumentative, oddly TEs and YECs do the same thing. YECs sometime take the Bible and their interpretation to be the same. TEs sometime take creation and scientists interpretation of creation to be the same thing.

Do you understand what I am saying? We can't say either are equal. Interpretation doesn't equal creation or the Bible. Both interpretations can be wrong.

It always stumps me why TEs accept that the interpretation of the Bible is wrong and not scientists interpretation. Can you compare the two views and explain to me from your perspective why the former is wrong?

When I say that my relationship with God shouldn't be "limited" by the Bible, I mean (and I hope I say this right) that how I choose to read Scripture, and more importantly, how other people tell me to read Scripture, should not be allowed limit God in any way.

I agree. If I could make any TE realize something, it would be that YECs are not trying to limit God, but rather say because the Bible says 'A' then 'A' happened. This isn't to limit God, but rather to say this is how God says He did it.

I don't see how that is limiting Him. Is it that we aren't skeptical of what God has said that is the problem?

God is more than even what the Bible says He is... it would be naive of us to assume that even Scripture is a complete depiction of God. He cannot be contained by any one book... not even by the Bible.

I agree. YECs believe that the Bible is God given through holy men. They are the teachings of God written by holy men entrusted by God. YECs don't view the Bible as it being all there is of God. Rather, YECs view the Bible as who God is and what God has done. YECs believe there is more to God than just the Bible, but God gave us the Bible to know Him and what is in it is what we need to know.

YECs believe that creation is for the purpose of giving Him glory, not as a second revelation equal to the Bible that gives us the same teachings therein. Creation is to be viewed and enjoyed and to give God His Glory.

Was the wine at the wedding feast meant to be disected and studied to focus on the chemical compounds or was it a sign to show who Jesus is?

Was creation meant to be dissected and studied to focus on the matter and compounds or was it to give God glory?

Where do we put our focus when we look to creation? Is it on God or is it on science? If we put science ahead of God when viewing something He made, by that I mean we focus on science rather than on God, then we are making an idol of creation.

The same is true if we put the focus of the Bible onto the pages or the pen marks instead of God and His teachings.

Apparently, I am too ignorant to make this clear to anyone. That if we focus on science when looking to creation instead of God that we are putting ourselves before God. We are focusing too much on what man does, instead of what God did.

We are a society that likes to teach about man and what man has done; all of man's great accomplishments; oh look at man. We love the focus on us, we love the attention, we love the fame, we love everyone looking to us.

It is not that I have a problem looking at the things man has done, but we put all focus on man instead of God. Franklin Graham was right when he prayed at Bush's innaugaration that America has turned her eyes away from God. Instead our eyes are on ourselves and we justify it everyday. And it isn't just in science.

Am I the only one here who sees something wrong with this?

 

[The Lady Kate]

The thing that gets me is that TEs often equate creation with the interpretation of creation given by scientists.

Without trying to be argumentative, oddly TEs and YECs do the same thing. YECs sometime take the Bible and their interpretation to be the same. TEs sometime take creation and scientists interpretation of creation to be the same thing.

Do you understand what I am saying? We can't say either are equal. Interpretation doesn't equal creation or the Bible. Both interpretations can be wrong.

It always stumps me why TEs accept that the interpretation of the Bible is wrong and not scientists interpretation. Can you compare the two views and explain to me from your perspective why the former is wrong?

Because, IMHO, between interpretations of Scripture and Interpretations of Creation, it is far easier to misinterpret Scripture.

Nothing in Creation is poetic, allegorical, or metaphorical... it is every bit as plain and simple as YECs insist that Scripture should be read.

Second, Scripture comes to us from God through man. Inspired men, to be sure, but men nonetheless. And anything that man touches is fallible. Plus, who knows what else was going on, or what else the authors of the Bible were trying to convey? No possibility for hidden agendas in God's own creation.

Third, The findings of scientists are open for anyone to see. Check their work for yourself if you're skeptical.

I agree. If I could make any TE realize something, it would be that YECs are not trying to limit God, but rather say because the Bible says 'A' then 'A' happened. This isn't to limit God, but rather to say this is how God says He did it.

But it's not. It's how the authors of the Bible were telling their peers how God did it.

I don't see how that is limiting Him. Is it that we aren't skeptical of what God has said that is the problem?

Because the Bible didn't come to us FAXed from heaven with God's fingerprints still on it. Creation did.

I agree. YECs believe that the Bible is God given through holy men. They are the teachings of God written by holy men entrusted by God. YECs don't view the Bible as it being all there is of God. Rather, YECs view the Bible as who God is and what God has done. YECs believe there is more to God than just the Bible, but God gave us the Bible to know Him and what is in it is what we need to know.

But not even the Bible is the whole story...that's my point.

YECs believe that creation is for the purpose of giving Him glory, not as a second revelation equal to the Bible that gives us the same teachings therein. Creation is to be viewed and enjoyed and to give God His Glory.

Which can be done no matter HOW God did it.

Was the wine at the wedding feast meant to be disected and studied to focus on the chemical compounds or was it a sign to show who Jesus is?

I didn't have any of that wine... did you?

On the other hand, I do happen to live on the planet He created... am I not allowed to ask questions and investigate how He did it?

Was creation meant to be dissected and studied to focus on the matter and compounds or was it to give God glory?

Who's to say we cannot do both?

Where do we put our focus when we look to creation? Is it on God or is it on science? If we put science ahead of God when viewing something He made, by that I mean we focus on science rather than on God, then we are making an idol of creation.

God is not the Bible. And He certainly is not a literalist YEC interpretation of the Bible.

The same is true if we put the focus of the Bible onto the pages or the pen marks instead of God and His teachings.

I'm afread God made me far too curious to just let it slide.

Apparently, I am too ignorant to make this clear to anyone. That if we focus on science when looking to creation instead of God that we are putting ourselves before God. We are focusing too much on what man does, instead of what God did.

Actually, we're looking directly at what God did. Instead of what men, even holy men, said He did.

We are a society that likes to teach about man and what man has done; all of man's great accomplishments; oh look at man. We love the focus on us, we love the attention, we love the fame, we love everyone looking to us.

It is not that I have a problem looking at the things man has done, but we put all focus on man instead of God. Franklin Graham was right when he prayed at Bush's innaugaration that America has turned her eyes away from God. Instead our eyes are on ourselves and we justify it everyday. And it isn't just in science.

Am I the only one here who sees something wrong with this?

I don't see it as bad as you've described. And I don't think TE takes any glory away from God, or puts man above God.

God has given us a wonderful and insanely complicated planet to live on. Surely He knew that sooner or later we'd study how it works.

 

[vossler]

Because, IMHO, between interpretations of Scripture and Interpretations of Creation, it is far easier to misinterpret Scripture.

Nothing in Creation is poetic, allegorical, or metaphorical... it is every bit as plain and simple as YECs insist that Scripture should be read.

An honest, personal, answer; quite refreshing! I don't agree with any of it, but fortunately I don't have to.

Second, Scripture comes to us from God through man. Inspired men, to be sure, but men nonetheless. And anything that man touches is fallible. Plus, who knows what else was going on, or what else the authors of the Bible were trying to convey? No possibility for hidden agendas in God's own creation.

Either they're men guided by the Holy Spirit to do as He says, which means it will be done exactly right or they're inspired men and fallible, and there is no assurance that they got it right. I choose the former and you the latter.

Third, The findings of scientists are open for anyone to see. Check their work for yourself if you're skeptical.

Yes, most findings are open for us to see. Still, you have to admit if I'm an atheist and a scientist I'm going to look for evidence that backs up my world view, whereas a Christian scientist will look for evidence that does the same. So there is plenty of reason to be skeptical.

But it's not. It's how the authors of the Bible were telling their peers how God did it.

Here is the crux of the disagreement, we believe the Bible to be the Word of God written exactly as God wanted it written, while you believe it to be something less.

Because the Bible didn't come to us FAXed from heaven with God's fingerprints still on it. Creation did.

With that as my foundation it would be easy to dismiss or interpret Scripture however I choose, but I believe it was faxed to us from heaven

But not even the Bible is the whole story...that's my point.

No, but it's the only story we need to know.

I didn't have any of that wine... did you?

On the other hand, I do happen to live on the planet He created... am I not allowed to ask questions and investigate how He did it?

Of course, but with our biblical glasses on.

God is not the Bible. And He certainly is not a literalist YEC interpretation of the Bible.

No, nor is anyone claiming he is.

I'm afread God made me far too curious to just let it slide.

I think most of us are curious, the question is under what parameters are we operating under.

Actually, we're looking directly at what God did. Instead of what men, even holy men, said He did.

Through the eyes of men who aren't holy.

 

[Critias]

Because, IMHO, between interpretations of Scripture and Interpretations of Creation, it is far easier to misinterpret Scripture.

I believe both are just as easy to misinterpret. No one was there at the beginning but God. We can easily read into Scripture and easily read into Creation where we support conclusions that are not correct.

Nothing in Creation is poetic, allegorical, or metaphorical... it is every bit as plain and simple as YECs insist that Scripture should be read.

Yes, much like Genesis. Though, many assertions are made upon assertions when concerning the science of origins. Because no one was there, educated guesses and assertions built on them are the best science can give.

Second, Scripture comes to us from God through man. Inspired men, to be sure, but men nonetheless. And anything that man touches is fallible. Plus, who knows what else was going on, or what else the authors of the Bible were trying to convey? No possibility for hidden agendas in God's own creation.

I would suggest a word study on the Timothy passage about how men were moved or inspired by God to write what they did. You will find that the word used in the Greek means to be moved as a boat is moved because of the wind. So too, holy men of God were moved by His Spirit, like the wind moves a boat, to write what God wanted to be written.

Are you skeptical of the Biblical Authors and what they were trying to do?

The only hidden agenda in the Bible is to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ so that they may have eternal life through Him.

Not such a bad thing.

Third, The findings of scientists are open for anyone to see. Check their work for yourself if you're skeptical.

Many have, and many have refuted their work. Not just creationists, but even evolutionists have refuted many of the assertions that come out from studying Creation.

Studying Creation with science isn't as clear cut as you may think.

But it's not. It's how the authors of the Bible were telling their peers how God did it.

Those in Christ are their peers.

Because the Bible didn't come to us FAXed from heaven with God's fingerprints still on it. Creation did.

Nope, FAX machines didn't exist then. God had a better method anyway. His fingerprints are all over His teachings within the Bible.

But not even the Bible is the whole story...that's my point.

And I agreed to this. The Bible is what we need to know of God.

Which can be done no matter HOW God did it.

I agree, but it isn't being done, sadly.

I didn't have any of that wine... did you?

If you were there, would you put all your efforts into testing that wine and figuring it out or would you give Glory to Christ?

On the other hand, I do happen to live on the planet He created... am I not allowed to ask questions and investigate how He did it?

Of course you are. As a Christian we ought to start with the Bible as our presupposition. TEs, when viewing Genesis, start with science instead.

Who's to say we cannot do both?

No one. It just isn't being done.

God is not the Bible. And He certainly is not a literalist YEC interpretation of the Bible.

No, God isn't the Bible. The Bible does tell us of God and what He has done. I would beg to differ that God isn't a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says God is Holy, Righteous, Loving, Merciful, full of Grace, etc. I believe those are literal adjectives of God.

I'm afread God made me far too curious to just let it slide.

If it means you are far too curious that you reject part of His word, then that is your own doing, not God's.

Actually, we're looking directly at what God did. Instead of what men, even holy men, said He did.

Yeah, scientists are looking at Creation and then come up with interpretations that people like you follow. So, we have:

God -> Holy Men -> Bible
Creation -> Scientists -> Theory of Evolution

Anyone see a difference?

I don't see it as bad as you've described. And I don't think TE takes any glory away from God, or puts man above God.

I don't think TEs mean to do it, for the most part. Although, there are some here who out spokenly support giving men glory instead of God. You may not be one of them.

I wonder if Paul was around today if he would support keeping quiet about God in certain places because it is inappropriate by man's standards.

God has given us a wonderful and insanely complicated planet to live on. Surely He knew that sooner or later we'd study how it works.

I agree, that is why Genesis is here.

 

[The Lady Kate]

An honest, personal, answer; quite refreshing! I don't agree with any of it, but fortunately I don't have to.

Far more fortunately, nobody, least of all me, is asking you to.

Either they're men guided by the Holy Spirit to do as He says, which means it will be done exactly right or they're inspired men and fallible, and there is no assurance that they got it right. I choose the former and you the latter.

Which means either they wrote the Bible with their free will intact...which leaves them fallible, or they were manipulated by the Holy Spirit to be God's fingerpuppets.

I've never known God to interfere with free will... have you?

Yes, most findings are open for us to see. Still, you have to admit if I'm an atheist and a scientist I'm going to look for evidence that backs up my world view, whereas a Christian scientist will look for evidence that does the same.

I "have" to admit no such thing. An ethical scientist looks for the facts, regardless of their world view.

What I will admit is that both Atheists and Christians have the occasional unethical scientist.

So there is plenty of reason to be skeptical.

Here is the crux of the disagreement, we believe the Bible to be the Word of God written exactly as God wanted it written, while you believe it to be something less.

Written for whom? the men of 2000 years past, or written for us in the here and now?

Were it written for us in the here and now, no "interpretation" would be necessary.

With that as my foundation it would be easy to dismiss or interpret Scripture however I choose, but I believe it was faxed to us from heaven

Then you choose to ignore the men who helped bring it about, and the history of compilation to make it what it is today. That's your choice.

No, but it's the only story we need to know.

Which means we don't need to know anything else? How limiting.

Of course, but with our biblical glasses on.

Just so long as you know the difference between glasses and a blindfold.

No, nor is anyone claiming he is.

With the exception of the occasional Biblical literalist, who will cheerfully tell you that God is, and can only be, what the Bible says He is... and that the Bible is all we need to know about Him.

I think most of us are curious, the question is under what parameters are we operating under.

The parameters of finding the facts, regardless of where they may lead.

Through the eyes of men who aren't holy.

Scientists aren't holy. You're not holy. I'm not holy. That doesn't mean we have nothing worth knowing.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I believe both are just as easy to misinterpret. No one was there at the beginning but God. We can easily read into Scripture and easily read into Creation where we support conclusions that are not correct.

It's certainly possible to misinterpret either...

Yes, much like Genesis.

You don't think Genesis contains any poety, allegory, or mythology? On what do you base that belief?

Though, many assertions are made upon assertions when concerning the science of origins. Because no one was there, educated guesses and assertions built on them are the best science can give.

Which is the best that we as fallible humans can do... the best we can with what we have.

I would suggest a word study on the Timothy passage about how men were moved or inspired by God to write what they did. You will find that the word used in the Greek means to be moved as a boat is moved because of the wind. So too, holy men of God were moved by His Spirit, like the wind moves a boat, to write what God wanted to be written.

It still doesn't say that God wanted it to be read as a straight-up literal history. God has shown His creativity in His Creation; why must His word lack it?

Are you skeptical of the Biblical Authors and what they were trying to do?

Of course. Must I revere them as infallible demi-Gods, or accept them as men charged with the daunting task of presenting God's message to His people?

The only hidden agenda in the Bible is to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ so that they may have eternal life through Him.

Hardly a "hidden" agenda.

Many have, and many have refuted their work. Not just creationists, but even evolutionists have refuted many of the assertions that come out from studying Creation.

Studying Creation with science isn't as clear cut as you may think.

You've just proven that all men are fallible.

Those in Christ are their peers.

I was referring to the peers of their particular time. Many believed that the world was to end soon... not much point thinking about the distant future.

Nope, FAX machines didn't exist then. God had a better method anyway. His fingerprints are all over His teachings within the Bible.

So you say, but I find Fingerprints to be far clearer on His creation.

And I agreed to this. The Bible is what we need to know of God.

But not all we need to know.

I agree, but it isn't being done, sadly.

But that's not the fault of evolution.

If you were there, would you put all your efforts into testing that wine and figuring it out or would you give Glory to Christ?

Is that why Christ did it? For the glory?

Of course you are. As a Christian we ought to start with the Bible as our presupposition. TEs, when viewing Genesis, start with science instead.

As a Christian we ought to start with Christ as our presupposition.

No one. It just isn't being done.

Agreed. and again, TE is not to blame for that.

No, God isn't the Bible. The Bible does tell us of God and what He has done. I would beg to differ that God isn't a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says God is Holy, Righteous, Loving, Merciful, full of Grace, etc. I believe those are literal adjectives of God.

That says it all, doesn't it?

If it means you are far too curious that you reject part of His word, then that is your own doing, not God's.

When have I rejected God's word? What I have rejected is one particular way of reading His word.

Yeah, scientists are looking at Creation and then come up with interpretations that people like you follow. So, we have:

God -> Holy Men -> Bible
Creation -> Scientists -> Theory of Evolution

Evolution is not Atheism, as you must surely know by now. Nor is evolution incompatible with it.

Don't you really mean:

God -> Holy Men -> Bible -> Literalism -> You -> YEC?

Anyone see a difference?

I do. Sadly you do not.

I don't think TEs mean to do it, for the most part. Although, there are some here who out spokenly support giving men glory instead of God. You may not be one of them.

I wonder if Paul was around today if he would support keeping quiet about God in certain places because it is inappropriate by man's standards.

Who's keeping quiet about God? We still believe He created the world, and give him glory for it... I, for one, stand in awe at the boundless patience and subtlety he used to gently guide this world into what I believe He wanted it to be.

Must it be "wrong" if it disagrees with you?

I agree, that is why Genesis is here.

I see Genesis as serving a different, but no less important, purpose.

 

[Numenor]

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said.

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

Gen 1:24 - "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds."

Coupled with v25 this has been used as evidence that God's creation brought forth animals at God's command, ie scriptural support for evolution.

Also, your use of the word 'loophole' is rather disappointing. Don't you believe that your TE brethren can actually be sincere in their study of scripture without constantly looking to see theologically how much they can get away with?

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

No, we create a synthesis, from our limited knowledge and view of creation and limited knowledge and view of Scripture, that is consistent with both.

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

Gen 1:28 - "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

The command to subdue the earth requires man to study God's creation. If Cain and Abel had not studied aspects of creation how would they have ever learned to become farmers and raise crops and livestock?

 

[vossler]

Which means either they wrote the Bible with their free will intact...which leaves them fallible, or they were manipulated by the Holy Spirit to be God's fingerpuppets.

Can someone obey God and not be fallible while doing so?

I've never known God to interfere with free will... have you?

But what if their 'free will' was to to obey God and do as He says?

I "have" to admit no such thing. An ethical scientist looks for the facts, regardless of their world view.

In a perfect world that would be true, but alas, we don't live in such a world yet. Maybe soon.

What I will admit is that both Atheists and Christians have the occasional unethical scientist.

I would hope and expect the Christian scientist to have fewer ethical lapses, wouldn't you?

Written for whom? the men of 2000 years past, or written for us in the here and now?

That's the beauty of God's Word, it was written for them and us, it is timeless.

Were it written for us in the here and now, no "interpretation" would be necessary.

Just look at how our Constitution, which is simple and clear to understand, and how we've butchered that wonderful document.

Then you choose to ignore the men who helped bring it about, and the history of compilation to make it what it is today. That's your choice.

Oh, on the contrary, they're input and history colors much of what we know, but it doesn't change the message.

Which means we don't need to know anything else? How limiting.

Oh no, it just means we don't need to know other things when it comes to what is most important, our relationship to God and how to live our lives. We still need to know about how to do our jobs, use the technology available, invent or discover, etc. The point is, none of those things are essential.

Just so long as you know the difference between glasses and a blindfold.

With the exception of the occasional Biblical literalist, who will cheerfully tell you that God is, and can only be, what the Bible says He is... and that the Bible is all we need to know about Him.

Unfortunately, there always will be extremists amoung us.

The parameters of finding the facts, regardless of where they may lead.

C'mon you've got to admit if I approach my study of Creation as an atheist who believe in evolution, I am going to look at the 'evidence' with a different set of eyes than if I were a Christian who believes in the Bible. Again, in a perfect world your statement might hold up.

Scientists aren't holy. You're not holy. I'm not holy. That doesn't mean we have nothing worth knowing.

No, but it does mean that we should be like the Bereans and whatever is promoted must be held up to Scripture.