• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The impact of YEC'ism

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Delta One said:
Hi The Lady Kate,




This message is a reply to one of yours a week or so ago. I will admit from the start that it is quite long, but I truly hope that you do get something out of it.

Only if we choose to read God's word as literal, word-for-word fact, something which even the original Hebrew authors wouldn't do.

I’ll assume that we are still talking about Genesis here, as some parts of the Bible, like Psalms, are not meant to be taken literally because of their poetical descriptions that David uses to describe his amazement of God’s grace and Glory.

Just as a general question, how do you know what the ‘Hebrew authors’ took and did not take seriously or literally? Do you have any sources?


Not offhand, but then again, neither did the authors of Genesis.

Seeing as how nobody was present to record the events of Genesis, it's seemes a bit of a stretch to call it a historical record.

Let us not forget that nothing in God's word can contradict God's creation, wrought by His own hands, without any possibility of alteration or tampering by human hands (something even Scripture cannot claim)
Using my own logic against me; impressive, most impressive. So true. The Bible, however, says over and over again that it is the Word of God; as such it is therefore infallible.


:scratch: because only something infallible can claim it is infallible? :scratch:

The evidence can be interpreted in many ways and still be consistent with it as this creation/evolution debate illustrates. The Bible really only has one way of interpreting it in such a way that it is consistent from verse one to the end of Revelation as has been shown to you all many-a-times.

The same way you just interpreted Psalms? Poetical?


Are YEC 'ages' built on assumptions any less shaky? No. More so, since they add the assumption of a literal Genesis, and thus, seek only results which arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
The creation date is based on the infallible Word of God, not long age assumptions.


Surely you mean our fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God...


In fact, evolutionary scientists also seek the results that only arrive at a predetermined date; listen to the following comment by Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, in the article “Secular catastrophism” from Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21:
‘The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.’

Although this reference is slightly old, the situation hasn’t improved any for the evolutionists!


Where is Jueneman getting his info from, and how has it been recieved since 1982?


Dr Mauger, former associate professor of geology from East Carolina University said the following on the type of dates that get published in reputable scientific journals:
‘In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”

How do they know what ‘the correct ball park’ is? They have to have an initial belief at to how old a rock is. Sometimes, however, the age of a rock is initially assumed to be around a given age depending on the remains of organisms that are in them; but as Rastall (former lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University) concedes in 1956 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.10, p. 168, such methods for dating are circular in their reasoning:

‘It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.’


Except fossils are not the only means of determining age...Perhaps they were back in 1956, but that's moot.


I saw an implication of damnation, which I see all too often around here. Because of my beliefs about the physical world; My faith in God has been questioned one too many times for me to "chill."
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that SBG made any such implications. I’m not being biased here, for once. He made no such comments about ‘damnation’ for not believing in a literal Genesis. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe anyone has. I’ve brought up and stand by my belief that you have no real foundation for what Christians believe if you self destruct Genesis, but I have never said that ‘if you don’t believe what the Bible says you will go to hell’. No, of course I know that you and other Christians, no matter what they believe about our origins, already have a place in heaven that Jesus has prepared for you and I am really glad for your gain!! As always, I am sorry for any time that I may sound harsh, rash, or even arrogant – I don’t mean to, but it just happens when I’m debating some people.


Then prehaps you can tell me what happens to those who "question God" as I was accused of?

If you don’t mind me asking, how has your faith in God been questioned? If you don’t want to answer, that’s cool too. That said, I’m really happy that you still have your faith and may God continue you Bless you and help you grow it! [

You mean you haven't seen TEs referred to as "Not True Christians," "Compromised Christians," "Deceived Christians," "Blinded Christians," "Luke-Warm Christians," and other such tripe?

I've seen plenty of that in the short time I've been on these boards, and plenty more IRL...

You do realize that there's a rule around here about invoking Hitler.
Hmm, actually I didn’t. If true, then I don’t believe that I have broken that as I wasn’t supporting his beliefs or his actions. I brought him up simply as an example to illustrate how a person’s reasoning can be logically flawed – and he’s probably the most well known example. Would it be better for you if I were to bring up say, Pol Pot or Stalin? There are a number of other wackos in history that I can point to who have shown how reason can be flawed and illogical.


An unwritten rule: Comparing evolutionists to Hitler is a sign that the debator has run out of rational answers. Pol Pot or Stalin will get you the same result: Having failed to prove that evolutionary theory is incorrect, the debator shifts tactics to try to prove it's evil. As if that makes an iota of difference.

But if reason is so flawed, then debates here are pointless.

Your anti-reason analogy assumes that Hitler actually believed what he said. I see it more likely that he reasoned that if he told the people a convincing enough lie, and kept telling it with a straight face, people would believe it.
He was a staunch evolutionist (and believer in the Darwinian philosophy of survival of the fittest and so on) and I dare say that he did actually believe what he said. Sir Arthur Keith also admitted that Hitler was also being consistent with his evolutionary philosophy. Hitler’s death camps grew out of his desire for the ‘Aryan race’ to win the battle for ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’. If, as you suggest that he didn’t believe what he said, and he didn’t write anything about it, we can only judge him from his actions and hate filled speeches. Although we know that his reasoning was logically flawed, he stated what he believed to be true, even though we know it to be a lie, and the people did indeed believe it.


Old Adolf also believed he was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews, like he believed a good Christian should.

Hitler's rationale shifted depending on his audience. as such, it's pointless to try to use his alleged motives to prove evolution false.

That line of reasoning worked very well for him, IIRC. It works well today. Look at how much wrong information is being spouted by the YEC ministries...
I’m not too familiar with what the particular term ‘IIRC’ means – could you please explain it? I was also about to bring that second sentence up too in support of my case! It seems like almost every time I turn on the television on ABC and other channels with shows like ‘The World Around Us’ – here in Australia – we are being indoctrinated into the lie of evolution. Every time you go to the zoo, the museum, in fact almost everywhere now a days we are being force fed the lie that evolution is true and a scientifically proven ‘fact’. This however is a lie and a very big misconception.


IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

How is evolution a lie?

For example, listen to what L. Harrison Matthews has said on whether or not evolution is a fact or faith:
‘The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is this in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.’


Spoken like a man who has no idea the definitions of "Science," "Theory," or "Proof."

I'll prove Evolution when he proves Gravity...You should consider a more knowledgeable source.

Wow, what a statement to make! If only more evolutionists think like he did! This was in the Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, 1971, p. xi.


I can't for the life of me imagine why. I can only hope that versions written after 1971 were blessed with a more knowledgeable spokesman. I shall have to pull my own copy off the shelves and see for myself.

Creationists have no such time in the spotlight and rarely ever get invited to comment on television shows, and when they do they are often misrepresented and the information that they state is often re-worded in such a way that they do not resemble what was originally said; see The Correction the NY Times Refuses to Print at the link: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0213nytimes.asp>.
It looks like the NYT made one factual error on a relatively trivial matter... trivial in that it was largely irrelevent to what the original article was about. I do agree that it does merit a correction...a single line at the bottom of the book review section would've sufficed.
I hardly see this, however, as a sign of some sinister anti-Christian conspiracy, which the tone of the AiG article took it to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gluadys
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Delta One said:
What if it contradicts or goes against or is inconsistent with (three ways of stating the same thing) the rest of the Bible?

Depends on how we're reading the Bible: If we read something which we know cannot be literally true, and it contradicts the literal reading of something else, then can we safely assume that a literal reading is not the correct one?


This is what I mean by ‘vague’ (further down in the message). If you’re referring to evolution as that ‘conclusion’ then I would disagree. Much of the research from the physical sciences over the past 400 hundred years, especially before the 1850s, had nothing at all or very little to do with evolution or our origins! In recent years, the physical sciences have also had very little to do with our origins. They have advanced the way in which we live and the quality of our lives, e.g. medical technology, cars, planes, computer technology, and so on. Very little has actually happened that has actually directly or indirectly related to the topic of origin.


Actually, I was referring to the age of the Earth...the first and fatal stumbling block for YEC. Geologists, Cosmologists, and astronomers disproved a 6,000 year old Earth long before Darwin ever came onto the scene.


I believe that they are trying to justify their unbelief of God.


So you do believe in a conspiracy....that leaves you the "minor" problem of the vast majority of Christian scientists who come to the very same conclusions, and certainly are not trying to justify an unbelief in God.

I would, however, look to the YECs as trying to justify their belief in a literal Bible...with disasterous effects. But that's what always happens when one tries to use science to promote a particular social, political, or religious agenda.

If you reject the Flood then you have pretty good reason that the next judgement of fire will also never happen and is a myth.

Why?

Many reject God because they don’t like the fact that they will have to respond to Him and give an account of their lives and the way that they live them to Him, i.e. they don’t want to be held accountable to God. Also, the fair majority of scientists are not Christians.

Check your sources again.



It’s also called rebellion against God and His truth as revealed through the Bible – it’s a part of human nature as a result of Adam’s sin.

And the alternative is the rebellion of God and His truth as revealed through His creation, and not a particular way of reading the scriptures...Worse, since Creationists have repeatedly omitted and distorted the facts to preserve their interpretation of Scriptures... a far worse act rebellion than evolution could ever be.


Since Adam was the head representative of mankind and represented each of us who are his descendants. When he rebelled against God, all humans, through Adam had forfeited their right to live. Paul also says that we all sin ‘in Adam’, or in the likeness of Adam – if Adam didn’t sin (if Christians say that he exist), do we? If so, why?

Do we need one person to sin or else we cannot? Does that even make sense?

Anyway, back on to the topic at hand, man’s nature tendency is rebellion against God and His authority and evolution is a prime example of doing this.

Evolution is a rebellion against God? how so?

Just to prevent you from crying ‘He’s an anti-science person – get him!’, I don’t believe that this applies to all. Anyway, consensus doesn’t count to make a theory more valid or not – remember back to Galileo, it was an up hill battle against Aristotelian supporters to prove his heliocentric model true.

Actually, it was ptolemeic supporters... with the full power of the Religious Authorities behind them.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) said:
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

"To affirm that the Sun...is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures."

"On the contrary, [Galileo] has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616."


Religious fundamentalism of every time has always fears changes in ideas...even when they were true...especially when they were true.

He was probably one of the only few people who believed it while all the others believed a lie. One could draw parallels... Besides, it was the minority that survived the Flood – not the majority.

I don't see the point of the flood comparison.


1. That the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and thus is infallible.

Inspired does not mean infallible. Nothing subjected to human interpretation can be infallible.


2a. That Genesis is foundational to the Christian belief and it’s doctrines and message of Salvation; thus is meant to be taken literally as written (Exodus 20:11 is in support of this literal interpretation) otherwise there is no basis for Christianity. As such, the age of the universe is around 6000 years old as calculated from the genealogies throughout the Bible.

Calculated by the infallible James Ussher?



2b. God created in distinct kinds with massive ability for variation within that particular kind and that no kind could change into a different kind (Genesis 1:25 for example).

So what exactly is a "kind?"



2c. God pronounced judgement on the ungodly and sinful Earth about 4,500 years ago and destroyed all the birds, animals by sending a global Flood (Genesis 7:19-20 for example). Only Noah and those on the ark with him survived.

The birds and animals were ungodly and sinful?



2d. God created the different languages were made when God separated mankind from Babel for not following His command to ‘fill the whole Earth’.

Based on a literal Bible, and ignoring the similarities in languages.



When approaching science I assume and believe:
1. The evidence cannot ‘speak for itself’ and as such it has to be interpreted by people for it to make any sense and any conclusions to be derived from it about its origin (in the case of creation/evolution origin debate).


Also in the case of the Bible itself.

As an appeal to authority, Stephen Jay Gould said in ‘The validation of continental drift’in his book Ever Since Darwin, in 1978 on the nature of the facts:
‘Facts do not “speak for themselves”; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.’


So it is. How does this prove evolution wrong?



...which is essentially what I have been saying all along!

Only without the false dichotomy fallacy into Biblical Literalism.



2. These interpretations are based on initial or preconceived beliefs (or unbelief) of the person looking at the evidence.

It is possible for a person to put aside their initial and preconceived beliefs to a degree and attempt to objectively look at the evidence.
We can agree that more people on both sides of the debate need to do this.



3a. Science cannot deal directly with the past and is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, we cannot observe the past and history can certainly not be repeated. With reference to evolution, Professor Witten in 1980 Assembly Week address said that:
‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoveries will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’


If this were so, than the theory of evolution would have never changed since Darwin. This is clearly not true.



If you’re an anthropologist, you don’t ask, ‘Did man evolve from primitive ape-like ancestors?’ You ask, ‘Which ones of the ape-like creatures did man evolve from?’ Otherwise, you will have trouble getting and maintaining research grants as Professor Witten described above. Professor Witten’s first comments are similar to that of what I have said in both 3a and 3b.

Because if you're an antropologist, you have to ask, "If man didn't come from primative ape-like ancestors, then what am I to do with all of this evidence which certainly makes the most sense if man did? Understanding that I am fallible, but not a fool, if a better theory were to explain the evidence, then what is it, and what accurate predictions can I make of it?"

Lacking an answer, we're back to the old Science-is-a-conspiracy-to-deny-God story.



3b. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork (because of the lack of certainty of conditions, etc), and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusion.

Perhaps. But that's no excuse to shoehorn in non-scientific factors too soon. Look at YECs: they've gone less than 6,000 years before requiring a constand barrage of miracles and apparant deceptions from a God more concerned with lining things up with their interpretation of the Bible...



3c. There is a difference in how science operates in process and historical science and as a result of that difference (a great amount of assumptions and guesswork, no observation and repeatability, etc, where there is more room for non-scientific factors to affect the conclusion) the level of authority that they hold is different.

Only if one ignores predictability. Even historical sciences can make predictions: If we're right, we should find such-and-such in this particular place, under these particular conditions...



4a. In a philosophical sense, some radiometric dating techniques are circular in their reasoning (I have explained this to you above in this message).

And most are not.



4b. The radiometric dating techniques are based on many fallible assumptions including how much daughter element there was initially, whether or not the environmental conditions have taken elements out or added it to the system, the rate of decay is constant, among others. Thus they should not be portrayed as ‘truth’ and be held too authoritatively as it may indeed be little more than the scientist’s own personal world-view or belief.

Again, if the decay rate is not constant, what changed it? Science makes such assumptions when there is no reason to assume otherwise.



As you can see, I’m very open about my assumptions and I put them all out on the table for everyone else to see. This is just a quick example to show you what I was looking for – playing all the cards on the table not close to your chest, as such I may have missed out an assumption or two. Never-the-less, I think you get the general gist of it though.
Indeed I do.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
I suppose the assumption I have the most issues with is the one often implied and occasionally used: That unless Scripture is read in one way, one way only, one certain way known only to the "True Christians" (read: YEC), then it is completely meaningless.

First off, I find it to be a very shallow and superficial way of understanding Scripture... or anything else, for that matter.

Second, it completely ignores the fact that something can be true on deeper levels, or that sometimes we need to dig beneath the surface to find the real truth.

Third, it equates "inspired" with "infallible." The writers of the Bible were one, but not the other. They were given the extremely daunting task of sharing God's wisdom to the rest of the world, within the limits of human language. To imply that they were infallible s to elevate them to demi-Gods in their own right. ALL men are fallible, including those those that wrote Scripture... and those that read it.

The authors of the Bible expressed God's Truth to the world as best they could, knowing what they knew. Thousands of years later, we know know things they did not.

Those that "read" God's creation are no less fallible, but when the two seem to contradict, I'm not inclined to think that "science" is a massive conspiracy to justify sin. </rant>
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
There really is only one way to read Scripture: to read to understand what the author meant by what he said and what he wanted to convey to his audience.

If you read it by imposing your own meaning onto the text, then you are reading it wrong.

The fact is, the author's meaning is not going to change with history. It will stay the same.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
SBG said:
There really is only one way to read Scripture: to read to understand what the author meant by what he said and what he wanted to convey to his audience.

If you read it by imposing your own meaning onto the text, then you are reading it wrong.

The fact is, the author's meaning is not going to change with history. It will stay the same.

this last line is an interesting statement.
imagine the hermeneutical pyramid. at the bottom layer is the text itself, then each layer above is formed by abstraction, deduction, understanding, unification etc. from the lower layer. this is how we create systems, from Biblical theology to the sciences. from facts and data to theories and high order principles.
now one way of looking at the hermeneutically task is to see it as you do, a single historically, socially, religiously conditioned text that has but one real, true, right meaning. The higher level of exegesis where you transfer the principles and meaning of the text and apply them to your live and your times is the only thing that varies in the pyramid from ancient times.

But is this really how things work?
it misses the extraordinarily significant ideas of progressive revelation and the idea that God is unfolding Scripture in human history (redemption-historical analysis see G.Vos). and He is in fact, teaching us the deeper meanings of Scripture through an interaction with human history. The hidden things of Scripture are being made more obvious, and the things seen from time past are having their logical consequences worked out in history over time.

The argument is if this is taking place on the lower level of the text or a much higher level of interpretation. It is a similar question to if a novelist really had all those funny ideas in his/her head when they wrote it, as when all the reviewers begin talking about what they saw in the book.

Its a good question, however you did not work it as a question but made a blanket statement. perhaps things really are more complex then you might imagine.


....
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
Ok. Here is what I said.
" The fact is, the author's meaning is not going to change with history. It will stay the same."

The author wrote a message to his reader. The author had an intended meaning to be understood by his audience. Do you think that his meaning that the author intended now changes because history has change?

As far as I see it, the author wrote what he meant to write and that does not change with history. What he meant to say is what he meant to say. When we now suggest that this is changing, we are imposing our meaning into the text.

The author determines the meaning of the text, we determine the signifiance of what the author has said as well as the meaning. Application is the combination of two things: the implications of that text that are relevant to us and the responding to that.

Often in hermeneutics class meaning and implication is defined as the following:

Meaning
"
The pattern of meaning the author consciously willed to convey by the words and sharable symbols he/she used"


Implications
"Those meanings in a text of which the author was unaware but nevertheless legitimately fall within the pattern of meaning he/she willed."

So what the meaning of what the author wrote is never going to change, but the implications of what he wrote can change. This is classic hermeneutics that is taught in seminary schools.

How one can take the approach that the intended meaning of the author can keep changing throughout history, is rather odd. This is to suggest that the author had not absolute intended meaning when he wrote what he did, but rather wrote what he did so anyone can interpret it however they wish. That makes no sense, especially in the light of God's Word.

There has to be an intended meaning given by the author that will not change throughout history. The authors of the Bible did write for a purpose after all, not just to put some words down so people can choose what they would like to believe or interpret however they wish to interpret.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
SBG said:
There really is only one way to read Scripture: to read to understand what the author meant by what he said and what he wanted to convey to his audience.

If you read it by imposing your own meaning onto the text, then you are reading it wrong.

The fact is, the author's meaning is not going to change with history. It will stay the same.

I have to agree with this. That is why I do not hold with a day-age interpretation of Gen. 1. The author's original intention was clearly to refer to ordinary days, and it is a misinterpretation to pretend otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
rmwilliamsll said:
this last line is an interesting statement.
imagine the hermeneutical pyramid. at the bottom layer is the text itself, then each layer above is formed by abstraction, deduction, understanding, unification etc. from the lower layer. this is how we create systems, from Biblical theology to the sciences. from facts and data to theories and high order principles. ....

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
So what the meaning of what the author wrote is never going to change, but the implications of what he wrote can change. This is classic hermeneutics that is taught in seminary schools.

but this neglects the principle that God is the author of Scripture as well as the human writer. The implications that are brought out via a historical context can be seen as God's meaning as the human authors did not have those even as higher order implications.

simply to draw a circle around the human author's meaning and words and say that this is the one real meaning and everything else is just implication seems to draw up short of the radical timelessness of Scripture. plus it does real injustice to the genre of prophesy.

...
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
SBG said:
How one can take the approach that the intended meaning of the author can keep changing throughout history, is rather odd. This is to suggest that the author had not absolute intended meaning when he wrote what he did, but rather wrote what he did so anyone can interpret it however they wish. That makes no sense, especially in the light of God's Word.

There has to be an intended meaning given by the author that will not change throughout history. The authors of the Bible did write for a purpose after all, not just to put some words down so people can choose what they would like to believe or interpret however they wish to interpret.

:thumbsup:

I am going to have to put my thoughts in order to comment on this thread. I know it sounds that I am agreeing with opposed points of view, but I think there is a deep harmony here, not genuine conflict.

I do think that in biblical interpretation we always, always begin with the text, and the author's original intended meaning as far as we can determine it.

And I do agree that the author's intended meaning does not change through history, though our comprehension of that meaning may well change.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
rmwilliamsll said:
but this neglects the principle that God is the author of Scripture as well as the human writer. The implications that are brought out via a historical context can be seen as God's meaning as the human authors did not have those even as higher order implications.

simply to draw a circle around the human author's meaning and words and say that this is the one real meaning and everything else is just implication seems to draw up short of the radical timelessness of Scripture. plus it does real injustice to the genre of prophesy.

...

Ok. I think we are actually agreeing in what we are saying but yet running past each other at the same time.

Let me put this into an example I think I used in another thread here.

Matthew 15:7-8

"You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'"

Isaiah 29:13
"
Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by""

What Jesus is saying in Matthew 15:7-8 about the prophecy of Isaiah, is what Isaiah said in Isaiah 29:13. I don't think the intended message of Isaiah was to talk directly about the Pharisees, but about the people in Isaiah's day. That would be the author's intended message.

Now, I am not saying what Jesus said is incorrect. What Jesus is doing is speaking of the implications of the author's intended meaning. So, basically, what Isaiah has recorded in his book, was refering to those people of his day. And because the Phariees were doing the exact same thing in Jesus' day, Isaiah applies to the Phariees as well.

Let's take another example.

Ephesians 5:12
"
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

Paul here talks about not getting drunk on wine. So, an obvious question to ask would be, can I get drunk on beer or vodka? Paul didn't say beer or vodka, he said wine. Well, the implications of the the author's intended meaning would cover beer and vodka, as well as anything else that would lead to debauchery. So the author's intended meaning in this verse is to not get drunk on wine, because that was what many people were doing in Ephesus. You cannot change that historical fact, unless you impose your own meaning into the text. But, the implication of the author's meaning is to not get drunk on anything that will lead to debauchery.

I hope that makes much more sense, and show that we are actually in agreeance.
 
Upvote 0

Delta One

Active Member
Apr 8, 2005
331
16
38
✟23,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Lady Kate,

Not offhand, but then again, neither did the authors of Genesis.

Once again, how do you know what the authors did and did not take literally. It's all fine and so on to keep repeating it, but I would like to hear an authority speak on hte matter.

Seeing as how nobody was present to record the events of Genesis, it's seemes a bit of a stretch to call it a historical record.

God was there and He doesn't lie (which we should both agree on). His Spirit moved men to write what we call the Bible.


because only something infallible can claim it is infallible?

Since the Bible is God's Word, it can't contain any mistakes or contradictions other wise it really doesn't look good for Christians and seriously damages our efforts to preach the Gospel. If there are errors in the Bible then that means that either God didn't inspire men to write it or He purposefully lied - I'm not too sure which one is worse...


The same way you just interpreted Psalms? Poetical?

The majority of it is, and that is obvious from the context and type of words. You too should easily agree with me on this. The problem is that Genesis is not written in the same way and as such is not poetical.


Surely you mean our fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God...

You have a point; that said, however, the literalist interpretation makes the most sense and is consistent with the whole Bible where as evolution is not.


Where is Jueneman getting his info from, and how has it been recieved since 1982?

Unsure and would have to research.


Except fossils are not the only means of determining age...Perhaps they were back in 1956, but that's moot.

I didn't say that all the ages are derived from fossils...

Even so, radiometric dating methods are often circular to in their nature: you assume and then prove the assumption. The conclusion is, therefore, only valid if the assumption is valid - but the assumption cannot be validated due to the fact that the rock solidifing happened in the distant unobservable past and cannot be repeated...

Then prehaps you can tell me what happens to those who "question God" as I was accused of?

I would say that there are varying levels of 'questioning God' that one could point to -- I'm not the Judge so it's probably best not to ask me.


You mean you haven't seen TEs referred to as "Not True Christians," "Compromised Christians," "Deceived Christians," "Blinded Christians," "Luke-Warm Christians," and other such tripe?

I call them compromsing Christians sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're not Christians. They have compromised God's Word with man made theories, hence the name...

An unwritten rule: Comparing evolutionists to Hitler is a sign that the debator has run out of rational answers. Pol Pot or Stalin will get you the same result: Having failed to prove that evolutionary theory is incorrect, the debator shifts tactics to try to prove it's evil. As if that makes an iota of difference.

R---r---i---g---h----t, unwritten. I wasn't out of rational answers as my example was a logical and reasonable analogy of how reason may seem right to you but it is viewed as 'logically flawed' by others... I wasn't proving or attempting to prove that reason is evil and so forth, cuz I use it every day. In fact, I'm using to reply to and debunk (in the previous message) many of your ideas.

But if reason is so flawed, then debates here are pointless.

I said that some reasoning is flawed - like yours right now by thinking that since I brought up Hitler as an example of how reasoning can be logically flawed you believe that I apply to everything. That is flawed logically because I gave no indications of doing so in any of my posts. Quoted by me: There are a number of other wackos in history that I can point to who have shown how reason can be flawed and illogical.Hmm, I only showed how reason can be flawed and illogical - not how it is all illogical and flawed (I would be lying if I did).


Old Adolf also believed he was doing God's work by exterminating the Jews, like he believed a good Christian should.

I would be very surprised if he was a 'Christian' or even believed in the Christians God. Do you have any sources??

Hitler's rationale shifted depending on his audience. as such, it's pointless to try to use his alleged motives to prove evolution false.

Wasn't an attempt to prove evolution false - you were questioning whether or not he believed what he did, I attempted to prove the affirmative.

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

Thanks.

How is evolution a lie?

Part from it's inconsistency with several scientific evidence, including having no undisputed evolutionary transitional link between ape-like creatures and humans, for example, it is directly the opposite of what the Bible says! Thus, it must be wrong. Also, I never said that 'evolution' was a lie, I said that being told that evolution is true and a 'scientifically proven fact' is a lie and a misconception.


Spoken like a man who has no idea the definitions of "Science," "Theory," or "Proof."

Actually, I believe that he knows it better than most given his distinguishment of belief from science. The molecules-to-man evolution is an event that happened in the distant unobservable past that cannot be repeated - it is a belief that is assumed to have happened. One cannot prove this event to have happened.

I'll prove Evolution when he proves Gravity...You should consider a more knowledgeable source.

Um, does the fact that gravity was operating then mean that you'll have to prove evolution? We can 'prove' that gravity exists because it happens now in the present and we can do tests to determine the effect of it, how strong it is on Earth and in various other planets given the mass M, and radius r...

NOTE: We cannot prove evolution happened as we cannot see it and we can't do experiments on it and it certainly cannot be repeated today! All we have is the evidence that must be interpreted by human beings using their underlying belief systems...


It looks like the NYT made one factual error on a relatively trivial matter... trivial in that it was largely irrelevent to what the original article was about. I do agree that it does merit a correction...a single line at the bottom of the book review section would've sufficed.
I hardly see this, however, as a sign of some sinister anti-Christian conspiracy, which the tone of the AiG article took it to be.

Trivial matter!?! Stating that creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed during the creation week is 100% false and very misleading. When it was formed is at the very heart of the debate! Did it form slowly over millions of years thanks to a small stream of water, or did it take only a relatively short time and a lot of water during or just after the Flood waters receeded from the continents? This is the very question that must be answered and is at the heart of the battle. Many other examples have happened where creationists are purposefully misquoted and misrepresented. Ken Ham, for example, was invited to go on radio and give a talk about creation and after that the announcer said something like 'Well after all that I didn't hear any evidence for creation'. This just shows how anti-creation some people are - this is because it goes against what they believe and if they were to consider it, their foundation would be heavily shaken.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Let's take another example.

Ephesians 5:12
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

Paul here talks about not getting drunk on wine. So, an obvious question to ask would be, can I get drunk on beer or vodka? Paul didn't say beer or vodka, he said wine. Well, the implications of the the author's intended meaning would cover beer and vodka, as well as anything else that would lead to debauchery. So the author's intended meaning in this verse is to not get drunk on wine, because that was what many people were doing in Ephesus. You cannot change that historical fact, unless you impose your own meaning into the text. But, the implication of the author's meaning is to not get drunk on anything that will lead to debauchery.

even something as apparently this simple is actually complex when you know a little bit of church history.

in fact this verse was used by the temperance movement to prove that NO wine was the only thing appropriate to a Christian. despite nearly 2000 years of using wine in communion this verse was used to move most of the American church to using grape juice in communion.

now did Paul tell Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach. Now the temperance movement reinterpreted all those wine verses usually with the two-wine theory and said that Paul really meant grape juice.

they were convinced that they had found the true meaning of these verses after being hidden for 2K years. They worded it in terms of the MEANING of Paul's words, not the interpretation or implication.

no. this is not a simple example.


...
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Delta One said:
Once again, how do you know what the authors did and did not take literally. It's all fine and so on to keep repeating it, but I would like to hear an authority speak on hte matter.

Well, I'm no authority, but I'd like to think the talking serpent gives it away. Did the Anceint Greeks really believe in Medusa and Pegasus? When you read enough ancient mythology, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Of course, most people make the mistake of equating "myth" with "fiction." That Genesis explains a certain phenomena or tradition is the defintion of myth. But it need not be literally true to do this.




God was there and He doesn't lie (which we should both agree on). His Spirit moved men to write what we call the Bible.

God doesn't lie, but He can be poetic if He feels so inclined... as can men...even spirit-moved men.

Since the Bible is God's Word, it can't contain any mistakes or contradictions other wise it really doesn't look good for Christians and seriously damages our efforts to preach the Gospel. If there are errors in the Bible then that means that either God didn't inspire men to write it or He purposefully lied - I'm not too sure which one is worse...

OR what I've been saying all this time: "Inspired" doesn't mean "Infallible."It would mean that those inspired men took a little poetic license and perhaps a few liberties when they attempted to communicate God's Word to the world.





The same way you just interpreted Psalms? Poetical?
The majority of it is, and that is obvious from the context and type of words. You too should easily agree with me on this. The problem is that Genesis is not written in the same way and as such is not poetical.

I see the first three chapters written very much the same way.







You have a point; that said, however, the literalist interpretation makes the most sense and is consistent with the whole Bible where as evolution is not.

If we place the Bible in a vacuum, completely oblivious to the world around it, yes. But why would we want to?







Even so, radiometric dating methods are often circular to in their nature: you assume and then prove the assumption. The conclusion is, therefore, only valid if the assumption is valid - but the assumption cannot be validated due to the fact that the rock solidifing happened in the distant unobservable past and cannot be repeated...

If this is so, then Creation Science is far more so: You conclude and then prove the conclusion....with very selective evidence.






You mean you haven't seen TEs referred to as "Not True Christians," "Compromised Christians," "Deceived Christians," "Blinded Christians," "Luke-Warm Christians," and other such tripe?

I call them compromsing Christians sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're not Christians. They have compromised God's Word with man made theories, hence the name... [/QUOTE]

And the implications that go with it...or are "Compromised Christians" also allowed into heaven?




R---r---i---g---h----t, unwritten. I wasn't out of rational answers as my example was a logical and reasonable analogy of how reason may seem right to you but it is viewed as 'logically flawed' by others... I wasn't proving or attempting to prove that reason is evil and so forth, cuz I use it every day. In fact, I'm using to reply to and debunk (in the previous message) many of your ideas.

Then what makes your use of reason any less flawed than mine?




I said that some reasoning is flawed - like yours right now by thinking that since I brought up Hitler as an example of how reasoning can be logically flawed you believe that I apply to everything.
That is flawed logically because I gave no indications of doing so in any of my posts. Quoted by me: There are a number of other wackos in history that I can point to who have shown how reason can be flawed and illogical.Hmm, I only showed how reason can be flawed and illogical - not how it is all illogical and flawed (I would be lying if I did).


Only to the reasoning that you cannot debunk.





I would be very surprised if he was a 'Christian' or even believed in the Christians God. Do you have any sources??

"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

"the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith."

"I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!
The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance."

--Adolf Hitler, all three.

And let's not forget the inscription on The SS belt buckle: GOTT MIT UNS (God With Us)

But as I said, nothing good can come from invoking this maniac in a debate. Why then to the Creationists do so?






Part from it's inconsistency with several scientific evidence, including having no undisputed evolutionary transitional link between ape-like creatures and humans, for example, it is directly the opposite of what the Bible says! Thus, it must be wrong. Also, I never said that 'evolution' was a lie, I said that being told that evolution is true and a 'scientifically proven fact' is a lie and a misconception.

We haven't established the Bible as being literally true yet, so it's premature to say that evolution is a lie because it disagrees with how you choose to read it.





Actually, I believe that he knows it better than most given his distinguishment of belief from science. The molecules-to-man evolution is an event that happened in the distant unobservable past that cannot be repeated - it is a belief that is assumed to have happened. One cannot prove this event to have happened.

One cannot prove a murder happened because it occurred in the unobserved past and we cannot repeat it. Ok.....



Um, does the fact that gravity was operating then mean that you'll have to prove evolution? We can 'prove' that gravity exists because it happens now in the present and we can do tests to determine the effect of it, how strong it is on Earth and in various other planets given the mass M, and radius r...

And evolution happens right now, as we speak. We have seen it at work, exactly according to the predictions made by the theory.

Congratulations, you've just proven evolution as true as gravity.

NOTE: We cannot prove evolution happened as we cannot see it and we can't do experiments on it and it certainly cannot be repeated today! All we have is the evidence that must be interpreted by human beings using their underlying belief systems...

We have seen creatures evolve. We have artificially altered their environment and seen them adapt. We have even seen them change species.

We have not observed exactly how gravity works or what causes it, but we've seen enough of the effect to theorize about the cause.





Trivial matter!?! Stating that creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed during the creation week is 100% false and very misleading. When it was formed is at the very heart of the debate! Did it form slowly over millions of years thanks to a small stream of water, or did it take only a relatively short time and a lot of water during or just after the Flood waters receeded from the continents?

Over millions of years, or near-instantaneously. Whether that instant was during creation or during the flood is trivial.

This is the very question that must be answered and is at the heart of the battle. Many other examples have happened where creationists are purposefully misquoted and misrepresented. Ken Ham, for example, was invited to go on radio and give a talk about creation and after that the announcer said something like 'Well after all that I didn't hear any evidence for creation'. This just shows how anti-creation some people are - this is because it goes against what they believe and if they were to consider it, their foundation would be heavily shaken.

Or it could show how unconvincing Ken Ham actually is.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
rmwilliamsll said:
even something as apparently this simple is actually complex when you know a little bit of church history.

in fact this verse was used by the temperance movement to prove that NO wine was the only thing appropriate to a Christian. despite nearly 2000 years of using wine in communion this verse was used to move most of the American church to using grape juice in communion.

now did Paul tell Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach. Now the temperance movement reinterpreted all those wine verses usually with the two-wine theory and said that Paul really meant grape juice.

they were convinced that they had found the true meaning of these verses after being hidden for 2K years. They worded it in terms of the MEANING of Paul's words, not the interpretation or implication.

no. this is not a simple example.


...

If the issue was that I said it was simple than my apologies. I personally do not see it to be a difficult verse to understand, but I was wrong to assume that others would view it as easy to understand.

Now, because people were wrong about a piece of Scripture, doesn't mean the blame is on Scripture. People often do not excerise due diligency and true study when they then go about preaching that what they say is the truth. I know right here is where many would like to point the figures at some group or another, but in doing so one would show that they too have not properly learned from Scripture and applied it.

It is not about pointing the figure and bringing up past sins of other people so that they get bogged down with them. It is about rebuking, correcting, and uplifting. If you are to engage in one, you must try and engage in all. If one does not want to be corrected than you cannot engage in them all.

This is the problem in this forum. We are all much more interested in arguing each other than in hearing each other. And that is why the strawman is ever present in this forum, with TEs and YECs alike. It doesn't matter who does more or less, it only matters that it is being done and ought to stop. Not the logical fallacy itself, but the fact that we are all bent on arguing here, not listening.

Proverbs 17:19
"He who loves a quarrel loves sin; he who builds a high gate invites destruction."

That verse right there describes what we do. We quarrel and we build high gates so we never hear anything one has to say. And we are Christains!

The people that you mentioned Mr Williams, they did not seek the authors meaning, they imposed their own meaning into the text. That is where the problem lies and how we come to bad interpretations. Just as those who wanted to have slaves tried to use the Bible for their basis. Paul, in Philemon, tells Philemon that he should treat Onesimus as a brother and not as a slave. Apparently, many just turned their heads to verses such as these. They imposed their meaning into the text, instead of trying to learn the authors intended meaning.

 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
NOTE: We cannot prove evolution happened as we cannot see it and we can't do experiments on it and it certainly cannot be repeated today! All we have is the evidence that must be interpreted by human beings using their underlying belief systems...

I cannot prove that you were online earlier. I cannot see it, I can't do experiments on it and it might not be repeated today! All I have is the evidence (your post) that must be interpreted by me using my belief systems .... yet if I suggest that you weren't actually online earlier when you posted, you'd call me insane, right? ;)

Please, please, please, please stop using this "evolution is unobservable past" argument, unless you are willing to fully explore its philosophical implications. It is irony of the highest degree that AiG is using a relativist (philosophical relativism, not scientific relativity) line of argument to argue that theoretically their creationist beliefs and the mainstream evolutionist belief are on equal footing before the Bible's "clear endorsement" for creationism. It's common knowledge that atheism employs a similar argument to show that a belief in God and a belief in the non-existence of God are on the same footing: namely, that since God is "unobservable", the "evidence for God" is just an interpretation by biased Christians. Does AiG really want to endorse this kind of argument by using it themselves?

(Then again, maybe it's an American thing. After all, it's wrong for Iraq to develop nukes and yet right for the US of A to .... ;) )
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.