Why a literalist presumption?

[shernren]

If NT's Adam references OT's Adam, then we can only derive the meaning of NT's Adam from the meaning of OT's Adam. which is?

 

[gluadys]

I'm going to have to side here with SBG. The word "Adam" in the New Testament is definitely nothing but the proper name of the character seen in Genesis 2. "Adam" is thus to Hebrew like "Guy" is to English. The NT is definitely referencing the Genesis character every time it uses the word "Adam".

I have no problem with this. Since the only NT use of "Adam" is as a proper name for the character in Genesis 2, I can accept that in that context it means "first man".

But if one then asks: "What does the name 'Adam' mean?" you have to go to the common Hebrew noun for the meaning, and that meaning does not include "first man".

It is true, however, that at least in Pauline theological references, he is to be taken as a type for humanity, whether or not Paul took it that way personally. We have no reason to doubt that Paul believed he was an historical figure. Adam's theological significance as simultaneously a type of humanity and a shadow of Christ is perfectly intact either way.

 

[TwinCrier]

I have no problem with this. Since the only NT use of "Adam" is as a proper name for the character in Genesis 2, I can accept that in that context it means "first man".

But if one then asks: "What does the name 'Adam' mean?" you have to go to the common Hebrew noun for the meaning, and that meaning does not include "first man".

Adam does not need to mean 'first man' for Adam to be the first man. In reality Adam is simply an English word we use for this person.

 

[vossler]

SBG, you might as well be completely honest and say that you believe TEs will go to hell. That's what you're implying anyway: in various places you have called us false prophets, unsaved people, deceivers and wolves. If this gets me a warning, so be it. If this causes the thread to close, so be it. Better this thread be closed and I be banned than to have to senselessly beat up people who are in the same Kingdom and under the same King I'm under.

This is a perfect example of the damage AiG's brand of militant creationism has done to the Body of Christ.

Sorry if I have hurt you or anyone. But it needs to be said.

I don't wish to speak for SBG, but as someone who has been following this thread and many others concerning this topic I will try to add a different perspective that may eluminate this conundrum.

First of all if you don't know already I'm a YEC. I also support most everything SBG has been saying. However, I don't believe anything he has said, or for that matter AiG, can or should be labeled "militant." He is just fervent in his belief that TEs have watered down the Word of God with their interpretation of Genesis. They have allowed science to supercede the plain and simple Word. I know that TEs would and have argued that they don't and therein lies the problem. TEs believe each can hold to their interpretation and that we should be able to coexist without strong disagreements. I would hope that I can be as fervent in my defense of God's Word as SBG has been. Of course he is human and will make mistakes along the way, but the fact remains he is sticking his neck out to defend God's Word and I for one will never criticize him for it.

My belief, as a YEC, is that TEs subvert the foundation of the Word of God with how they see Genesis. This then opens up the rest of scripture to other alternative interpretations and presents an, at best, confusing witness to the non-believer. That, to me and I suspect SBG, is the crux of the issue, the non-believer.

 

[gluadys]

My belief, as a YEC, is that TEs subvert the foundation of the Word of God with how they see Genesis. This then opens up the rest of scripture to other alternative interpretations and presents an, at best, confusing witness to the non-believer. That, to me and I suspect SBG, is the crux of the issue, the non-believer.

Alternative interpretations of Christian beliefs have been part and parcel of Christianity since its inception.

What is wrong with alternative interpretations as long as they do not contravene the core of Christian faith?

Your position is based on the belief that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation. You, as a YEC, fully understand the Word of God in scripture and I, as a TE, do not. Anything other than your preferred interpretation is then judged as "watering down" (and that is one of the most polite phrases I have seen) scripture.

The crux of the matter to me is this. Evolution is fact. We know that as surely as we know apples fall from trees. The age of the earth and of the universe is fact. We know that as surely as we know the date of the Mayflower's landing at Plymouth Rock. That the flood was not global is a fact. We know that as surely as we know the height of Mt. Everest.

You may choose not to believe these facts, but that doesn't make them any the less factual.

But given these facts, how can those of us who believe scripture is the Word of God possibly believe that it flies in the face of those facts? How can the Word of God say that the truth is a lie? Anything which says the truth is a lie cannot---simply cannot---be the Word of God. So if you insist that scripture contradicts fact, you cannot also claim it is the Word of God.

The only way I can accept YEC is to be convinced the facts are not facts. And YECists have signally failed to show this.

 

[SBG]

No, SBG, I didn't leave anything out. I was just completing the entry you had posted. Note I didn't leave "first man" out of the blueletterbible quote.

Red Earth come from the Hebrew. I was never, once, stating that Adam in Greek did not come from the Hebrew word. I was rather stating that Adam is a Greek word, just as Adam is an english word.

And please read carefully! You had said (predicted, almost, actually) that Gluadys was going to go on to say that Paul taught that Jesus was just a myth. I said that she wouldn't for the simple reason that she didn't. I had nothing to say about Eve there.

I wasn't predicting that Gluadys was going to do this. I was trying to point to what can be down with this method of interpretation that TEs hold to.

I thought you refering to Eve, my apologies.

But the meaning of a Greek word that is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew word, must directly be equal to or derive from the meaning of the Hebrew word it is a transliteration of, right?

I never was arguing against a transliteration, but this transliteration has become a word in Greek, with a meaning. WOuld you agree or deny that this word has a meaning?

And if you do believe it has a meaning, do you not find the least bit interesting to see what the meaning is to understand how Paul believed?

All of you TEs seem to state we cannot know what Paul believed about Adam, yet here it is in the word itself, Paul's belief. And you simply deny it.

For example, the English language has a word "amuck / amok" that derives from the Malay word "amuk". The word in Malay roughly means "murderously crazy". And so that is also what it means in English. You get my drift? A word's meaning in Language B must respect and be derived from its meaning in Language A.

So fine, you say that Adam in Greek means only "the first man". But its meaning in Greek should respect its meaning in Hebrew, namely "man". Furthermore, is "Adam" used anywhere in Greek other than in the Bible? Because that would strongly support the hypothesis that Adam is a direct transliteration of Hebrew and would thus not have any special meaning in Greek logically independent of its meaning in Hebrew.

Thank you!!! Excellent example of how we take a word in another language and use it in english with bring the meaning of that word over as well.

And look and what Paul believed it meant! First Man. How can you not see this? How can you insist to be blind?

Adam in Hebrew means man and can also mean mankind. We go to the Greek because it is a much more precise language. We can look to the Septuagint in Genesis and see that Adam is translated - in Greek - as the FIRST MAN.

Why do you all insist on not believing this? Why? You claim we cannot know what they believed, but we have EVIDENCE of their belief. You are all so big on evidence and yet you deny it! This is actually evidence that supports the belief that Adam was considered by many to be the First Man, a Literal Man.

If a girl is raped in the city, should she be stoned?
[sarcasm on]How dare you argue that she's innocent! Then you must be dismissing God's Word! You must be denying what Jesus Christ says! [/sarcasm off]

Have you heard, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone.'

We are not under the law, we are under grace now.

I don't deny that Jesus was, is and will be God, was Virgin-born through the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit, and that He rose from the dead. Stop blaming TEism for these heresies: if TEism was directly responsible I would believe these heresies, and yet I don't.

There those who do deny this. Are you now suggesting that people don't deny these things?

Please realize how I stated those sentences to not be direct at any one person but rather stated it 'many TEs.'

TEs hold to inconsistent interpretation that allows you to choose to believe what you want and call it 'an interpretation.'

You know what? If the world was really created in 6 days 6000 years ago, the demons and Satan must have had a first-class seat watching it. Will their knowledge that the world was created in 6 days save them?

No?

Because you act like it will save you.
And you act like our denial of it will damn us.

I have not said creation will save me or another. In fact I have said it won't.

You do not understand what is really going on here? Many TEs think they can interpret the Bible however they wish and they will be ok. They teach this to non-believers, as if it is the truth. The Jesus Seminar does the same thing about Christ's resurrection. They say you don't need to believe He rose from the dead, and the Scriptures clearly say He didn't. Just as many TEs here say, the Scriptures clearly don't teach a 6 day creation, or that Adam is the first man, literally.

Do you not see the similarities? I doubt you do, because you are right in the middle of it. I don't speak here as my point to offend you or hurt you, but if I offend you and you start seeing what the Bible actually says and teaches, then it was worth it.

There are many people on this site alone that used to be TEs and are now atheists. I have talked with many of them during their deconversion to try and help. Each person, lost their faith due to their belief in science. You say it won't happen to you, and everyone else says this too, even when it happens to them. Because nothing like this ever happens to us, it happens to others. This is the attitude of a human being.

There are many TEs here who go and ridicule YECs in the all members forum. They destroy any chance we many have to tell them of Jesus Christ. And yet they say it is our fault, not their. We were not the ones who ridiculed ourselves, TEs did.

I see so many TEs in the all members forum speaking with atheists, and not one speaks of Jesus Christ to them. Can you tell me why? Are you all so ashamed of Jesus Christ that you will not do as He commanded us to do, or do you just hold a different interpretation on this commandment as well?

I see post like, Genesis is wrong, by TEs. Can you tell me how that helps when we are to preach Jesus Christ crucified, and when they ask how we know, we say the Bible tells us. They respond, well Genesis is wrong, even Christians admit this, so why should I trust the Gospels. Or, that is not the correct interpretation of Jesus. Or there are Christians telling me Jesus did not raise from the dead. Or Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Spirit and Psalms says we are all born in sin, so how can Jesus not have been sinful.

You don't think these are things that we (YEC) run against? I have.

TEs destroy Biblical reliablity for non-believers.

SBG, you might as well be completely honest and say that you believe TEs will go to hell. That's what you're implying anyway: in various places you have called us false prophets, unsaved people, deceivers and wolves. If this gets me a warning, so be it. If this causes the thread to close, so be it. Better this thread be closed and I be banned than to have to senselessly beat up people who are in the same Kingdom and under the same King I'm under.

This is a perfect example of the damage AiG's brand of militant creationism has done to the Body of Christ.

Sorry if I have hurt you or anyone. But it needs to be said.

Why do you desire to take my words meant for one, as if they are meant for all? Why do you insist on this?

You and many can read what I have said. I have called Vance a false teacher. I have called GrMorton a wolf in sheeps clothing. I have not called any other TE any of these. And if I felt another was one of these, I would not hesitate to express it, as I have.

I have never called anyone a false prophet. For no one here prophecies.

Would rather I just be quiet, and let people teach that Jesus wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit, Genesis is wrong, etc. Do you not know the skeptical nature of atheists, that you feel so comfortable to deny what Genesis says, and not think that they will take farther than you?

Believe what you want and will about me. God has laid this heavy upon my heart that I do not have a choice but to speak out on these things.

 

[vossler]

Alternative interpretations of Christian beliefs have been part and parcel of Christianity since its inception.

What is wrong with alternative interpretations as long as they do not contravene the core of Christian faith?

True there have been alternative interpretations of beliefs, but if scripture needs multiple interpretations in order for scripture to comply with science then I think we have a problem.

The crux of the matter to me is this. Evolution is fact. We know that as surely as we know apples fall from trees. The age of the earth and of the universe is fact. We know that as surely as we know the date of the Mayflower's landing at Plymouth Rock. That the flood was not global is a fact. We know that as surely as we know the height of Mt. Everest.

You may choose not to believe these facts, but that doesn't make them any the less factual.

But given these facts, how can those of us who believe scripture is the Word of God possibly believe that it flies in the face of those facts? How can the Word of God say that the truth is a lie? Anything which says the truth is a lie cannot---simply cannot---be the Word of God. So if you insist that scripture contradicts fact, you cannot also claim it is the Word of God.

The only way I can accept YEC is to be convinced the facts are not facts. And YECists have signally failed to show this.

You speak a lot about facts, facts can be important but let's not get carried away and equate them to be truth. Only the Bible is truth everything else must be held up to the truths that are written therein. Facts have a funny way of changing over time, yet truth never changes.

You make the claim that the age of the earth and universe is a fact based on science. Tell me has science ever been found to be wrong?

 

[Vance]

Augustine loved Platonic philosophy, and presented his views on Christian doctrine using Platonic (neo-platonic, actually) language and symbolism.

 

[Didaskomenos]

But Vance, Augustine and other "Catholic" fathers hold absolutely no weight for sola scriptura sects. They only quote them when they affirm their own beliefs.

 

[Vance]

But Vance, Augustine and other "Catholic" fathers hold absolutely no weight for sola scriptura sects. They only quote them when they affirm their own beliefs.

That may be true, but SBG cites the early fathers, including Augustine, as just about the final word on the subject. True, not consistently, and choosing to ignore most of what Augustine wrote about Genesis, but still it seems that what they held as true must be what is true (except when what they held as true was not true).

 

[SBG]

That may be true, but SBG cites the early fathers, including Augustine, as just about the final word on the subject. True, not consistently, and choosing to ignore most of what Augustine wrote about Genesis, but still it seems that what they held as true must be what is true (except when what they held as true was not true).

I think you have misunderstood Vance. I do not go to the early church fathers for the final word on the subject.

You must understand God has the final word. When we don't understand what the Bible is speaking of, it is best to look to see if the Apostles talked about it, or the early Church Fathers to gain a better **understanding.**

You blatantly misrepresent Augustine and I have shown this. You remain willfully ignorant of what he taught on this subject, which shows you need to uphold evolution. This the commonality between TEs, and might be the only commonality between them other than believing Jesus is God.

There is still dispute on Jesus being completely and wholly God while here on earth; Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit; Adam and Eve as literal human beings; a literal fall of mankind; God punishing all mankind for its wickedness with a global flood; the Red Sea being parted by God.

 

[gluadys]

I never was arguing against a transliteration, but this transliteration has become a word in Greek, with a meaning. WOuld you agree or deny that this word has a meaning?

I would say it has not become a word in Greek. It is not used in the way a borrowing like "amok" is used in English. In Greek, it is used only as a proper noun, a name, and never as a common noun with a meaning. So the meaning still goes back to the Hebrew meaning of the common noun.

And look and what Paul believed it meant! First Man.

No, Paul believed it was the name of the first man. He knew his Hebrew well enough to know that as a common noun it meant "red earth" or "man".

Adam in Hebrew means man and can also mean mankind. We go to the Greek because it is a much more precise language. We can look to the Septuagint in Genesis and see that Adam is translated - in Greek - as the FIRST MAN.

That's backward about. You do not go to the Greek to determine the meaning of a Hebrew word. You go to the Hebrew. And when the Greek has borrowed the name/word from Hebrew, you still go to the Hebrew.

This is actually evidence that supports the belief that Adam was considered by many to be the First Man, a Literal Man.

Well no one has been questioning that. I have just been saying that "first man" as distinct from "man/mankind" is not the meaning of "adam".

TEs hold to inconsistent interpretation that allows you to choose to believe what you want and call it 'an interpretation.'

Unh-unh. TEs are just as concerned about consistent interpretation as you are. I find much YEC interpretation to be very muddled and inconsistent, and just as likely to be based on choosing what to believe as anything I have seen from TEs. Given the range of TE beliefs, I certainly don't agree with all of them.

We all struggle to interpret scripture correctly, whether or not we consider science plays a role in determining correct interpretation.

I see post like, Genesis is wrong, by TEs.

Please substantiate this claim. I have never seen such a post. I have only seen posts which say the literal reading of Genesis is wrong. Not that Genesis per se is wrong.

TEs destroy Biblical reliablity for non-believers.

And you think YEC doesn't?

 

[gluadys]

True there have been alternative interpretations of beliefs, but if scripture needs multiple interpretations in order for scripture to comply with science then I think we have a problem.

It is not a matter of scripture complying with science, but of scripture being consistent with truth. That includes scientific truth.

You speak a lot about facts, facts can be important but let's not get carried away and equate them to be truth.

Yes, facts are true and very stubbornly true. I would not go so far as to say that only facts are true. But facts are certainly true.

Only the Bible is truth everything else must be held up to the truths that are written therein.

Don't you mean that only God is truth? Or do you actually worship the bible?

Facts have a funny way of changing over time, yet truth never changes.

Neither facts nor truth change. Our apprehension of both can change a great deal.

You make the claim that the age of the earth and universe is a fact based on science. Tell me has science ever been found to be wrong?

Sure, science has been found to be wrong. When science thought the earth was the centre of the universe, science was wrong. Why was it wrong? Because it had the facts wrong. The facts did not change (unless you want to claim that the earth only began to orbit the sun when Copernicus claimed it did). Indeed, it was the unchanging facts which showed the science was wrong.

I stand by what I said about the age of the earth and the universe. If you think science is wrong about this, show me the facts which disprove it.

 

[shernren]

The Bible teaches of Jesus Christ. Without the Bible in existence, you would not know or have heard of Jesus Christ. Biblical teaching is more important than you give it credit for. It teaches how to receive eternal life, it teaches Who gives this eternal life. It teaches how to live in faith. It teaches what is true and truth. It teaches Who made this universe and how He made it, and why. It teaches that He will come again, and if we are not watching, not living as if He is coming tomorrow, we may forfit our gift.

Biblical teaching lead you to know Jesus Christ. So on Judgment Day, you will realize that the only way you can receive eternal life is through Jesus Christ, whom you learned about through God's Word - The Bible.

You will not simply be saved by just claiming He is the Son of God, the True God. The demons know this and believe it, yet they will spend their eternity in the lake of fire. Satan bows to Jesus Christ and yet he will not be saved. You must believe and follow.

These words imply that I and any other TE may not know of Jesus Christ and stand a chance of not being saved. I'm sorry, but at face value that is exactly what it seems. Right?

You do not understand what is really going on here? Many TEs think they can interpret the Bible however they wish and they will be ok. They teach this to non-believers, as if it is the truth. The Jesus Seminar does the same thing about Christ's resurrection. They say you don't need to believe He rose from the dead, and the Scriptures clearly say He didn't. Just as many TEs here say, the Scriptures clearly don't teach a 6 day creation, or that Adam is the first man, literally.

Do you not see the similarities? I doubt you do, because you are right in the middle of it. I don't speak here as my point to offend you or hurt you, but if I offend you and you start seeing what the Bible actually says and teaches, then it was worth it.

There are many people on this site alone that used to be TEs and are now atheists. I have talked with many of them during their deconversion to try and help. Each person, lost their faith due to their belief in science. You say it won't happen to you, and everyone else says this too, even when it happens to them. Because nothing like this ever happens to us, it happens to others. This is the attitude of a human being.

There are many TEs here who go and ridicule YECs in the all members forum. They destroy any chance we many have to tell them of Jesus Christ. And yet they say it is our fault, not their. We were not the ones who ridiculed ourselves, TEs did.

You forget that I was a YEC a few months ago, until I came to this forum. And you may not understand what the YEC ministries look like, being so far inside. Well let me be frank: to the rest of the world, the YEC ministry looks like one big disinformation / misinformation machine. When I bought YEC books, I never heard nothing about varves and isochron dating and algal bloom layers. I heard that the law of Entropy forbids evolution and that there are no transitional forms.

Nobody told me that there was evidence against YECism. Not even a treatment of the concept that all contrary evidence must be fake. (which would have turned me off, of course! "Science" and the Bible? )

And you know what? I've also had experience with atheists before. I told them creationism and they laughed their behinds off at me. Now I realise why: because they were right (at least in that), darn it, evolution happened (or else the world looks jolly lot like it happened: and why need there be a difference?). And if you're trying to fight atheism with YECism, you're barking up the wrong tree. YECism can only be an adjustment of a Christian's beliefs instead of the conversion of an atheist, because the atheist always has stronger science than a Christian, always has a better brain (though not a better eternity because of that!) Fighting an atheist intellectually (in my experience) is like trying to kill a dragon with a Zippo lighter - guess who's going to get burnt? Winning a battle with an atheist is winning the battle of the heart - taking out the self-security that doesn't need God, healing the wounds of past experiences that the atheist blames on a God who must be evil if He exists, cutting through the darkened hide of ideas and treating the wounded soul inside. YECism does nothing for that. Atheists aren't atheists because of atheist education: they are atheists because of atheist emotions and worldviews. YECism does nothing to treat this.

There are many TEs here who go and ridicule YECs in the all members forum. They destroy any chance we many have to tell them of Jesus Christ. And yet they say it is our fault, not their. We were not the ones who ridiculed ourselves, TEs did.

I see so many TEs in the all members forum speaking with atheists, and not one speaks of Jesus Christ to them. Can you tell me why? Are you all so ashamed of Jesus Christ that you will not do as He commanded us to do, or do you just hold a different interpretation on this commandment as well?

You know why atheists shy away from YECists? It's not because TEs come in and wallop you scientifically (they could do it themselves if they wanted), but because they know straight away that you have an agenda they don't agree with. But Christian evangelism has never been about agendas, it's about witnesses. Now, what sort of a witness is it when half the time, the evidence brought in has already been disproved?

And of course TEs don't discuss Jesus Christ's salvation plan in the creation vs. evolution forum.

I see post like, Genesis is wrong, by TEs. Can you tell me how that helps when we are to preach Jesus Christ crucified, and when they ask how we know, we say the Bible tells us. They respond, well Genesis is wrong, even Christians admit this, so why should I trust the Gospels. Or, that is not the correct interpretation of Jesus. Or there are Christians telling me Jesus did not raise from the dead. Or Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Spirit and Psalms says we are all born in sin, so how can Jesus not have been sinful.

You don't think these are things that we (YEC) run against? I have.

Fine. So convince people that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Convince people that the Gospels and Acts were completely historical, and I will back you with data and facts all the way. Does that have anything to do with bashing TEs? No. Don't let a "slippery slope" argument take your aim away from the real enemies. TEs are as opposed against naturalism as you are. I definitely am.

TEs destroy Biblical reliablity for non-believers.

The thing is, YECism destroys scientific reliability for all. Wouldn't you agree?

[size=-1]Reliable: [/size][size=-1]worthy of reliance or trust[/size]

YECism sets up a false contradiction between the reliability of science and the reliability of the Bible. AiG itself admits that it considers all contrary evidence unreliable. A Christian may be able to stomach this, but for the atheist you know what happens?

IF the Bible is reliable THEN science is unreliable
BUT science is reliable THEREFORE the Bible is unreliable.

It's not rocket science. YECism turns atheists away - not because it is Christian, and not because TEs oppose it, but because it is simply wrong.

(There. I've said it. Full circle.)

The ironic thing is that this false contradiction is something very, very, very alien to Christianity. Christian science has always been based on the beliefs that science is reliable, that the physical world as a creation of a good and consistent God must be good and consistent and pleasing to Him and orderly instead of natural laws changing half the time. And along comes "Gee, if the earth looks a few billion years old, God must have badly wanted to trick us!"

In fact, TEism is upholding Biblical reliability. It is showing how what the Bible says is correct when it is read correctly.

I think I have been more and more cutting as time passes. But things need to be said.

 

[TwinCrier]

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

[gluadys]

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Very true. A distinction often forgotten.

I am sure you will agree, however, that it is not wise to deny knowledge.

 

[Didaskomenos]

knowledge - knowing something
wisdom - believing what YEC's say

Is this your only response after reading shernren's great post?

 

[vossler]

It is not a matter of scripture complying with science, but of scripture being consistent with truth. That includes scientific truth.

I think you have things a bit out of order. Scripture is truth and everything else must be consistent with it.

Yes, facts are true and very stubbornly true. I would not go so far as to say that only facts are true. But facts are certainly true.

With man's finite knowledge and pride many facts are considered true that should never be held to such a high degree of certainty.

Don't you mean that only God is truth? Or do you actually worship the bible?

Well since the Bible is God's written Word, therefore by extension it is of God and should be considered truth. Are you advocating that it isn't?

Neither facts nor truth change. Our apprehension of both can change a great deal.

Facts change all the time. It once was a fact that no man could run a mile under 4 minutes, today that no longer is a fact. It once was a fact that man couldn't fly, yet today we have massive airplanes weighing thousands of pounds flying through the air. Truth on the other hand never changes. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Sure, science has been found to be wrong. When science thought the earth was the centre of the universe, science was wrong. Why was it wrong? Because it had the facts wrong. The facts did not change (unless you want to claim that the earth only began to orbit the sun when Copernicus claimed it did). Indeed, it was the unchanging facts which showed the science was wrong.

Truth on the other hand has never been found wrong.

I stand by what I said about the age of the earth and the universe. If you think science is wrong about this, show me the facts which disprove it.

I'm not a scientist and don't wish to pretend to be one. I've seen plenty of convincing (at least to me) evidence that supports a young earth. You have obviously plenty that convinces you otherwise. I'm not willing to get into a *** for tat discussion as to who's evidence is superior. I believe what the Bible tells me, man's knowledge or wisdom doesn't really matter unless it is used to support the Bible.

 

[shernren]

Don't you mean that only God is truth? Or do you actually worship the bible?

Well since the Bible is God's written Word, therefore by extension it is of God and should be considered truth. Are you advocating that it isn't?

Well, since the world was created by a true, self-consistent and orderly God, it should therefore be true, self-consistent and orderly. Unless the world was not created by God?

Sure, science has been found to be wrong. When science thought the earth was the centre of the universe, science was wrong. Why was it wrong? Because it had the facts wrong. The facts did not change (unless you want to claim that the earth only began to orbit the sun when Copernicus claimed it did). Indeed, it was the unchanging facts which showed the science was wrong.

Truth on the other hand has never been found wrong.

Everybody thought God's grand plan involved not eating bacon and getting circumcised until the Apostles adjusted to the situations. Truth never changes but interpretations do.

I believe what the Bible tells me, man's knowledge or wisdom doesn't really matter unless it is used to support the Bible.

I also believe what the Bible tells me! Don't I?

PS. it's kinda funny that CForums censors t-i-t... heh. what's the world coming to.

 

[gluadys]

I think you have things a bit out of order. Scripture is truth and verything else must be consistent with it.

It doesn’t matter which order you put it in. Truth does not disagree with truth. Some truths we learn from scripture. Some from other sources. Wherever you begin, any truth must agree with all other truths.

Yes, facts are true and very stubbornly true. I would not go so far as to say that only facts are true. But facts are certainly true.

With man's finite knowledge and pride many facts are considered true that should never be held to such a high degree of certainty.

Perhaps you don’t understand what a fact is? A fact is true, regardless of anyone’s opinion. Many opinions and hypotheses are considered fact that should not be. But that is a different matter.

Don't you mean that only God is truth? Or do you actually worship the bible?

Well since the Bible is God's written Word, therefore by extension it is of God and should be considered truth. Are you advocating that it isn't?

I was pointing out that the bible is not God. In so far as the bible is true, it is, as you now say, as an extension of the truth of God. A consequence of this is that the bible is not a superior source of truth as compared to other sources. All truth, wherever it is found, is an extension of the truth of God. Since God and God alone, is the one source of all truth, all extensions, such as scripture/nature/teaching of the Church, etc. are on an equal footing. All can be used to correct/ expand /clarify each other.

Neither facts nor truth change. Our apprehension of both can change a great deal.

Facts change all the time. It once was a fact that no man could run a mile under 4 minutes, today that no longer is a fact.

It was never a fact that no man could run a mile in under four minutes. It was a fact that no man had run a mile in under four minutes. This prompted the hypothesis that no man could run a mile under four minutes. When Roger Bannister did run a mile in under four minutes, the hypothesis was falsified. But no fact had changed. It was always a fact that a man could run a mile in under four minutes. We just didn’t know that until somebody did.

It once was a fact that man couldn't fly

It is still a fact that man cannot fly. What we can do is built heavier than air machinery that flies. This falsified the hypothesis that no such machine could be created. It was never a fact that a heavier-than-air craft could not fly. But we did not know that a heavier-than-air craft could fly until the Wright brothers showed it could. It was always true that airplanes could fly. No fact changed. But an incorrect hypothesis was falsified.

Truth on the other hand has never been found wrong.

Well, that is a truism. Or maybe a tautology. It is never the case that the truth is wrong. It may well be the case that we are wrong about the truth.

I'm not a scientist and don't wish to pretend to be one. I've seen plenty of convincing (at least to me) evidence that supports a young earth. You have obviously plenty that convinces you otherwise. I'm not willing to get into a *** for tat discussion as to who's evidence is superior. I believe what the Bible tells me, man's knowledge or wisdom doesn't really matter unless it is used to support the Bible.

IOW, you are not willing to allow your faith in your interpretation of the bible to be exposed to the facts.

What about your faith in God? It may be your interpretation of the bible cannot withstand the truth. But do you honestly think that God cannot?

After all, anything that is true is already known by God to be true, no? So, if evolution is true, that is not a surprise to God.