Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

Sure, just like you and I are. If I can observe something that nature provides then I can consider it a part of God's revelation.

Good. It is my love of nature that has always been my biggest reason for being a theist. I look at the beauty in the natural world and in God's children and it makes my faith stronger. I don't see a problem with using our natural world to speak for God. And that world says its a lot older than we originally thought. But, God is non-temporal so that makes sense to me.

 

[Critias]

That's not a fully accurate representation of the Pharisaical approach to scripture. Jewish interpretation of scripture frequently used the allegorical meaning to a passage over its literal. Sometimes passages were viewed as both allegorical and literal.

I agree, but what TEs do is say it is allegorical not literal. What the Jews did was say it was both, but the allegorical holds the meaning that we need to understand. They did not reject the literal-ness of the passage, they just focused more on what God is trying to say to them through history.

TEs want an either or, instead of the fullness of the text.

But' lets focus on what Paul had to say as recorded by Luke. In Acts Paul is saying that from one man God created all the nations on the earth. Well, that could still be biologically true if looked at through evolution. Universal common descent means that we all share the same biological origin (even though it did not start out as a male mud-pie). Now that could be a way to connect that passage to our biological history but I doubt that that was Paul's intention. Paul was preaching in Athens and saying that God does not reside in a Temple; that our God is the Creator of all. Paul was laying out God's sovereignty not teaching a literal history.

You see, you are doing the same here. You are presenting this as if Paul couldn't be talking about history showing how God has worked through it.

Paul was presenting a real God to the Athenians, not one who works through mythology, but through real history.

We are talking about Paul here. In Paul's letters he used 89 references to OT scripture and many of those he reworded to fit his need sometimes drastically changing the literal meaning of the text. Also, in Galatians 4:24 Paul specifies that he is giving an allegorical meaning to an OT passage. If Paul stated in the text that some scripture has allegorical meaning and he reworded other passages to fit his need, would not it make sense to deduce that Paul's view of scripture was that it had allegorical meaning.

In Galatians 4:24 Paul was showing how Hagar and Sarah represent allegorical covenants and that this passage represents a metaphor of God's relationship with the world. If I were to read the original passage I doubt that I would initially view it as allegory. Yet, when I view the Creation story in Genesis, the story of Noah, and the Tower of Babel I see that they were most likely written as allegory. If Paul interpreted the passage of Sarah and Hagar in an allegorical fashion why would he not view those others as allegory as well. Especially when it appears that they are meant to be read as such?

Ok. First, you need to present where Paul says in Galatians 4:21-27 that what he is talking about - the history of Abraham, his two sons and the convenant and Hagar & Sarah - did not happen in real history.

These things are an allegory, wherein, beside the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God is pointing out something further. It is not being used to teach that Sarah and Hagar were not real people in real history.

It is the TEs who would like to suggest that it is only allegorical and not historical. Thus, each time Sarah is talked about, it is not about a real person in real history.

It is as if TEs want a God who works only in myths and not in history and in our real lives.

I think that you are equating TE's with atheistic views of evolution. The Creation narrative is written in a mythical fashion but it points to a literal God as creator. It just left out the Big Bang, long ages of earth, and all those extinct creatures that came before us (which does not really mean that much because the author of Genesis was more likely concerned with relaying a message about our ontological origin not the biological method).

I don't view scripture in an either or fashion. I just look at some passages as clearly written in an allegorical fashion. The method of creation matters not. What matters is that we were created and that God did the creating and he views his Creation as good.

What of the Hebrew language makes you think Genesis 1-3 is a mythical writing? And what basis do you use to make this assumption? Obviously you must have some Ancient Hebrew writings that are mythical to compare them to to make this assertion.

If God created then world then the world does speak for God. Being created in God's image means being able to appreciate the beauty of the world and experience loving relationships with each other and God. I don't see how uses God's creation to speak for God is making a liar out of Paul. Please elaborate.

I think you are forgetting that sin is within the world, the world is tainted with sin. I am created by God, you are created by God, do we always speak of absolute truth, or do we make mistakes? Does man, being God's creation, always speak for God?

I am of the belief that man is wicked and sinful. That creation is longing to be set free from the bondage of sin.

I'm out of time. Have a good day.

Have a great day too!

 

[vossler]

Ok. You have both made it clear that it doesn't matter what the scientific consensus is. You disagree with the scientific position on these matters because of what scripture says, as you understand scripture.

Does this mean you agree that when nature is investigated scientifically the evidence really does lead to the conclusions scientists have come to?


IOW, the scientists have not misinterpreted the evidence. It really does point to an old universe, an old earth, evolution, common descent and possibly a natural process of abiogenesis. But even though they have not misinterpreted the evidence, they are still wrong based on the word of scripture.

Is that the position you are taking? Just asking for clarification.

I just read Critias' response and rather than restating his points, I'll just ditto them. His thoughts are exactly like my own. Kind of scary.

 

[gluadys]

I just read Critias' response and rather than restating his points, I'll just ditto them. His thoughts are exactly like my own. Kind of scary.

Ok.

Did you see the subsequent response and answer as well? Would you also ditto Critias there?

 

[vossler]

Yes I would.

 

[stumpjumper]

I agree, but what TEs do is say it is allegorical not literal. What the Jews did was say it was both, but the allegorical holds the meaning that we need to understand. They did not reject the literal-ness of the passage, they just focused more on what God is trying to say to them through history.

Yes, that is true in some cases but not all and it varies by which sect of ancient Judaism one looks at. The Essenes were very liberal in their view of scripture (I also have good reason to believe that the Gospel of John was written earlier than originally thought and under in the Qumran Essene community). The Sadducees and the Pharisees both viewed scripture differently in ancient times. Point being there is no consensus on how to interpret OT writings.

TEs want an either or, instead of the fullness of the text.

You see, you are doing the same here. You are presenting this as if Paul couldn't be talking about history showing how God has worked through it.

Paul was presenting a real God to the Athenians, not one who works through mythology, but through real history.

Well yes Paul was presenting a real God. A real God that was incarnate and that lived, died, and was resurrected. That is the real God Paul had on his mind when talking to the Athenians. The story of our Creation is just icing n the cake.

Ok. First, you need to present where Paul says in Galatians 4:21-27 that what he is talking about - the history of Abraham, his two sons and the convenant and Hagar & Sarah - did not happen in real history.

These things are an allegory, wherein, beside the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God is pointing out something further. It is not being used to teach that Sarah and Hagar were not real people in real history.

I don't doubt that Sarah and Hagar were real people. I just see that Paul was looking at the allegorical meaning of that story in that passage and that it would not have been quoted if not for an allegorical message. So if Paul quoted that passage for an allegorical meaning, how do you know that Paul and the other NT writers were not focused on the allegorical meanings of the other NT passages that they quoted.

I think I am starting to see your issue in that some passages like Abraham's wives have allegorical meaning while holding literal history. But, when quoted by NT authors it was the extra-literal meaning that was focused upon.

I still view real history in the early part of Genesis. I view our Creation as real history, there was a real scattering of the people, and we all have a fall and sin. I just don't need a strict literal reading to find that real history.

It is the TEs who would like to suggest that it is only allegorical and not historical. It is as if TEs want a God who works only in myths and not in history and in our real lives.

This might be a problem of semantics. I call the Genesis creation story a mythical creation story even though I view it as a historical account of our past. The myth is in the writing; the history is in the result and what the writing alludes to.

What of the Hebrew language makes you think Genesis 1-3 is a mythical writing? And what basis do you use to make this assumption? Obviously you must have some Ancient Hebrew writings that are mythical to compare them to to make this assertion.

Have you read Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses ? It is a balanced approach to the debates about Biblical history. Alter shows the evolution of ancient Hebrew and how the meanings of the stories changed over time. So, Alter has compared ancient Hebrew writings and he believes that there were real patriarchs like Daniel, Solomon, and others while the stories in Genesis are mythical even though they represent real actions by our Creator.

I also believe that man can make mistakes. I view the writers of the Bible as men even though they were speaking for God.

 

[Critias]

Yes, that is true in some cases but not all and it varies by which sect of ancient Judaism one looks at. The Essenes were very liberal in their view of scripture (I also have good reason to believe that the Gospel of John was written earlier than originally thought and under in the Qumran Essene community). The Sadducees and the Pharisees both viewed scripture differently in ancient times. Point being there is no consensus on how to interpret OT writings.

True, but Jesus, being the Authority in all matters, did refer to Genesis as a real historical account.

Well yes Paul was presenting a real God. A real God that was incarnate and that lived, died, and was resurrected. That is the real God Paul had on his mind when talking to the Athenians. The story of our Creation is just icing n the cake.

Paul started with creation because the Athenians didn't know the Biblical account of creation. They were not familiar with the Old Testament as Jews were, so he had to start from the beginning.

It is an excellent example of evangelism to those who are not Biblically literate. Yet, TEs today suggest this approach, Genesis being a literal, historical narrative, to be wrong and a stumbling block to all who don't believe. I don't think this is true. I think there is a greater stumbling block, being Jesus Christ, that non-believers don't want to have anything to do with thus blame it on YECs belief and testament to the creation account.

I personally think non-believers do not want to come face to face with their own sinful nature and the realization that they need a Redeemer. That they are held accountable for what they do in this life. Thus blame creation and instead of dealing with the real issues.

I can get over the fact that you or another want to hold to the evolutionary theory. I really have no problem with that and I do think that TEs have a wonderful opportunity to reach those atheists who are very science minded. The problem I see in this forum is that TEs don't do that, at least publically, instead - publically - they mock and attack YECs with atheists.

What concerns me about TEs is that the acceptance of evolution leads to the changing of how the Bible was suppose to be understood. That is my position and I feel that there is enough evidence within the writings of the Apostles, Church Fathers and Jesus Christ to support this.

I don't doubt that Sarah and Hagar were real people. I just see that Paul was looking at the allegorical meaning of that story in that passage and that it would not have been quoted if not for an allegorical message. So if Paul quoted that passage for an allegorical meaning, how do you know that Paul and the other NT writers were not focused on the allegorical meanings of the other NT passages that they quoted.

I think I am starting to see your issue in that some passages like Abraham's wives have allegorical meaning while holding literal history. But, when quoted by NT authors it was the extra-literal meaning that was focused upon.

What becomes the issue is that most TEs here take the perspective that if a piece of Scripture can be understood allegorically then it is not literal. We can talk about Genesis 1-3 being an allegory, but for me it is also literal. TEs suggest it is either or. I believe it is both.

The NT writers, when allegorizing Scripture did not dismiss it as not being literal. The many TEs I have spoken with do when they allegorize Scripture.

I still view real history in the early part of Genesis. I view our Creation as real history, there was a real scattering of the people, and we all have a fall and sin. I just don't need a strict literal reading to find that real history.



This might be a problem of semantics. I call the Genesis creation story a mythical creation story even though I view it as a historical account of our past. The myth is in the writing; the history is in the result and what the writing alludes to.

It seems you do as others here, dismiss a literal Genesis because you see it as allegorical. That God did not create in six days.

Have you read Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses ? It is a balanced approach to the debates about Biblical history. Alter shows the evolution of ancient Hebrew and how the meanings of the stories changed over time. So, Alter has compared ancient Hebrew writings and he believes that there were real patriarchs like Daniel, Solomon, and others while the stories in Genesis are mythical even though they represent real actions by our Creator.

No, I have not. I will check it out though.

Have you ever studied Genesis in Hebrew on your own?

I also believe that man can make mistakes. I view the writers of the Bible as men even though they were speaking for God.

I agree. I am just under the impression that when the Spirit is moving someone to speak, they don't speak lies and untruths.

 

[shernren]

This might be a problem of semantics. I call the Genesis creation story a mythical creation story even though I view it as a historical account of our past. The myth is in the writing; the history is in the result and what the writing alludes to.

Whoaa. That's new. Cool. You don't mind elaborating? Because I don't really get it. *hears swoosh of stumpjumper's bombastic words flying over shernren's head*

What becomes the issue is that most TEs here take the perspective that if a piece of Scripture can be understood allegorically then it is not literal. We can talk about Genesis 1-3 being an allegory, but for me it is also literal. TEs suggest it is either or. I believe it is both.

For me at least it is not an either-or. I don't believe that the Creation story is unhistorical purely because it is allegorical/mythical; I believe that the Creation story is unhistorical because the evidence from the natural interpretation of creation seems to discount a historical way of looking at it, and thus the allegorical approach is the best approach.

By contrast, I have no problem believing that the story of Abraham's wives, say, is both historical and allegorical.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It is most certainly is necessary for me

Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement “Word of God” they start going down the path (you’re not there yet ) of calling those that honor and respect God’s Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God. Go figure? Yet, these same evolutionists will take God’s written Word and completely change it’s meaning, finding themselves somehow righteous in the process. Whew, that’s a lot to try and understand. Thankfully, this isn’t something for me to judge.


Yet, for trials such as these I am destined and can take comfort of in Jesus’ Words.

John 16:33: I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." Just as Jesus has overcome the world, so shall I.

James 2: 2-3 goes on to say: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. I may not like being called names but I will count it all joy, because ‘greater is He who is in me the he who is in the world’


2 Thessalonians 1:4 then gives me the order to boast when it states: Therefore, among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. So every time I’m called a blasphemer or idolater I will boast in my faith how Jesus has delivered me and how ‘I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me’

Only a divine revelation.

Please, spare us the histrionics. If you call disagreements on a bulletin board "persecution" you should be thanking God for your unbelievably sheltered, cosetted and cushioned existence. Frankly, while people are being put to death for their faith still around the world, you calling what you stir up here "persecution" borders on the offensive.

When the EAC turns up to put you in San Quentin for being a YEC, you can start talking about persecution. Until then, don't make me laugh.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

For me at least it is not an either-or. I don't believe that the Creation story is unhistorical purely because it is allegorical/mythical; I believe that the Creation story is unhistorical because the evidence from the natural interpretation of creation seems to discount a historical way of looking at it, and thus the allegorical approach is the best approach.

By contrast, I have no problem believing that the story of Abraham's wives, say, is both historical and allegorical.

I agree. I don't think anyone here has said that because Genesis is allegorical it cannot be historical. What we have said is that (approximately):

a) Genesis is allegorical
b) The theological significance of Genesis comes from its allegorical rather than literal interpretation
c) Therefore, whether it is historically accurate or not is a non-issue.

 

[seebs]

Ok. Maybe you are incapable of understanding that when we say God's Word, we are speaking of the Bible and not Jesus. Maybe it is too much for you to understand that Logo does not always mean Jesus in the New Testament.

I am well aware of how you intend it. However, in English, capital letters make proper nouns, and a proper noun refers to a specific thing.

Every time the KJV uses "Word" with a capital W, it is referring to Jesus. Every. Single. Time.

Now, you may argue that you are wise and subtle, and able to maintain this distinction, and it may be so.

But other people are not. And when people see this usage, and conclude from it that the Bible is eternal, or that the Bible is the same as Jesus, they do so because a stumbling-block has been placed in front of them.

Maybe you just feel better to be our accuser. And I suppose John, Peter and Paul are all Idolaters as well because they used the word Logo to refer to a word or words instead of Jesus.

No. Not unless they somehow marked it as referring to the proper noun, instead of the general; which, it seems, they did not.

When one says God's written Word, I think many are quite aware of what is being meant.

Many are. Some are not.

Here's the thing: There is no benefit to this usage. It does not improve things. Using the capital W has been shown to genuinely confuse some of the weaker bretheren. Why would we continue in it, knowing that it creates such a confusion?

It is not "respectful" to choose a usage which we know leads some people into grave error.

Well, if that is problem for you, that we have great respect for what God says, I would tell you to look real hard inside yourself and see why you have such disdain for those who look to God and what He says with reverence. Because that is not the sign of the Spirit when one is offended because another fears God.

But I am not offended that you "fear God". I am offended that you are making a conscious decision to use terminology which confuses many people, and which is absolutely indistinguishable from the terminology of bibliolators.

I have met people, at CF, who genuinely believe that the Bible is part of God. They believe this because they see so many people calling it "the Word".

 

[stumpjumper]

True, but Jesus, being the Authority in all matters, did refer to Genesis as a real historical account.

History is the story of our past. Whether one believes that God created Adam and Eve sometime during the middle stone age or whether the account of our past lines up with Genesis in more of an allegorical fashion, it is still talking about a history (or a story of things that happended in our past). All of the contingencies that Genesis states that God created are accepted by me, it is just how those things came about that are not specified. Why limit God in the manner of bringing these things about?

Look at Genesis. It is obviously set up to tell a specific story about the past of the ancient Israelites. Genesis starts out with "In the beginning" Gen 1 (God created the world). Then it sets out the beginnings of the nations of theh world and then it shows the beginning of the nation of Israel in Gen 12. The story is told by taking these progression into account. You do not lose that by accepting a method of creation that goes into more detail than Genesis 1.

I don't think this is true. I think there is a greater stumbling block, being Jesus Christ, that non-believers don't want to have anything to do with thus blame it on YECs belief and testament to the creation account.

I personally think non-believers do not want to come face to face with their own sinful nature and the realization that they need a Redeemer. That they are held accountable for what they do in this life. Thus blame creation and instead of dealing with the real issues.

Well I think in many cases that is true. I also find the best way to express my beliefs is to lay them out in a manner in which they can be understood. Making a correlation between my beliefs and how they relate to our modern world is one of the first places I start.

What concerns me about TEs is that the acceptance of evolution leads to the changing of how the Bible was suppose to be understood. That is my position and I feel that there is enough evidence within the writings of the Apostles, Church Fathers and Jesus Christ to support this.

What becomes the issue is that most TEs here take the perspective that if a piece of Scripture can be understood allegorically then it is not literal. We can talk about Genesis 1-3 being an allegory, but for me it is also literal. TEs suggest it is either or. I believe it is both.

The NT writers, when allegorizing Scripture did not dismiss it as not being literal. The many TEs I have spoken with do when they allegorize Scripture.

I find that a lot of these views are projected upon scripture by the reader. I am sure there are many parts of Genesis 1-3 that you do not take literally. Also, if you limit what *actually* happened to what is in scripture you are leaving an awful lot of things that I am sure you accept as fact out. Where does Genesis list the creation of protons, neutrons, quarks, dark matter, and dinosaurs. The existence of these are accepted not because the Bible states that God created them but because there is too much evidence to deny their existence.

It seems you do as others here, dismiss a literal Genesis because you see it as allegorical. That God did not create in six days.

The six day account of Creation is a clear allegory. God is omnipotent and non-temporal. Time does not exist for God. Why would God bind himself to time and make himself impotent by needing six days to do something that he could set into motion in an instant? The Big Bang emerged as a thought from God's will in an instant. I find that method of origination much more compatible with an omnipotent God. The six days of Creation and resting on the seventh is man's method of putting into words the incomprehensible act of God's will and power. I'm sorry but I just don't understand why we should limit God's power in such a way.

I agree. I am just under the impression that when the Spirit is moving someone to speak, they don't speak lies and untruths.

That's fine. I'm not arguing against inerrancy. I'm just saying that it is not a lie to allow Creation to speak for God as well. I also do not find that because scripture does not list the actual mechanism for our creation that it is wrong. I just don't find the mechanism all that important. I also find nothing wrong with stating that Moses was putting an account of creation into print in a way in which it would be understood by a pre-scientific people. I don't think he was lying he just hadn't been to the Galapogos islands

 

[gluadys]

Yes I would.

Ok, I have both your and Critias' agreement that this is a fair statement of your position:

Scientists have misinterpreted nature on the questions of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution and are seeking a natural process of abiogenesis which would also be a misinterpretation of nature.

You know that their conclusions are a misinterpretation of nature because they disagree with scripture as you understand it.

Scientists are ignorant (probably) of the fact that they have misinterpreted nature because they are relying solely on the evidence in nature without taking scripture into account.​

But I am still conscious that these are my words, not yours.

I would like you to look at the last paragraph in particular. I took this from Critias' statement that he did not believe most scientists were consciously or deliberately misinterpreting nature, but came to erroneous conclusions because their pre-suppositions were incorrect.

What pre-suppositions would that be? I have assumed here that it is not so much positive pre-suppositions as neglecting to ground their pre-suppositions in scripture, as you understand scripture.

Would you agree with that or do you think that scientists also have in common some positive pre-suppositions? (Note that while some scientists may have naturalistic or atheistic pre-suppositions, this does not count as they are not pre-suppositions common to all scientists.)

If you agree that what scientists have in common is not so much a postive pre-supposition, but rather a failure to take scripture as you understand it into account, then I am left with the same question I had earlier.

It would seem on that basis that any investigation of nature which does not make an a priori assumption of YECism will be led by the evidence of nature itself to the opposite conclusions: old universe, old earth, evolution, possibly natural abiogenesis. How then are the scientists wrong in their interpretation of nature? Is it not rather nature itself that is disagreeing with YECism?

 

[Smidlee]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.

I believe it possible the earth and universe is older than 6,000 years but I don't necessary agree with their much needed 4.5 billions year date.

2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.

this is the old 19th century claim that a simple cell can produce a complex life form. Darwin could easily used this argument as science since in his day cells are thought to be very simple ; like Jell-O. Today they know that this view is totally wrong; the cell is extremely complex from the beginning with many "which came first..." paradoxes. So this view is totally based on faith today since evolutionists doesn't have any example to simple to complex in nature when it comes to the cell/life.

3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.

there more reason to believe the evidence fits All life shares a common creator/designer so it's Universal common design. With examples of very complex human design like a sonar can't come close to match the sonar build into bats.

4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.

there very good reason to doubt these since evolutionist has to rely on supernatural-selection powers and extremely smart genetic mutations.

5.) Life originated via natural processes.

It's more like life orginated vs evolution without a engine or a driver. The cell has factories,machines,motors along with information in it's DNA in which allows it to adapted to it's environment.

 

[Critias]

I am well aware of how you intend it. However, in English, capital letters make proper nouns, and a proper noun refers to a specific thing.

Every time the KJV uses "Word" with a capital W, it is referring to Jesus. Every. Single. Time.

Ok. Proper nouns refer to a specific thing, but that specific thing isn't always the same. God's Word can refer to the Bible.

I am aware of what the KJV does with "Word" being it is capital for Jesus Christ. I am also aware that in the Greek "Word" is not a proper noun in its usage.

Now, you may argue that you are wise and subtle, and able to maintain this distinction, and it may be so.

But other people are not. And when people see this usage, and conclude from it that the Bible is eternal, or that the Bible is the same as Jesus, they do so because a stumbling-block has been placed in front of them.

Actually, it is not a stumbling block because it has been explained over and over again of what we mean. Yet, you continue to call us idolaters.

No. Not unless they somehow marked it as referring to the proper noun, instead of the general; which, it seems, they did not.

The Greek, in John 1:1, does not capitalize the 'l' for Logos. Yet, when it speaks of actually words, it is again not capitalized. So, is John now making a stumbling block?

Many are. Some are not.

Here's the thing: There is no benefit to this usage. It does not improve things. Using the capital W has been shown to genuinely confuse some of the weaker bretheren. Why would we continue in it, knowing that it creates such a confusion?

It is not "respectful" to choose a usage which we know leads some people into grave error.

I suppose it is respectful to call us idolaters here, right?

But I am not offended that you "fear God". I am offended that you are making a conscious decision to use terminology which confuses many people, and which is absolutely indistinguishable from the terminology of bibliolators.

I have met people, at CF, who genuinely believe that the Bible is part of God. They believe this because they see so many people calling it "the Word".

Let me ask you something, are these words that I am typing, are the part of who I am? Or do they have nothing to do with me?

Secondly, when 'God's Word' is used, it is used in the context of something we read or read.

It is obvious that our respect for God's Scripture is something that bothers you. I will concede the point, and use Scriptures instead, whether you have a problem with it or not. And I will capitalized it.

Again, your disdain for us fearing God's Scriptures is something you really ought to look inside yourself and see why you despise us so much for doing so.

Even when you know what we mean, you call us idolaters, why? You know it isn't true, why then do you make such an accusation that is very serious? This is not some light statement and one that demands an answer from you as to why you feel you have the right to call us such when you know it is not true and a very serious accusation.

It is the same as calling us non-Christians here!

 

[gluadys]

I am aware of what the KJV does with "Word" being it is capital for Jesus Christ. I am also aware that in the Greek "Word" is not a proper noun in its usage.

The usage applies only to translation. In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no differentiation of upper and lower case letters. I believe this is still true of Hebrew. The differentiation of upper and lower case letters is a medieval development.

OTOH "Logos" is used as a proper noun in Greek. In addition to its common use meaning "word, logic, study, reasoning" it was used in philosophy to designate the expression of the Mind of the Absolute. In Platonic philosophy all things originate from the Absolute. The Absolute in itself is complete in itself, totally at rest, unchangeable, perfect. The Absolute needs nothing from outside itself. The Absolute does not create. Rather it overflows with being and all contingent beings emanate from the Absolute. The first and highest level of emanation from the Absolute is the outward expression of the Mind or Reason of the Absolute. And from this all other things emanate in increasingly imperfect forms until one gets to inert matter--the polar opposite of the Absolute. "Logos" as a proper noun refers to this first emanation of the Absolute, identified with the Mind/Reason which generates and sustains all things.

 

[Critias]

The usage applies only to translation. In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no differentiation of upper and lower case letters. I believe this is still true of Hebrew. The differentiation of upper and lower case letters is a medieval development.

In the original Greek - Ancient Greek - there are capital and lower case letters. Lamda upper case looks like an upside down capital v.

OTOH "Logos" is used as a proper noun in Greek. In addition to its common use meaning "word, logic, study, reasoning" it was used in philosophy to designate the expression of the Mind of the Absolute. In Platonic philosophy all things originate from the Absolute. The Absolute in itself is complete in itself, totally at rest, unchangeable, perfect. The Absolute needs nothing from outside itself. The Absolute does not create. Rather it overflows with being and all contingent beings emanate from the Absolute. The first and highest level of emanation from the Absolute is the outward expression of the Mind or Reason of the Absolute. And from this all other things emanate in increasingly imperfect forms until one gets to inert matter--the polar opposite of the Absolute. "Logos" as a proper noun refers to this first emanation of the Absolute, identified with the Mind/Reason which generates and sustains all things.

The point that seebs was making was about using a capital to show it as a proper noun. Greek, having capital letters, does not use it in John 1:1 for Logos.

Secondly, if seebs and/or you have a problem with people refering to the Bible as God's Word, then there are hundreds of seminary schools, theologians, and Early Church Fathers that you must also call as idolaters. For if seebs basis for calling us idolaters is because we use a capital W for God's Word, then be consistent, and call everyone of them idolaters as well because they have done the same thing as we are doing, calling the Bible God's Word.

This isn't about the W, it is about falsly accusing us of something we don't do. Seebs even admits he knows we don't mean this, yet he call us idolaters anyways.

Since you, Glaudy's - and anyone else who comes to seebs defense on this issue to support his assertion that YECs who call the Bible God's Word are idolaters - should not be surprised in the future if your faith is called into suspect. For that is what seebs is doing and you by supporting him are doing. It is the same as calling us non-believers and people who don't follow Jesus Christ.

 

[Mikecpking]

I believe Genesis 1 to 3 to be correct and yet, I believe the Earth to be 4,500 million years old. For me the Genesis story is more about the 'Why' and not the 'How'. The truth of Genesis 1 is mankind is the pinnacle of God's creation and culminating in 'Sabbath'. The story of the flood is no mystery; at the end of the last Ice age, there was a massive increase in sea levels, more than 300 feet..There is also enough encouragement in the Bible to study science and all of God's creation.

 

[gluadys]

In the original Greek - Ancient Greek - there are capital and lower case letters. Lamda upper case looks like an upside down capital v.

The point that seebs was making was about using a capital to show it as a proper noun. Greek, having capital letters, does not use it in John 1:1 for Logos.

OK, but did ancient Greek use its uppercase letters with the same implications as we do in English? Practice varies from language to language. German uses upper case on all nouns, not just proper nouns. Some older styles of English used upper case more frequently than we do today.

Secondly, if seebs and/or you have a problem with people refering to the Bible as God's Word, then there are hundreds of seminary schools, theologians, and Early Church Fathers that you must also call as idolaters.

I have no problem with referencing the bible as the word of God (with or without upper case) as long as the theology behind that reference is sound. If the theology behind the reference is a dictation theory of scripture, that is not sound as it is belied by scripture itself.

I have also seen occasional references from creationists to the effect that no one could be saved without the bible. That is also bad theology as salvation is based on faith in Christ, not faith in the bible.

There is also a tendency to equate every reference the bible makes to the Word of God as a self-reference to the bible. But in most, if not all cases, this is not so. Biblical references to writings usually use the term writings (aka scriptures) or an equivalent such as law, statute, commandment, etc. And the bible generally does not equate these writings with the Word of God.

That said, however, it is also true that referring to the scriptures as the word of God is a long-standing tradition in Christianity and I don't quarrel with the practice as long as it is rightly understood.

In what sense can we say the bible is the word of God? We can say this because of the relationship between the bible and Christ who is the eternal and living Word of God. The bible is first and foremost a book about Jesus Christ. It testifies about the encounters people (especially the people of Israel) have had with God in the past. It is also used by the Holy Spirit to speak to us today. The bible forms part of a circle of dynamic relationships involving Christ, the Holy Spirit, the inspired writers of the past and the reader of today in such a way that it becomes, as Martin Luther once called it "a cradle of Christ". Within this relationship, the bible plays an important role in presenting the Logos, Christ, the Word of God, to the reader. In that sense, the bible itself may be referred to, in a derivative sense, as the word of God.

It is really, really important to keep the direction of this relationship in mind. The bible derives its appellation of "word of God" from Christ, the Word of God. Faith and worship must always be centered in Christ, not in the book about Christ. I think most creationists understand and practice this.

But sometimes I see things said that make me wonder if a reversal of this relationship has taken place. A reversal of this relationship is what I refer to as the Islamicization of Christianity. I got this from a study of biblical inspiration many years ago, in which the role of founder and scripture were compared in Christianity and Islam.

Muhammad claimed that every word of the Qur'an was given him directly by God via the angel Gabriel and so the book is the very Word of God. Muhammad was merely the instrument by which it was given to humanity. In Islam, the Word of God is a book, and its founder is a prophet who testifies of the book.

Jesus wrote no book. He gathered a community around him and taught them. That community came to understand and declare that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, the fullness of the Godhead expressed bodily. And they wrote the NT to testify of that Word made flesh.

In Islam, the prophet testifies that a book is the Word of God.
In Christianity, the Christian community writes a book testifying that Christ is the Word of God.

In a way, it is a bit ironic that the books written to proclaim Christ as the Word of God, should come to be called the word of God as well. But as long as the essential relationship that makes the bible dependant on Christ and not the reverse is maintained, I won't quibble about the term.

 

[seebs]

Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement “Word of God” they start going down the path (you’re not there yet ) of calling those that honor and respect God’s Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God.

It took me a while to realize why you don't worry about my concerns about the potential for this belief to lead to idolatry.

(a while back)
Since the Bible is the Word of God then it is co-equal with Him because it came from Him.

(in the same thread)
Since the Words of the Bible came from God then they are equal to Him. It's no different than if I state my name then my name is who I am.

I guess I was wrong to state that this position "could lead to" idolatry.