What do YEC's think of this . . .

[Knowledge3]

Interpretations? I've been throwing out questions to creationists here asking if there is any consistent way to reinterpret an isochron to give 6000 instead of a few billion years. No takers so far. It looks like only one interpretation so far, so don't suggest alternatives unless you can come up with them.

What are those questions?

 

[shernren]

I am OEC, but I still believe the Flood of Noah happened by intuiton and faith.

YEC's are my brothers, they are given a special challenge given to them from sits above and not below. You, know it's been quite a long time since I have seen that beautiful and perfectly-arched rainbow.

You know what? Some YECists would disagree. They'd make you out to be a "compromising worldly half-Christian" just like us TEs for not swallowing whole their 144-hour creation without a pinch of common sense and open-mindedness. Heh.

I've formally posted the question of the earth's age via isochron dating on a new thread, since the last times I've asked might not have been seen as a formal challenge. Basically I'm asking, can you come up with a reasonable alternative scientific process that would over-age rocks by a few billion years?

 

[SBG]

You know what? Some YECists would disagree. They'd make you out to be a "compromising worldly half-Christian" just like us TEs for not swallowing whole their 144-hour creation without a pinch of common sense and open-mindedness. Heh.

I've formally posted the question of the earth's age via isochron dating on a new thread, since the last times I've asked might not have been seen as a formal challenge. Basically I'm asking, can you come up with a reasonable alternative scientific process that would over-age rocks by a few billion years?

Not all YECs would say what you have said they would. I am aware you said some, but I wanted to make sure there was a voice stating that what you said would not be said to an OEC by all YECs.

As far as the word of God given to men to preach that is recorded in the whole Bible, Paul states it rather well:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Not all YECs would say what you have said they would. I am aware you said some, but I wanted to make sure there was a voice stating that what you said would not be said to an OEC by all YECs.

As far as the word of God given to men to preach that is recorded in the whole Bible, Paul states it rather well:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

Which is interesting since when Paul wrote this what we call the Bible would not be compiled for another one hundred or more years and the oldest book we know of concerning Jesus, the gospel of Thomas would not be included.

 

[shernren]

Not all YECs would say what you have said they would. I am aware you said some, but I wanted to make sure there was a voice stating that what you said would not be said to an OEC by all YECs.

As far as the word of God given to men to preach that is recorded in the whole Bible, Paul states it rather well:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

Granted. Then again, some would.

 

[SBG]

Which is interesting since when Paul wrote this what we call the Bible would not be compiled for another one hundred or more years and the oldest book we know of concerning Jesus, the gospel of Thomas would not be included.

The compilation of the Bible was just bringing together what was already written and circulating through the Churches. The Old Testament had been around much longer that 300A.D. Jesus often quoted the Old Testament, including Genesis.

The New Testament was being circulated through writings and through speaking. It was already written before 100 A.D.

And the book of Enoch was not included either, even though Jude cites it.

It all comes down to the perspective of each individual: are we willing to have faith that every piece of the Bible is from God and not man as Paul said or not.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

2 Peter 1:20-21
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It all comes down to the perspective of each individual: are we willing to have faith that every piece of the Bible is from God and not man as Paul said or not.

I believe that every piece of the Bible should be there I just don't agree with how some choose to read it. It's not the words I have disagreements with it is peoples interpretations of those words.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I agree, it is good for training and teaching righteousness, it's that I don’t agree with those who try to make it more and have it teach science and history too.

2 Peter 1:20-21

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

This is speaking only of prophecy, and that I would agree, but when we look at it how are we to be sure that we are reading it correctly without testing?

 

[SBG]

I believe that every piece of the Bible should be there I just don't agree with how some choose to read it. It's not the words I have disagreements with it is peoples interpretations of those words.

Can I ask you how you interpret Paul's teachings on Adam? Such as
1 Corinthians 15:45
"So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"..." Paul here is refering to Genesis' teachings.

how about:
1 Timothy 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

How do you interpret this?

I agree, it is good for training and teaching righteousness, it's that I don’t agree with those who try to make it more and have it teach science and history too.

No one is claiming the Bible is a science book. I don't understand though, your statement on the Bible not teaching history. I would think this then allows one to claim Jesus wasn't an actual literal person, historically speaking. Or that David was not a historical King. Or that the countries that are listed in the Bible are not real historical countries.

Do you agree with Paul that the Bible is good for teaching? Would that include teaching of literal historical events and people?

This is speaking only of prophecy, and that I would agree, but when we look at it how are we to be sure that we are reading it correctly without testing?

Jesus quoted the books of Moses. The Prophets cover most of the rest of the Old Testament. Even in the books of Moses there are prophecies. David also prophecies in the Psalms. Are these excluded from being from God?

 

[shernren]

Simple, SBG, I believe that Adam and Eve probably were real people. You don't see TEs bashing me on the head for that.

 

[SBG]

Simple, SBG, I believe that Adam and Eve probably were real people. You don't see TEs bashing me on the head for that.

Actually, that was more directed at the TEs who say Adam and Eve were not real literal human beings that were the first created man/woman.

And no one from YEC is bashing you on the head for believing that Adam and Eve were real literal people.

 

[Knowledge3]

You know what? Some YECists would disagree. They'd make you out to be a "compromising worldly half-Christian" just like us TEs for not swallowing whole their 144-hour creation without a pinch of common sense and open-mindedness. Heh.

I've formally posted the question of the earth's age via isochron dating on a new thread, since the last times I've asked might not have been seen as a formal challenge. Basically I'm asking, can you come up with a reasonable alternative scientific process that would over-age rocks by a few billion years?

You know what? A prominent YEC via PM invited me to his extremely cool site. I have registered and am about to go and check it out and get acquainted with my YEC brothers, for interaction and exchanging of ideas.

I can almost perieve that cat got that your tongue.Keep drinking that spiritual milk,before you start making stupendously ridiculous statements that above as if you were eating spiritual meat.

I just put in you in check.

And you're ""theistic evolutionist?""

Care to state your case??

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[/color]



Can I ask you how you interpret Paul's teachings on Adam? Such as

1 Corinthians 15:45

"So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"..." Paul here is refering to Genesis' teachings.



how about:

1 Timothy 2:13

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."



How do you interpret this?

[/color]



Whether Adam and Eve were physical beings or simply represent humanity the message is still the same so there is no need to change any of the text following either example you have given.



When I was helping teach youth groups and active in college ministries I often used fictional characters to teach lessons. From Dearth Vader to Frodo Baggins, I used the writings to make points about real life. In college English 101 the use of fictional characters and stories to illustrate real world ideas in an essay was taught, is that no longer taught? If so how does one learn how to write such an essay that will be needed later in college career?

No one is claiming the Bible is a science book. I don't understand though, your statement on the Bible not teaching history. I would think this then allows one to claim Jesus wasn't an actual literal person, historically speaking. Or that David was not a historical King. Or that the countries that are listed in the Bible are not real historical countries.

Do you agree with Paul that the Bible is good for teaching? Would that include teaching of literal historical events and people?

If there is outside evidence that a person or city did exist then it can be taught as history. The Bible is not the only book to mention cities that we found out later existed, Troy was once though mythical but we found it, does that mean the rest of the Iliad and Odyssey should be read as literal and we should start worshiping Zeus too?



I was an avid reader of one of the best Biblical archeological journals, The Biblical Archeological Review, and it often showed that events might not have happened exactly as portrayed or when portrayed in the Bible. Do I throw out the Bible every time something written in it is not exactly the case? No, for there are usually spiritual lessons tied in with exaggerations or time switches making it relatively unimportant whether said events occurred exactly how and when they might be stated to occur.

Jesus quoted the books of Moses. The Prophets cover most of the rest of the Old Testament. Even in the books of Moses there are prophecies. David also prophecies in the Psalms. Are these excluded from being from God?

When did I say throw out things? I am just cautious about the future readings into prophesies, many a time have good people been burned when someone is sure the world will end at a certain date. We must be careful when trying to read future events into the Bible. That is all I am saying.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Simple, SBG, I believe that Adam and Eve probably were real people. You don't see TEs bashing me on the head for that.

I have no problem with such a belief; it is an alternative reading that meshes with the scripture as well. The problem I have is when people insist there is no alternative reading to what they believe and the rest of us are going to heck or will have St. Peter set us straight, forgetting that they might be wrong themselves.

 

[shernren]

Yo Knowledge3, I'm glad to see some fire there, hope it's not more bark than bite though

I'm referring to these:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/point.html
(Admittedly AiG has the politeness to follow this up privately: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4310news5-22-2000.asp )

And these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0529charisma.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601critique.asp

You want me to state my case? Sure.

1. I believe that the Bible was not written with scientific veracity in mind.
2. I believe that a non-literal interpretation of passages has at least equal standing with a literal interpretation.
3. I believe that the scientific evidence for the old age of the earth has not been refuted at all by "creation science".
4. I feel that "creation science" is misrepresentative because if it is science it should follow an agnostic paradigm and therefore to call itself "Christian" is a misnomer.
5. I feel that "creation science" is a harmful force in today's church that encourages needless fundamentalism. (I say needless because fundamentalism is necessary on fundamental issues! We must all agree on Christ crucified and resurrected, and I have no shame being "fundamentalist" about that. But to be fundamental about non-fundamentals will only invite division.)
6. I feel that the existing scientific evidence for evolution outweighs the unexplained parts of it, and that "creation science" has not brought a convincing counter-case.

Therefore:

7. My personal view of the origins is that God created the world using the Big Bang and in line with current conventional cosmological theories. I also feel that He substantially used evolution to bring about the diversity of life, but I believe that He originally created first life (in other words I reject abiogenesis) and that there is no reason for me not to believe in a literal Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden and Fall, and little reason for me not to believe in an actual (though geographically local) flood.

And I do not want to comment on your spirituality.

 

[Vance]

Here is another TE who supports prayer in school, the Ten Commandments on public property and large crosses in as many places as possible.

I just don't support theological apologetics (Creation Science) being taught as science in a science classroom. It is not a separation of Church and State thing for me at all, but a question of teaching good science. It would be like a religious group that believes all lightning is a product of immediate divine action and opposes the natural atmospheric explanation being allowed to present the "alternative view" in science classes.

 

[Vance]

I also have no problem with the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. As I have stated many times (and included in the "Spectrum of Beliefs" options), it is one of the possibilities that TE's consider, and I have not taken an absolute stand on that issue since there is no need to do so. I think it is not the most likely choice, and don't think there is any theoligical reason to insist upon it, but I don't think that it is impossible either.

 

[SBG]

Whether Adam and Eve were physical beings or simply represent humanity the message is still the same so there is no need to change any of the text following either example you have given.

I understand, but what is your interpretation of Paul's words when He says Adam was formed first then Eve?

How do you interpret Paul's teachings in Romans 5 where he teaches that sin came into the world through one man? He speaks of this one man repeatedly as 'one man.'

How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:8?

" For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;"

or 1 Corinthians 11:12

" For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

Can you tell me how you interpret each of these, not an explanation of you not interpreting them, please?

When I was helping teach youth groups and active in college ministries I often used fictional characters to teach lessons. From Dearth Vader to Frodo Baggins, I used the writings to make points about real life. In college English 101 the use of fictional characters and stories to illustrate real world ideas in an essay was taught, is that no longer taught? If so how does one learn how to write such an essay that will be needed later in college career?

No one is claiming that you cannot take a myth and use it to teach a lesson. If one was, then one would argue against Jesus' parables, how foolish that would be.

But, one is asking, why can't literal history teach us lessons as well? Are you suggesting that real live history cannot teach us anything?

If there is outside evidence that a person or city did exist then it can be taught as history. The Bible is not the only book to mention cities that we found out later existed, Troy was once though mythical but we found it, does that mean the rest of the Iliad and Odyssey should be read as literal and we should start worshiping Zeus too?

Are you asking if I would commit idolatry by worshipping Zeus? Or are you asking that because the Bible contains history, should we worship God? I don't see worshipping God as a question, but rather as a command. I have no hope without God and the Lord Jesus Christ. And I have no choice but to believe all that He tells us through His Book. That means literally. And if you choose to scoff and mock me or other YECs because we do, that is your choice. I see nowhere in the Bible that it teaches that Genesis is not a true literal account of God creating and how He created: through His Word. To say that the style of repetition of the phrase 'God said' is to lead one to believe that it is a myth, is inconsistent. Shall we now look to books like Amos where it is repetition of 'the Lord say' means it too is also a myth? How about Jesus' temptation where He repeatedly states, 'it is written,' is that also a myth?

That type of reasoning is illogical to me.

I was an avid reader of one of the best Biblical archeological journals, The Biblical Archeological Review, and it often showed that events might not have happened exactly as portrayed or when portrayed in the Bible. Do I throw out the Bible every time something written in it is not exactly the case? No, for there are usually spiritual lessons tied in with exaggerations or time switches making it relatively unimportant whether said events occurred exactly how and when they might be stated to occur.

I read that journal as well. I like your use of 'might.' Because we don't have all the facts, doesn't mean we can make a conclusion that is perfect in understanding. The Bible contains the facts about God and what He has done. Creation happens to be one of the facts He has told us. You may believe or disbelieve or call it my interpretation so that you can not believe.

When did I say throw out things? I am just cautious about the future readings into prophesies, many a time have good people been burned when someone is sure the world will end at a certain date. We must be careful when trying to read future events into the Bible. That is all I am saying.

I do agree with you. We can be assured that Jesus will return and judge mankind.

 

[shernren]

But, one is asking, why can't literal history teach us lessons as well? Are you suggesting that real live history cannot teach us anything?

Sounds like I should ask you the opposite question: Why can't we learn from something that isn't literal history? Are you suggesting that apart from real live history we cannot learn anything?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[/color]



I understand, but what is your interpretation of Paul's words when He says Adam was formed first then Eve?



How do you interpret Paul's teachings in Romans 5 where he teaches that sin came into the world through one man? He speaks of this one man repeatedly as 'one man.'



How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:8?



" For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;"



or 1 Corinthians 11:12



" For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."



Can you tell me how you interpret each of these, not an explanation of you not interpreting them, please?

You are asking me to show you a difference when there is none. That is what I am trying to explain. It does not change the meaning any if Adam and Eve are our physical ancestors or archetypes of all humanity.



Take the sentence “Frodo grasped the One Ring in fear as the wraiths flew overhead.” Is there a difference if Frodo is a real person or a fictional character in how one would read that sentence? No, there is no difference.

No one is claiming that you cannot take a myth and use it to teach a lesson. If one was, then one would argue against Jesus' parables, how foolish that would be.



But, one is asking, why can't literal history teach us lessons as well? Are you suggesting that real live history cannot teach us anything?

No I am not saying that, I am in fact saying the lessons are the same whether the events are fictional or not. I am saying that we should not hinge our faith on the idea that they must be factual. That would be building on sand for your faith is only one discovery away from crumbling.

Are you asking if I would commit idolatry by worshipping Zeus? Or are you asking that because the Bible contains history, should we worship God? I don't see worshipping God as a question, but rather as a command. I have no hope without God and the Lord Jesus Christ. And I have no choice but to believe all that He tells us through His Book. That means literally. And if you choose to scoff and mock me or other YECs because we do, that is your choice. I see nowhere in the Bible that it teaches that Genesis is not a true literal account of God creating and how He created: through His Word. To say that the style of repetition of the phrase 'God said' is to lead one to believe that it is a myth, is inconsistent. Shall we now look to books like Amos where it is repetition of 'the Lord say' means it too is also a myth? How about Jesus' temptation where He repeatedly states, 'it is written,' is that also a myth?

That type of reasoning is illogical to me.

It would be illogical to me too which is why I never said it. Sadly we seem to be talking past each other but I hope that some reading this may understand.



I am not here to mock you or any other YED or OEC or anything, I am here to witness to what is in my heart. I could not mock YECs because I would be mocking what I was. I am just trying to show that we non-YEC’s are Christians too, that we are not throwing the Bible away and that there may be more than one way to look at the issues.

I read that journal as well. I like your use of 'might.' Because we don't have all the facts, doesn't mean we can make a conclusion that is perfect in understanding.

Neither I nor science has ever claimed “perfect” understanding, just the best understanding of the evidence that we have at hand. Only God can have perfect understanding.

The Bible contains the facts about God and what He has done. Creation happens to be one of the facts He has told us. You may believe or disbelieve or call it my interpretation so that you can not believe.

We interpret everything we see and read, to claim that you are not interpreting by reading the Bible literally is to claim that you know the mind of God. I am willing to admit I may be wrong with my interpretations, are you willing to?

 

[SBG]

Sounds like I should ask you the opposite question: Why can't we learn from something that isn't literal history? Are you suggesting that apart from real live history we cannot learn anything?

If you look at what I said before what you quoted of me, you will see I said this:

"No one is claiming that you cannot take a myth and use it to teach a lesson. If one was, then one would argue against Jesus' parables, how foolish that would be."