Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[Theodor1]

He also doesnt claim we have a young earth and admits the earth is millions of years old, because again, he recognizes the evidence is overwhelming towards an old earth.

It does not matter how old the Earth is. The Bible begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. The Bible talks very little about what happened before that point in time. Most of what we know comes from the natural record that we find in the natural world.

 

[bhsmte]

We do not assume anything. We test the Bible to see if the Bible is true and credible. We do what the Bible says to do and then we look to see if we get the results the Bible says we will get.

Can you provide an example of how you test the bible to determine if it is true and then what results you get related to these tests?

 

[bhsmte]

It does not matter how old the Earth is. The Bible begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. The Bible talks very little about what happened before that point in time. Most of what we know comes from the natural record that we find in the natural world.

Doesn't the bible also begin with creation of the earth as well?

 

[Amora]

I never imagined this thread would hit so many pages. Here are some responses from posts from the fist ~30 pages.

The title of the thread is "Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?" If you reject the miracles of the Bible you reject the Bible in its entirety, which defeats the purpose of the thread. This is a derailment of the topic. It's not about why people believe the Bible, but rather a specific interpretation.

Advanced belief entails duality of thought. I can believe in the supernatural, at the same time as being a realist, a scientist and naturalist. I can belive that miricales as written down by the Torah recorders might simply have been things they did not understand. I don't have all the answers as to how to explain each miracle in a naturalistic way. This does not bother me, because even miracles don't have to have happened for me to accept the Torah as a guideline for life and that God somehow passed it on to humanity. It IS a 3500 year old document. You can interpret things in advanced ways, without losing the essence, and without missing out on the fundamental message.

When people accuse me of not believing the Bible due to accepting evolution, I just think of it this way.

The Bible was never meant to be a science book, and the fact that it doesn't work as a science book doesn't mean it's wrong though.

Say you have a lawnmower, which does its job (mowing your lawn) perfectly fine, but then you try to use it to cut your hair. Obviously that is not going to work out very well.

Does that mean the lawnmower is flawed because it can't cut your hair? No, you're just using it in a way it was never meant to be used.

Indeed, I like the way you put this.

The Book, I believe, is God inspired, not just in idea but in every Word. If He chose to write it in a familiar way for readers, that is good. I don't see how comparing God's Word with the writing of men should have any effect on the Word's accuracy. If other people wrote allegory, that doesn't force God to.

I accept that science has its place and can do cool stuff, especially when it doesn't try to defy the Word of God. A scientist doesn't need to rely on a universe billions of years old to make a car that can take me on a road trip, to broadcast the 50th Anniversary special of Doctor Who, or to remove my gall bladder. Science can do all those things with an earth 6,000 years old as well.

When science decides it doesn't need God and sets out to find "evidence" specifically trying to "disprove" the Bible, that's where they lose me, not in car rides, broadcasts or surgeries.

Science should be theologically agnostic. It's all the same science. While the doctoral performing your surgery can believe in the Cat in the Hat for all I care, the science behind the technology that uses the CT to scan your gall bladder is the same exact same science that is used to peer 100,000 light years deep into the universe. (Ok don't nit pick, my example might not be exact here, my Physics is weak).


The radio waves received by your TV and translated into Dr. Who, are the same radio waves (more or less) used by satellites to read Stokes shifts to measure the speed of stars. (I think here I am on more solid ground). Science does not decide to use or not to use God. People do. People choose to see or not to see God in the natural world. I, personally , choose too.


The Bible is concerned with Humanity and how to live our lives. The beginning chapters of the Bible come to teach us lessons about the grandeur of the universe, about whom God is, about WHY we should listen. Science has no bearing on these questions. The Bible was given or taught to an illiterate people, freed slaves. You expected God or Moses to start teaching them the subtleties of the big bang, genetics and evolution? No. The Bible delivers a universal message. A powerful message.

Accepting evolution as taught requires total rejection of many parts of the Bible, including creation, the destruction and reconstruction of life, and the Fourth Commandment. I don't seen any scenario by which such important components could be false and the remainder of the Scriptures be true. If so, there are hundreds of other miracles which cannot happen in a purely natural world, so those must be false as well. Of course, we all know that the dead cannot return to life after three days, so there goes that "myth."

Maybe believing in evolution doesn't require atheism, but it requires a total rejection of most of the Bible. It also requires you to believe that things like origination of life, origination of matter, and the fact that there is no mechanism for the magical acquisition of genetic information do not matter and are not a part of science.

Comparatively speaking, Marvel comics and evolutionary biologists make exactly the same claims, only Stan Lee never tried to claim his work was factual.

False. Acceptance of the Bible does not mean that science is wrong. There is no connection between the Bible and science.

Not everything is literal. But Genesis 1 and 2 seem quite literal and consistent to me.

How are they consistent? Please answer these 2 simple questions:
Were A&E created at the same time? Or not?
When were the animals created? Before or after A&E?
To answer you will need to say that Ch. 1 is telling us generalities and Ch. 2 specific details. And that one of the chapters is not being literal in the timeline. The stories simply do not match.
Order-wise, and method-wise.

Jewish exegesis has too grappled with this issue for millennium, coming up with various explanations. But many modern Jewish scholars accept now that this is (not at all simply) different aspects of God revealing to us multiple aspects of the world.

This makes the Bible far more complicated and advanced. This gives the Bible extra dimensions that are intended to teach us multiple things. At the end, the Bible is not a science book, nor a history book. It's is a manual for how to live your life.

Your interpretation is obviously different from billions of others who read the Bible daily, including the New Testament.

Probably. It's different than the way many Jews still understand it. So what? 99% of people, do not question what they learned in kindergarten. Why are you surprised?

Here is where many of us stand on the subject:

Genesis 2 is simply a recap or brief summary of additional information not included in Genesis 1, information surrounding the creation of Adam.

It is not intended to be a day by day report of events in sequence as was already done in Genesis 1.
It is simply a brief summary of events surrounding Adam's creation, with no particular sequence.

Therefore, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, but rather, it complements Genesis 1

Again, Ch. 2 says DIFFERENT things than Ch. 1. And usually a summary is shorter. Does not change or alter fundamental facts. Ch. 2 changes the story in a fundamental way. Nothing simple about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

CAn you prove me wrong or are you just blowing smoke?

What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?

What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to accept it as being millions of years old?

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

From where I sit, you have accepted a dogma that requires you to ignore all evidence.

That is one of the saddist comments a skeptic can make. That was the ignorance of the time and based on a false doctrine and the Bib le does not say such a thing. Try coming into the 21st century

I will first wait for you to come into the 19th century where they discovered that the Earth was quite old, that there was no global flood 4,000 years ago, and that diverse species share a common ancestor.

Your ignorance continues.

Says the person who ignores the last 200 years of scientific discovery.

Talk is cheap. Present your facts. Don't forget to bring along your evidence. Then we will see who loses.

You first. Present the evidence that supports your claims.

 

[KWCrazy]

False. Acceptance of the Bible does not mean that science is wrong. There is no connection between the Bible and science.

There is no connection between the creation of man and evolution either. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between a 6,000 year old creation and a 13.5 billion year old earth. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between a global flood and the "scientific" claim in never happened. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between the 333 miracles listed in the Bible and a naturalistic view which denies that miracles happen. Which do you believe?
There is no connection between the Scriptures which tell us that we struggle against principalities not of this world and scientists who claim that anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste or test simply does not exist. Which do you believe?

Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." What do you believe?

I don't believe in the Scriptures because the science of man validates the miracles it describes, I believe in the Scriptures because they are the words of and from my God,

What do you believe?

 

[lasthero]

There is no connection between the Scriptures which tell us that we struggle against principalities not of this world and scientists who claim that anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste or test simply does not exist. Which do you believe?

When did a scientist say that?

 

[EternalDragon]

What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?

What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to accept it as being millions of years old?

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

From where I sit, you have accepted a dogma that requires you to ignore all evidence.

There may be certain conclusions to the evidence that you accept to be true but there is no "evidence" for those things. Please stop confusing certain conclusions to the evidence as the actual evidence.

 

[frogman2x]

What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?

Evidence that has been proven.

What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to accept it as being millions of years old?

A formation does not prove age any more than a dirdty rock does.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

One fossil cannot be transitional. Remember it takes 2 to tango and in the case of fossils, it take many. Why have no intermediated fossils been found in over 100 years. Most scientist acknowledge the fossil record does not suppoirt evoloution. Ernst Mayr, the current pople of evolutinists said the fossil record is 'Woefully inadequate." To answer your question, you need to show how it possible biologically, not just draw it on a tree.

From where I sit, you have accepted a dogma that requires you to ignore all evidence.

From where I sit you have accepted a pig in a poke. You accept what other say, but do not offer the evidence that supports it.

I will first wait for you to come into the 19th century where they discovered that the Earth was quite old, that there was no global flood 4,000 years ago, and that diverse species share a common ancestor.

Here is a perfect evo example of saying something but not offering any evidence to support it. Thanks. What was the common ancestor of the whale? Don't just quote Gringich, post the biological evidence of how a dog-like animal can lose its legs and and nose and develope fins and a blowhold.

Says the person who ignores the last 200 years of scientific discovery.

I don;t ignore science . Real science can prove what it says. I ignore what evolution says becaue it cannot prove what is preahes.

You first. Present the evidence that supports your claims.

Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.

Life cannot create itself out of what ever you want to say the first matter was.

If the first life form was a single celled organism, it had no bones, no need for bones to survive, and no gene for bones, genetically speaking, it could not produce a kid with bones.

Now refute my evidence and produce your version of how simple life became complex. I wont embarass you by asking how plant life started, you will have an impossible task of explaining how the universe and life came into being.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Back to my question I asked before; what assumptions do you utilize to assume the bible is true and credible?

The same thing you use to assume what evolution preaches is true---FAITH alone. You just need more of it than I do.

You can't explain the universe came into being. I can.

You can't explain how life started or what it was. I can.

Can I proved it? Of course not, but logically speaking matter cannot create itself out of nothing, and if you can't explain how it got here, you have accepted a dogma with no evidence.

kermit


The heavens are declaring the glory of God.

 

[frogman2x]

Can you provide an example of how you test the bible to determine if it is true and then what results you get related to these tests?

Can your provide and example of how you test what evolutioon preaches to determine if it is true and the results you get to these tests?


kermit

 

[frogman2x]

I am not the one making the claim the bible is God's inspired, infallible word.

You are making the claim it is not. I cant prove it is. Can you prove it is not?

Those that do, don't want to hear about the; contradictions, errors, lost originals, unknown authors, added stories centuries later etc. etc. If God is who the bible explains him to be and he inspired a book that was directly attributed to him and was inerrant, than I understand the push back when these glaring issues are pointed out.

Bring it on. Post your 3 favorite supposed contraditions that you got from some skeptic web-site from those who cannot understand the Bbile.

Why couldn't God assure his own book did not have so many errors, contradictions and doubts? Why couldn't he assure the originals were preserved, if the book was his word?

He did.

I never pointed out the Jesus seminar, you did and the historians and scholars I have studied were not involved in that seminar. In fact the scholars I have read have criticized the Jesus seminar and their methods.

Good. Name some of the scholars you read.

Even conservative scholars have come around to admit the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were unknown and they were written decades after Jesus lived. Even conservative scholars admit stories were added to the NT centuries later (women taken into adultery) and they were likely simply made up to add to Jesus' reputation.

Not knowing the author does not mean what they wrote is not true. What they admit is that all of the mss do not include the story of the woman caught in adultery. Since it teaches an important lesson, most believe it should be included. If God did not want it included, it would not be there.

I understand you don't care for an objective critique of the book, but it is what it is, when historical method and objective scholarship is applied to it.

What i object to is you determing what is an objective critique of the book. Conservative scholars critique the book the same way. Why are they wrong?

kermit

 

[Theodor1]

Can your provide and example of how you test what evolutioon preaches to determine if it is true and the results you get to these tests?

Evolution is an explanation for the so called "evidence" that they find in the natural world. Just because the evidence is real does not mean their explanation is true. For example in geology catastrophic theory can be valid at times. The scabland is an example. Yet evolutionists want to disregard the evidence to say catastrophic theory is not valid.

 

[frogman2x]

Really, studying historcity is of no use in your mind? Whynis that?

I did not say it was of no use. I said it will not help you understand the Bible.

kermit

 

[Theodor1]

Those that do, don't want to hear about the; contradictions, errors, lost originals, unknown authors, added stories centuries later etc. etc.

Because they all turn out not to be true. What we believe is based on the truth and what can be shown to be true.

 

[frogman2x]

So the assumption that; "God did it" is not an assumption?

Unless you can prove how the matter in the universe created itself out of nothing, it is not an assumption.

kermit

 

[SkyWriting]

That may be true of you personally, but has does not align with my experience dealing with many other christians.

I agree. Most fail to test their beliefs with any logic. It's a shame, because they have nothing to fear.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please answer these 2 simple questions:
Were A&E created at the same time? Or not?

No Adam was created alone, without a helpmeet.

When were the animals created? Before or after A&E?

The animals were first, in both chapters 1&2.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway


I'm glad that crisis is over......phewww. Both critical questions solved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is clear that the various creationists here do not know what qualifies as evidence.

There is a special definition for scientific evidence that arose from actions of deniers. Science has always had people who will deny evidence. They will claim, as E.D. so often has that certain observations are not evidence.

So here is a link so that you can understand what is and what is not scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a quote from the article:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

So in a nutshell, if an observation supports a scientific hypothesis or theory it is evidence for that theory. The fossil record is evidence for evolution since every fossil found to date fits the evolutionary paradigm. Meanwhile by definition there is no scientific evidence for creationism since creation scientists are afraid to even develop a scientific hypothesis relating to creationism, much less an actual theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is an explanation for the so called "evidence" that they find in the natural world. Just because the evidence is real does not mean their explanation is true. For example in geology catastrophic theory can be valid at times. The scabland is an example. Yet evolutionists want to disregard the evidence to say catastrophic theory is not valid.

Wrong, the scablands are due to a local catastrophic flood. That in no way supports "catastrophic theory". Of course there is no such thing. At best creationists have a "geology catastrophic presupposition". They do not have a theory. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. They have done nowhere near the proper steps to call their idea a theory.