The right question

[laptoppop]

Sometimes there seems to be some confusion over methodology.

I start with Scripture., part of the explicit revelation of God. The concept that Scripture is limited to the knowledge and worldview of the people used to write it down is falsified by prophecy, so I assume it is accurate and relevant to me. I assume that God wants to communicate with me through various means, including Scripture and that He is smart enough to do it well. I recognize that the Scriptures have been designed to speak to people throughout the ages, and gain richness by appreciating the original cultures, but I also assume that God Himself does not change.

In Scripture I see the story of a 6-day creation. It is presented at the very beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

In Scripture I see the story of a global flood. It is presented near the beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

I then look at nature and the world around me. The right question:

Can the world as it exists today be explained as resulting from the history and processes described in Scripture?

Where there is a conflict, I look at both my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of the world to reconcile the differences.

When I see huge geologic formations stretching hundreds of miles, huge layers folded upon each other without cracking (i.e. done while still malleable), marine fossils on top of tall mountains – I see evidence consistent with a global flood and Scripture and need not try to shoehorn in any other explanation.

The scientific method may be quite useful in understanding how processes work, but I am careful to not blindly accept extrapolations into history that disagree with Scripture.

 

[busterdog]

Extrapolation. Good word.

Good post.

 

[Mallon]

Have you been able to put any names to the "huge geologic formations stretching hundreds of miles" yet, pop? You've been saying this for weeks now and every time I ask you to name one so that we can have a closer look, you haven't been able to.
That's the problem with YEC. It falls completely apart when we zoom in for a more careful examination. YEC has a long way to go before it will ever be taken seriously by places of higher learning.

You also make the assertion, pop, that "Where there is a conflict, I look at both my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of the world to reconcile the differences." I'm curious if you can give an example of a time when a cursory look at the world forced you to change your understanding of Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

I then look at nature and the world around me. The right question:

Can the world as it exists today be explained as resulting from the history and processes described in Scripture?

Where there is a conflict, I look at both my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of the world to reconcile the differences.

When I see huge geologic formations stretching hundreds of miles, huge layers folded upon each other without cracking (i.e. done while still malleable), marine fossils on top of tall mountains – I see evidence consistent with a global flood and Scripture and need not try to shoehorn in any other explanation.

It's a good question. And another good question is:

Why did the Christian geologists of the 18th & 19th centuries conclude that the correct answer is "No, it can't be"?

They came to that conclusion solely from their growing understanding of geologic processes, without reference to evolution, plate tectonics or radiometric dating. Many of them also believed at first that they were viewing evidence of a global flood and came only slowly and reluctantly to conclude they were mistaken.

I think it essential for anyone claiming the evidence favours a young earth and a global flood to look at the work of those scientists and show where and why they went wrong in their conclusions. Because for the most part they began their work with the same prior assumptions as young earth creationists today, yet ended up with diametrically opposite conclusions.

Mallon hits on part of it. Superficially, the evidence may look to an untrained eye as if it was consistent with a global flood. But when it is examined in greater detail, this consistency often evaporates.

For example, you speak of "marine fossils on top of tall mountains". But these fossils are not just "on top of tall mountains" as they would be if carried there by a global flood. They are in the mountains. They are part of what the mountains are made of. They are the very stuff of which the some of the fossiliferous strata of the mountains are made. They are not just on top of rocks. They are the rocks themselves.

That may call for a different explanation than a single year of flooding. Even more so when one begins to examine which particular fossils are in which particular stratum.

 

[crawfish]

I take a slightly different approach.

I see scripture as inspired by God, but written in the worldview of the current times of the author. I see prophecy as something different than you do; instead of falsifying this claim, it actually supports it by being written with the understanding of its times. The scope of this is obviously for another discussion.

When science claims something that seems to conflict with scripture, I ask myself first, "how solid is the science?". If it is well-supported by fact and/or evidence, I then ask myself "how does this affect my understanding of the Bible says?". Perhaps we've been pulling meaning from scripture that wasn't intended. Most times, I've found that even when I pull the more literal interpretations

Our methodologies are far different. Where you see your understanding of scripture as solid and your understanding of the world as fluid, I see both as being somewhat fluid.

 

[Assyrian]

I start with Scripture., part of the explicit revelation of God. The concept that Scripture is limited to the knowledge and worldview of the people used to write it down is falsified by prophecy.

The question is, did people understand prophecies meant at the time or did they have to wait until they saw the fulfilment? The NT is clear that no one understood what Messiah was about until they saw the fulfilment. Why can't the same thing apply to revelation of origins? What makes you think you can work it out simply from the prophetic revelation without any knowledge of the actual fulfilment?

The church has been misreading prophecy for 2000 years and the same people who reintroduced six day creationism, the Seventh Day Adventists, are a denomination that emerged from out of a second coming fiasco in the 1840s. We will only understand the prophecies of Christ's return when he comes back, and it is only when we discover how the world was formed that we can begin to understand what God was telling us in Genesis.

In Scripture I see the story of a 6-day creation. It is presented at the very beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

In Scripture I see the story of a global flood. It is presented near the beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

Actually Genesis says nothing about the world being created in six days, that comes from the metaphorical illustration of the Sabbath in Exodus.

Genesis says nothing about the flood being global either, neither does any other passage in scripture. But somehow the tradition of reading the flood as a global flood is considered sacrosanct. I don't understand why, other than the power of tradition and perhaps the usefulness of 'flood geology' for YEC arguments.

 

[Willtor]

I don't think that's the right question. It's a good question and it has to be asked, but I wouldn't call it, "the right question." It presupposes a lot about the intentions of the authors of Scripture. In my view, the right question (for one who has concluded that Scripture is the infallible word of God) is:

Do I believe Scripture, or do I believe my interpretation of Scripture?

Ultimately, in most things I do, I behave as though I believe my interpretation, because I cannot behave with total uncertainty, even if I later discover that my interpretations were way off base. The difference is that, ultimately, I can be persuaded that my interpretation is faulty, suck up my pride, and admit that I have not understood something rightly.

Where does the exploration of nature come in? Ultimately, my interpretation of Scripture leads me to think that God created everything, and not one thing has come into being apart from His work. Thus, I am in the same place with nature as I am with Scripture. I can believe nature, or I can believe my interpretation of nature. And the same argument applies.

For both things, I have to use my (albeit limited and frail) reason. But I only have to reconcile them if my reason indicates that one intends to communicate something about the other.

To say that Scripture was intended to give me the facts and mechanisms regarding the formation of the world is a pretty big leap. After all, I was raised to think that it was intended to communicate something about God and Man, and how they relate, and have related to one another. It is made doubly difficult in that all of my reason (and the collective reason of the bulk of the scientific community) indicates that the facts and mechanisms are different from those typically gleaned by YEC interpreters of Scripture. And it is made all but insurmountable by the host of Christian theologians and philosophers (pre and post scientific revolution) who warned against an historical interpretation of the Scriptural creation accounts.

Now, I could overcome all of that, if you were to show me by reason that the historical interpretation is, in fact, the intended interpretation. I would always be shaky on account of apparenty seeing things so much more clearly than the great Christian fathers who came before, and who live today, and the combined reason of the scientific community, but I would be persuaded.

Now: What is this reason?

 

[crawfish]

I don't think the essential Christian message has been obscured from the Church fathers by not knowing historical data like we do today. The core belief is now as it was then; however, the depth of God's purpose and nature, given through His word, are more evident now than they were 2000 years ago. We glean more information now because we need to, given the overall greater knowledge of our time.

 

[Willtor]

I don't think the essential Christian message has been obscured from the Church fathers by not knowing historical data like we do today. The core belief is now as it was then; however, the depth of God's purpose and nature, given through His word, are more evident now than they were 2000 years ago. We glean more information now because we need to, given the overall greater knowledge of our time.

I agree. My point is that even though they didn't have the data that we have, they were still hesitant to take the creation accounts historically.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon hits on part of it. Superficially, the evidence may look to an untrained eye as if it was consistent with a global flood. But when it is examined in greater detail, this consistency often evaporates.

And this is why you see trends like this:

As students progress through their schooling, probing deeper into any one particular field, they come to see certain models as overly simplistic. I sympathized with the YEC Flood model for much of my life, until I realized how utterly untenable it was in university. Similarly, any 2nd-year biology undergrad would realize how rediculous it is to claim that dinosaurs are simply old, overgrown lizards (as has been suggested again recently in the YEC subforum -- now's your chance to correct that misake, YECs). It exemplifies a complete lack of understanding of animal ontogeny, osteology and allometry. Again, the devil's in the details.
This same realization doesn't just hold for YECism, though. I remembering going into university thinking evolutionary change was necessarily adaptive. Then I read Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrels" paper.

 

[gluadys]

This same realization doesn't just hold for YECism, though. I remembering going into university thinking evolutionary change was necessarily adaptive. Then I read Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrels" paper.

That's for sure. The understanding of evolution has changed a lot since Darwin, and my personal comprehension of it has changed a lot since my undergrad days. In fact, I've learned a lot since coming onto CF. I am not a scientist, and before getting an internet connection, I did not have much access to newer thinking on evolution.

I can appreciate the feeling of some people that it is all just too complex. But that's the nature of nature. It is often elegantly simple in principle while being amazingly complex in detail.

One of my favorite mottos, though I forget where it came from, is:

Seek simplicity, and distrust it.​

 

[shernren]

When I see huge geologic formations stretching hundreds of miles, huge layers folded upon each other without cracking (i.e. done while still malleable), marine fossils on top of tall mountains – I see evidence consistent with a global flood and Scripture and need not try to shoehorn in any other explanation.

This is why creationist arguments must always be quashed thoroughly. Are you referring once again to the Lewis Overthrust? The one which is thoroughly explained by conventional geology, which has caused the entire northern belt of Montana to be disturbed, which is consistently underlaid by fault gouge, and which indeed shows no sign of having been overthrusted above the surface - and every sign of being overthrusted underneath the surface?

Do we have to go through this every time?

I start with Scripture, part of the explicit revelation of God. The concept that Scripture is limited to the knowledge and worldview of the people used to write it down is falsified by prophecy, so I assume it is accurate and relevant to me. I assume that God wants to communicate with me through various means, including Scripture and that He is smart enough to do it well. I recognize that the Scriptures have been designed to speak to people throughout the ages, and gain richness by appreciating the original cultures, but I also assume that God Himself does not change.

Very good. Now think about those assumptions for a moment.

You assume that the Scriptures have been designed to speak to people throughout the ages. Yet you assume that the right way for you to read it is through a modern interpretive framework in which any and every detail is meant to be taken historically, and you assume that this is the right way to read it. But this way did not exist before the Renaissance and thus was not available to centuries of believers before you. Again, you assume that the Scriptures have been designed to speak to people throughout the ages. But isn't the most universal method of communication myth and story? Each and every single culture has myths and stories; only recent Western cultures have developed organized science and history. If God really meant for the Bible to be universally understood, wouldn't He have written it to the lowest common denominator of understanding?

You assume that prophecies demonstrate that the writing of the Bible overrode the writers' worldviews. But Scripture clearly states that: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11 NIV) Now how could the prophets have searched using the tools of worldviews that had not even been invented yet? And if they did, why do we not see evidence of this?

Even when God revealed to them events of a different era, He revealed it within the lens of their own worldview. In fact, that is precisely why the Jews never accepted Jesus. The prophets wrote concerning Messiah as the supreme leader of Mosaic prophecy; the Jews of Jesus' day read concerning Messiah as a liberator from Roman captivity; the Christians who recorded the Gospels read concerning Messiah as a savior from sin. Now if the prophets truly were able to access truth from different worldviews, why did they not simply write of Messiah as a savior from sin? If they had explicitly written of man's universal sin, Jesus as the Incarnation of God, and His atoning sacrifice, would the Jews not have been saved? Instead, when the apostles read Jesus into the Old Testament, they had to basically destroy the prophets' worldview. The gathering of the Gentiles into God's Kingdom would not happen at the end of ages when the Messiah returned and destroyed His enemies, it would happen when Christ's death destroyed the separation between Jew and Gentile. The prophecy of Immanuel was spoken squarely within the worldview of Ahaz's unfaithfulness. Could Isaiah not have spoken it within the worldview of the Roman Empire and sin's destruction?

And finally, you assume that God Himself does not change. But the Bible is definitely mutable; it came into existence in bits and pieces over the years and was only complete centuries after Christ's death. Did God not have an identity before then? Why, then, must God's immutability logically predicate the Bible's immutability?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Sometimes there seems to be some confusion over methodology.

I start with Scripture., part of the explicit revelation of God. The concept that Scripture is limited to the knowledge and worldview of the people used to write it down is falsified by prophecy, so I assume it is accurate and relevant to me. I assume that God wants to communicate with me through various means, including Scripture and that He is smart enough to do it well. I recognize that the Scriptures have been designed to speak to people throughout the ages, and gain richness by appreciating the original cultures, but I also assume that God Himself does not change.

In Scripture I see the story of a 6-day creation. It is presented at the very beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

In Scripture I see the story of a global flood. It is presented near the beginning and referred to in various places throughout Scripture.

I then look at nature and the world around me. The right question:

Can the world as it exists today be explained as resulting from the history and processes described in Scripture?

Where there is a conflict, I look at both my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of the world to reconcile the differences.

When I see huge geologic formations stretching hundreds of miles, huge layers folded upon each other without cracking (i.e. done while still malleable), marine fossils on top of tall mountains – I see evidence consistent with a global flood and Scripture and need not try to shoehorn in any other explanation.

The scientific method may be quite useful in understanding how processes work, but I am careful to not blindly accept extrapolations into history that disagree with Scripture.