The majority of fundamentalists NOT committed to a young earth?

[mhess13]

oh please Vance. You're the misrepresentation king

 

[Vance]

oh please Vance. You're the misrepresentation king

Name one instance where I have misrepresented something you have said.

 

[mhess13]

Well yesterday you twisted my words over the virgin birth thing and you constantly misreprest YECs.
I'll just leave it at that so as not to hijack the thread.

 

[Vance]

Well yesterday you twisted my words over the virgin birth thing and you constantly misreprest YECs.
I'll just leave it at that so as not to hijack the thread.

Yeah, I bet you will leave it at that, since you know there is nothing to back it up. No, I did not twist your words in that thread. You just did not want to provide a direct answer to the question.

 

[GodSaves]

I get upset when people perpetuate false statements about what we believe. This is damaging to the public perception of Theistic Evolution and, thus, could prevent some from considering this alternative who otherwise would. This, in turn, could create a crises of faith in someone which need not occur. This is why it is essential to prevent these false statements from being told over and over.

If you would like to combat a false teaching, then do it without misrepresenting what the other side says. You say we believe X, we tell you that we don't. Then you go right ahead and say that we believe X again! The first time might just be a inadvertent misrepresentation. The second time is an intentional misrepresentation.

And this post is a prime example. I have never once argued that Jesus was not the son of God. Yet, you say that I do. This is a misrepresentation, and since I credit it you with being able to read and understand what I am saying, an intentional misrepresentation.

We, on the other hand, do NOT misrepresent what you are saying. We do not need to resort to this type of tactic.

If you cared about anyone on this board, you would never intentionally misrepresent their position. Since you do, then you must not.

In another thread you were arguing for the position that it is ok and still be saved if you believe Jesus was no conceived by the Holy Spirit, thus making Him the Son of God. Without that conception by the Holy Spirit, Jesus would be the Son of Joseph, not the Son of God. Later in the Baptism, Jesus received the an extra measure of the Holy Spirit, this is what you were arguing to say that you can then see Jesus as God. But the prophets received the Holy Spirit as well, this making Jesus no different then the prophets. What makes Jesus distinctly different then the prophets is the Holy Spirit caused His conception. You were arguing that this could not be true and one could still be saved. Basically, you were arguing for the position that Jesus was not the true Son of God, but rather indowed with the Holy Spirit at the Baptism that made Him unique.

I had thought that you were taking this position in actual belief. That is why I said you are arguing for the fact that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, therefore not the Son of God.

I am curious why you are so concerned with TE's appearance. It is not the appearance that matters, it is the heart. God judges the heart, not how one might look.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[mystery4]

One of my science teachers (he taught me chemistry and biology) has been questioning things. He isn't a Christian, but he believes there is no doubt there is a greater power who controls the earth. Now he asked me how to explain things on evolution and creation after finding out I was a Christian. At the time, I was researching into both finding out as much as I could on either side. I went away and thought about it, coming up with the idea that nowhere did it mention how long the period of time was between creation and when Adam and Eve sinned. It could've been a short time or a long time, accounting for the possiblity of the old earth idea and thus evolution. I mentioned this to him and well, immediately I rejected the idea. That to him, wasn't a satisfactory answer, he had already thought of something similar and to him, that wasn't the answer. He told me something to the extent of not to go on thinking that type of thing. I do emphase this... he wasn't a Christian, he was a science teacher teaching in a pulic school.

I am not saying that you will not be saved if you do believe that, because that is between the individual and God alone. I have no right to say such a thing. I am only showing an example of where I did start to think alone those lines and the reason I stopped it. Please do not take offense to anything I have said. It was not intended that way.

 

[GodSaves]

If I can might suggest you give him a Bible or have him read Genesis and then talk to him about what he thinks. You have an amazing opportunity here. God is working in this man changing his heart, and you are the instrument to deliver God's message.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of my science teachers (he taught me chemistry and biology) has been questioning things. He isn't a Christian, but he believes there is no doubt there is a greater power who controls the earth. Now he asked me how to explain things on evolution and creation after finding out I was a Christian. At the time, I was researching into both finding out as much as I could on either side. I went away and thought about it, coming up with the idea that nowhere did it mention how long the period of time was between creation and when Adam and Eve sinned. It could've been a short time or a long time, accounting for the possiblity of the old earth idea and thus evolution. I mentioned this to him and well, immediately I rejected the idea. That to him, wasn't a satisfactory answer, he had already thought of something similar and to him, that wasn't the answer. He told me something to the extent of not to go on thinking that type of thing. I do emphase this... he wasn't a Christian, he was a science teacher teaching in a pulic school.

I am not saying that you will not be saved if you do believe that, because that is between the individual and God alone. I have no right to say such a thing. I am only showing an example of where I did start to think alone those lines and the reason I stopped it. Please do not take offense to anything I have said. It was not intended that way.

imho, the best way to approach such a person, with such questions about origins is via books such as:

The Savior of Science
by Stanley L. Jaki

assume the philosophic basis of science is important to your teacher. you have already mentioned that the metaphysics derived from science is an issue. now connect the two with arguments such as Jaki's demonstrating the necessity of presuppositions such as the rationality and contigency of the natural world to the theology of Christianity.

it is here that the specific apologetics of the faith to the secular scientific world becomes most useful and differentiationable (is this a word?) from the metaphysics of evolutionary materialism.

.....

 

[GodSaves]

There is a good book called the Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel which is good as well.

 

[TwinCrier]

Back to the topic, since when does majority rule determine faith or truth? What I believe is not decided by democratic vote. Certainly no one is suggesting that YECs forsake their beliefs because they aren't popular. Or are they?

 

[Andy D]

Why do YEC's keep saying this? Don't you realize that all of us accept the Bible as pure truth? Even if we don't read it literally.

YEC's find it comforting to reduce this to a "do you believe the Bible or not?" question, since there is only one good answer to that question.

But, really, we all believe the Bible. The only difference is what we believe the Bible says.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be read literally, but rather as allorogically, then I would like it explained to me how it is still read as truth? If it happened literally..it is easy to state it as truth...but any other way it becomes blurry. People have explained 'allogory' on the forum but how we apply truth to it when being read like that? What truth is there in it? No one has ever clearly explained this to me.

People have sometimes likened it to mythology which is based on events that happened but stories told of that event and eventually written down by 'farmers' (as some TE's have put it) but not to record actual events as historical but rather as a story of how we got here. Why would God, who I believe inspired all Scripture, allow people to write stories in Scripture when He knows all things? He knew that people would eventually find out that we werent here by Him creating all things in 6 days, but rather we evolved and the story doesnt even fit with regards to order of life being here if we evolved.

Maybe im wrong but it sounds VERY deceptive to me. At least one TE has said that if God created in 6 days, He is deceptive. Well I see it the other way that the Bible would become deceptive if everyone evolved. Now, we can say that life on this earth points towards an old earth and man evolving and we can find plenty of evidence we can read this way (as men and not God). I prefer to believe that the evidence (or interpretation of) is deceptive (even when backed up by Christian scientists) rather than to have to put together a blurry view of the Bible as is only possible if I do believe in evolution.

So are Genesis chapters 1 and 2 truth regardless of how they are read? Well they are truth, but how they are read may not be truth. By reading them literally, it is hard to say that the person is believing a lie when the Bible says it clearly that the world was created in 6 days. When believing it is stories, that are not stories that portray truth but rather that symbolise actual events, but not in the correct order and relying on modern science to understand it, rather than the Holy Spirit.

Blessings
Andy

 

[Vance]

Do you really think God can ONLY convey His true messages to us using literal history? This is pretty limiting for an all-powerful God, isn't it?

Here is the point: Millions of Christians around the world accept evolution as true, read Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally and still find the messages that God is conveying to us to be the simple and absolute truth. Our faith is just as strong, our committment to serving God and following His paths is just as strong and we are equally seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, no, God obviously does not need to use literal history to convey His messages to us in order for us to believe.

 

[GodSaves]

Vance, Andy is asking nicely for an explanation. Can you give him one, or will you retreat and accuse him of things he has not done? You can accuse me justly of thinking your faith is a bit weak. But Andy has never said this. I think his question deserves a nicer answer then accusing him of something he has not done.

 

[Vance]

Oh, the answer is very simple, and the truth I pointed out is a basic answer to the question.

For a more detailed answer as to why he would do it this way, the parallel with geocentrism works here as well. Why would he allow the Scripture to be written in such a way as to convince every Christian for 1500 years that it was saying that the sun did, literally, revolve around the earth? This is, in fact how they read it, and it was a MAJOR shock to the collective Church when scientists discovered this was not the case. It took them a couple of hundred years to accept it.

Now, did God know that every Christian would read those Scriptures in that incorrect way? Of course He did. Yet, He let it be written that way, anyway. Was this deceptive? Of course not. Did Christianity fall apart because people had to realize their interpretation was wrong and re-read it in light of the scientific realities? Of course not. I think God let it be written in a way that would make sense to those who were reading it first, and for a long time, but then knew that when we discovered the actual way the solar system worked, we would just say "ah, I see, then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

The same is true now regarding Genesis 1 and 2. God let it be written in a way that would be understandable to those reading it then, and for a long time, and which conveyed His greater truths in a powerful way. He knew that we would eventually we would discover the way it really worked, and we would say "ah, I see, then then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

True, when we first discovered the truth about heliocentrism, there were some who held firm to their geocentrist interpretation for a very long time, and some hang on doggedly to this day. At first, they did cause some problems by not following God's plan of "Ah, I see", causing doubt and conflict within the Church and persecution of those presenting the natural evidence. But eventually the truth won out and the stubborn few retreated to a fringe of Christianity, where you can still find them.

The same parallel is happening now with the YEC phenomenon. While most of Christianity has accepted evolution and an old earth and simple said "ah, I see", as before, there are still some who are doggedly hanging on to their interpretation. Yes, they are also causing doubt and conflict, but eventually the truth will win out and these groups will retreat to the fringe to join the geocentrists and God's work will go forward in full force.

 

[Andy D]

Oh, the answer is very simple, and the truth I pointed out is a basic answer to the question.

For a more detailed answer as to why he would do it this way, the parallel with geocentrism works here as well. Why would he allow the Scripture to be written in such a way as to convince every Christian for 1500 years that it was saying that the sun did, literally, revolve around the earth? This is, in fact how they read it, and it was a MAJOR shock to the collective Church when scientists discovered this was not the case. It took them a couple of hundred years to accept it.

Now, did God know that every Christian would read those Scriptures in that incorrect way? Of course He did. Yet, He let it be written that way, anyway. Was this deceptive? Of course not. Did Christianity fall apart because people had to realize their interpretation was wrong and re-read it in light of the scientific realities? Of course not. I think God let it be written in a way that would make sense to those who were reading it first, and for a long time, but then knew that when we discovered the actual way the solar system worked, we would just say "ah, I see, then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

The same is true now regarding Genesis 1 and 2. God let it be written in a way that would be understandable to those reading it then, and for a long time, and which conveyed His greater truths in a powerful way. He knew that we would eventually we would discover the way it really worked, and we would say "ah, I see, then then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

True, when we first discovered the truth about heliocentrism, there were some who held firm to their geocentrist interpretation for a very long time, and some hang on doggedly to this day. At first, they did cause some problems by not following God's plan of "Ah, I see", causing doubt and conflict within the Church and persecution of those presenting the natural evidence. But eventually the truth won out and the stubborn few retreated to a fringe of Christianity, where you can still find them.

The same parallel is happening now with the YEC phenomenon. While most of Christianity has accepted evolution and an old earth and simple said "ah, I see", as before, there are still some who are doggedly hanging on to their interpretation. Yes, they are also causing doubt and conflict, but eventually the truth will win out and these groups will retreat to the fringe to join the geocentrists and God's work will go forward in full force.

But the argument of the sun revolving around the earth and not the other way around, is like the theory of gravity in that it doesnt change Christianity one little bit. The Bible can be read in the correct context and we understand that it still makes perfect sense. The Sun moved around the sky from man's perspective but not from a scientific perspective. However, Genesis doesnt seem to explain a scientific perspective (as in it doesnt go into depth of how God spoke and things were created..maybe a little over our heads...wasnt needed for us to understand the purpose for which it was written)...but it also doesnt explain man's perspective as it wasnt observed by man as the sun revolving around the earth was.

This means it is hard to find another context to read this in and it still make any sense. It cant be linked to evolution or the explanation of it regardless of how it is read...or at least no one can link it without many flaws. It cant be said to be man's observation of creation because man wasnt there was he? The only thing it could be (if God inspired it - which I believe 100%) is God giving us a brief account of how we are here, but more to the point, why we are here and it fits with the salvation plan...adam sinned, etc.

Whilst we may all believe it is truth...however we happen to look at it, it doesnt seem to make sense why it was written like it was if only allogorical and not an account given to man by God. Why didnt it match up somehow? Why not at least put it in the right order and explain it in a way that it could be read to fit evolution or creation? Or better still, considering God knew so many will read it as literal, why not make it not be able to be read so YEC can fit? I know, YEC's will accept miracles for anything that is unbelievable...but at least make it so evolution fits right???

 

[Vance]

But, you see, there are two problems with your position.

First, the modern geocentrists would completely disagree with you about an acceptance of the heliocentric reading (just perspective, etc) not effecting Christianity. Ask them!

Second, it really can be read in a way that makes sense with evolution. This is why millions of Christians are able to believe in both! True, it would be difficult (although not impossible according to GR Morton) to reconcile it with a literal reading, if you consider a non-literal reading, it all works fine. Again, the proof is in the puddin', millions of Bible-believing Christians all around the world for whom this is not a problem at all.

Have you read about the Framework theory? This is one of the explanations as to why the literary structure of the text was used to convey the message as it did. There is a book called the Genesis Debate, which covers the YEC (literal), Progressive and Framework readings of Genesis, each presented by its proponents.

 

[Andy D]

But, you see, there are two problems with your position.

First, the modern geocentrists would completely disagree with you about an acceptance of the heliocentric reading (just perspective, etc) not effecting Christianity. Ask them!

Second, it really can be read in a way that makes sense with evolution. This is why millions of Christians are able to believe in both! True, it would be difficult (although not impossible according to GR Morton) to reconcile it with a literal reading, if you consider a non-literal reading, it all works fine. Again, the proof is in the puddin', millions of Bible-believing Christians all around the world for whom this is not a problem at all.

Have you read about the Framework theory? This is one of the explanations as to why the literary structure of the text was used to convey the message as it did. There is a book called the Genesis Debate, which covers the YEC (literal), Progressive and Framework readings of Genesis, each presented by its proponents.

I have not read it but it appears it might be a good idea for me to browse it as I can learn a lot from the different perspectives and interpretations of Genesis. I dont, however, agree with any arguments that millions of others believe something so I should. The majority of fundamentalists I have come across believe in YEC so shouldnt that be the better choice from my perspective if I was to believe something because the majority does???? Obviously fundamentalist will have major problems believing anything without seriously questioning it when it is a belief held by non-fundamentalist groups, if it goes against the traditional fundamentalist belief.

1 John 2 tells me that the Holy Spirit teaches me and in Peter I am told that Scripture isnt open to private interpretation.

I am hoping that the explanation for the question I asked will be in the Framework theory you have told me about?? I would like to see that solid explanation for how it is read from the TE point of view. Gap Theoriests will at least explain how they interpret Genesis and why they believe how they do based upon science, but mainly based on their interpretation of Genesis.

I am able to read something from a non-literal point of view, but if it isnt able to be understood by all, why would God blind some Christians to the correct reading of Genesis? I am 100% sure of myself being a Christian and also sure of most of my brothers and sisters being Christians, I believe because of their testimonies. Why they all also believe without a doubt in the literal reading of Genesis???? As you can see, neither of us can use this as an argument, that majority believe something because most fundamentalist Christians dont see the Roman Catholic church as a Christian denomination even but rather as a cult. (hopefully im allowed to state this here)

Blessings
Andy

 

[artybloke]

But the argument of the sun revolving around the earth and not the other way around, is like the theory of gravity in that it doesnt change Christianity one little bit.

In what way does a non-literal reading of Genesis alter Christianity one little bit?

I am able to read something from a non-literal point of view, but if it isnt able to be understood by all, why would God blind some Christians to the correct reading of Genesis?

What do you mean, understood by all? The overall message of the Gospel is perfectly simple - love God, love your neighbour, follow Christ - but if the Bible was so easy to understand in detail, there wouldn't be so many denominations, would there? I mean, whose right about Communion, your particular (I would guess small) branch of the Christian Church, or the over one billion Christians worldwide who believe in the Real Presence?

 

[Vance]

Andy, I agree with you completely that this is NOT a majority rule situation, and it should even be a "majority of those Christians I know" situation. I can assure you that every Christian I know who accepts evolution has testimonies and life examples that attest to their true Christian beliefs as well. I attend a pentecostal, YEC believing Church, and my father was an Assembly of God minister for 30 years, and I attended evangelical schools up into high schools, and I still did not blindly accept their teaching on this point without intense investigation.

And I agree that Scripture is not open to personal interpretation. The problem is that there is NO consensus on what Scripture says, so if it is not a personal examination, as led by the Spirit, the question is which human leadership do you follow? I choose to do my best to be led by the Spirit.

I have not yet read that Genesis Debate, but I am going to order it. Please let me know what you think.

 

[Andy D]

In what way does a non-literal reading of Genesis alter Christianity one little bit?

It changes how I see my beginning as being created in the image of God and special, not just some evolved being and also changes my perspective of the fall of man to the point where I am then unsure of things like when we became someone in the image of God and became different to just some animal. Maybe it doesnt change your perspective but then I have still never heard a non-literal interpretation that can explain all the important things like fall of man - sin and death entering the world, etc.

What do you mean, understood by all? The overall message of the Gospel is perfectly simple - love God, love your neighbour, follow Christ - but if the Bible was so easy to understand in detail, there wouldn't be so many denominations, would there? I mean, whose right about Communion, your particular (I would guess small) branch of the Christian Church, or the over one billion Christians worldwide who believe in the Real Presence?

The literal reading makes perfect sense to me and to many other poorly and well educated Christians around the world and in 3rd world countries even so I wonder about your statement that the Gospel is simple but the rest isnt? It seems that many denominations come from differences even on the Gospel. I think it is more that the Apostles were correct in warning us all of false prophets and there are so many warnings that we know it was obviously going to be a major thing especially in the end times.

I would prefer to say the small branch of Christians who believe in communion as stated in the Bible are correct and not the billions who believe in 'Real Presence' which I am not sure what means but im guessing it is to do with the elements of communion actually being Jesus?? Explain? I dont see anything in the Bible to back up the concept of the wafer actually being Jesus' body and to me it is blasphemy to say so.