The Case of the Phantom Menace

[gluadys]

Because we accept and follow Jesus Christ doesn't mean we just stop with that. You can, but it would be unwise. Scripture, every piece of it, every word of it, is useful for teaching. If you want to grow in your relationship with God, you will take God's Word as absolute truth and not hold anything outside of God and His Word over His Word.

I absolutely agree.

A wise man does not use the philosophy of the world to judge the Bible. A wise man hears God's Words and judges what the world says against what God says.

A lot of the problem in this conversation arises, I believe, because of an equivocation of the term "world".

When you speak of "the philosophy of the world" it is clear that you are speaking of the thoughts and opinions and arguments of human beings. Philosophies originate in human thought.

On this basis, I would partially agree that a wise man does not use the philosophy of the world to judge the bible. Why only partial agreement? Because theology is a sub-set of philosophy. And is not theology important in studying the bible at a deep level? Even though theology, like philosophy more generally, takes its origins in the thoughts, opinions and argrments of the human intellect.

But when you say a "wise man...judges what the world says against what God says" there are two possible meanings.


One, and I believe the one you intended, is the same as above. What the "world" says = "what people say".

The other possible meaning, however, is that "world" = "created order". In this case what the "world" says is what "nature" says.

All too often, I hear from anti-evolutionists, that this word of nature is to be treated in the same way as the word of humans. It is to be judged as something that originates in the minds of human beings.

But nature does not arise in the minds of human beings. At least that is not a Christian concept. So this word needs to be treated differently from the human word of the "world".

I have no problem with saying that a wise Christian judges human philosophies against what God says.

I do have a problem with pitting the world of nature against what God says. For does God not "say" the world of nature too? What is it that God says that can judge the testimony of nature?

 

[SBG]

I absolutely agree.




A lot of the problem in this conversation arises, I believe, because of an equivocation of the term "world".

When you speak of "the philosophy of the world" it is clear that you are speaking of the thoughts and opinions and arguments of human beings. Philosophies originate in human thought.

On this basis, I would partially agree that a wise man does not use the philosophy of the world to judge the bible. Why only partial agreement? Because theology is a sub-set of philosophy. And is not theology important in studying the bible at a deep level? Even though theology, like philosophy more generally, takes its origins in the thoughts, opinions and argrments of the human intellect.


But when you say a "wise man...judges what the world says against what God says" there are two possible meanings.


One, and I believe the one you intended, is the same as above. What the "world" says = "what people say".

The other possible meaning, however, is that "world" = "created order". In this case what the "world" says is what "nature" says.

All too often, I hear from anti-evolutionists, that this word of nature is to be treated in the same way as the word of humans. It is to be judged as something that originates in the minds of human beings.

But nature does not arise in the minds of human beings. At least that is not a Christian concept. So this word needs to be treated differently from the human word of the "world".

I have no problem with saying that a wise Christian judges human philosophies against what God says.

I do have a problem with pitting the world of nature against what God says. For does God not "say" the world of nature too? What is it that God says that can judge the testimony of nature?

Yes, I meant 'what people say.'

Nature itself would not say anything different than what God did. The problem arises between TEs and YECs when the interpretation of nature comes in. This interpretation must harmonize with God's Word, as it was meant when written. I say this because God is the original Author of the Bible. He used men to pen it, but the words and teachings of the Bible were not of man's thinking, but of God's.

God's Word does not change, thus the interpretation of nature must harmonize with God's Word, as it was meant when written.

The Hebrew language, for me, is a bit more difficult to understand. What I mean by this, is that each word usually has many different meanings. One must really be adept at understanding the context of what is written to understand what meaning of the word is used.

The Greek is much easier to understand what the Author meant. We are fortunate that the Greek is a very precise language. There is hardly any difficulty in understanding exactly what the Author intended to mean and say. The teachings are complex, but understanding what the words mean and how they are used is much easier than Hebrew. The Greek was truly the best language for most of the New Testament to be written in.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, I meant 'what people say.'

Nature itself would not say anything different than what God did. The problem arises between TEs and YECs when the interpretation of nature comes in. This interpretation must harmonize with God's Word, as it was meant when written. I say this because God is the original Author of the Bible. He used men to pen it, but the words and teachings of the Bible were not of man's thinking, but of God's.

God's Word does not change, thus the interpretation of nature must harmonize with God's Word, as it was meant when written.

Sure. But this does not require interpretation of nature alone. It also requires interpretation of scripture. We cannot assume that we are any closer to understanding God's word in scripture than in nature.

The Hebrew language, for me, is a bit more difficult to understand. What I mean by this, is that each word usually has many different meanings. One must really be adept at understanding the context of what is written to understand what meaning of the word is used.

So back to interpretation of scripture again. What really bothers me about YEC is the assumption that we already have perfect understanding of God's word in scripture, so we just have to adjust our understanding of nature. Why is it never possible that we understand nature more truly than scripture and that it is our interpretation of scripture that needs to be corrected by our study of nature.

After all, God's Word is something that includes both scripture and nature and above all Christ. Neither scripture nor nature should be identified holus-bolus with the eternal Word of God which is the origin of both, yet beyond both. Or to put it another way: neither scripture nor nature nor the two of them together is the whole of God's Word, though each is, in its own capacity, an expression of God's Word.

 

[Vance]

Gluadys, you have hit one of the core issues here. The entire YEC position is based on a single presumption: that the YEC interpretation of Scripture MUST be correct. Not "is most likely to be correct", but is correct without the possibility of error. Most will deny that they assert they are infallible, but then look at how they discuss Scripture. They say "since it clearly says" or "if you just accept what the Bible says" or "why would God do it differently than is described in Scripture", etc. All of these types of statements are founded on the idea of absolute infallibility in the reading of Scripture.

It really is breathtaking, when you consider it, the degree of pride that is involved in this. They accuse of scientists of being arrogant and self-assured in their conclusions about nature, but I have rarely heard a scientist make statements about ANY conclusions about nature with the absolute assumption of infallibility that we see in so many YEC's.

Again, YEC's will say "I never said I was infallible", but they will go on presenting their interpretation of Scripture NOT as if it is an interpretation, but as if it is an absolute.

 

[invisible trousers]

words

Indeed. It's been brought up many times on CF, and it is perpetually ignored by YECs. The same goes for determining that God is liar and actively deceives His followers by putting evidence of evolution/etc on the earth but then having His written account of creation be completely different.

Seriously, I have yet to see a YEC admit that there is even a chance their interpretation of scripture could be incorrect.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Indeed. It's been brought up many times on CF, and it is perpetually ignored by YECs. The same goes for determining that God is liar and actively deceives His followers by putting evidence of evolution/etc on the earth but then having His written account of creation be completely different.

Seriously, I have yet to see a YEC admit that there is even a chance their interpretation of scripture could be incorrect.

Well, now you have met one, but soon after I realised that I could be wrong and that my YEC teachers and heroes I looked up to could be (and often were where science was concerned) wrong I could no longer be a YEC.

So now I'm one of those evil-non-bible-believing-might-as-well-be-a-satanist TEs I use to preach against.

 

[billwald]

The basic problem is a misuse of the word, "believe." The use of "believe" infers a metaphysical topic. One analyzes data and cones to a conclusion. It is a misuse of "belief" to say that one "believes" one's data analysis. One simply states his conclusion (data) and defends it.