Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Who does Ken Ham appear to have so many more fans than Dr. Francis Collins?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThouShaltNotPoe" data-source="post: 62669566" data-attributes="member: 326622"><p>Well said.</p><p></p><p>They often whine about scientists being allegedly prone to flawed interpretations of the data in the world around us---and then pretend that they don't fail in their interpretations of the Bible. </p><p></p><p>In fact, <strong>it is not difficult to notice that Christians have more difficulties interpreting the Biblical evidence than scientists have in interpreting the evidence all around us.</strong> (Don't the many disagreements among Christians and thousands of denominations and movements demonstrate that fact beyond dispute?) The scientific method is extremely effective in weeding out flawed interpretations. And peer-review makes sure that dogma alone doesn't overshadow EVIDENCE. </p><p></p><p>EXAMPLE: The fundamentalist Christian seminary I attended had a Doctrinal Statement much like that of many other Christian schools. Founded in the 1800's, the statement listed all of the major Bible interpretations which were to remain PERMANENTLY FIXED as REQUIRED thinking for all faculty, students, AND EVEN THE STAFF. [Yes, even the janitors had to pledge themselves to be pre-tribulational premillenialists---despite the fact that some of them had no idea what those words meant!] And each numbered Bible interpretation listed in those pages of the document included a list of scriptures in parentheses which supposedly SUPPORTED those interpretations. </p><p></p><p> <strong>And the last paragraph of the Doctrinal Statement said that the document COULD NEVER BE CHANGED IN ANY WAY FOR ANY REASON!</strong> So no matter what new evidence from Biblical studies might arise --- better Greek and Hebrew lexicography, new syntactical discoveries in the Egyptian Greek papyrii, some new "Rosetta Stone" bombshell from a archaeological dig in Israel, or a campus visit by the Apostle Paul himself---- nothing could EVER justify a new interpretation of even a single word of the Bible!</p><p></p><p>In private, my faculty adviser admitted to me that he disagreed with some of the Old Testament verses listed as references to Satan. (Pointing to one such proof-text: "That passage is about an evil king of the human type, not Satan.") But he told me that he and many other faculty members including the Dean simply closed their eyes and signed the Doctrinal Statement each year because they had to if they wanted to keep their jobs. He justified the proof-text lists as tiny details that didn't really matter and "part of the game we play."<strong> But in fundamentalists circles, absolutely rigidity of thought is consider PROOF OF ONE'S GODLINESS.</strong> So when you read prideful, stubborn nonsense on Internet forums, keep this in mind. It is a proud tradition of my fundamentalist heritage here in the Bible Belt.</p><p></p><p><strong>So I ask you all ---- Christians and non-Christians alike ---- does this make sense? Do you truly think it likely that Bible interpretations are less prone to error than science interpretations?</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThouShaltNotPoe, post: 62669566, member: 326622"] Well said. They often whine about scientists being allegedly prone to flawed interpretations of the data in the world around us---and then pretend that they don't fail in their interpretations of the Bible. In fact, [B]it is not difficult to notice that Christians have more difficulties interpreting the Biblical evidence than scientists have in interpreting the evidence all around us.[/B] (Don't the many disagreements among Christians and thousands of denominations and movements demonstrate that fact beyond dispute?) The scientific method is extremely effective in weeding out flawed interpretations. And peer-review makes sure that dogma alone doesn't overshadow EVIDENCE. EXAMPLE: The fundamentalist Christian seminary I attended had a Doctrinal Statement much like that of many other Christian schools. Founded in the 1800's, the statement listed all of the major Bible interpretations which were to remain PERMANENTLY FIXED as REQUIRED thinking for all faculty, students, AND EVEN THE STAFF. [Yes, even the janitors had to pledge themselves to be pre-tribulational premillenialists---despite the fact that some of them had no idea what those words meant!] And each numbered Bible interpretation listed in those pages of the document included a list of scriptures in parentheses which supposedly SUPPORTED those interpretations. [B]And the last paragraph of the Doctrinal Statement said that the document COULD NEVER BE CHANGED IN ANY WAY FOR ANY REASON![/B] So no matter what new evidence from Biblical studies might arise --- better Greek and Hebrew lexicography, new syntactical discoveries in the Egyptian Greek papyrii, some new "Rosetta Stone" bombshell from a archaeological dig in Israel, or a campus visit by the Apostle Paul himself---- nothing could EVER justify a new interpretation of even a single word of the Bible! In private, my faculty adviser admitted to me that he disagreed with some of the Old Testament verses listed as references to Satan. (Pointing to one such proof-text: "That passage is about an evil king of the human type, not Satan.") But he told me that he and many other faculty members including the Dean simply closed their eyes and signed the Doctrinal Statement each year because they had to if they wanted to keep their jobs. He justified the proof-text lists as tiny details that didn't really matter and "part of the game we play."[B] But in fundamentalists circles, absolutely rigidity of thought is consider PROOF OF ONE'S GODLINESS.[/B] So when you read prideful, stubborn nonsense on Internet forums, keep this in mind. It is a proud tradition of my fundamentalist heritage here in the Bible Belt. [B]So I ask you all ---- Christians and non-Christians alike ---- does this make sense? Do you truly think it likely that Bible interpretations are less prone to error than science interpretations?[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Who does Ken Ham appear to have so many more fans than Dr. Francis Collins?
Top
Bottom