the Great Divide

[rmwilliamsll]

this is prompted by:

I don't see why not, all one has to do is go over to the C&E forum to see that atheists and TEs are attached to one another at the hip, for all practical purposes they are two sides of the same coin. I see very little if anything to distinguish the two. Why is that? I say it's because both are Evolutionists which is the opposite of a Creationist.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30896087&postcount=19

This is a big point among many YECIST. They really do draw the faith boundary between themselves and OEC, not really believing that H.Ross can be saved. And for TE's this is the perfect expression for this attitude: "attached to one another at the hip".

The problem is that the real great divide among people is at the naturalist v supernaturalist barrier, not at a simple idea like the age of the earth, but a BIG issue like is the universe two substances: spirit and matter or only one? It's a shame that YECists do this, for the battle was in the late 19thC clearly between those that believed in the supernatural and therefore miracles like the virgin birth and those who for ontological reasons could not believe in either a spiritual world or in a physical world where God operated distinct from the rules he had created.

Both the earlier deists and the later progressive theologians saw the universe as two-fold but figured that God was either so hidden or so unconcerned that he didn't really matter. The later progressive and now liberal theologians left this dualistic ontology behind for such things as pantheism and panentheism. But in any case, when this debate was first developed the division between supernaturalist and naturalists was clear (see J.Machen's Virgin Birth). It is only in the last 50 years or so that the modern YECists have taken, not miracles to be the defining great division, but a specific miracle, a recent Creation.

sad, for again, YECists are fighting good science-the age of the earth, with bad theology-YECism while the great battle for the hearts of our time is being fought over the metaphysics of scientism and the logical connection of modern science to atheism. It is a battle where supernaturalist v naturalist is clearly the demarcation line, but the YECists are all in left field and not contributing their weight to the battle and the scientism and evolutionism atheists are winning by default.

a shame. i wonder what God has in mind?
i'll bet that it is to condemn an unreasonable faith(YECism) as much as a faithless reason(rationalistic atheism).

 

[Gwenyfur]

I've said it before here and I'll prolly say it again...
I argue the validity of G-d's word...not the science of G-d's word...

In other words, I take the 6 day creation on faith. Not science. If I'm wrong, then I'm only guilty of giving G-d too much credit.

There's so much rhetoric on all sides of the issue that I don't even bother to argue anymore...just state my faith...

that's it

as for atheism and TE's, G-d leads each of us on a path He intends for us....the truth won't be known until we're all in heaven anyhow...

 

[Mallon]

Meh. Atheists and TEs may share the same scientific convictions (science is good), but atheists and YECs share the same theological ones (the Bible rises or falls based on its scientific accuracy). I'm more bothered by the latter.

 

[Assyrian]

In other words, I take the 6 day creation on faith. Not science. If I'm wrong, then I'm only guilty of giving G-d too much credit.

You mean if you are wrong then God deserves credit than you gave him Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that?

 

[Dannager]

Meh. Atheists and TEs may share the same scientific convictions (science is good), but atheists and YECs share the same theological ones (the Bible rises or falls based on its scientific accuracy). I'm more bothered by the latter.

You know, I've never thought of it that way before. Huh.

 

[Xaero]

Mallon is totally right. YECs and Antitheists seem to share the same view about god, the only difference is the first believe in it, the second deny it..

 

[vossler]

Mallon is totally right. YECs and Antitheists seem to share the same view about god, the only difference is the first believe in it, the second deny it..

Now that's an interesting statement; how does one share the same view on a subject and yet have a completely different witness as to what one sees? How can one share something with someone else if the other doesn't acknowledge the something? You guys sure will sure go to great lengths stretching your imagination to substantiate you view by trying to discredit the opposition.

If there ever could be two groups more diametrically opposed to one another than a YEC and an atheist then I haven't a clue who they could be.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If there ever could be two groups more diametrically opposed to one another than a YEC and an atheist then I haven't a clue who they could be.

the problem is that both atheists and YECists have the same basic attitude towards the Scriptures, that they are speaking in modern scientific terms when they talk about the physical world. YECism is a modern movement, anchored firmly in the late 19thC and the battles over the Bible and science, taking a Scottish common sense realism as the basic epistemology and seeing the Bible as a source of scientific and historical propositions that can simply be inserted into modern science to see if they are true or not. The atheist points to the results and says: see the Bible is false because it says false scientific things and the YEC says: see the Bible is true because God wrote these modern scientific things in there, like prophecies so that we would know the truth of it.
both use the same basic 19thC hermeneutic, only the results are different, the way of looking is the same, modern scientifically and historically inerrant (for YECists) and error full (for atheists) writing.

 

[Mallon]

Now that's an interesting statement; how does one share the same view on a subject and yet have a completely different witness as to what one sees?

Easy. YECs rely on faith; atheists rely on science. The faith YECs express about the scientific correctness of the Bible leads them to believe it is inerrant and thus holy. The scientific misgivings that atheists have about the Bible lead them to believe it is worthless and uninspired. You both share the same expectations that the Bible rises or falls based on its scientific accuracy. At least, that's certainly the impression I get. How often have I heard "If Genesis isn't historically true, why should I believe in Jesus' resurrection?"

 

[vossler]

Easy. YECs rely on faith; atheists rely on science. The faith YECs express about the scientific correctness of the Bible leads them to believe it is inerrant and thus holy. The scientific misgivings that atheists have about the Bible lead them to believe it is worthless and uninspired. You both share the same expectations that the Bible rises or falls based on its scientific accuracy. At least, that's certainly the impression I get. How often have I heard "If Genesis isn't historically true, why should I believe in Jesus' resurrection?"

You make it sound like faith is blind. Is that how you see your faith?

For you to state that YECs believe the Bible rises or falls on its scientific accuracy just goes to show how little you know about us. Unlike you and other TEs, I place no scientific expectations on Scripture.

BTW, I believe the misgivings atheists have about the Bible is first and foremost a pride issue.

 

[vossler]

the problem is that both atheists and YECists have the same basic attitude towards the Scriptures, that they are speaking in modern scientific terms when they talk about the physical world.

This statement doesn't even come close to representing my view or reality. For you to state that my attitude toward Scripture is the same as an atheists is stunning, but not totally unexpected. Is it any wonder why such a great divide seems to exist between us?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This statement doesn't even come close to representing my view or reality. For you to state that my attitude toward Scripture is the same as an atheists is stunning, but not totally unexpected. Is it any wonder why such a great divide seems to exist between us?

have the same basic attitude towards the Scriptures, that they are speaking in modern scientific terms when they talk about the physical world

it is easy enough to see if you think that the Scriptures are scientifically accurate or not.

i can ask. Do the Scriptures make modern scientific and historical statements? are these statements always true?

 

[Mallon]

You make it sound like faith is blind. Is that how you see your faith?

I see my faith as rooted in Christ's manifestation in my life, not in science.

For you to state that YECs believe the Bible rises or falls on its scientific accuracy just goes to show how little you know about us.

Really? I don't know of one YEC here who doesn't hold AiG in high esteem, and this is what they have to say about science and the Bible:

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind...
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

i.e., the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be believed and fulfill its duty of redeeming mankind. No?

Unlike you and other TEs, I place no scientific expectations on Scripture.

Why in the world would you accuse a TE of placing scientific expectation on Scripture?
I'll remember what you said next time you argue for creation science.

 

[Xaero]

How can one share something with someone else if the other doesn't acknowledge the something?

it's the 'something' which you share - the way the bible had to be interpreted and understood, but Atheists are not believing it, you do.
You surely are opposed tho them but share a similar set of theological suppositions which is either accepted or not from each side.

 

[vossler]

I see my faith as rooted in Christ's manifestation in my life, not in science.

I hope so but the appearance is that science governs how you see Scripture and God.

Really? I don't know of one YEC here who doesn't hold AiG in high esteem, and this is what they have to say about science and the Bible:

i.e., the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be believed and fulfill its duty of redeeming mankind. No?

Just so you understand my position clearly, the Bible is true whether science says so or not. AiG happens to believe its scientifically true, it is because they support the inerrancy of Scripture that I support them.

Why in the world would you accuse a TE of placing scientific expectation on Scripture?
I'll remember what you said next time you argue for creation science.

I don't think you'll find me arguing much for creation science.

 

[vossler]

i can ask. Do the Scriptures make modern scientific and historical statements? are these statements always true?

I'll answer that this way, the Scriptures are always true wherever they speak.

 

[Mallon]

I hope so but the appearance is that science governs how you see Scripture and God.

Is such a view not scriptural? Romans 1:20, after all.

I don't think you'll find me arguing much for creation science.

I'll hold you to it.
God bless, vossler. I do admire your unmoving faith.

 

[shernren]

To me the only reason atheists and TEs agree on anything is simply because they've come to grips with living in the same physical reality. We're stuck in the same universe; that's hardly our fault, is it?

As for the similarities between YECs and atheists, it reminds me of a thread I started in the TE-only subforum where I made a comparison that I think most will find unsettling. I didn't mean any personal dislike against either of those compared (vossler and beastt) but the two conversations were going on such similar rails so close together in time that the comparison was inescapable. If YECs ever took the time to hear the things atheists are saying about the Bible, they might find themselves unpleasantly surprised:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3338186-and-now-its-really-happening.html

 

[Assyrian]

I hope so but the appearance is that science governs how you see Scripture and God.

I think what it does is weed out some of our wrong interpretations of scripture. That is why there is such a diverse range of interpretations among TEs. Science doesn't tell us how to interpret the days of Genesis or Adam and Eve. If it did we would all be framework, mytos, poetry or some sort of day-age and toe a party line on a federal head or allegorical Adam. But all science tells us is that the universe is not 6000 years old and that man was not formed separately from all the other animals out of a lump of mud.

But non biblical sources have always influence our interpretation of scripture, weeding out some of the mistakes. In the first century many Christians believed Jesus was coming back in their generation. It is history that tells us that interpretation was wrong.

Until the time of Copernicus everyone believed the bible spoke of the sun going around a fixed earth. It was science that told us this was wrong. Science does not tell us how we deal with the passages that seem to speak of geocentric universe. That is up to us, the bible, and God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll View Post
i can ask. Do the Scriptures make modern scientific and historical statements? are these statements always true?

I'll answer that this way, the Scriptures are always true wherever they speak.

i think it is an important point, it is worth belaboring for a moment. "Wherever they speak" is how they speak to me. Modern interpretations without taking the ancient historical and social context into consideration is scientific in nature. YECists in general believe that the Scriptures are addressed to them, in their culture, with their scientific principles in mind. They are not, the Scriptures are addressed to their original audience, not us. They are "for" us while not being addressed to us. They are not in our language, they are not using the dominant ideologies of our time, they are not scientific nor are they historical, in the way we use these terms.

When YECists in general say that the Biblie is true, they mean true to them. They mean that when they read it, their common sense interpretation of the plain and clear text is true according to the standards that they have.

Let's take a non scientific example.
Is plagarism or misquoting with a purpose wrong? is it an error? to you and me, yes. Why? because we are children of our time, offspring of the printing press and lots of money going into writing, and people getting paid for their words.

Mark 1:1-3 is a misquotation, not just a misquotation but a misquotation with a specific purpose.
where is the voice in Mark? in the desert. look at:
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
where is the voice? unknown.
Mark is quoting the LXX, not the Hebrew, the LXX mistranslates the verse, it misses the Hebrew poetic parallelism and moves the voice into the wilderness.
Now Mark wants to prove that John is the fulfillment of the prophecy, so it fits, for John like the voice is in the desert.

So what? by our standards this is an error, in fact, in a scientific paper this would be grounds for real issues brought up against the writer. Why didn't God correct Mark? That is not what Isaiah said, he didn't propose a voice from the wilderness, that is Mark's addition. This violates modern standards of plagarism and quotation and is an error, to us.

But we don't read the Scriptures with our context, we read it with theirs. The LXX was the Scriptures of that day, at least 1/2 of the quotations in the NT of the OT that can be ascribed to a specific textual source are from the LXX. In some places it is a good translation, in others it is really bad. Why did God allow the NT writers to quote from the bad and inaccurately translated places? not only that but it is often to make a big point, like here or with the word parthenos.