Scripture and Creation

[vossler]

Yes, though humans did not evolve from amoebas. But to do so would take a long time as you need to understand both the process of evolution and the evidence for evolution, especially the evidence for speciation and the standard phylogeny of life.

Rather than go through all that on this forum, I suggest you read The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It covers a lot more detail than we could cover here in a month of Sundays.

If you prefer the forum format though, we can begin with what you understand about the structure and replication of DNA.

Thanks for the reference, I'll see about getting a copy from our library. In the meantime, how about just showing me a single backward speciation change for man that can clearly and succinctly be proven.

How can a work of God not be a source of truth?

Truth is located all throughout Creation, but this doesn't mean we can have access to it. The Bible was declared our source for truth. see below.

That was not the point. You have said---and rightly--that scientists do not have a complete knowledge of creation. In fact, what we know about creation may be only a drop in the bucket compared to what we have yet to learn.

Since the Bible is the source of truth.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Anyone not of God, will never know truth. Since most scientists are not of God, I won't be too concerned about any 'truth' they profess.

Yet you presume to think that you do have complete or nearly complete knowledge of the absolute truth of scripture. In fact, your knowledge of the truth of scripture may also be not more than a drop in the bucket compared to what you have not learned from scripture yet. Our conversation on love illustrates to me that you have much to learn about how to read scripture yet. I find it astonishing that you cannot come to simple and obvious conclusions, yet you flatter yourself that your knowledge of scripture is sufficient to outweigh a scientist's knowledge of nature.

All of our knowledge is partial. Your knowledge of scripture is just as partial as a scientist's knowledge of nature. There is no access to absolute knowledge this side of heaven, no matter where we seek it.

I presume no such thing. I have a very limited knowledge of the truth of Scripture and it very well could be only a drop in the bucket compared to what I have not learned of Scripture yet.

I'm certainly not trying to flatter myself regarding my knowledge of anything. All I'm doing is referring myself and others to what Scripture itself says. Remember that God and Scripture are the source of all truth that exists. Since I'm a child of God I do have access to truth whenever I look into my Bible, it may be limited by my finite mind, but I do have access none the less.

I didn't say it was. I said it is an expression of love.

Sure caring is an expression of love, but you implied you couldn't have one without the other. Would you agree that you can care for something without loving it?

Genesis 1:1, John 1:3, John 3:16, 1 John 4:8, Job 38-39 and any of several psalms praising creation, Genesis 8:21-22, Exodus 20: 10, Leviticus 25: 6-7, and several other laws on the care of animals, Matthew 6: 26-30.

How can Love not love what Love creates?

Nice to quote book, chapter and verse without actually posting what they say. I suppose if you did we'd all see that not a single one of them states 'God loves everything He created,' which was what you were going to show.

Then the truth is absurd. Jesus was speaking of non-Jews, for in his day most Jews had to be convinced even that non-Jews were neighbours. But just as Peter learned to expand the circle of "neighbour" to include Gentiles, we can learn to expand the circle of "neighbour" to include all parts of God's creation. This has been an aboriginal teaching from time immemorial and it is in no way inconsistent with a Christian perspective on creation. In fact, it was also the teaching of Francis of Assisi who regularly referred to Brother Sun and Sister Water, etc. Celtic Christianity is filled with similar references.

So my circle of 'neighbor' should now include trees and rocks and you don't find this rediculous.

As a matter of fact, I don't care for my clothes. They don't get ironed or mended. And I don't take care of my computer either. I don't have a car, but when I did, I was no better at taking care of it.

On the other hand I do care for my books, my garden and my cats.

The point being you care for books but you don't love them, right?

Wow! I would say the exact opposite. How would you express love without caring for what and who you love? Remember what James said? What good is it to wish someone well and do nothing for their needs? Who loves the neighbour? The one who speaks of warm feelings or the one who provides them with food and clothing?

I'm sorry I misspoke, what I meant to say was: "To associate the word care as a synonym with the word love is to cheapen love"

Yet it is clearly based on Matthew 6: 26-30

Well here is Matthew 6: 26-30

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Show me where it says "God loves the little things" clearly. These verses clearly show how God values man far more than the birds. Yet you would have us love them as we should love one another. Again, you are taking quite some liberty with the Scriptures.

 

[The Lady Kate]

He created structure because He is an orderly and rational God. And He made us rational to enjoy that rationality He built into the universe.

This line stuck out in particular to me. Perhaps this is what it means to be "Made in God's image"?

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for the reference, I'll see about getting a copy from our library. In the meantime, how about just showing me a single backward speciation change for man that can clearly and succinctly be proven.

Like H. erectus to H.sapiens?

Truth is located all throughout Creation, but this doesn't mean we can have access to it. The Bible was declared our source for truth. see below.
Since the Bible is the source of truth.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

The quote does not refer to the bible. We have no greater access to the truth in scripture than we do to the truth in creation. Both require study and interpretation and there is no place in scripture which says that scripture takes precedence over creation --- or vice versa-- as a source of truth. It is the Word which is the source of truth in both. Scripture points us to the Word, not to itself, as the source of truth.

Since most scientists are not of God, I won't be too concerned about any 'truth' they profess.

What difference does it make if some scientists are not of God, when those who are profess the same scientific truth? This is why scientific consensus is important. It means that no matter what scientists think about God, no matter what politics they profess, no matter what culture they come from, they agree upon examining the evidence that this is the truth--so far as we can know it from the evidence presented.

Remember that God and Scripture are the source of all truth that exists.

God alone is the source of all truth. Scripture is a limited channel of that truth. So is creation.

Since I'm a child of God I do have access to truth whenever I look into my Bible, it may be limited by my finite mind, but I do have access none the less.

And a Christian scientist can say exactly the same thing about creation. Creation, like scripture, gives access to truth whenever we look into it. It may be limited by our finite minds, but we do have access none the less.

Sure caring is an expression of love, but you implied you couldn't have one without the other. Would you agree that you can care for something without loving it?

No.

Nice to quote book, chapter and verse without actually posting what they say. I suppose if you did we'd all see that not a single one of them states 'God loves everything He created,' which was what you were going to show.

Well, you already knew the bible does not contain that sentence, so you have to look for the sentiment expressed otherwise.

So my circle of 'neighbor' should now include trees and rocks and you don't find this rediculous.

Not in the least. I have no problem with the concept that I should love what God loves.

The point being you care for books but you don't love them, right?

Yes, indeed I do love books, probably even more than my garden and my cats.
That is why I care for them as I do not for things that have little meaning for me.

Well here is Matthew 6: 26-30

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Show me where it says "God loves the little things" clearly.

See bolded sections.

These verses clearly show how God values man far more than the birds.

Yes, they do, but they also show that God loves the birds and the lilies too. Jesus is using the fact that God loves these things to assure us that God loves us as well and even more. He could not use this reasoning if God did not love them. And Jesus is also saying that God demonstrates his love for us by caring for us just as he cares for birds and lilies i.e. by seeing that we are fed and clothed. God's care, whether for birds, lilies or ourselves, expresses God's love for us.

 

[shernren]

Fine, vossler, "appreciate". You're already in one love-fight with gluadys and I don't need to start another.

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html
Here's the article I was referring to. I don't have the book either myself.

I don’t believe God didn’t intend science either. There may be some truth to the claims you make, yet I can’t entertain much of what the secular world tells me due to my inherit skepticism. I have a big, big problem when science tries to tell me that man came from an amoeba and then provides me with scantly nothing for proof. Why can’t scientists admit they don’t really know and then tell me what they think?

Well, honestly, they have a job to do. They're being funded by evil and capricious companies who don't care a whit about knowledge or science and are only out for whatever profit they can get from what the scientists find. How would you like it if you pumped $500 million into a research project and at the end the scientist can only say "Well, we haven't exactly ruled out the possibility of ... " That's why in public statements you will only find positive statements like "Scientists have proved that bla bla bla ... " and you'll find all the qualifications and possible alternative theories in the fine print in the research papers. (Which, incidentally, creation scientists also do. )

I understand and appreciate your view here, but it would take a lot for me to accept evolution. Not so much because of the science, but because the Bible says 6 days. Unlike many here, I believe the Bible is our only source of truth and so therefore anything man comes up with to counter it will automatically be met with a strong skepticism.

Nobody's countering anything.

 

[vossler]

Like H. erectus to H.sapiens?

Scientists themselves can even agree to this. There is no clear evidence to support it.

The quote does not refer to the bible. We have no greater access to the truth in scripture than we do to the truth in creation. Both require study and interpretation and there is no place in scripture which says that scripture takes precedence over creation --- or vice versa-- as a source of truth. It is the Word which is the source of truth in both. Scripture points us to the Word, not to itself, as the source of truth.

When Jesus Himself says "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." it is very clear to me that He is speaking of Scripture. This isn't even something that as far as I can see is even disputed in theological circles. So, since the Bible continually refers to Scripture as truth I think its safe to say it is. Since God has never said that Creation is a source of truth I also think it's safe to say it isn't.

What difference does it make if some scientists are not of God, when those who are profess the same scientific truth? This is why scientific consensus is important. It means that no matter what scientists think about God, no matter what politics they profess, no matter what culture they come from, they agree upon examining the evidence that this is the truth--so far as we can know it from the evidence presented.

That's just it, there isn't a scientific consensus on evolution. Truth isn't something one finds under a rock and studies, at least not the absolute truth of God.

God alone is the source of all truth. Scripture is a limited channel of that truth. So is creation.

First two sentences are right on however, I don't believe Creation is a channel of truth.

And a Christian scientist can say exactly the same thing about creation. Creation, like scripture, gives access to truth whenever we look into it. It may be limited by our finite minds, but we do have access none the less.

Creation isn't mentioned in the Bible as a source of truth. It's a source of majesty, wonder, awe and a witness to God's awesome power and His infinite wisdom.

Well, you already knew the bible does not contain that sentence, so you have to look for the sentiment expressed otherwise.

Not in the least. I have no problem with the concept that I should love what God loves.

Yes, indeed I do love books, probably even more than my garden and my cats.
That is why I care for them as I do not for things that have little meaning for me.

Well here is Matthew 6: 26-30

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

See bolded sections.

Yes, they do, but they also show that God loves the birds and the lilies too. Jesus is using the fact that God loves these things to assure us that God loves us as well and even more. He could not use this reasoning if God did not love them. And Jesus is also saying that God demonstrates his love for us by caring for us just as he cares for birds and lilies i.e. by seeing that we are fed and clothed. God's care, whether for birds, lilies or ourselves, expresses God's love for us.

Cares and love are two words, that to you, are synonymous while their actual meaning is very different to me, within the dictionary and most importantly to how the Bible describes them. It's through definitions like yours that the word love is cheapened and it's role and meaning in our lives becomes trite. No wonder people say things like I love ice cream, driving, big houses, etc. It's one thing for society to minimize love via advertising, TV, movies, etc. to such an extent, it's quite another for us to do the same thing through Scripture. Clearly another area where we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[vossler]

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html
Here's the article I was referring to. I don't have the book either myself.

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it and comment later.

Well, honestly, they have a job to do. They're being funded by evil and capricious companies who don't care a whit about knowledge or science and are only out for whatever profit they can get from what the scientists find. How would you like it if you pumped $500 million into a research project and at the end the scientist can only say "Well, we haven't exactly ruled out the possibility of ... " That's why in public statements you will only find positive statements like "Scientists have proved that bla bla bla ... " and you'll find all the qualifications and possible alternative theories in the fine print in the research papers. (Which, incidentally, creation scientists also do. )

I understand they've got a job to do, the problem is their job has, over the years, changed from observing and performing calculations to now also include prosteylizing.

Nobody's countering anything.

Well it isn't coinciding with 6 days is it?

 

[shernren]

I understand they've got a job to do, the problem is their job has, over the years, changed from observing and performing calculations to now also include prosteylizing.

Actually, scientists don't proselytize that much. Scientists put out research papers with objective explanations of evolution. It is opinionators, science-for-the-layman writers like Dawkins and Gould, and SF writers who put the atheistic spin on evolution.

Well it isn't coinciding with 6 days is it?

Well I think we've both heard and said enough to know that your 6 days aren't my 6 days, your "contradict" isn't my contradict and your brain isn't going to accept my view. And vice versa. So we shall agree to disagree, ya.

 

[vossler]

Well I think we've both heard and said enough to know that your 6 days aren't my 6 days, your "contradict" isn't my contradict and your brain isn't going to accept my view. And vice versa. So we shall agree to disagree, ya.

Ja! Das ist richtig! (Yes, that is right )

 

[vossler]

shrenren, I got around to reading the article you cited titled “Finding Darwin’s God” today, it was enlightening to say the least. It was well presented and I could see why you wanted me to read it. My natural mind may have even been enticed to believe much of what he says. Thankfully I don’t have to rely on my natural mind.

Thank you for providing that link, it definitely solidified my already strong feelings about evolution.


Let’s just go over just some quotes from the article.

“The biological account of lucky historical contingencies that led to our own appearance on this planet is surely accurate.”

So we are a product of lucky historical contingencies?

“I believe much of the problem is the fault of those in the scientific community who routinely enlist the findings of evolutionary biology in support their own philosophical pronouncements.”

There’s a quote I can certainly agree with.

“All too often, in finding the sources of our "original sins," in fixing the reasons why our species displays the tendencies it does, evolution is misconstrued as providing a kind of justification for the worst aspects of human nature.”

Spoken as only a true scientist could.

“Evolution has provided me with a sense of hunger when my nutritional resources are running low, but evolution does not justify my clubbing you over the head to swipe your lunch.”

What a wonderful place to get spiritually fed.

“Put bluntly, the creationists are committed to finding permanent, intractable mystery in nature.”

As a creationist I wasn’t even remotely aware that I felt this way.

“If a string of constant miracles were needed for each turn of the cell cycle or each flicker of a cilium, the hand of God would be written directly into every living thing - his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable.”

What Creationists believe this? Quite a far reaching stretch.

“A believer in the divine accepts that God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell. Not all believers will accept the stark conditions of that bargain, but our freedom to act has to have a physical and biological basis. Evolution and its sister sciences of genetics and molecular biology provide that basis. In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.”

What kind of gobbledygook is this? We’re to look to evolution, because it is the only way God tells us how and why we make the moral and spiritual choices we do. Evolution is sure looking awfully religious here.

“There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"

And I tell each of them, "Yes."

Puzzled, they ask: "What kind of God?"

Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. And, eventually I found it. I believe in Darwin's God."

Well if that last one doesn’t tie the knot on the religiousness of evolution I don’t know what will.

 

[gluadys]

Scientists themselves can even agree to this. There is no clear evidence to support it.

In fact, the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens are so minimal that some creationists hold they are not two different species, but two varieties of the same species.

Among scientists there is no controversy over whether H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, but only on how: did the whole population of H. erectus gradually evolve into H. sapiens (multi-regional thesis) or did one small population of H. erectus acquire H. sapiens characteristics and displace other H. erectus populations as it migrated into their territories (Out of Africa thesis)?

The differences among the two groups are few and minor, the most significant one being the larger average cranial capacity of H. sapiens. H. sapiens also shows missing or reduced eye-brow ridges, slight differences in dentition, and a well-marked chin (usually). This is well within the sorts of differences most creationists consider allowable as variations within a species.

Put a H. erectus in a suit, and walk him through an airport, and most people would not consider him exceptional in appearance. Why do you not consider this clear evidence of the relationship?

And last month, scientists published what they call definitive proof of the relationship of chimpanzees to humans.

When Jesus Himself says "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." it is very clear to me that He is speaking of Scripture. This isn't even something that as far as I can see is even disputed in theological circles.

I know several theologians personally, and have several theological works in my library. All would dispute that this reference is to scripture. Practically all my teachers in theology, whether in bible studies or through books, would dispute the equation of "word" as used here with "bible".

For example: here are some passages from our denominational statement of faith---which our clergy are required to support that indicate the difference between 'word' and 'scripture'.

God's nature is expressed in Jesus
the very Word of God.
Through him all things were made.
His life is the light of the world.

Through the scriptures
the church is bound only to Jesus, its King and Head.
He [i.e. Jesus] is the living Word of God
to whom the written word bears witness.

The scriptures are necessary, sufficient and reliable
revealing Jesus Christ, the living Word.

The bible is to be understood in the light
of the revelation of God's work in Christ.

All above excerpts from Living Faith--a subordinate standard of The Presbyterian Church in Canada.

When Jesus wanted to refer to the OT writings, he used the terms Law, Prophets, Writings, not 'Word'. The apostles and evangelists, likewise referred to the OT as 'scriptures' [i.e.'writings'] not as "Word'. The bible nowhere refers to itself as the 'word of God'.

Don't take my word for it. Once you read the bible without the pre-conceived notion that "word of God'='bible' you will be surprised at the lack of any reference tying scripture to the 'word'.

It is only because you pre-suppose this equivalence that you see it, for undeniably the bible speaks often of the word of God, as Jesus does here. What it does not do is equate scriptures with the word of God, as you are doing.

Scripture as 'word' is called so on the basis of its derivation from the actual living Word, Christ. It is not identical with the Word, but a reflection of and testimony of that Word. As the one set of writings which uniquely conveys the revelation of the Word in Christ, the church has given it the honour of being called the word of God.

Again to quote Living Faith:

The Bible, written by human hands
is nonetheless the word of God
as no other word ever written.
To it, no other writings are to be added.

So, of all things written, the Bible is uniquely related to the Word. It does not follow that the Word is confined to the Bible. Nor does it follow that the 'word' Jesus spoke of in John 17 are the scriptures.

So, since the Bible continually refers to Scripture as truth

But the bible does not continually refer to scripture as truth; it continually refers to the Word as truth. These are not the same thing.

Since God has never said that Creation is a source of truth I also think it's safe to say it isn't.

Does Creation lie to us?

That's just it, there isn't a scientific consensus on evolution.

Yes, there is. When over 95% of biologists agree on a biological theory, that is consensus. Especially as the few who don't agree do not propose an alternate theory, and disagree on a non-scientific basis.

Truth isn't something one finds under a rock and studies, at least not the absolute truth of God.

The rock is not truth? Absolute truth? How so?

Creation isn't mentioned in the Bible as a source of truth. It's a source of majesty, wonder, awe and a witness to God's awesome power and His infinite wisdom.

It can't be the second if it is not also a source of truth. How could anything that is not true proclaim the majesty, wonder, awe of God or be a witness to God's power and wisdom?

Cares and love are two words, that to you, are synonymous while their actual meaning is very different to me,

Care expresses love, so that where there is no love, there is no care. And where there is care, that is evidence of love. But they are not synonyms, since there are also other ways of expressing love, such as gift-giving, physical displays of affection, etc.

It's through definitions like yours that the word love is cheapened

I still don't see this. How is love cheapened by being expressed in care?

No wonder people say things like I love ice cream, driving, big houses, etc.

Some people say 'love' when they mean 'like'. There is a gradation from one to the other. But don't always discount such phrases. Some people really do love ice cream or big houses, or anything that money can buy. For sure, some people love money--as scripture itself notes. And some love power. These are the roots of the great evils of any age.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

When Jesus Himself says "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." it is very clear to me that He is speaking of Scripture.

In addition to what gluadys said, have you considered that both "your word" and "the Scripture" are mentioned in this prayer by Jesus, and they are not synonymous? Jesus (and Judas) fulfilled Scripture, and Jesus gave the disciples the word given to him by the Father, which is truth. The Bible doesn't contain everything Jesus told the disciples, as John makes clear at the end of his gospel (John 21:25), so "your word" cannot be just another term for the Bible, at least not in this passage.

 

[vossler]

In fact, the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens are so minimal that some creationists hold they are not two different species, but two varieties of the same species.

Among scientists there is no controversy over whether H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, but only on how: did the whole population of H. erectus gradually evolve into H. sapiens (multi-regional thesis) or did one small population of H. erectus acquire H. sapiens characteristics and displace other H. erectus populations as it migrated into their territories (Out of Africa thesis)?

The differences among the two groups are few and minor, the most significant one being the larger average cranial capacity of H. sapiens. H. sapiens also shows missing or reduced eye-brow ridges, slight differences in dentition, and a well-marked chin (usually). This is well within the sorts of differences most creationists consider allowable as variations within a species.

Put a H. erectus in a suit, and walk him through an airport, and most people would not consider him exceptional in appearance. Why do you not consider this clear evidence of the relationship?

And last month, scientists published what they call definitive proof of the relationship of chimpanzees to humans.

Interesting article, but hardly conclusive, at least to me. All it did for me was give me more questions. There haven’t been any complete skeleton remains found, at least they weren’t mentioned in this article. If this is the best we’ve got for clear and concise evidence then we’ve got a ways to go. It would appear to this untrained eye that until someone can show these transitional forms in a complete concise manner showing how they lived, socialized, etc., I think I stick with what the Bible clearly tells me.

I know several theologians personally, and have several theological works in my library. All would dispute that this reference is to scripture. Practically all my teachers in theology, whether in bible studies or through books, would dispute the equation of "word" as used here with "bible".

For example: here are some passages from our denominational statement of faith---which our clergy are required to support that indicate the difference between 'word' and 'scripture'.

God's nature is expressed in Jesus
the very Word of God.
Through him all things were made.
His life is the light of the world.

Through the scriptures
the church is bound only to Jesus, its King and Head.
He [i.e. Jesus] is the living Word of God
to whom the written word bears witness.

The scriptures are necessary, sufficient and reliable
revealing Jesus Christ, the living Word.

The bible is to be understood in the light
of the revelation of God's work in Christ.

All above excerpts from Living Faith--a subordinate standard of The Presbyterian Church in

Canada.

When Jesus wanted to refer to the OT writings, he used the terms Law, Prophets, Writings, not 'Word'. The apostles and evangelists, likewise referred to the OT as 'scriptures' [i.e.'writings'] not as "Word'. The bible nowhere refers to itself as the 'word of God'.

Don't take my word for it. Once you read the bible without the pre-conceived notion that "word of God'='bible' you will be surprised at the lack of any reference tying scripture to the 'word'.

It is only because you pre-suppose this equivalence that you see it, for undeniably the bible speaks often of the word of God, as Jesus does here. What it does not do is equate scriptures with the word of God, as you are doing.

Scripture as 'word' is called so on the basis of its derivation from the actual living Word, Christ. It is not identical with the Word, but a reflection of and testimony of that Word. As the one set of writings which uniquely conveys the revelation of the Word in Christ, the church has given it the honour of being called the word of God.

Again to quote Living Faith:

The Bible, written by human hands
is nonetheless the word of God
as no other word ever written.
To it, no other writings are to be added.

So, of all things written, the Bible is uniquely related to the Word. It does not follow that the Word is confined to the Bible. Nor does it follow that the 'word' Jesus spoke of in John 17 are the scriptures.

You've given me one reference, a subordinate from the Preysbyterian Church of Canada. Certainly not a well known commentary to me or probably anyone else.

O.K. Let’s look at multiple sources that are well known, respected and see what they have to say about John 17:17

1. The Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) commentary states: “Your word is truth is a strong statement of Jesus’ confidence in the veracity of Scripture. People’s opinions may vary, and experiences are notoriously untrustworthy, but God’s Word always remains true.”

Here, Here I couldn’t agree more.

2. Life Application Study Bible commentary states: “A follower of Christ becomes pure and holy through believing and obeying the Word of God(Hebrews 4:12)” The commentary at Hebrews 4:12 states: “The Word of God is not simply a collection of words from God, a vehicle for communicating ideas; it is living, life-changing and dynamic as it works in us.”

Amen!

3. David Guzik commentary: “Jesus' second request for the disciples: sanctify them

a. Sanctify means to be set apart for God's special pleasure and use; implying holiness, being set apart from the corruption of the world and for God's use

b. This process, as the keeping process, is not left to us alone; it is a work of God in us and through us

c. The dynamic behind sanctification is truth: the word of God read, heard, understood and applied

4. Matthew Henry commentary: “The means of conferring this grace— through thy truth, thy word is truth. Not that the Holy One of Israel is hereby limited to means, but in the counsel of peace among other things it was settled and agreed, [1.] That all needful truth should be comprised and summed up in the word of God. Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word, is not only pure truth without mixture, but entire truth without deficiency.”

5. John Calvin’s commentary: “Sanctify them by thy truth.This sanctificationincludes the kingdom of God and his righteousness; that is, when God renews us by his Spirit, and confirms in us the grace of renewal, and continues it to the end. He asks, first, therefore, that the Father would sanctify the disciples, or, in other words, that he would consecrate them entirely to himself, and defend them as his sacred inheritance. Next, he points out the means of sanctification, and not without reason; for there are fanatics who indulge in much useless prattle about sanctification, but who neglect the truth of God, by which he consecrates us to himself. Again, as there are others who chatter quite as foolishly about the truth and yet disregard the word, Christ expressly says that the truth, by which God sanctifies his sons, is not to be found any where else than in the word.

Thy word is truth; for the word here denotes the doctrine of the Gospel, which the apostles had already heard from the mouth of their Master, and which they were afterwards to preach to others. In this sense Paul says that

the Church has been cleansed with the washing of water by the word of life, (Ephesians 5:26

True, it is God alone who sanctifies; but as

the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth, (Romans 1:16,)

whoever departs from the Gospel as the means must become more and more filthy and polluted.

The truthis here taken, by way of eminence, for the light of heavenly wisdom, in which God manifests himself to us, that he may conform us to his image. The outward preaching of the word, it is true, does not of itself accomplish this, For that preaching is wickedly profaned by the reprobate; but let us remember that Christ speaks of the elect whom the Holy Spirit efficaciously regenerates by the word. Now, as the apostles were not altogether destitute of this grace, we ought to infer from Christ's words, that sanctification is not instantly completed in us on the first day, but that we make progress in it through the whole course of our life, till at length God, having taken away from us the garment of the flesh, fills us with his righteousness.

6. J.C. Ryle’s commentary states: “Sanctification is that inward spiritual work which the Lord Jesus Christ works in a man by the Holy Ghost, when He calls him to be a true believer, separates him from his natural love of sin and the world, puts a new principle in his heart, and makes him practically godly in life. The instrument by which. His Spirit effects this work is generally the Word of ‘God, though He sometimes uses afflictions and providential visitations’ “without the Word.” The subject of this work of Christ by His Spirit, is called in Scripture a “sanctified” man.”

I could go on and on, every commentary I came up with (it was over 20), stated the same thing. Many I couldn’t use because it was implied in the text that Word of God was Scripture.

But the bible does not continually refer to scripture as truth; it continually refers to the Word as truth. These are not the same thing.

We’ve been around this multiple times so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Does Creation lie to us?

The question wasn’t whether Creation lies or not but whether God ever said it was a source of truth.

Yes, there is. When over 95% of biologists agree on a biological theory, that is consensus. Especially as the few who don't agree do not propose an alternate theory, and disagree on a non-scientific basis.

I don’t know if your percentages are accurate or not, but assuming they are, it still doesn’t make consensus. For me, consensus means everyone agrees.

The rock is not truth? Absolute truth? How so?

Truth is defined in the Bible, not in rocks. The Bible doesn’t tell me that rocks are truth but it does tell me that Scripture is.

It can't be the second if it is not also a source of truth. How could anything that is not true proclaim the majesty, wonder, awe of God or be a witness to God's power and wisdom?

When I say source of truth, I’m referring to a place to go for answers.

 

[gluadys]

Interesting article, but hardly conclusive, at least to me.

And that means you do not understand why scientists do consider this evidence is conclusive. To me that implies you do not understand the process of evolution. You don't know what to look for. You want evidence for speciation---which is the end point of evolution--without doing the groundwork necessary to understand the beginning and the middle of the process.

All it did for me was give me more questions. There haven’t been any complete skeleton remains found, at least they weren’t mentioned in this article.

Why would they look for skeletal remains when they are doing a comparative analysis of chimp & human genomes? Even if we had more skeletal remains, all they would show is the same similiarity, but without the evidence that the similarity is due to the same genetic base. With DNA analysis we can look directly at the molecular similarity without having to infer it through morphological similarity.

We will never have all the fossil evidence needed to show fine-grained morphological sequences in the human lineage, but with the genomes of chimps and humans fully mapped, we don't need it. Study of the genomes will pinpoint the mutations which occurred and were selected and when they occurred. Further study will determine how each mutation affected the chimp or human lines.

If this is the best we’ve got for clear and concise evidence then we’ve got a ways to go. It would appear to this untrained eye that until someone can show these transitional forms in a complete concise manner showing how they lived, socialized, etc., I think I stick with what the Bible clearly tells me.

First you have to get that eye trained. Then stick around a century or two. You are asking for a lot of evidence just to show a genetic relationship. Why do you want evidence of cultural and social life since these are not determined (at least not completely) by genes? Good thing courts don't demand such a high degree of evidence in paternity suits. No woman would ever get support for her kids.

You've given me one reference, a subordinate from the Preysbyterian Church of Canada. Certainly not a well known commentary to me or probably anyone else.

This is more than a commentary. As a subordinate standard, it ranks in authority with the Westminster Confession of Faith, just below the bible itself. Clergy are not required to uphold a commentary. They are required to uphold a subordinate standard as the rule of faith of the church.

O.K. Let’s look at multiple sources that are well known, respected and see what they have to say about John 17:17

And only one identifies the word as scripture.

The question wasn’t whether Creation lies or not but whether God ever said it was a source of truth.

Either creation lies or it is a source of truth.

I don’t know if your percentages are accurate or not, but assuming they are, it still doesn’t make consensus. For me, consensus means everyone agrees.

That is not a standard definition of consensus.

Truth is defined in the Bible, not in rocks. The Bible doesn’t tell me that rocks are truth but it does tell me that Scripture is.
When I say source of truth, I’m referring to a place to go for answers.

So you go to the bible for answers about salvation and you go to creation for answers about creation. The bible tells us Moses drew water from a rock and Jesus tells us to build our house on a rock, but the bible does not tell us how granite or limestone or shale are formed. Creation does. Do you think creation is lying to us?

 

[vossler]

And that means you do not understand why scientists do consider this evidence is conclusive. To me that implies you do not understand the process of evolution. You don't know what to look for. You want evidence for speciation---which is the end point of evolution--without doing the groundwork necessary to understand the beginning and the middle of the process.

Why would they look for skeletal remains when they are doing a comparative analysis of chimp & human genomes? Even if we had more skeletal remains, all they would show is the same similiarity, but without the evidence that the similarity is due to the same genetic base. With DNA analysis we can look directly at the molecular similarity without having to infer it through morphological similarity.

We will never have all the fossil evidence needed to show fine-grained morphological sequences in the human lineage, but with the genomes of chimps and humans fully mapped, we don't need it. Study of the genomes will pinpoint the mutations which occurred and were selected and when they occurred. Further study will determine how each mutation affected the chimp or human lines.

First you have to get that eye trained. Then stick around a century or two. You are asking for a lot of evidence just to show a genetic relationship. Why do you want evidence of cultural and social life since these are not determined (at least not completely) by genes? Good thing courts don't demand such a high degree of evidence in paternity suits. No woman would ever get support for her kids.

Most of what you say here is right. I don't understand the process of evolution and I don't want to take the time to. Life is short enough that I don't want to spend countless months trying to fully understand something that according to the Bible didn't happen. It's also probably good that I'm not a judge in paternity suits.

I'm the last person that should enter into such a discussion. As my OP stated I didn't want to get into the science.

This is more than a commentary. As a subordinate standard, it ranks in authority with the Westminster Confession of Faith, just below the bible itself. Clergy are not required to uphold a commentary. They are required to uphold a subordinate standard as the rule of faith of the church.

I'll trust you on the validity of this, but that doesn't change the fact that all the major commentaries see it otherwise.

And only one identifies the word as scripture.

I don't know what it is you were reading but here are just a couple of specific quotes, without all the support, that clearly say it is Scripture.

"Your word is truth is a strong statement of Jesus’ confidence in the veracity of Scripture." Is this, to you, not speaking of Scripture?

"The Word of God is not simply a collection of words from God, a vehicle for communicating ideas" You make not see this as referring to Scripture, but I think most anyone else would.

"the word of God read, heard, understood and applied" Sounds like Scripture to me!

"Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word" Written word, again it sounds like Scripture.

I think you're in denial.

Either creation lies or it is a source of truth.

Something doesn't have to either lie or be a source of truth, where did you get that from?

That is not a standard definition of consensus.

Defintion of consensus: "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"

So you go to the bible for answers about salvation and you go to creation for answers about creation. The bible tells us Moses drew water from a rock and Jesus tells us to build our house on a rock, but the bible does not tell us how granite or limestone or shale are formed. Creation does. Do you think creation is lying to us?

No I go to the Bible for answers about Creation, at least all the answers I need. I don't care how granite, limestone or shale are formed. I do care about how man came about, and God tells us through His Word.

 

[shernren]

Most of what you say here is right. I don't understand the process of evolution and I don't want to take the time to. Life is short enough that I don't want to spend countless months trying to fully understand something that according to the Bible didn't happen. It's also probably good that I'm not a judge in paternity suits.

I'm the last person that should enter into such a discussion. As my OP stated I didn't want to get into the science.

I think that's the heart of the disagreement, vossler. I might sound a stretch arrogant to say this, but if you really tried learning and appreciating science in all its fulness I believe that you would at least appreciate better the way we see things. The more I think about this divide the more I am convinced that in both forms of revelation there is a central, indisputable core of beliefs, and peripheral, disputable beliefs that cannot be decided due to our finite information. For us who delve into the periphery of science and weigh and decide the options, we find that evolution really is the most scientific theory of origins, and therefore deserves some consideration at least as a part of God's revelation through science. The casual observer will never find such conviction.

I don't hold anything against you for being less scientifically inclined, but I think that until you are we would probably have to agree to disagree. The whole problem is that a different set of extra-Biblical interpretive rules will yield different views of Scripture in peripheral matters (though not in essentials), and without some other verification it is difficult to decide.

About your comments on Kenneth Miller - yes, I do find him leaning quite a bit too far to the "non-interventionist" side of things, that God just started it up and let it all go its own way. But I wanted to quote it to you because so often we are trained to see God moving in abnormal and miraculous ways, but not in normal and small ways. When a Christian receives divine healing for cancer, we all clap and praise and shout hallelujah - which isn't wrong in itself, but what about the thousands of Christian cancer sufferers who are healed through radiotherapy and chemotherapy? Are they less spiritual or do they have less faith or was God less powerful in their lives? Absolutely not! When I read that article for the first time I felt exactly the opposite: affirmed that I was not writing God out of nature, but reading God into nature. And I hoped that you'd at least understand that.

 

[gluadys]

Most of what you say here is right. I don't understand the process of evolution and I don't want to take the time to. Life is short enough that I don't want to spend countless months trying to fully understand something that according to the Bible didn't happen. It's also probably good that I'm not a judge in paternity suits.

I'm the last person that should enter into such a discussion. As my OP stated I didn't want to get into the science.

[snip]

I don't care how granite, limestone or shale are formed.

Then you have no business saying that scientists are wrong about the things that do interest them and which they do study. You have no business saying that science contradicts scripture, because you don't know enough science to make that judgment, and, as you freely admit, you are not interested in learning it.

"Your word is truth is a strong statement of Jesus’ confidence in the veracity of Scripture." Is this, to you, not speaking of Scripture?

Yes, that is the one I was referring to, that did make this identification.

"The Word of God is not simply a collection of words from God, a vehicle for communicating ideas" You make not see this as referring to Scripture, but I think most anyone else would.

This one I would see as contradicting the first---as making a distinction between the Word of God and the collection of words we call scripture.

"the word of God read, heard, understood and applied" Sounds like Scripture to me!

"Divine revelation, as it now stands in the written word" Written word, again it sounds like Scripture.

In both these snippets, 'word' refers to scripture, but in the larger context it was made plain that this is a limited application, and that the Word of God is not identical to the written word, but reflected or channeled through the written word. I have no objection to such a contextual understanding of scripture as word. That doesn't make scripture the meaning of 'word' in John 17.

Something doesn't have to either lie or be a source of truth, where did you get that from?

Logic, I think. Truth is a source of truth. How can it not be? I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. I don't think the distinction exists.

Defintion of consensus: "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"

A group decision does not necessarily include every individual in the group. When a group is split 50:50, it would not be called consensus. We would say the group is divided. When a group is split 75:25, we would say the majority of the group leans toward one position. When we get to the point of an overwhelming majority, we say the group as a whole has reached a consensus, even if there are one or two dissenters. It is clear in this case, that the dissenters are not representative of the collective. I have done a lot of decision-making in groups that operate on the basis of consensus, and it has never been the case that consensus requires 100% agreement. Only that all voices are heard and that the dissenters allow the position to stand as the decision of the group as a whole, even if they privately disagree.

No I go to the Bible for answers about Creation, at least all the answers I need. I do care about how man came about, and God tells us through His Word.

We both do this. But what the bible tells us about Creation does not provide grounds for saying science is wrong.

 

[vossler]

Then you have no business saying that scientists are wrong about the things that do interest them and which they do study. You have no business saying that science contradicts scripture, because you don't know enough science to make that judgment, and, as you freely admit, you are not interested in learning it.

In a sense you may be right, but because of what they claim being against the Bible I do feel it is my business to say they are wrong, as well as it should be anyone's who notices the same thing. I don't need to know enough science to make this judgement, I just need to know the Word of God.

Logic, I think. Truth is a source of truth. How can it not be? I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. I don't think the distinction exists.

That would mean that truth can be found almost anywhere, I don't prescribe to that train of belief. Truth can only be found through God and His Word.

A group decision does not necessarily include every individual in the group. When a group is split 50:50, it would not be called consensus. We would say the group is divided. When a group is split 75:25, we would say the majority of the group leans toward one position. When we get to the point of an overwhelming majority, we say the group as a whole has reached a consensus, even if there are one or two dissenters. It is clear in this case, that the dissenters are not representative of the collective. I have done a lot of decision-making in groups that operate on the basis of consensus, and it has never been the case that consensus requires 100% agreement. Only that all voices are heard and that the dissenters allow the position to stand as the decision of the group as a whole, even if they privately disagree.

True, consensus doesn't require 100% agreement, but it does require an agreement. It requires a general agreement or accord by the group as a whole. So if you were to say that of biologist and other scientists who were not creationists that they have developed a consensus on evolution then I would agree. But since these other scientists believe otherwise they're not of the opinion of the others, nor have they formed a general agreement to form a consensus.

We both do this. But what the bible tells us about Creation does not provide grounds for saying science is wrong.

So you believe, I believe otherwise. When God tells me through the Bible that He created everything in 6 days, I believe Him. You believe God tells you through Creation He created in 4.5 billion years.

I hold the Bible to be truth, while you hold man's knowledge of Creation to be truth.

 

[theFijian]

I hold the Bible to be truth, while you hold man's knowledge of Creation to be truth.

Behaviour exactly to type: Misrepresentation of the views of TEs.

 

[vossler]

I think that's the heart of the disagreement, vossler. I might sound a stretch arrogant to say this, but if you really tried learning and appreciating science in all its fulness I believe that you would at least appreciate better the way we see things. The more I think about this divide the more I am convinced that in both forms of revelation there is a central, indisputable core of beliefs, and peripheral, disputable beliefs that cannot be decided due to our finite information. For us who delve into the periphery of science and weigh and decide the options, we find that evolution really is the most scientific theory of origins, and therefore deserves some consideration at least as a part of God's revelation through science. The casual observer will never find such conviction.

I understand your points, they're succinct and logical. Yet they still don't address the core issue; what did God say?

I don't hold anything against you for being less scientifically inclined, but I think that until you are we would probably have to agree to disagree. The whole problem is that a different set of extra-Biblical interpretive rules will yield different views of Scripture in peripheral matters (though not in essentials), and without some other verification it is difficult to decide.

Agreed!

About your comments on Kenneth Miller - yes, I do find him leaning quite a bit too far to the "non-interventionist" side of things, that God just started it up and let it all go its own way. But I wanted to quote it to you because so often we are trained to see God moving in abnormal and miraculous ways, but not in normal and small ways. When a Christian receives divine healing for cancer, we all clap and praise and shout hallelujah - which isn't wrong in itself, but what about the thousands of Christian cancer sufferers who are healed through radiotherapy and chemotherapy? Are they less spiritual or do they have less faith or was God less powerful in their lives? Absolutely not! When I read that article for the first time I felt exactly the opposite: affirmed that I was not writing God out of nature, but reading God into nature. And I hoped that you'd at least understand that.

Thanks for the explanation. Interesting questions you posed at the end, something for a thread in maybe General Theology to discuss.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Most of what you say here is right. I don't understand the process of evolution and I don't want to take the time to. Life is short enough that I don't want to spend countless months trying to fully understand something that according to the Bible didn't happen. It's also probably good that I'm not a judge in paternity suits.

Or anything else, for that matter. You rail against the things you don't want to learn about.