The Stumbling Block

[Sinai]

Maybe it’s time to start questioning current interpretations of nature.

Maybe it's time to look at the context of the scriptural passage instead of inventing bad dogma....

 

[SBG]

Do you know what 'interpretation of evidence' is?

Yes, I believe I do. A scientists looks at evidence and gives an explanation of the evidence. It is a best guess based on a world view. You call this logic, I call this bias.

It is logic. If you don't believe that logic is a worthwhile thing, then we have little to talk about.

We may have little to talk about anyways, because in your entire response you never answered my question. You rather stick on a sentence that was in my post, that has nothing to do with the actual question.

if I see footprints throughout the entire, and I mean ENTIRE geologic column, I can logically conclude that this means that animals were walking around throughout the deposition of the column. If I see burrows throughout the entire geologic column, and I do mean the ENTIRE geologic column, I can logically conclude that animals were burrowing throughout the deposition of the geologic column. And then I can logically look at how long it takes worms to burrow (they move about 1 cm / minute), you know that they took a lot of time to dig the burrows. And when you then look at the say 36,000 ft thickness of the geologic column in some of the basins around the world, you realize that to deposit all this in the global flood requires an average deposition of 4 feet per hour. Such a deposition would put the burrowers below the depth at which they can burrow in 1 hour. Thus, if there was a flood, logically we should not see burrows.

This was a supernatural event, are you telling me God has to be limited to the physical realities of this universe and cannot do as He wishes?

Has it ever occured to you that God does test peoples faith? So should you stick with what you see, or what God says, or both?

That is the problem. Interpretation is just logic applied to the observation. I guess you don't like logic.

Yes, I know. It is always me that has the problem and never you or another. Interpretation is not just logic, it is based on a world view. You don't think it is possible that your observations can be flawed? That you just may not understand everything, including the times in which you were not even apart of?

I like logic. But logic and reason has become this new demigod of the masses where it is trusted more than faith. We are the generation that requires to see in order to believe. You are a prime example of this.

You know, believing that the earth is flat is also hard. Believing that the earth is on the back of an elephant standing on a turtle who is swimming in a sea of clarified butter is also a hard doctrine. Just because something is hard doesn't make it true. Why would you think this?

Who said anything about a flat earth in this post? Are we trying to shift subjects so you don't have to answer the original question?

Atleast you now admit it is a hard teaching.

the difference is that there is no observational evidence one way or another about Jesus raising from the dead. But we can see footprints and burrows throughout the entire geologic column. We even see desiccation cracks throughout the geologic column, which logically means that the land was dry, not flooded.

Really. And there is no observational evidence that says a global flood is impossible. There is a lot of biased opinions based on preconceived world views that say it is impossible. But with God, show me how it is impossible. You cannot.

See, again you will trust what you see, over what God says. Of course your response will be this is not true, because God's Word was meant to say what you want it to say. Hence, no absolute truths.

On the contrary, I beleive there is evidence which is consistent with there being a god. The problem is that there is no evidence supporting a global flood. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm for why I believe in design in the universe.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out. Can you now answer my question, please?

That is exactly the issue and I am not straying. When you wrote: "We are told that if we didn't preach God creating as Genesis says, many many people would be Christians today."

You are acting as if Creation is the gospel. It isn't. Creation, while interesting is not the gospel. The gospel is that God sent his son to die for our sins. It isn't that God created the universe. I stand by what I wrote. You are less than orthodox if you add to the plan of salvation.

What was my question in the OP? Was it the italics above, or was it about Jesus' teaching? You are straying grmorton.

Now, I never said creation is Gospel, but nice try in speaking for me.

Waiting for you to answer the *real* question, rather than these psuedo-question you use to stray away.

Please follow the argument. We were talking about you teaching all sorts of untruths and wrapping those untruths in the flag of the gospel. You are tying your false interpretation to the Scripture and then making the scripture smell like your intepretation. The fact that your view of creation is false has nothing to do with all that you raise above.

You are funny, I will give you that! You ask me to follow the argument, the one I created, and yet you haven't even answered my only question.

I am not asking anything about creation, grmorton. I am asking was Jesus' teaching too hard? Should Jesus have made it easier so that more people could have accepted this, and so that He didn't loose so many disciples because of the teaching He gave?

Seriously, can you just answer that? If you don't want to answer it, then say I don't want to answer it. Stop going off on these tangents so that you can keep from answering my question.

I know you are very smart, grmorton. You should be able to understand what I was and am asking.

You would love it if I used the word, watered down. Jesus said what he said. I certainly won't change it nor will I criticise it. But you seem to think that God should have us saved only if we beleive in a 6 day creation.

You can use any word you choose. Could you please just answer my question?

I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. In that, I can't help you. That is your problem. We aren't talking about eating flesh and blood but we are talking about your view of creation. Please try really hard to stay on topic. You keep going off onto all sorts of rabbit trails. Creation, think creation....creation...creation.... etc. It really isn't hard to stay on topic if you just try.

You haven't. Can you show me where you answered this question:

I am asking was Jesus' teaching too hard? Should Jesus have made it easier so that more people could have accepted this, and so that He didn't loose so many disciples because of the teaching He gave?

Jesus' teaching is NOT that the earth was created in 6 days. Where on earth do you get this nonsense? Not only do you teach nonsense about the earth, you teach nonsense about what Jesus' message was. Cite one verse which has Jesus saying that the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't know of one. That is your teaching, not that of Jesus.

You are straying grmorton. You spend more time attacking me and my view than on anything that the OP question. You have yet to even come close to answering my question. I will give you this, you are one of two TE's to atleast respond. The others obviously are staying away.

Can you answer my original question, or do you prefer not to?

The question(s) is:

I am asking was Jesus' teaching too hard? Should Jesus have made it easier so that more people could have accepted this, and so that He didn't loose so many disciples because of the teaching He gave?

 

[SBG]

Maybe it's time to look at the context of the scriptural passage instead of inventing bad dogma....

Maybe it is time atleast one TE answers my question.

 

[grmorton]

Yes, I believe I do. A scientists looks at evidence and gives an explanation of the evidence. It is a best guess based on a world view. You call this logic, I call this bias.

I explained that it was logic and you simply ignored that explanation. Shame on you.

We may have little to talk about anyways, because in your entire response you never answered my question. You rather stick on a sentence that was in my post, that has nothing to do with the actual question.

The answer about Jesus changing his message on eating his flesh is no. But it is entirely non-analogical to evolution/creation which is what you are trying to get to. You have created a grand non-sequitur.

Now, I have answered your question. What difference does it make?

This was a supernatural event, are you telling me God has to be limited to the physical realities of this universe and cannot do as He wishes?

If it was a supernatural event you YECs need to cease claiming that science supports it. You can't have it both ways.

And are you seriously suggesting that God made the burrowers be supernatural burrowers during the flood? Where does it say that in the Bible? Are you saying that desciccation cracks were manufactured by God to intentionally deceive people? What kind of God do you worship? If he does this, maybe he intentionally made up the entire resurrection story to intentionally deceive people!

Has it ever occured to you that God does test peoples faith? So should you stick with what you see, or what God says, or both?

Testing faith is different from teaching someone nonsense and then telling them that if they cease believing such nonsense, that they have failed their test of faith.

Yes, I know. It is always me that has the problem and never you or another. Interpretation is not just logic, it is based on a world view. You don't think it is possible that your observations can be flawed? That you just may not understand everything, including the times in which you were not even apart of?

If you don't like or use logic, then yes, the problem is yours. Even monkeys use logic but you seem to disdain it. Can our observations be flawed? Of course, and that is why science requires the ability for other scientists to repeat the experiment and see if they observe the same thing. This independent verification of the observation makes it less likely that what we base science upon is flawed observation. To try to make interpretation be nothing more than world view is to say that there is really no objective truth in the world. This is a very bad thing for Christianity. It is a religion based upon an observatoin that the body was missing. If we can't trust those objective observations that the body was missing, then we can't trust the Christian message.

I like logic. But logic and reason has become this new demigod of the masses where it is trusted more than faith. We are the generation that requires to see in order to believe. You are a prime example of this.

When you put qualifiers on it, it shows that you really don't like it. It leads you to conclusions you don't want to accept. Thus your claim to like logic is questionable to say the least.

Who said anything about a flat earth in this post? Are we trying to shift subjects so you don't have to answer the original question?

Well, I believe I said something about the flat earth. Please pay attention and you will know who said what. I was using that because it too is a view which says that you shouldn't pay attention to logic and observation. When Shenton, the president of the flat earth society was shown a photo of the earth from the moon, he said something like: I can see why the untrained person would be fooled by such a picture. That is what YEC is all about. Denying what one can see and denying the force of logic.

Atleast you now admit it is a hard teaching.

Really. And there is no observational evidence that says a global flood is impossible.

There is much observational evidence that the global flood never happened.

See, again you will trust what you see, over what God says. Of course your response will be this is not true, because God's Word was meant to say what you want it to say. Hence, no absolute truths.

And the flat earth members believed what Frank Shenton said over what they could see as well. Amazing how similar the viewpoints are, isn't it?

Thank you for the link. I will check it out. Can you now answer my question, please?



What was my question in the OP? Was it the italics above, or was it about Jesus' teaching? You are straying grmorton.

Now, I never said creation is Gospel, but nice try in speaking for me.

Waiting for you to answer the *real* question, rather than these psuedo-question you use to stray away.

I answered above. It makes no difference

You are funny, I will give you that! You ask me to follow the argument, the one I created, and yet you haven't even answered my only question.

I am not asking anything about creation, grmorton. I am asking was Jesus' teaching too hard? Should Jesus have made it easier so that more people could have accepted this, and so that He didn't loose so many disciples because of the teaching He gave?

YOu tied your OP to what the TEs were saying.

You haven't. Can you show me where you answered this question:

I am asking was Jesus' teaching too hard? Should Jesus have made it easier so that more people could have accepted this, and so that He didn't loose so many disciples because of the teaching He gave?

No, he should not have changed. Remember you asked me to come here and answer your question, but your question clearly tries to tie it to the topic of this forum--creatoin and evolution. It is natural then to talk about that.

 

[Vance]

The answer to your question is that No, it was not too hard. No, He should never have taught it differently just to avoid losing adherents. That is just silly.

And, it has nothing at all to do with the YEC/TE debate for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, Jesus is God and knew that what He was teaching was, absolutely and without doubt, what He (as God) intended. YEC's DON'T know that their teaching is correct with that degree of certitude. To say that you do is saying that you are infallible in your understanding of God's Scripture, even on non-salvation issues, where even the Westminster Confession of Faith agrees things are not always clear.

Second, no TE is promoting the idea of avoiding hard teachings in order to make it more palatable for non-Christians. As pointed out many times here, TE's are advocating the idea of not teaching DOGMATICALLY what could very well be WRONG teachings.

 

[Calminian]

While not exactly the colloquial use of male and female, bacteria seem to have been having sex with each other as far back as genetics can tell. Indeed some thing that the earliest stages of life everything had sex and exchanged genetic material with everything else.

Well then according to Jesus, bacterium (is that the correct plural?) were also practicing marriage. It's is an original approach, I'll give you that.

I think Paul was right

No you don't. If you actually understood what Paul was saying you'd be as angry at him as you are at YECs.

No I am not, you don't know much about what I am proposing. You assume I am like everyone else and I can assure you I am not.

Actually I’m somewhat familiar with you. I've read some of your theological articles and believe I have a pretty good grasp of what you believe. IMHO you're a very knowledgeable scientist, but a very poor exegete of the biblical text.

BTW you have an article called, “Plain Reading of Genesis 1.” I’m not sure how old it is. Do you still stand by it?

 

[Fineous_Reese]

And are you seriously suggesting that God made the burrowers be supernatural burrowers during the flood? Where does it say that in the Bible? Are you saying that desciccation cracks were manufactured by God to intentionally deceive people? What kind of God do you worship? If he does this, maybe he intentionally made up the entire resurrection story to intentionally deceive people!

that is like saying God used death and disease as part of evolution to bring about the plants and animals that were here before Man who brought sin into the world? and God called this "good"? i return your question, What kind of God do you worship?

 

[SBG]

I explained that it was logic and you simply ignored that explanation. Shame on you.

I didn't ignore it. I just don't agree that is relies purely on logic, as I said. Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean I ignored your response.

The answer about Jesus changing his message on eating his flesh is no. But it is entirely non-analogical to evolution/creation which is what you are trying to get to. You have created a grand non-sequitur.

Now, I have answered your question. What difference does it make?

Let's forget about creation/evolution for just a moment. Jesus taught a particularly hard teaching that day about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. He didn't explain this to those who listened, He stated boldly that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. How do you think the listeners felt about that? How about His disciples who did believe He was the Son of God at that time? What would you think if you were on the listeners and someone said for you to have eternal life you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?

This makes all the difference in the world. Answer me something please, if someone came today and they were said to be a prophet and they proclaimed evolution to be a lie and that God did create as the Bible states - literal history - would you believe this prophet or not?

If I were to tell you, God spoke to me and told me Genesis is literal history, would you believe me? Mind you I am not claiming such a thing, but would you believe me if I did?

If it was a supernatural event you YECs need to cease claiming that science supports it. You can't have it both ways.

And are you seriously suggesting that God made the burrowers be supernatural burrowers during the flood? Where does it say that in the Bible? Are you saying that desciccation cracks were manufactured by God to intentionally deceive people? What kind of God do you worship? If he does this, maybe he intentionally made up the entire resurrection story to intentionally deceive people!

Was creation a supernatural event or not? If there was a global flood, would it be supernatural or not? And please don't accuse all of us alike. I don't claim anything about science, other than interpretations come from world views and not just from logic.

Testing faith is different from teaching someone nonsense and then telling them that if they cease believing such nonsense, that they have failed their test of faith.

Nonesense like eating Flesh and drinking Blood to be receive eternal life? I am sure that when Jesus said this, many thought this was nonesense and if Jesus came today rather than when He did, many would think it is nonesense.

If you don't like or use logic, then yes, the problem is yours. Even monkeys use logic but you seem to disdain it. Can our observations be flawed? Of course, and that is why science requires the ability for other scientists to repeat the experiment and see if they observe the same thing. This independent verification of the observation makes it less likely that what we base science upon is flawed observation. To try to make interpretation be nothing more than world view is to say that there is really no objective truth in the world. This is a very bad thing for Christianity. It is a religion based upon an observatoin that the body was missing. If we can't trust those objective observations that the body was missing, then we can't trust the Christian message.

How about that 20 some year secret of dating human fossil remains foul up? How many times was that tested and proved to be true within that 20 some years? This was based on a world view that you say is hardly even true.

I didn't say nothing more than a world view, but that it is a main part. Anyone can make their world view, logical. Just because it has logic, doesn't mean it is correct.

Actually, the body was missing and there are recorded accounts of people meeting with Jesus. If it was only the body missing and no accounts of Jesus' appearances, things would be much different. Instead we have written accounts of people seeing, walking, and talking with Jesus after His death and resurrection. And He was still in human form, passing through walls and locked doors, many of which people say a human body cannot do.

When you put qualifiers on it, it shows that you really don't like it. It leads you to conclusions you don't want to accept. Thus your claim to like logic is questionable to say the least.

Really? Tell me how much do you like logic and reasoning? Do you like it so much when it is being used in books that say Christianity must be sought out and destroyed? Do you like it when it is used to say ALL Christians are a danger to this world and should be eliminated? The author of such a book relies on logic and reason to present his view and persuade his readers to accept such a view. And he uses correct logic in doing do, even though he is completely wrong.

Many are doing the same, using logic and reason to reason out God. It isn't the tool I dislike, it is the common use of it today that I dislike. And you use it in the same way to discredit what the Bible says ever so clearly. Yet, you say this account is a mystery and can only be understood if in a mythical, figurative type way.(flood) And you go against Paul with the teaching of death before the fall of man. Are you a greater teacher than Paul to object to his teachings?

Well, I believe I said something about the flat earth. Please pay attention and you will know who said what. I was using that because it too is a view which says that you shouldn't pay attention to logic and observation. When Shenton, the president of the flat earth society was shown a photo of the earth from the moon, he said something like: I can see why the untrained person would be fooled by such a picture. That is what YEC is all about. Denying what one can see and denying the force of logic.

I think you knew full well what I meant and that I knew it was you who brought it up. Actually, the Bible never says the earth is flat. It is people like yourself who make the Bible say something it doesn't to prove another point where the Bible says something it does not. TE's seem to have the problem of not understanding what is figurative and what is literal, by confusing the two and using the two against each other.

Neither of us was there for the creation event or the flood. Neither were scientists. God was, and He tells about it in His Word. Why then do you believe the scientists and not God?

That gave me a good laugh.

There is much observational evidence that the global flood never happened.

Again, there is much observational evidence that is interpreted to say there was never a global flood. Just as there is much observational evidence that is interpreted to say there was a global flood. It is all in the interpretation and what one is choosing to believe. Money is always a nice motivator to help decide what to choose.

And the flat earth members believed what Frank Shenton said over what they could see as well. Amazing how similar the viewpoints are, isn't it?

I know. TE's and Mr Shenton are very much alike in their view points.

I answered above. It makes no difference

Yes, you did and so I thank you! It makes a lot of difference. As you admit YEC is a hard teaching, it seems to go against what we see, as popular science beliefs tell us.

Jesus gave a hard teaching, that seemed to go against what they saw, as popular belief of their time. How receptive do you think people were to hearing that they had to eat Jesus' Flesh and drink Jesus' Blood to have eternal life? Do you think this went against their logic and reasoning? That to eat another human beings flesh and drink their blood was wrong?

There is so much parallel that I believe this is why so many te's have stayed away from this thread. You don't want to see it, so you won't. And you don't want to see a global flood, so you won't. You don't want to see evolution not being the process God used, so you won't. Therefore you are now looking for evidence to support your belief and thus interpret anything you find to suit your world view.

Truthfully, if scientists were even close to being not biased and not basing interpretation of evidence from their own world view, they would hold no opinion on these subject, ie, evolution, global flood. But as you demonstrate you hold a very strong opinion and will interpret anything you find according to your world view, because you hold so strongly to it.

YOu tied your OP to what the TEs were saying.

I did, but I wanted my question answered first and foremost. Thank you for answering it.

No, he should not have changed. Remember you asked me to come here and answer your question, but your question clearly tries to tie it to the topic of this forum--creatoin and evolution. It is natural then to talk about that.

Jesus should not have changed, even if He could have made it so many would have accepted Him and believed in Him? What if Jesus said they must eat of the bread as it is His flesh instead? Just like at the last supper? That would have made it easier for the audience to understand and believe, yet He didn't. Do you think He should have to save many of those disciples who walked away from Him?

I did ask you come and answer my question and I truly thank you for taking the time to do so. I just wanted my question answered first, before the defensive talk to uphold a local flood and evolution came in. I honestly don't think you would interpret any evidence contrary to what you currently believe because you so are adamant about being right and there is no possible way you are wrong. Atleast you are passionate about it.

If changing what Jesus said to something easier to grasp would have not lead to Him losing so many disciples and losing followers within that crowd, should Jesus have done differently?

 

[SBG]

The answer to your question is that No, it was not too hard. No, He should never have taught it differently just to avoid losing adherents. That is just silly.

Really? You say yec loses souls to the Kingdom of God and that shouldn't happen. Yet Jesus on that moment drove people away from Him because of what He taught. Should He have made it easier to understand, or easier to accept instead of saying they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?

Come on Vance, if someone told you today that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood you would be the first to call him the anti-christ.

You are honestly saying this teaching was not hard?

And, it has nothing at all to do with the YEC/TE debate for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, Jesus is God and knew that what He was teaching was, absolutely and without doubt, what He (as God) intended. YEC's DON'T know that their teaching is correct with that degree of certitude. To say that you do is saying that you are infallible in your understanding of God's Scripture, even on non-salvation issues, where even the Westminster Confession of Faith agrees things are not always clear.

Second, no TE is promoting the idea of avoiding hard teachings in order to make it more palatable for non-Christians. As pointed out many times here, TE's are advocating the idea of not teaching DOGMATICALLY what could very well be WRONG teachings.

As I explained in the above post to grmorton, it has everything to do with this discussion with how you Vance have presented it. You say we lose souls to the Kingdom because we have told the truth of what is written and we should not being do so. Instead we should be preaching evolutionism that is contrary to Scripture. We should be teaching that God wants death, disease, and suffering to happen to His people, because in the beginning He called this good.

That is what you argue for. And we are called a foundation of lies because we say God is a God of Life NOT Death. And God never looked at His creation, seeing death, disease and suffering and said this was good, before the fall of mankind.

 

[Biliskner]

i saw last night with a few med friends "what the bleep do we know"

the first half of the docco/film is a classic example of evolutionary-type-"science", and its applications.

"because quantum particles have a probability of being everywhere and nowhere at the same time, that means in the real world we can apply the same principles. so while i'm not looking my mum is in the kitchen AND in the lounge room AND in the bedroom AND on the pavement outside her house AND in the backyard outside her house AND in the neighbours lounge room AND on the planet Mars AND inside the Sun AND inside a black hole... AND .... AND .... AND ... etc. etc. AND etc. etc."



because we can see blue eye colored alleles mutate into green eye colored alleles evolution MUST be true.

 

[Vance]

SBG,

Oh, the teaching was hard, it was just not "too hard". It required thoughtful consideration and prayer and faith, rather than just accepting the literal "plain meaning" of what was said.

Buy you again misrepresent what I have said, even though I have corrected you at least a dozen times. It is now entering the area of intentional misrepresentation, which is fraud. I have never said you should be teaching evolutionism. I have never said you should not teach the "truth". I have never even said you should not teach YEC'ism. Those are all misrepresentations, and you know it.

What I have said (again), is that you should not teach YEC'ism DOGMATICALLY, as the absolute and only possible truth. You should (to the extent the issue comes up) teach what YOU believe, but then make sure that the hearer realizes that this is a question that is debated among Christians, and that Bible-believing, devout Christians believe otherwise. You think they are just dead wrong, but it is not a salvation issue, and so it should not be something that gets in the way of faith.

 

[Sinai]

Testing faith is different from teaching someone nonsense and then telling them that if they cease believing such nonsense, that they have failed their test of faith.

Good point!

Can our observations be flawed? Of course, and that is why science requires the ability for other scientists to repeat the experiment and see if they observe the same thing. This independent verification of the observation makes it less likely that what we base science upon is flawed observation.

Also a good point--and one that persons on all sides of these discussions should probably keep in mind....

To try to make interpretation be nothing more than world view is to say that there is really no objective truth in the world. This is a very bad thing for Christianity. It is a religion based upon an observatoin that the body was missing. If we can't trust those objective observations that the body was missing, then we can't trust the Christian message.

This, however, may bear further examination--and it is possible you may wish to rephrase this statement.

Yes, part of the Christian message centers around the resurrection--and part of that is based upon the observation that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. But there's also the testimony of those who not only saw him afterwards, but who also walked with him, talked with him, ate with him and were instructed and taught by him. And there's also the remarkable change in his followers: They were transformed from defeated disciples cowering behind locked doors into bold proclaimers of the gospel who literally changed their world.

But that's not all. We also have the testimony of the Old Testament prophesies that were fulfilled by Jesus' life and death--and that continue to testify that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant. And we also have the testimony of Saul of Tarsus, whose conversion changed not only his name (Saul to Paul), but also changed his life--from being a persecutor of the church into being one of the greatest witnesses for Jesus Christ in history. But there's more to that story. Saul was a Pharasee among Pharasees, a man who had studied at the feet of Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the Law and prophesies of the scriptures. After his conversion, he apparently took time to restudy what he thought he had learned--and found that the scriptures gave a vivid picture of the coming Messiah....and it was fulfilled in the person of Jesus the Christ.

Sorry. I may have digressed a bit from the topic of this forum, but I tend to get passionate when discussing my Lord and Savior. Anyway, I just thought you may wish to rethink that part of your post.....

 

[SBG]

Vance,

So in that day, or in this day, if Jesus came as He did, you would know that He was speaking the truth when He said eat My Flesh, drink My Blood? You wouldn't think He was some vampire or something odd like that? You wouldn't be turned off by this message, in the slightest?

And what about the people who were? Those disciples, many left Him because of this ONE teaching. Those in the crowd who heard this ONE teaching, were turned off by Him.

You have simply said that for a yec to claim God created in six days, global flood, etc is to lead people away from Christianity. Sure you don't care what we believe, you just don't want us to talk about what we believe. Because, by your stance, if we do, we lead people astray because science is the *real truth* concerning this issue and the Bible must be subjected to science and read differently, when conflicting with science.

This ONE teaching of Jesus', He could have put it in terms such as He did during the last supper, but He didn't. And these people left Him because of this ONE teaching. You claim we must change this one teaching, creation, and not speak of it as if it is truth. Jesus didn't stop or change His teaching, because people didn't like it and wouldn't accept it. But you want us to stop because of the same reasons.

The Bible clearly teaches six day creation and a global flood. The Bible clearly teaches that man is a special creation, created for fellowship with God. The Bible clearly teaches man disobeyed God on that fateful day and fell from grace and death became a reality. The Bible clearly states that death was not part of creation before the fall of mankind.

You want yecs to not speak up, when you claim God says death, pain, suffering, disease, destruction are all VERY GOOD.

The Bible clearly says GOD IS A GOD OF LIFE. God is not a God of death, pain, and sorrow.

This is what you and every TE teach and frankly, I am rather surprised that many have kept quiet and have not opposed this neo-Christianity teaching more.

God is not a God who enjoys watching you suffer. Shame on all of you TE's for presenting God as such a God.

 

[Vance]

First, I have no idea what I would do if faced with that situation, but if I had faith in Jesus, I would not have a knee-jerk reaction and would pause and consider and contemplate what the possible meanings could be. That is what I do with Scripture, so it is very possible that this is what I would do with Jesus. Those more inclined to assume the literal, "plain" meaning of a presentation are more likely to have left Jesus at that point.

And, again, RIGHT AFTER I SET IT OUT AGAIN, you blatantly misrepresent what I have said over and over. This is no longer excusable, it is outright deceit. Where have I ever said that to claim YEC'ism is to lead people away from Christianity? I said right in my last post that this was NOT what I was saying. Your willingness to continue presenting your false presentation of what I say is there for all to see.

I will just come out and say it now: You are lying. Period.

1. I never said that YEC's should not hold there view, or even present their view to others.

2. I have never said science is the "real truth" concerning "this issue".

3. I have never said the Bible must be subjugated to science.

You know my position on all of these, and yet you present it in this misleading and false way. You are a liar, plain and simple. Your desire to advocate your personal view of Scripture is so overwhelming, that you are willing to distort and misstate another's position over and over and over, despite being corrected over and over and over.

I do not have the level of patience to deal with such un-Christian behavior anymore, and you are now going on my Ignore List. Only two others have behaved in a way that led to this. Congratulations.

 

[SBG]

First, I have no idea what I would do if faced with that situation, but if I had faith in Jesus, I would not have a knee-jerk reaction and would pause and consider and contemplate what the possible meanings could be. That is what I do with Scripture, so it is very possible that this is what I would do with Jesus. Those more inclined to assume the literal, "plain" meaning of a presentation are more likely to have left Jesus at that point.

And, again, RIGHT AFTER I SET IT OUT AGAIN, you blatantly misrepresent what I have said over and over. This is no longer excusable, it is outright deceit. Where have I ever said that to claim YEC'ism is to lead people away from Christianity? I said right in my last post that this was NOT what I was saying. Your willingness to continue presenting your false presentation of what I say is there for all to see.

I will just come out and say it now: You are lying. Period.

Thanks, that was very nice of you.

1. I never said that YEC's should not hold there view, or even present their view to others.

Then you have no problems with people or groups presenting the YEC view, like AiG or ICR.

2. I have never said science is the "real truth" concerning "this issue".

Very good, you realize that science is not the real truth concerning origins, that the Bible trumps it and its teaching of a six day creation and global flood.

3. I have never said the Bible must be subjugated to science.

So you retract your previous statement of interpretating Genesis 1-11 in the light of what science says. That the Bible can stand alone, without any outside source and be understood as it was meant. Six day creation, global flood.

You know my position on all of these, and yet you present it in this misleading and false way. You are a liar, plain and simple. Your desire to advocate your personal view of Scripture is so overwhelming, that you are willing to distort and misstate another's position over and over and over, despite being corrected over and over and over.

I do not have the level of patience to deal with such un-Christian behavior anymore, and you are now going on my Ignore List. Only two others have behaved in a way that led to this. Congratulations.

I wasn't aware that you were retracting your previously presented beliefs.

I was just going off your previous statements you have made in threads like, YEC's and Atheists: Strange Bedfellows; The dangers of YEC; The progression of YEC; Typical YEC claim; YEC is dangerous to Christianity.

Personally, I liked your comment where you said, you personally have to go around and undo all the damage yec's have done by teaching a six day creation, special creation of man not evolution, and global flood. You can find that in the thread about The dangers of YEC and YEC is dangerous to Christianity.

Stumbling blocks like a physical act were removed. But faith in what God says was never a stumbling block. This faith you wish to remove and replace with a god who creates death, destruction, pain, suffering, sorrow, and calls this VERY GOOD, before man originally disobeyed Him.

Your goal is to replace, the God of Love and Life, with the god of death and pain. You cannot serve two masters, pick one.

 

[grmorton]

Well then according to Jesus, bacterium (is that the correct plural?) were also practicing marriage. It's is an original approach, I'll give you that.

This isn't as far-fetched as you might think. Consider this, some fungi have more than 2 sexes:


"(Chances were good for such exchange in the species that Dianna
studied--it has 5,000 different sexes.) After mating, fungi often
produce above ground structures such as mushrooms and toadstools,
loaded with up to a trillion spores." Carl Zimmer, "Hypersea
Invasion," Discover, )c. 1995, p. 79

No you don't. If you actually understood what Paul was saying you'd be as angry at him as you are at YECs.

No I wouldn't. How could you possibly know what my reaction would be? It is the YECs who are not telling the truth about geology.

Actually I’m somewhat familiar with you. I've read some of your theological articles and believe I have a pretty good grasp of what you believe. IMHO you're a very knowledgeable scientist, but a very poor exegete of the biblical text.

BTW you have an article called, “Plain Reading of Genesis 1.” I’m not sure how old it is. Do you still stand by it?

It is amazing that my ability to exegete varies proportionately with how closely the evaluator agrees with my position.

Anyway, I do not have a page called Plain REading of Genesis 1. I have this though, and I stand by it:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gen1-11.htm

 

[grmorton]

that is like saying God used death and disease as part of evolution to bring about the plants and animals that were here before Man who brought sin into the world? and God called this "good"? i return your question, What kind of God do you worship?

Well I worship the God of the Bible, who said:

Isaiah 45:6-7
"I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things."

Clearly you don't worshiip the God who said that because you wouldn't call such a being good. Wonder who you YECs worship?

The word 'evil' is according to Strongs:
bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun:—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]


And according to Brown-Driver-Briggs:

1) bad, evil (adjective)

1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

1c) evil, displeasing

1d) bad (of its kind—land, water, etc)

1e) bad (of value)

1f) worse than, worst (comparison)

1g) sad, unhappy

1h) evil (hurtful)

1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

1j2) deeds, actions

2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)

2a) evil, distress, adversity

2b) evil, injury, wrong

2c) evil (ethical)

3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)

3a) evil, misery, distress

3b) evil, injury, wrong

3c) evil (ethical)

 

[grmorton]

I will be on a trip to the United States for a week, so I will be scarce here. I will try to get online when I can.

Let's forget about creation/evolution for just a moment. Jesus taught a particularly hard teaching that day about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. He didn't explain this to those who listened, He stated boldly that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. How do you think the listeners felt about that? How about His disciples who did believe He was the Son of God at that time? What would you think if you were on the listeners and someone said for you to have eternal life you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?

You know, this is entirely irrelevant to me. I don't really care what his listeners felt or thought about that statement. When he said it he didn't pull out a knife, carve off his thumb and offer it to the crowd for a yummy meal. I bet most people went home thinking, "That was weird". But that is all.

This makes all the difference in the world. Answer me something please, if someone came today and they were said to be a prophet and they proclaimed evolution to be a lie and that God did create as the Bible states - literal history - would you believe this prophet or not?

Since prophets are not prophets if they don't tell the truth and are supposed to be stoned if they prophecy falsly, I would consider the fellow a false prophet, but I wouldn't be the one throwing rocks.

If I were to tell you, God spoke to me and told me Genesis is literal history, would you believe me? Mind you I am not claiming such a thing, but would you believe me if I did?

NO. The evidence is so much against your view point that you just saying such nonsense would make me think you mad. However, if you came up with an explanation of the data which made the data fit a young-earth, I probably would believe you.

Was creation a supernatural event or not?

I believe supernatural and you can find my statement in the thread Intelligent Design. But it wasn't done the way you seem to think.

If there was a global flood, would it be supernatural or not?

If it was supernatural, then God had to arrange everything miraculously and you YECs can stop talking about how science supports your views. If it wasn't miraculous but was a natural phenomenon, then the evidence disproves that kind of flood. But, if God arranged things miraculously, it means he made footprints and desciccation cracks which are not footprints and desciccation cracks.

And please don't accuse all of us alike. I don't claim anything about science, other than interpretations come from world views and not just from logic.

Interpretations come from logic. You are wrong. Do you actually practice a science? Are you a scientist? If not, how would you know other than the nonsense you read in the creationist rags?

Nonesense like eating Flesh and drinking Blood to be receive eternal life? I am sure that when Jesus said this, many thought this was nonesense and if Jesus came today rather than when He did, many would think it is nonesense.

No, nonsense like, there are no overthrusts, nonsense like all the geologic column was deposited in a one year flood, nonsense like there was a vapor canopy, nonsense like there were huge caves beneath the crust of the earth which held the flood waters. That is what I am talking about.

How about that 20 some year secret of dating human fossil remains foul up? How many times was that tested and proved to be true within that 20 some years? This was based on a world view that you say is hardly even true.

I don't know what you are talking about and I don't think you do either.

I didn't say nothing more than a world view, but that it is a main part. Anyone can make their world view, logical. Just because it has logic, doesn't mean it is correct.

But if it is illogical the view is entirely incorrect. YEC is illogical!

Actually, the body was missing and there are recorded accounts of people meeting with Jesus. If it was only the body missing and no accounts of Jesus' appearances, things would be much different. Instead we have written accounts of people seeing, walking, and talking with Jesus after His death and resurrection. And He was still in human form, passing through walls and locked doors, many of which people say a human body cannot do.

As a Christian, I don't deny this. Why are you raising this?

Really? Tell me how much do you like logic and reasoning? Do you like it so much when it is being used in books that say Christianity must be sought out and destroyed? Do you like it when it is used to say ALL Christians are a danger to this world and should be eliminated? The author of such a book relies on logic and reason to present his view and persuade his readers to accept such a view. And he uses correct logic in doing do, even though he is completely wrong.

Many are doing the same, using logic and reason to reason out God. It isn't the tool I dislike, it is the common use of it today that I dislike. And you use it in the same way to discredit what the Bible says ever so clearly. Yet, you say this account is a mystery and can only be understood if in a mythical, figurative type way.(flood) And you go against Paul with the teaching of death before the fall of man. Are you a greater teacher than Paul to object to his teachings?

They are saying this because you guys are teaching such obviously crazy ideas with YEC.

I think you knew full well what I meant and that I knew it was you who brought it up. Actually, the Bible never says the earth is flat.

You obviously can't follow an argument. I brought it up because they, like you, deny observational data. If you didn't deny observation, you couldn't be compared with them.

It is people like yourself who make the Bible say something it doesn't to prove another point where the Bible says something it does not.

The bible clearly says that the earth brought forth life. The subject of that phrase is 'earth', not 'God'. God delegated the job to the earth, the bible says it and you don't beleive it. Shame on you!

TE's seem to have the problem of not understanding what is figurative and what is literal, by confusing the two and using the two against each other.

I can assure you that I am quite the literalist.

Neither of us was there for the creation event or the flood. Neither were scientists. God was, and He tells about it in His Word. Why then do you believe the scientists and not God?

And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures

Why do you not believe that the earth brought forth living creatures? Why don't you believe the Bible? You are the liberal, not me.

Again, there is much observational evidence that is interpreted to say there was never a global flood. Just as there is much observational evidence that is interpreted to say there was a global flood. It is all in the interpretation and what one is choosing to believe. Money is always a nice motivator to help decide what to choose.

You have not worked geology like I have. There is zero, nada, leeng (mandarin) evidence of a global flood. You are wrong.

Yes, you did and so I thank you! It makes a lot of difference. As you admit YEC is a hard teaching, it seems to go against what we see, as popular science beliefs tell us.

No, I admit that YEC is a stupid teaching. I was a YEC. I was stupid then. Now I am smarter. BTW, I thought you were forgetting the C/E debate in this post. Seems that you forgot that.

Jesus gave a hard teaching, that seemed to go against what they saw, as popular belief of their time. How receptive do you think people were to hearing that they had to eat Jesus' Flesh and drink Jesus' Blood to have eternal life? Do you think this went against their logic and reasoning? That to eat another human beings flesh and drink their blood was wrong?

There is so much parallel that I believe this is why so many te's have stayed away from this thread. You don't want to see it, so you won't. And you don't want to see a global flood, so you won't.

I worked really hard for 20 years trying to see the global flood. All of my Creation Research Society Quarterly articles were an attempt to explain geology in light of a global flood. I finally had to admit that there was no global flood.

You don't want to see evolution not being the process God used, so you won't. Therefore you are now looking for evidence to support your belief and thus interpret anything you find to suit your world view.

That simply isn't true in my life. I was a YEC for 24 years. I really wanted evolution to be wrong. It wasn't. Here are my YEC publications.

see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/publi.htm and scroll to the bottom to see my 30 young-earth articles. I really really wanted YEC to be true. It isn't.

Truthfully, if scientists were even close to being not biased and not basing interpretation of evidence from their own world view, they would hold no opinion on these subject, ie, evolution, global flood.

I became a TE only after 24 years trying to deny it.

 

[grmorton]

Good point!Also a good point--and one that persons on all sides of these discussions should probably keep in mind.... This, however, may bear further examination--and it is possible you may wish to rephrase this statement.

Yes, part of the Christian message centers around the resurrection--and part of that is based upon the observation that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. But there's also the testimony of those who not only saw him afterwards, but who also walked with him, talked with him, ate with him and were instructed and taught by him. And there's also the remarkable change in his followers: They were transformed from defeated disciples cowering behind locked doors into bold proclaimers of the gospel who literally changed their world.

But that's not all. We also have the testimony of the Old Testament prophesies that were fulfilled by Jesus' life and death--and that continue to testify that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant. And we also have the testimony of Saul of Tarsus, whose conversion changed not only his name (Saul to Paul), but also changed his life--from being a persecutor of the church into being one of the greatest witnesses for Jesus Christ in history. But there's more to that story. Saul was a Pharasee among Pharasees, a man who had studied at the feet of Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the Law and prophesies of the scriptures. After his conversion, he apparently took time to restudy what he thought he had learned--and found that the scriptures gave a vivid picture of the coming Messiah....and it was fulfilled in the person of Jesus the Christ.

Sorry. I may have digressed a bit from the topic of this forum, but I tend to get passionate when discussing my Lord and Savior. Anyway, I just thought you may wish to rethink that part of your post.....

I really do appreciate your input and counsel here. Unfortunately I must leave for the US tomorrow and I can't comment in depth. I frankly feel a bit like Paul in that I was kicking against the goads for 24 years. God was trying to show me with geology that my beliefs were wrong. I wouldn't listen.

 

[Biliskner]

grmorton, you seem to have some (perhaps rightly due) anger against YECs, but NOT ALL YECs were like you, are you and have the same problems as you, and not everyone is/are tuned to your geophysics worldview. i do feel sympathy for your journey here on earth when you "had to reject old age earth" for 25 or whatever years. but you'll probably say "i don't want your sympathy" so just forget i said anything.

just pointing out to the invisible audience out there reading all your posts that there ARE ACTUALLY YECs out there doing the scientific work in God's world with a conscise and beautifully painted young earth worldview without quams (ie: zoology, botany, genetics, astrophysics, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy etc. etc.) - yes these YECs are people from my Church at Melbourne University.