The Flood

[notto]

You don't want to answer if creation alone gets up and speaks or do scientists tell us what they believe creation says? Can you answer that, or would you like to avoid that?

Do you think all scientists are honest? How about the 20 some year secrecy of the dating on human fossil remains that became publically known? Was that scientists being honest by hiding this for so long? Sure we found out, and that is good, but this was not just some recent thing but something that lasted for over 20 years.

Again, do you even care about theology and sound doctrine? It is one thing that you are determined to believe evolution at the expense of the Biblical teachings, but can you atleast be honest that theology and sound doctrine are not that important to you. If they were, they wouldn't need to change to keep up with the times.

And remember theology and sound doctrine don't only concern themselves with allegory, but with what truly and literally happened.

The scientific method gives us a way to examine the creation in an objective way. Good hones Christian scientists have been doing this for hundreds of years and they come to the same consensus about what we find in creation. Theology and sound doctrine are important to me. I don't think that YEC views are sound theology or doctrine or good science. Please don't put words in my mouth. I disagree with you on the issue but you seem to be taking my disagreement as something it is not. I would appreciate if you didn't do that.


If sound doctrine is concerned with what truly happened, then there is no better place to look for a history of creation than the creation itself. That is where early Christian geologists went to look, and they realized that their doctrine based on a literal interpretation of the bible was incorrect. That didn't change their acceptance of the theological implications and teachings of the bible. It hasn't changed mine either.


You started this thread with what seemed like an honest question. I have been explaining and trying to answer but you seem like you are now attacking what I have answered and are accusing me of something which is not true. On that note, I'm going to bow out of this thread. I have answered your questions honestly and as completely as I can. Hopefully it has been useful to you.


I will accept that you don't accept my views. Luckily, my relationship with God, the bible, and the creation don't depend on your acceptance.

 

[gluadys]

I have just a small bit of time so I wanted to comment on this part. I can confidently say that the Church Fathers - if they knew of the evidence today - would not change their interpretation of the Bible. They would however see how some of what is found can fit with what is literally said within the Bible.

Precisely. That is why I think they would probably accept the findings of Copernicus, Newton, Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin without abandoning their faith in biblical truths. They would adapt what they think is literal.

I believe the first error of theistic evolutionists is NOT the belief of evolution, but the fact they it is said the interpretation of the Bible must change to fit with today's science and keep changing as science does. Good theology doesn't keep changing everytime the world says something different.

Interpretation must take facts into consideration in order to be faithful to the revelation of the bible itself. If we discover we are mistaken about what we have concluded to be fact, interpretation based on those obsolete "facts" must deal with our better appreciation of what is and is not fact.

Theology is a different matter from interpretation. For example, even though I interpret many passages of the bible differently from the ancients due to a different scientific world-view, my theology is still squarely in line with the Nicene Creed. (Otherwise, I would not even be in this forum.)

It is not evolution per say that is the problem, it is the fact that te's say scripture must be ONLY read allegorical (Genesis) and CANNOT be read as history.

Some scripture, of course, can and should be read as history, but since we are speaking of the creation accounts, I agree that they cannot be read as history even if they once were. Those who once read them as history had the bible and the bible alone to tell them about history. But now we have a much more comprehensive view of history, even human history, than they did, and knowledge of pre-human history they knew nothing of. And the biblical account simply does not agree with much of that history. Therefore the biblical account cannot be history.

Every Church Father, Apostle and Jesus Christ would disagree with you.

I ask again, would they still disagree if they had the same basic level of scientific information we have today?

You see, there is actually a way to harmonize a literal historical Genesis - thus not inferring the Bible is wrong

Now this is something I know you have been told before, yet you still repeat it. Rejection of a literal reading does not imply the bible is wrong! It only implies that the literal reading is wrong.

Until you understand that simple fact, you will never understand where TEs are coming from.

- and a good amount of evolution.

It is not enough to include a good amount of evolution. Like any good scientific theory, the ToE is indivisible. It is a package deal. You have to accept it in toto or you may as well not accept it at all.

That is why creationist attempts to undermine evolution so miserably fail. They peck here and peck there, but never deal with the complete theory or all the evidence that supports it.

The only theory that will ever replace evolution is one that explains all current evidence for evolution at least as well as ToE does and also answers at least one scientific puzzle which ToE does not.

That is how science works.

Man evolving is not one of them nor is death before the fall of mankind.

That is your opinion. I disagree. Neither is a salvation issue. Both are matters on which Christians may disagree without breaking fellowship. Note that even if I did not espouse the reality of evolution, in fact, even if I converted to YECism, I would still disagree with you about death before the fall. And I would do so solely on the basis of scripture.

My belief is even creationists have it wrong on parts of science.

LOL . I couldn't agree with you more there.

Why I would rather be on their side of the fence is because they uphold the way Scripture was meant to be read instead of insisting that Scripture must change with the times and keep changing accordingly. Vance has freely admitted that if science changes from evolution, interpretation of the Bible must keep changing. I don't believe Paul taught that Scripture keeps bouncing around, never sure of what it is teaching. That the Holy Spirit keeps you going from one belief to another. This flys in the face of what the Bible teaches.

No, no. no. I am not saying scripture must change with the times. In fact, one of the things that really rouses my dander is when creationists try to make it change with the times, asserting, for example, that scripture refers to plate tectonics or the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe shortly after the big bang.

And I am most certainly not saying that Christian doctrines must change with the times.

But we do have to recognize that times have changed. We do have to preach the gospel in our time, not the times of the apostles or the church fathers or the medieval scholastics or even the early reformers. And that means we do have to integrate our current knowledge of cosmology, physics, geology and biology, including evolution with the unchanging gospel, the unchanging scriptures and the unchanging foundational doctrines of the church.

The point is not to deny Creation or the Creator or the scriptures that testify of them, but to deal with what the doctrine of Creation means in a world which we know has an evolutionary history.

The question remains, do you really care about having good theology and being in sound doctrine? If you did, you would uphold the Bible as the Authority in ALL matter and would not come out and say that the Bible is wrong if it is read how Church Fathers read it, or how the Apostles read it or how Jesus taught it. There is not one Church Father, Apostle, or Jesus Christ who didn't believe the flood was global. It was not based on science or the philosophy of the day, but because Scripture is very clear in this teaching. That is the belief these men held.

I don't agree that upholding the authority of scripture means accepting a reading of scripture that is based on ignorance, no matter whose ignorance it was.

Again, do you really care about theology? Do you really care about being in sound doctrine that doesn't go back and forth in conflicting teachings? Do you?

Very much so. This is something that is really, really important to me.

 

[SBG]

I think this thread has shown very clearly, that science must be used as one of the ways to interpret scripture. That possibly the Holy Spirit is not enough to help us understand on His own, that we are need of current modern day teachings.

IN this thread you can see how the early Church viewed the flood and they were very dogmatic about it when preaching to the Greeks. Today, we are asked to change this view that is deeply rooted in the early Church. Today, we are asked to reduce our understanding from historical and the greater message, to only the greater message. We are told the Bible is in error if this was meant to be taught as history. And in history we can see that so many believed it was. Today, they say it must change.

Did God lie when He said My Word never changes, or was He telling only a half truth?

 

[notto]

Did God lie when He said My Word never changes, or was He telling only a half truth?

I know God doesn't lie either in the Word or in Creation, therefore, when they are in conflict, it must be our interpretation of what is written that is wrong because the creation is the closest thing we have to a direct work of God. Who is to say that the early church fathers wouldn't feel the same way if they knew what we knew now and have seen what we have seen now.

God has told us the whole truth and it is revealed to us through study of the scriptures and study of the creation, which is the direct result of God's action. Again, we disagree on how we approach this revelation but in the end, the result is the same. We both accept and believe.

I can only see your approach as one that is trying to convince me that I need to simply abandon this belief because my understanding of it doesn't reconcile with yours or those in the past so I must be wrong. I can only see your approach as one that would require me to neglect the creation and our study of it and neglect the very mind God gave me. I won't accept that but unfortuantely some do and your argument is the very stumbling block that is set before them.

Not once in this discussion have I commented on your faith, yet repeatedly, you seem to be commenting on the faith of your fellow Christians even as they tell you that they have full faith in God and Christ. If that is what is required to qualify as sound doctrine, I will have no part of it.

 

[SBG]

Woo woo! I never once said I thought people had less faith or anything about their faith. You may disagree with me, dislike me or whatever. But can you keep the lies out of this?

You can very well be Christian and have bad theology and believe in unsound doctrine. I never once tried to call out someone elses faith and you saying I have is extremely insulting.

 

[gluadys]

IN this thread you can see how the early Church viewed the flood and they were very dogmatic about it when preaching to the Greeks. Today, we are asked to change this view that is deeply rooted in the early Church. Today, we are asked to reduce our understanding from historical and the greater message, to only the greater message. We are told the Bible is in error if this was meant to be taught as history. And in history we can see that so many believed it was. Today, they say it must change.

Did God lie when He said My Word never changes, or was He telling only a half truth?

You have pulled a bait and switch here SBG. You begin, correctly, by saying we are asked to change the scientific world-view of the early Church and adopt the science of our time. But by the end of your post you imply we are being asked to change God's Word.

Not the same thing at all!

 

[SBG]

Well are we suppose to change the interpretation held by the early Church - Apostles and Church Father - and adapt to the current day theories or not?

And if we are, then God's Word is not saying the same thing as it did then. I would think you could atleast see this giving that now we are asked to only read allegorically instead of historical/literally/allegorically. It has changed if you agree to the first question.

 

[gluadys]

Well are we suppose to change the interpretation held by the early Church - Apostles and Church Father - and adapt to the current day theories or not?

And if we are, then God's Word is not saying the same thing as it did then. I would think you could atleast see this giving that now we are asked to only read allegorically instead of historical/literally/allegorically. It has changed if you agree to the first question.

No, your logic is incorrect. Changing one's understanding of scripture in no way changes God's Word. If the original understanding was faulty, changing that understanding means we are now nearer to a correct understanding of the unchanging Word of God.

 

[SBG]

No, your logic is incorrect. Changing one's understanding of scripture in no way changes God's Word. If the original understanding was faulty, changing that understanding means we are now nearer to a correct understanding of the unchanging Word of God.

Ah, now that is a claim! I am just not that prideful to make a claim that all the early Church was wrong in their interpretation on this matter, including Jesus Himself.

So, if God's Word was originally intended to convey an actual flood that was global and you now say it was local, that doesn't change anything?

If God's Word was originally intended to convey that He did create in six days, and you say it wasn't six days but much, much longer, that doesn't change anything?

So you really, honestly believe that whenever we change our understanding of God's Word, we are really getting closer to the true understanding? Now that's logic.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, now that is a claim! I am just not that prideful to make a claim that all the early Church was wrong in their interpretation on this matter, including Jesus Himself.

So, if God's Word was originally intended to convey an actual flood that was global and you now say it was local, that doesn't change anything?

If God's Word was originally intended to convey that He did create in six days, and you say it wasn't six days but much, much longer, that doesn't change anything?

No, if our knowledge tells us the former understanding must change, that implies the former understanding was wrong and scripture was never intended to convey that meaning.

So you really, honestly believe that whenever we change our understanding of God's Word, we are really getting closer to the true understanding? Now that's logic.

As long as the change is in the direction of truth. It is not a matter of changing on a whim.

 

[SBG]

I see the problem. I have seen many speak as you did above. "Our knowledge tells us the former understanding must change..."

 

[Jatopian]

"Our knowledge tells us the former understanding must change..."

Precisely. Old theories are overturned as they are shown inadequate or flawed. By such means is human knowledge advanced.

I am just not that prideful to make a claim that all the early Church was wrong in their interpretation on this matter, including Jesus Himself.

Just that someone has titular authority does not preclude the possibility of fallibility. One must always judge each idea on its own merits, without regard to its source. Persons who do otherwise become sheep, easily led into traps such as Totalitarian Communism or the Crusades. For your sake, reconsider your self-debasement.
...Jesus is a different matter, though. Where did you find Him endorsing your position?

 

[SBG]

And by the way, Clement of Rome, was an associate who often was with Paul and did learn from him.

Since Paul is a man and fallible, shall we not believe or call him into error on his teachings?

If you have read the Gospels, you will see Jesus Christ refering to the account of Noah and all men dying.

And tell me, if the flood is local and people could have escaped on their own merit, where does this lead to the overal meaning of the story? That we can escape God's wrath on our own accord without turning to God. This is the teaching you endorse when you preach a local flood.

 

[bdfoster]

If you have read the Gospels, you will see Jesus Christ refering to the account of Noah and all men dying.

And tell me, if the flood is local and people could have escaped on their own merit, where does this lead to the overal meaning of the story? That we can escape God's wrath on our own accord without turning to God. This is the teaching you endorse when you preach a local flood.

Ok, believe it or not some of us TEs actually have, and do read the bible This is what Jesus said:

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

So you believe that all people everywhere on planet earth died because Jesus said “destroyed them all” in this verse? OK

Do you also believe that all countries everywhere on planet earth came to by grain from Joseph in Egypt because of Genesis 41:57?

57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

And do you really believe that all the people of Jerusalem were baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan because of Mark 1:5?

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Come on! Even Caiaphas???

 

[SBG]

Ok, believe it or not some of us TEs actually have, and do read the bible This is what Jesus said:

I don't believe I said otherwise.

So you believe that all people everywhere on planet earth died because Jesus said “destroyed them all” in this verse? OK

Ok. And yes because Jesus said so, I believe. Odd, isn't it?

Do you also believe that all countries everywhere on planet earth came to by grain from Joseph in Egypt because of Genesis 41:57?

I believe what is written.

Genesis 41:57

"57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Incredulous that I ought to believe what the Bible says isn't it?

And do you really believe that all the people of Jerusalem were baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan because of Mark 1:5?

Mark 1:5

"5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

All that went to John from Judaea and Jerusalem were baptised by him. Again, I believe this, because it is written.

Crazy, huh?

Come on! Even Caiaphas???

Tough to keep composure when people believe what is written in the Bible, I guess.

 

[bdfoster]

I don't believe I said otherwise.

Joking. Boy we need more emoticons so people will know when people are joking .

Ok. And yes because Jesus said so, I believe. Odd, isn't it?

Not at all. In fact I believe it too. But I know that when he said “destroyed them all” he didn’t mean every single person on the planet because of similar uses of the word “all” in the passages I cited.

I believe what is written.

Genesis 41:57

"57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Incredulous that I ought to believe what the Bible says isn't it?

It is incredulous if you use the same anthropologically universal sense of the word "all" as you clearly use in passage where Jesus was speaking. If you think Jesus was speaking of every single person on the planet, then you must think the Genesis 41 passage refers to every single country on the planet. Now of course “country” is just the word the King James translators used. The original Hebrew word was “eretz” which basically means land (same word that is used for earth in the flood account). Of course in this context it means kingdoms, city-states, tribal areas etc. And that is ALL, not just some. Do you really think the Incas came to buy grain from Joseph? Don’t give me the “I believe what it says” line. We both see what it says.

Mark 1:5

"5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

All that went to John from Judaea and Jerusalem were baptised by him. Again, I believe this, because it is written.

Really? Where is this written? Certainly NOT in Mark 1:5. Mark 1:5 says that all the land of Judea and they of Jerusulem went out unto him. Notice all I did was move the subject to the front of the sentance. You added the conjunction “that” and completely changed the meaning to suggest that only some went out, and all that did were baptized. That is NOT what the scripture says. Scripture says “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” which would include some folks violently opposed to John’s ministry, and would have never been baptized by John.

Crazy, huh?

Yeah

 

[Vance]

Basically, things must be read literally, unless they are not meant to be read literally?

 

[SBG]

Joking. Boy we need more emoticons so people will know when people are joking .

That would be a good idea, nice thought!

Not at all. In fact I believe it too. But I know that when he said “destroyed them all” he didn’t mean every single person on the planet because of similar uses of the word “all” in the passages I cited.[/qutoe]

So, you believe that the word 'all' must be exactly the same in every passage?

It is incredulous if you use the same anthropologically universal sense of the word "all" as you clearly use in passage where Jesus was speaking. If you think Jesus was speaking of every single person on the planet, then you must think the Genesis 41 passage refers to every single country on the planet. Now of course “country” is just the word the King James translators used. The original Hebrew word was “eretz” which basically means land (same word that is used for earth in the flood account). Of course in this context it means kingdoms, city-states, tribal areas etc. And that is ALL, not just some. Do you really think the Incas came to buy grain from Joseph? Don’t give me the “I believe what it says” line. We both see what it says.

I know I am crazy. Do you think erets always means the exact thing everytime as well? Erets can me sheol as well, you know.

Really? Where is this written? Certainly NOT in Mark 1:5. Mark 1:5 says that all the land of Judea and they of Jerusulem went out unto him. Notice all I did was move the subject to the front of the sentance. You added the conjunction “that” and completely changed the meaning to suggest that only some went out, and all that did were baptized. That is NOT what the scripture says. Scripture says “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” which would include some folks violently opposed to John’s ministry, and would have never been baptized by John.

Mark 1:5
"And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

All here means some of all types(pas), so I see no problem here.

Yeah

I know.