When is it time to abandon a sinking ship? (YEC?)

[Mallon]

How about if one were to search the Bible for Truth, regardless of type, we would come up quite full.

The Bible never makes this claim, though. It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words" and to be useful for training "in righteousness." It says nothing about being scientifically or historically accurate in its entirety. That is a purpose pushed upon it by creationists in response to the theory of evolution.

 

[busterdog]

No, I'm not aware of that. CREATION is the antithesis of EVOLUTION, and by speaking of The Creation, I get the impression they are meaning a literal six-day creation.



Huh?

If you're talking about Theistic Evolution, let me ask you this:

At the exact moment of Creation, was the amount of mass/energy a constant?

In a six-day creation, the amount of mass/energy is zero, then increases to its current amount over a six-day period.

This is exactly how Genesis 1 describes it.

He he.

The event horizon is the point beyond which everything is mysterious and unknowable, except to the extent that we KNOW it excludes what the Bible says. He he he.

When is it time to abandon ship? Does it matter? We rebuke the storm and walk on the water, don't we, grasshopper.

 

[laptoppop]

The Bible never makes this claim, though. It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words" and to be useful for training "in righteousness." It says nothing about being scientifically or historically accurate in its entirety. That is a purpose pushed upon it by creationists in response to the theory of evolution.

Let's look at a particular scripture, shall we?
2 Tim 3:16,17
16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Isn't understanding God's creation a good thing?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm a Biblical Earth Creationist --- I believe God created the universe in six days, as He stipulated in writing.

Are you saying God cannot write in metaphors

What do you make of the beginning of the ten commandments? Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. All the Israelites lived in one literal house?

How are the house of slavery or the six day creation stipulations? God did stipulate keeping aways from other gods and observing the Sabbath. The six days and the house of slavery are not stipulations, they are metaphorical illustrations of why the Israelites should obey the stipulations.

 

[Mallon]

Let's look at a particular scripture, shall we?
2 Tim 3:16,17
16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Isn't understanding God's creation a good thing?

And according to the Bible, how does one become righteous (i.e., morally justified), pop? Is it by believing what it has to say about science? Or is it by believing what it has to say about the Christ and other matters of the spirit?

 

[Assyrian]

Let's look at a particular scripture, shall we?
2 Tim 3:16,17
16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Isn't understanding God's creation a good thing?

That's why God gave you Psalm 90:4 and 2 Pet 3:8.

 

[gluadys]

Let's look at a particular scripture, shall we?
2 Tim 3:16,17
16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Isn't understanding God's creation a good thing?

I would agree that understanding God's creation is a good thing per se, but I don't think that follows from the scripture cited.

Is it profitable for doctrine? Since all Christians agree that God created irrespective of their stand on evolution, it would appear that a particular understanding of how God created is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. *but see note below.

Is it profitable for reproof? for correction? (i.e. discipline), for instruction in righteousness?

I don't see any connection between understanding the operation of mutations and natural selection on the evolution of species or following the branches of the phylogenetic tree to these aspects of Christian living.

Does it influence a dispostion and ability to do good works?

I think we would all agree that one's place on the creationism/evolution spectrum is no indicator of whether or not one performs the good works expected of a Christian.

So, in terms of the scripture cited, I would not include "understanding creation" as a relevant "good thing". It is good for other reasons, but not for the reasons stated in these verses.

*If anything, I would say it is creationism which is most prone to veer away from the doctrine of creation, since, in denying the evidence from creation, it tips towards denying the reality of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying God cannot write in metaphors

No --- the Bible indeed uses word pictures.

But you're not left wondering what the "house of bondage" is, as it is defined as Egypt:

[bible]Exodus 13:3[/bible][bible]Exodus 13:14[/bible]

Rule of Thumb: The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself.

 

[laptoppop]

*If anything, I would say it is creationism which is most prone to veer away from the doctrine of creation, since, in denying the evidence from creation, it tips towards denying the reality of creation.

I, of course, would strongly dispute that YEC is "denying the evidence from creation". It disagrees with a particular conventional interpretational model in favor of one which agrees more closely with the more direct revelation of a loving God, but it does not deny the evidence - rather it seeks harmony with both of them instead of constructing theories using methodologies which specifically exclude God acting in BOTH a natural and supernatural manner.

 

[vossler]

Rule of Thumb: The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself.

Amen brother,

 

[Mallon]

I, of course, would strongly dispute that YEC is "denying the evidence from creation". It disagrees with a particular conventional interpretational model in favor of one which agrees more closely with the more direct revelation of a loving God, but it does not deny the evidence - rather it seeks harmony with both of them instead of constructing theories using methodologies which specifically exclude God.

Not according to AiG's Statement of Faith:
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
(i.e., "We reject all evidence that does not support the biblical description of events." Sounds like denial to me.)

 

[plainswolf]

One thing I truly love about science is that there is always more to learn, new evidence always turning up that sheds light on old knowledge, sometimes confirming it, other times overturing it. That's what makes science so exciting - there's always a mystery in it. I think the smartest thing we Christians can do is learn and apply what we can from evidence, and yet keep a little humility before creation and not let his head be swelled with so much intellectual pride that he makes himself his own 'god'. The book of Job comes to mind.. --

Job chapter 38, "Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?

"Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?

Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind? Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?"


+

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing I truly love about science is that there is always more to learn, new evidence always turning up that sheds light on old knowledge, sometimes confirming it, other times overturing it.

I don't mind a little science now and then, but when science contradicts the Scriptures, it has gone too far.

As I have said many times before, we Christians actually hold science up to a higher standard than even scientists themselves do, when we claim that God is the Author of science.

(Just FYI, it was a creationist who invented the scientific method.)

 

[laptoppop]

Not according to AiG's Statement of Faith:
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
(i.e., "We reject all evidence that does not support the biblical description of events." Sounds like denial to me.)

1) AIG doesn't speak for me or all YECs.
2) I see their statement as a statement of FAITH -- trusting first in the more direct revelation of God as opposed to interpretations of secular science. Again - we are much better off when we learn about the Potter from His love letter than when we try to figure Him out looking at the pot.

 

[Mallon]

1) AIG doesn't speak for me or all YECs.

Then why do you and all other YECs always cite AiG's articles if you do not agree with their starting tenets?

2) I see their statement as a statement of FAITH -- trusting first in the more direct revelation of God as opposed to interpretations of secular science. Again - we are much better off when we learn about the Potter from His love letter than when we try to figure Him out looking at the pot.

And we can learn much more about the pot by looking at the pot instead of the love letter.

 

[laptoppop]

Then why do you and all other YECs always cite AiG's articles if you do not agree with their starting tenets?

For the most part, I'm fine with how things work out with AIG in a practical sense. I've never actually seen a case where they have denied some sort of evidence. A conclusion/interpretation? certainly. Evidence? I haven't seen it. I would have phrased that statement differently - but I still give primacy to Scripture over interpretations based upon the Scientific method, especially when that method only accommodates natural processes.

 

[crawfish]

No, I'm not aware of that. CREATION is the antithesis of EVOLUTION, and by speaking of The Creation, I get the impression they are meaning a literal six-day creation.

How do you know? Perhaps Jesus happened to be talking about creation in general here, not the specific account given in Genesis. I really don't see any way you can know what he WAS implying here.

Huh?

If you're talking about Theistic Evolution, let me ask you this:

At the exact moment of Creation, was the amount of mass/energy a constant?

In a six-day creation, the amount of mass/energy is zero, then increases to its current amount over a six-day period.

This is exactly how Genesis 1 describes it.

Huh? Back. I think you must be interpolating that.

You know, as a literalist you should really stop adding stuff to the Bible. Just read the words, and if it doesn't tell you exactly how or why or what, just accept that and stick to the stuff that's there.

 

[Jase]

I don't mind a little science now and then, but when science contradicts the Scriptures, it has gone too far.

As I have said many times before, we Christians actually hold science up to a higher standard than even scientists themselves do, when we claim that God is the Author of science.

(Just FYI, it was a creationist who invented the scientific method.)

It was also a creationist that disproved the global flood.

 

[Jadis40]

It was also a creationist that disproved the global flood.

Something else too, is it just me, or do you notice a disconnect in logic when they say the flood was global, when there are many scriptures using the word "world" to refer to a specific area, and not the entire planet?

Genesis 19:31, Exodus 9:33, Jeremiah 34:1, II Chronicles 36:23, Acts 11:28, Luke 2:1.

Reference here: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

 

[Jase]

Something else too, is it just me, or do you notice a disconnect in logic when they say the flood was global, when there are many scriptures using the word "world" to refer to a specific area, and not the entire planet?

Genesis 19:31, Exodus 9:33, Jeremiah 34:1, II Chronicles 36:23, Acts 11:28, Luke 2:1.

Reference here: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

My understanding of it is in Hebrew, there is a different word to mean world in the sense of a region or people, and the planet as a whole. The word found throughout Genesis in relation to the flood uses the the word referring to a region - not the word referring to the planet.