Thank God for Evolution!

[Buck72]

Clear inference. YECs are the bible believers, according to you. Therefore, by inference, non YECs are not bible believers. It's fairly obvious to me.

I do not equate literal interpretation with stupidity. I cannot get my head round why anyone would insist on it. But in itself I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with the view that equates a literal interpretation with "believing the Bible" and a non-literal interpretation with unbelief.

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I'm going to make every effort to iron this crease and clarify my previous statement in post #34:

The Bible cannot be partially true if it is the "word of God", otherwise how could we trust it as the foundation of our faith?...in fact, it IS the faith, apart from which we assemble our beliefs from a 'buffet line' of experiences and subjectivity, a little of this, a sampling of that...before you know it, we fail to compare to anything close to what Christ called us to be, it is the natural progession in a fallen world to fall further from God, we experience it daily as we struggle to follow in obedience when sin is around every corner.

To take the entire, complete counsel of the Living God, as it stands, with no spin, twist, or translational aerobatics, is to reckon that it verbosely describes a "six (morning/evening ~ 24hr) day" creation (Gen1:5, Exo 20:11)and a global flood (Gen 7:19) that covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (Gen 7:20), and destroyed all life that had breath (Gen 7:22), thus God executed judgement for sin and the planet has never been the same since (in contrast to the dramatic accounts of the earth after the creation; firmament, no rain, man living hundreds of years, etc).

To take this a step further, God warns us about sin and its consequences, He commands us, the church to be pure (Psa 24:4, Psa 119:9, Matt 5:8), spotless (1 Pet 3:14), holy (Lev 11:45, 1 Pet 1:16), and perfect (Matt 5:48), yet a GREAT NUMBER of the church has taken upon itself a liberal posture of humanism (to various degrees) that allow it to tolerate a massive amount of sin, and reduce their relationship with God to more of a watered-down doctrine of humanistic love and tolerance, in accordance with the manner of this world rather than than that of which Christ suffered and died to preserve: making us holy, not by our works, but by our faith in Him...that we may know Him and identify our lives through Him to all aspects of obedience, dying to ourselves, surrendering all we have...even unto death. I have to say that previous discussions about this Robinson guy point to a moral collapse in the church, and thus an impotent capacity to win souls to Christ...not good.

There is a great dichotomy in the church. I would have to argue that all that believe in the word, must deal with the six day/global flood, as well as ALL that is according to the word of God. YEC vs. TE is simply a manner of contention not so much based on empirical facts (as neither case is demonstrable), but in mutually exclusive faiths of how we may suppose the events occured.

What keeps me motivated to post in these threads is an obvious, eye-popping fact that many, many christians are holding to ideas that plainly contrast with scripture even to the exclusion of belief in the word of God of the global flood...which Christ Himself made reference to.

Now, if by "inference" I excluded TE from the faith, then I will apologize and reiterate that Creation is not a salvation issue...faith however, IS a salvation issue as stated in earlier posts. When I see TE folks saying: "I'm not gonna let the Bible control my life." - I worry, and rightfully so. It is the same as saying to God: "You're not the boss of me".

Paul tells us to examine ourselves, to test ourselves, he described "beating his body into submission to Christ" that he may not be disqualified from the faith. I write within these threads to challenge, as I see many wandering around rudderless and confused. I also expect challenge and I thank you for your correction as well, that is why God ordained fellowship (Acts 2:42) so that we may "sharpen one another" (Pro. 27:17).

The word of God is hard to deal with. It doesn't always comfort, many times it burns, which is why so many non-christians refuse to deal with it. As christians we HAVE to deal with it, it is the only way that we will be conformed to Christ!

Psa 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I'm going to make every effort to iron this crease and clarify my previous statement in post #34:

The Bible cannot be partially true

Ack! Let's stop this there.

There is nowhere that I have said the Bible is only "partially true". I think it is fully true, but not literally. Fully, non-literally true. Where we part company is that you seem to consider literality a "higher", or "truer", kind of truth.

if it is the "word of God", otherwise how could we trust it as the foundation of our faith?...in fact, it IS the faith

No, no, no. The Bible is not the foundation of our faith. The foundation is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

apart from which we assemble our beliefs from a 'buffet line' of experiences and subjectivity, a little of this, a sampling of that...before you know it, we fail to compare to anything close to what Christ called us to be, it is the natural progession in a fallen world to fall further from God, we experience it daily as we struggle to follow in obedience when sin is around every corner.

Actually, I think this is primarily the role of the Holy Spirit.

To take the entire, complete counsel of the Living God, as it stands, with no spin, twist, or translational aerobatics, is to reckon that it verbosely describes a "six (morning/evening ~ 24hr) day" creation (Gen1:5, Exo 20:11)and a global flood (Gen 7:19) that covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (Gen 7:20), and destroyed all life that had breath (Gen 7:22), thus God executed judgement for sin and the planet has never been the same since (in contrast to the dramatic accounts of the earth after the creation; firmament, no rain, man living hundreds of years, etc).

Again, you don't seem to realise that what you describe as "no spin, twist or translational aerobatics" is "interpret as literal historical account". It is just as much a conscious decision to do so as to interpret it otherwise.

To take this a step further, God warns us about sin and its consequences, He commands us, the church to be pure (Psa 24:4, Psa 119:9, Matt 5:8), spotless (1 Pet 3:14), holy (Lev 11:45, 1 Pet 1:16), and perfect (Matt 5:48), yet a GREAT NUMBER of the church has taken upon itself a liberal posture of humanism (to various degrees) that allow it to tolerate a massive amount of sin, and reduce their relationship with God to more of a watered-down doctrine of humanistic love and tolerance, in accordance with the manner of this world rather than than that of which Christ suffered and died to preserve: making us holy, not by our works, but by our faith in Him...that we may know Him and identify our lives through Him to all aspects of obedience, dying to ourselves, surrendering all we have...even unto death. I have to say that previous discussions about this Robinson guy point to a moral collapse in the church, and thus an impotent capacity to win souls to Christ...not good.

There is a great dichotomy in the church.

With that last statement I would agree. And I will happily place myself on the liberal side of the dichotomy. Vance on the other hand would I suspect place himself on the conservative side, which rather throws the rest of your statement.

I would have to argue that all that believe in the word, must deal with the six day/global flood

Dealt with. Not literal history.

as well as ALL that is according to the word of God. YEC vs. TE is simply a manner of contention not so much based on empirical facts (as neither case is demonstrable),

I dispute that. I consider the mainstream case to be ironclad and watertight compared with the mishmash of misstatement, misapprehension and misrepresentation I see coming from the professional YEC machine.

but in mutually exclusive faiths of how we may suppose the events occured.

What keeps me motivated to post in these threads is an obvious, eye-popping fact that many, many christians are holding to ideas that plainly contrast with scripture

NO! Plainly contrast with your literal interpretation of Scripture. Not the same thing at all.

even to the exclusion of belief in the word of God of the global flood...which Christ Himself made reference to.

And I make reference to it when speaking theologically. Doesn't mean I take it as a literal event. You must think past this "not-literal = false" fallacy to understand where we are coming from.

Now, if by "inference" I excluded TE from the faith, then I will apologize and reiterate that Creation is not a salvation issue...faith however, IS a salvation issue as stated in earlier posts. When I see TE folks saying: "I'm not gonna let the Bible control my life." - I worry, and rightfully so. It is the same as saying to God: "You're not the boss of me".

I think the statement could have been better worded. But it's not the same, because the Bible and God are not the same thing. A better statement might be "I'm not going to let my intellectual pursuit of the truth be constrained by a literal reading of an ancient theological text".

Paul tells us to examine ourselves, to test ourselves, he described "beating his body into submission to Christ" that he may not be disqualified from the faith. I write within these threads to challenge, as I see many wandering around rudderless and confused.

Not at all confused. It's quite clear. God created through the processes described by mainstream science, despite the literalist protests of a small but vocal minority within the church.

I also expect challenge and I thank you for your correction as well, that is why God ordained fellowship (Acts 2:42) so that we may "sharpen one another" (Pro. 27:17).

The word of God is hard to deal with. It doesn't always comfort, many times it burns, which is why so many non-christians refuse to deal with it. As christians we HAVE to deal with it, it is the only way that we will be conformed to Christ!

Again, I think conforming us to the likeness of Christ is actually the work of the Holy Spirit, but you are correc that we have to deal with Scripture. What I should explain to you is that I have only been able to do that since realising that it is non-literal, non-inerrant and part of a process of ongoing revelation. When I saw it as you do (and there was a time), I was actually unable to engage with it. Literality was a stumbling block.

 

[Buck72]

Ack! Let's stop this there.

There is nowhere that I have said the Bible is only "partially true". I think it is fully true, but not literally. Fully, non-literally true. Where we part company is that you seem to consider literality a "higher", or "truer", kind of truth.

I'm grateful that we have a more focused discussion. Aside from the fringes of our debates regarding the vehicle, method, and time of the creation, we erase that and get to the core:

Literal and non-literal interpretation of scripture. This is a whole new can of worms...may require a new thread. How do we decide what is/isn't literal/non-literal? I'll get to that later, if I don't hrruy up here my wife is going to beat me with the turkey baster! I do owe you an answer to that...more later.

No, no, no. The Bible is not the foundation of our faith. The foundation is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

AMEN!! That is MORE correct, but how do we know Him? Through His word! Otherwise Jesus could be anyone, and could be the benefactor of numerous different faiths that strive with one another in great matters of what is/isn't correct. Church history and global religion is replete with horrifying factions and groups, some of which resort to violent retaliations like Islam, who acknowledge Christ as a Muslim that will return and make war on the Jews and Christians!

Again, you don't seem to realise that what you describe as "no spin, twist or translational aerobatics" is "interpret as literal historical account". It is just as much a conscious decision to do so as to interpret it otherwise.

I consider myself literal as I sit down and read it off the page, letter by letter, word by word, verse by verse, in context, applying hermenutical analysis to contentious passages like "six days". See here: (Post # 115)

http://www.christianforums.com/t63553&page=12

With that last statement I would agree. And I will happily place myself on the liberal side of the dichotomy. Vance on the other hand would I suspect place himself on the conservative side, which rather throws the rest of your statement.

Liberal/Conservative - I'm aiming at translational issues that suppose the word doesn't say (or mean literally) what it says.

Dealt with. Not literal history.

If not literal history - what is it? And how can we trust what is/isn't literal?

I dispute that. I consider the mainstream case to be ironclad and watertight compared with the mishmash of misstatement, misapprehension and misrepresentation I see coming from the professional YEC machine.

I promise you I am not part of a professional YEC machine, any more than you are part of a professional evolution machine.

BTW - Science. We keep coming back to science.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at [size=-1]SHED[/size]
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : [size=-1]NATURAL SCIENCE[/size]
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws


More on that later - I have to go! Karl, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

May God bless us all as we seek to learn of His ways!!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm grateful that we have a more focused discussion. Aside from the fringes of our debates regarding the vehicle, method, and time of the creation, we erase that and get to the core:

Literal and non-literal interpretation of scripture. This is a whole new can of worms...may require a new thread. How do we decide what is/isn't literal/non-literal? I'll get to that later, if I don't hrruy up here my wife is going to beat me with the turkey baster! I do owe you an answer to that...more later.

I'm not convinced it matters whether a given event is literal or non-literal. Thing is, literalists and non-literalists get the same theological truths out of the fall story. We may differ on specifics, but the fundamental truths (which I outlined somewhere else IIRC) are actually the same.

AMEN!! That is MORE correct, but how do we know Him? Through His word! Otherwise Jesus could be anyone, and could be the benefactor of numerous different faiths that strive with one another in great matters of what is/isn't correct.

Yes, but this is where we have to put Scripture in its proper place. Let me give you a parallel.

Suppose I had to marry Mrs Backslider in secret. She organises a church somewhere in the country, but cannot safely communicate the location to me. So she sends me a list of directions.

These directions are slightly inaccurate - some roundabouts don't quite sound like the description; sometimes she doesn't mention a turn, but a bit of common sense and help from other people with the same directions, and we get there. What do I want to marry? The directions or Mrs Backslider? Does it matter that the instructions were imperfect? Does it matter that the big cathedral I was instructed to turn left at was actually now a bingo hall? No. Do I say the instructions are useless because they were wrong about the cathedral? As long as they reliably lead me to her, they serve their purpose perfectly. That is how I see the relationship of the Scriptures to Christ. They are reliable in leading us to Him, but they are not inerrant in every way. This is why I think Paul says that Scripture is "useful and profitable" - it's a far cry from inerrant and perfect.

Church history and global religion is replete with horrifying factions and groups, some of which resort to violent retaliations like Islam, who acknowledge Christ as a Muslim that will return and make war on the Jews and Christians!

You know, in the years I've been a Christian, I've had people tell me I have free will, and that I do not. That God loves everyone, and that He certainly does not. That the church will be raptured, and that the rapture is a demonic doctrine. That all Christians should speak in tongues, and that none should. That the Mark of The Beast will be a microchip, and that the events of Revelation have already happened. And every one of these positions has been defended by literalist inerrancists. I'm not convinced therefore that inerrancy is actually a useful concept.

I consider myself literal as I sit down and read it off the page, letter by letter, word by word, verse by verse, in context, applying hermenutical analysis to contentious passages like "six days". See here: (Post # 115)

http://www.christianforums.com/t63553&page=12

Funny thing is, non literalists do the same. We just do not come to it with the assumption that literal is the default meaning.

Liberal/Conservative - I'm aiming at translational issues that suppose the word doesn't say (or mean literally) what it says.



If not literal history - what is it?

A vehicle of theological truth.

And how can we trust what is/isn't literal?

I don't think it matters which it is. We can trust it because we believe by faith that the Holy Spirit communicates through it.

I promise you I am not part of a professional YEC machine, any more than you are part of a professional evolution machine.

Of course not. But both of us get our scientific material from the professionals, ultimately.

BTW - Science. We keep coming back to science.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at [size=-1]SHED[/size]
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : [size=-1]NATURAL SCIENCE[/size]
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

I think we mean specifically 3 (b) here.

More on that later - I have to go! Karl, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Ah, we don't have thanksgiving here. Enjoy yours though.

May God bless us all as we seek to learn of His ways!!

Amen.

 

[Buck72]

Ah, we don't have thanksgiving here. Enjoy yours though. Amen.

Ouch....sorry Karl, (I'm embarrased), oh well. Hey, did you know my favorite christian band is Delirious? They're the most solid christian group I've heard in awhile, are they popular there in the UK? (off topic, but what the heck!)

 

[Buck72]

I'm not convinced it matters whether a given event is literal or non-literal. Thing is, literalists and non-literalists get the same theological truths out of the fall story. We may differ on specifics, but the fundamental truths (which I outlined somewhere else IIRC) are actually the same.

I wish they were, for the sake of John 17:21, I wish they were. But we have a great divide here. The Creation/Evolution accounts are totally irreconcilable.

Yes, but this is where we have to put Scripture in its proper place....Does it matter that the instructions were imperfect? Does it matter that the big cathedral I was instructed to turn left at was actually now a bingo hall? No. Do I say the instructions are useless because they were wrong about the cathedral? As long as they reliably lead me to her, they serve their purpose perfectly. That is how I see the relationship of the Scriptures to Christ. They are reliable in leading us to Him, but they are not inerrant in every way. This is why I think Paul says that Scripture is "useful and profitable" - it's a far cry from inerrant and perfect.

The Bible is inerrant...man's interpretation is not inerrant. I see the means that you explain scripture as pointing to Christ, and I agree. All scripture points to Christ, He is at Genesis 1, and at Revelation 22. He is at every turn of the page! But I will contend that there is more to the message than you have alluded to here. There are no mistakes. That is the faith-challenge. Now if you contend there ARE mistakes, I'll go further with you that it is not (nessecarily) a salvation issue, but it does open you to potential targeting by the enemy.

Oh, Paul did not say "useful and profitable", he said:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You know, in the years I've been a Christian, I've had people tell me I have free will, and that I do not. That God loves everyone, and that He certainly does not. That the church will be raptured, and that the rapture is a demonic doctrine. That all Christians should speak in tongues, and that none should. That the Mark of The Beast will be a microchip, and that the events of Revelation have already happened. And every one of these positions has been defended by literalist inerrancists. I'm not convinced therefore that inerrancy is actually a useful concept.

People mess it all up. That is not the Bible's fault though. It is all easily answered through objective, non-biased READING of the word.

Free will? Yes we do. Eve ate that fruit after she was told not to. Did God know that she would eat it? Of course He did...does that make Him evil? No. Does His prior knowledge of the violation somehow lessen her responsibility to obey?...definitely not. So do I choose God, or does He choose me?

From our point we choose God, but after that choice the Spirit shows us that actually he chose us! Imagine a scene for me:

You are walking down the street, you see a large building with a sign out front: "WHOSOEVER WILL COME, COME AND EAT". Feeling hungry, you go in and look around, seeing long tables, chairs, and a bountiful feast. You go to sit down, but you see a nameplate reserving that seat, so you move to the next seat, but the same thing again. Eventually you move down far enough you see a nameplate with YOUR name on it...WOW! How did they know that!? As you sit, you notice the sign on the otherside of the door: "PREPARED BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD". Now who decided for you to eat there?

Funny thing is, non literalists do the same. We just do not come to it with the assumption that literal is the default meaning.

So, is the default meaning non-literal? Who decides? And where in scripture can we know for sure what is/isn't literal/non-literal? How can we avoid making these faith-wrecking mistakes like so many before us?

 

[Vance]

Ah, but Buck, if you are humble about your interpretation and willing to accept that it could be literal or non-literal rather than insisting before hand that it must be one or the other, there can be no faith-wrecking mistakes, since either way you accept it. Even if you believed it might be literal and then later decided it must be non-literal, or vice-versa. It is only when you had INSISTED that it must be literal or not trust-worthy that your faith is in jeapordy.

And, really, nobody believes that every word in the Bible is literal. I could ask you how you determine what is literal and not, and you would tell me how you determine which is which. YOu might say "it is literal unless there is an EXPLICIT statement in the text that it is not, such as a parable or a vision". Let's take Jesus' teachings. Not every story he told begins with a reference that it is a parable, like the good Samaritan. Do you believe this is a true event? Every story for which there is no specific mention of it being a parable? No, you might then say that it is the "form" and the context of the story which tells you whether it is literal or not, and now you are into interpretation. And you see that it is a sliding scale of interpretation, not absolute literalism on one end and every one else on the other.

Or, you might say that, in regards to Jesus' stories that it does not matter whether they are true or not since it is the MESSAGE which is important, not the historical truth of the event.

And there I would agree with you whole-heartedly. hint, hint

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I wish they were, for the sake of John 17:21, I wish they were. But we have a great divide here. The Creation/Evolution accounts are totally irreconcilable.

I contend they are the same. Leaving aside the timescale and scientific means of creation (which are hardly of themselves foundational theology) how exactly do the theological messages we draw from Genesis differ?

The Bible is inerrant...man's interpretation is not inerrant. I see the means that you explain scripture as pointing to Christ, and I agree. All scripture points to Christ, He is at Genesis 1, and at Revelation 22. He is at every turn of the page! But I will contend that there is more to the message than you have alluded to here. There are no mistakes. That is the faith-challenge. Now if you contend there ARE mistakes, I'll go further with you that it is not (nessecarily) a salvation issue, but it does open you to potential targeting by the enemy.

Not really. I used to have far more challenges to the feasibility of my faith when I read scripture literally, because it didn't seem to work.

Oh, Paul did not say "useful and profitable", he said:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

No matter. Point is, he doesn't say it's inerrant. "Profitable" seems very tame compared with "inerrant" to me. Moreover, Paul points out what it's for - scientific knowledge is not mentioned.

People mess it all up. That is not the Bible's fault though. It is all easily answered through objective, non-biased READING of the word.

People who fight hammer and tongs against each other all believe they have that objective non-biased reading. It doesn't seem to help them agree.

So, is the default meaning non-literal? Who decides? And where in scripture can we know for sure what is/isn't literal/non-literal? How can we avoid making these faith-wrecking mistakes like so many before us?

(1) I don't think it matters. I don't ask "is this literal?" of a Bible passage; I ask "how is this the word of God for me today?"

(2) I don't see them as faith wrecking. Literalism nearly wrecked my faith, but I fortunately steered it off those rocks, God be praised.