Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[Critias]

I posted this in the TEs only forum, not realizing it, so here is what I had to say on the subject, in their own forum.

What is sad, is that TEs realize that the Bible and scientists make two contradictory claims, and yet, they choose scientists to believe and assert the Biblical author's intent must be wrong. Yet, without any support for such an assertion (Genesis being a myth/poetic, not historical narrative), they place their faith - on this subject - in scientists being correct.

This is what is going on, no matter how many times a TE tries to deny that they have trusted scientists more than the Biblical authors intent. It is not that this act, alone, is damaging to ones security of salvation, it is the fact that they have allowed this to begin, where will it end?

For some, this will be the only place it will happen, for others, they will deny a virgin birth, they will deny a historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have met those, who are TEs, who do deny such things, who did start off denying Genesis being historical. It is selective interpretation, choosing what you will accept and what you will deny.

Instead of spending the majority of time on Genesis and learning what the author intended to say, I have witnessed TEs spend their time in science, without regard to Genesis, and denying its historical validity because of science, not because of looking deeply into Genesis.

As Gluady's has said, she interprets the Bible in the light of science. This leads to the conclusion that her interpretations of the Bible will change as science changes; being tossed to and fro from doctrine to doctrine. Peter warned of this in his second Epistle talking about the dangers within the Church itself.

Let me ask all TEs something, do you think it is impossible for you, once you have accept Jesus Christ, to lose the salvation He has given you? I am not questioning your salvation, I am asking a simple, yet complex question. So please, keep your strawmen for another day.

 

[Firebird73]

Why not take the bible for what it says? Well, you go tell everyone that your God kills children.

 

[Critias]

If God kills children, He is not justified in doing so?

 

[notto]

Let me ask all TEs something, do you think it is impossible for you, once you have accept Jesus Christ, to lose the salvation He has given you? I am not questioning your salvation, I am asking a simple, yet complex question. So please, keep your strawmen for another day.

Sure, but it won't be because we accept what the creation tells us through careful study of it. Your question assumes that your interpretation of the authors intent is the correct one. I think that is hasty conclusion and a rather convienient one for you. My interpretation of intent differs because of the study of creation and what it shows us (science).

My salvation doesn't depend on your interpretation of the Bible. Neither does yours.

Question for you? Do you feel the same way about old earth creationists?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Instead of spending the majority of time on Genesis and learning what the author intended to say, I have witnessed TEs spend their time in science, without regard to Genesis, and denying its historical validity because of science, not because of looking deeply into Genesis.

to understand how the heavens go---you look to science.
to understand how to go to heaven--you look to Christianity.

to confuse the two, to try to find out how old the earth is, or the order of creation in Genesis 1 is to demean the real points: Providence, anti-polytheism and a defense of the Sabbath.
straining at gnats they swallow camels.



....

 

[gluadys]

I posted this in the TEs only forum, not realizing it, so here is what I had to say on the subject, in their own forum.

What is sad, is that TEs realize that the Bible and scientists make two contradictory claims, and yet, they choose scientists to believe and assert the Biblical author's intent must be wrong. Yet, without any support for such an assertion (Genesis being a myth/poetic, not historical narrative), they place their faith - on this subject - in scientists being correct.

The biblical author's intent is not wrong. It is just not scientific. We need to understand that the biblical author did not have the knowledge base developed over many centuries that would alllow him or her to produce a scientifically accurate account of creation. Nor did s/he need it to convey the important truths s/he was inspired to preach.

So TEs are not saying the biblical author's intent was wrong, but that his/her science is outdated. And believe me, no TE would jettision even the outdated science of the bible if we were not wholy convinced that all the evidence points to the scientific theories being true.

Nor is it a matter of trusting scientists per se. It is a matter, actually, of trusting God.

It is a matter of trusting God on the following matters.

1. The world God created is real.

We disagree with all religions, philosophies and theologies which tell us that the world, in some respect, is illusionary. We do not subscribe to the Hindu idea that the world is an illusion. We do not subscribe to the philosophical notion that we create the world out of our own thoughts. And we reject the idea that the world was given an appearance that does not accord with reality.

We trust that the world God made is real. It is neither God's dream nor ours. And it is not a world of sham appearance.

2. The world God created is rational. It operates on principles of order that hold for all daily ordinary experience. The rationality of the world order is a reflection of the Logos, the Word of God, which brought it into being. Except on occasions when God does an extraordinary work, we can expect the fundamental order built into the world to prevail.

3. The world God created is knowable. God has given us both the sensory capability and the capacity to reason that are required to know the world. These gifts are given for two reasons: a) so that in knowing creation we may praise the Creator as Paul says in Romans; and b) so that we may carry out the function for which we were created--to have dominion over creation. How can we rule or care for what we do not know?

4. God is neither a deceiver nor a trickster. God has not created a sham world. He has not planted evidence in the world that will lead to incorrect conclusions. He has not given us senses and intellects that cannot be ever be trusted. Sure, we may, in our fallen state, misuse God's gifts and rationalize instead of reason. But such fallibilities tend to be confined to individuals and do not enter the realm of objective inter-personal knowing.

5. Both created nature and the bible are revealers of the Word of God. Both created nature and the bible are mediated to us via fallible human interpreters. When science appears to contradict the bible, the first thing we will always ask is whether or not science has misunderstood nature. In fact, even without reference to the bible, this is what scientists do themselves. Every proposition, every hypothesis, every experiment, every study is submitted to the scrutiny of others as part of the scientific method. So, we first ask, always first ask, have scientists made an error. We know scientists are fallible humans. They can misinterpret an observation, they can engage in faulty reasoning. But if we find, time and again, that we get the same answers, even when different methods are used, even when different scientists work on the question, even when new evidence that could be disconfirming turns up and agrees, sooner or later we can no longer sustain the proposition that it is the scientists who have it wrong.

Since God made a real and rational world that is knowable through observation and reasoning, we can conclude that well-tested science has discovered something real about that world.

And as Christians we cannot ignore a truth about God's world.

So then we must turn to the other possible source of error--our fallible human understanding of the truth in scripture. If our traditional understanding of scripture leads us to conclusions which contradict the known reality of creation, we must be reading scripture incorrectly. And there is simply no case to be made to the effect that because a reading is traditional, it is therefore correct.

There are really only two possibilities. Either our reading of nature is wrong or our reading of scripture is wrong. When one has been ruled out, then the other must be the case.

The only other alternative--not available to a Christian--is that the very Word of God from which both creation and scripture come--is not valid in some way.

As Gluady's has said, she interprets the Bible in the light of science. This leads to the conclusion that her interpretations of the Bible will change as science changes; being tossed to and fro from doctrine to doctrine. Peter warned of this in his second Epistle talking about the dangers within the Church itself.

First, as far as doctrine is concerned I subscribe to the Nicene Creed. That creed is at least 1600 years old. What I believe about science and scripture has not given me any reason to change my doctrinal stance. On the contrary, I find that the great statements of faith weather the shifting tides of changing knowledge very well.

Of course, I will change my understanding of scripture as our understanding of creation improves. After all, it makes sense to cast error aside when the truth comes to light. But changing one's understanding of scripture is not something peculiar to TEs.

All Christians who accept the movement of the earth--both its rotation and its orbit around the sun--have changed the traditional interpretation of scripture that prevailed until the days of Copernicus and Galileo.

All Christians who accept that God did not create all species directly, but kinds which subsequently diversified into various species have changed the traditional interpretation of scripture which prevailed until the last quarter of the 19th century.

Christians who believe that the biblical animals known as Behemoth or Leviathan were actually dinosaurs have departed from traditional interpretations of these passages and chosen to allow science to influence their interpretation.

Christians who interpret the "stretching of the heavens" as the expanding of the universe have allowed science to dictate their interpretation of scripture.

And so are those who think the name of Peleg connects with the break-up of Pangea.

All of these changing interpretations are based on new scientific knowledge, even the ones that distort real science. No one even thought of them before the scientific discovery of the earth's movement, of biological evolution, of fossil dinosaurs, of an expanding universe or of tectonic plates and the history of the earth's geography.

TEs at least confine their acceptance of science to well-founded science that has the support of the scientific community. But creationists change their beliefs about scripture according to the science of the day too, and without discriminating between real science and pseudo-science.

So I detect a large dose of irony and hypocrisy in the charge that TEs will change their interpretations of scripture as science changes. We will, but no more (and probably less) than creationists do already.

Let me ask all TEs something, do you think it is impossible for you, once you have accept Jesus Christ, to lose the salvation.

I can't speak for all TEs on this, as we will differ according to our theology. I am a Presbyterian. We believe in eternal security of our salvation. God doesn't change his mind about our salvation.

 

[Critias]

The biblical author's intent is not wrong. It is just not scientific. We need to understand that the biblical author did not have the knowledge base developed over many centuries that would alllow him or her to produce a scientifically accurate account of creation. Nor did s/he need it to convey the important truths s/he was inspired to preach.

So TEs are not saying the biblical author's intent was wrong, but that his/her science is outdated. And believe me, no TE would jettision even the outdated science of the bible if we were not wholy convinced that all the evidence points to the scientific theories being true.

Nor is it a matter of trusting scientists per se. It is a matter, actually, of trusting God.

So, does the Biblical authors intent change throughout time? Or does it always remain that what the author intended will always be what the author intended?

So, if the Biblical author's intent of how God created is outdated, isn't it incorrect today?

It is a matter of trusting God on the following matters.

1. The world God created is real.

We disagree with all religions, philosophies and theologies which tell us that the world, in some respect, is illusionary. We do not subscribe to the Hindu idea that the world is an illusion. We do not subscribe to the philosophical notion that we create the world out of our own thoughts. And we reject the idea that the world was given an appearance that does not accord with reality.

We trust that the world God made is real. It is neither God's dream nor ours. And it is not a world of sham appearance.

2. The world God created is rational. It operates on principles of order that hold for all daily ordinary experience. The rationality of the world order is a reflection of the Logos, the Word of God, which brought it into being. Except on occasions when God does an extraordinary work, we can expect the fundamental order built into the world to prevail.

3. The world God created is knowable. God has given us both the sensory capability and the capacity to reason that are required to know the world. These gifts are given for two reasons: a) so that in knowing creation we may praise the Creator as Paul says in Romans; and b) so that we may carry out the function for which we were created--to have dominion over creation. How can we rule or care for what we do not know?

I agree God has given us the ability to reason and to obtain knowledge. It seems you are suggesting because God gave us this, we cannot use it wrongly. That science who uses them, could not possible use them wrongly or be incorrect with their assumptions.

I think in Romans, Paul was already dealing with the philosophical components of evolution. The Greeks believed in long ages of the earth and spontaneous regeneration. They denied a global flood, which was argued against chiefly by Plato in his time.

I know what bugs you is when someone says scientists ought to give credit to the Creator, but when you see so many scientists who stand on their soap box to demonstrate what "they have done" and what "they have found" negating that they have done nothing other than view what the Creator does, is in itself idolatry. For they are receiving the credit and not the Creator. It still just amazes me that you support this.

4. God is neither a deceiver nor a trickster. God has not created a sham world. He has not planted evidence in the world that will lead to incorrect conclusions. He has not given us senses and intellects that cannot be ever be trusted. Sure, we may, in our fallen state, misuse God's gifts and rationalize instead of reason. But such fallibilities tend to be confined to individuals and do not enter the realm of objective inter-personal knowing.

This line of reasoning is nothing more than standing as God's judge. Subjecting God into an if...then statement and acting that you haven't really subjected God to any type of judgement when you have. You must be aware that it is Satan who stands as God's accuser. It is Satan who says, God didn't really say....

You seem to continue the train of thought that because God has given you something you cannot use it wrongly. I think this ties into your belief that you no matter what you do, you cannot lose the salvation He freely gives to you. So much for the passage that says, "He gives and takes away..."

5. Both created nature and the bible are revealers of the Word of God. Both created nature and the bible are mediated to us via fallible human interpreters. When science appears to contradict the bible, the first thing we will always ask is whether or not science has misunderstood nature. In fact, even without reference to the bible, this is what scientists do themselves. Every proposition, every hypothesis, every experiment, every study is submitted to the scrutiny of others as part of the scientific method. So, we first ask, always first ask, have scientists made an error. We know scientists are fallible humans. They can misinterpret an observation, they can engage in faulty reasoning. But if we find, time and again, that we get the same answers, even when different methods are used, even when different scientists work on the question, even when new evidence that could be disconfirming turns up and agrees, sooner or later we can no longer sustain the proposition that it is the scientists who have it wrong.

Since God made a real and rational world that is knowable through observation and reasoning, we can conclude that well-tested science has discovered something real about that world.

Another TE allusion to the fact that scientists interpretations can't really be wrong because of an ad populum argument.

And as Christians we cannot ignore a truth about God's world.

I agree. But we must test the words of men that interpret what they study against God's Word, if it is relevant to what is in God's Word. If they do not agree, we must reject the teachings of men. I still don't understand why TEs accept the words of men instead of the words of the Bible.

So then we must turn to the other possible source of error--our fallible human understanding of the truth in scripture. If our traditional understanding of scripture leads us to conclusions which contradict the known reality of creation, we must be reading scripture incorrectly. And there is simply no case to be made to the effect that because a reading is traditional, it is therefore correct.

There are really only two possibilities. Either our reading of nature is wrong or our reading of scripture is wrong. When one has been ruled out, then the other must be the case.

And how did you rule out that scientists are indeed correct and the author's intended meaning of the Bible is wrong?

The only other alternative--not available to a Christian--is that the very Word of God from which both creation and scripture come--is not valid in some way.




First, as far as doctrine is concerned I subscribe to the Nicene Creed. That creed is at least 1600 years old. What I believe about science and scripture has not given me any reason to change my doctrinal stance. On the contrary, I find that the great statements of faith weather the shifting tides of changing knowledge very well.

Of course, I will change my understanding of scripture as our understanding of creation improves. After all, it makes sense to cast error aside when the truth comes to light. But changing one's understanding of scripture is not something peculiar to TEs.

I suppose if I was some TEs here I would assert that you are saying I don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed. Since I am not, I believe you have changed your doctrinal stance on Genesis due to science. Doctrine, quite simply, is teachings. The Bible teaches a six day creation, you reject this, therefore changing from a doctrine taught in Genesis.

And I see you automatically assume if scientists change their interpretations that the author's intended meaning of the Bible is wrong and must be changed. Nothing more than a readers selective interpretation that you hold to.

All Christians who accept the movement of the earth--both its rotation and its orbit around the sun--have changed the traditional interpretation of scripture that prevailed until the days of Copernicus and Galileo.

All Christians who accept that God did not create all species directly, but kinds which subsequently diversified into various species have changed the traditional interpretation of scripture which prevailed until the last quarter of the 19th century.

Christians who believe that the biblical animals known as Behemoth or Leviathan were actually dinosaurs have departed from traditional interpretations of these passages and chosen to allow science to influence their interpretation.

Christians who interpret the "stretching of the heavens" as the expanding of the universe have allowed science to dictate their interpretation of scripture.

And so are those who think the name of Peleg connects with the break-up of Pangea.

All of these changing interpretations are based on new scientific knowledge, even the ones that distort real science. No one even thought of them before the scientific discovery of the earth's movement, of biological evolution, of fossil dinosaurs, of an expanding universe or of tectonic plates and the history of the earth's geography.

TEs at least confine their acceptance of science to well-founded science that has the support of the scientific community. But creationists change their beliefs about scripture according to the science of the day too, and without discriminating between real science and pseudo-science.


So I detect a large dose of irony and hypocrisy in the charge that TEs will change their interpretations of scripture as science changes. We will, but no more (and probably less) than creationists do already.

Maybe you would like to speak for me about where I have changed my view point of Scripture to support science? Since I do not keep up with science very much, nor do I do much more than casual reading on the subject, my doctrinal stances have not changed due to science, they have changed due to further reading of the Scriptures.

I just do not see how one justifies changing Scripture to suit the teachings of science.

I can't speak for all TEs on this, as we will differ according to our theology. I am a Presbyterian. We believe in eternal security of our salvation. God doesn't change his mind about our salvation.

And I am now aware of why you take such liberties with Scripture. It seems you don't think there is anything you can do that will have God take salvation away from you.

This is a most dangerous view point, in my opinion. That one can truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, then go ahead and commit as many sins as you wish, because God won't judge you accordingly to these sins, since the believer believes Jesus has already paid for them.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, no need to change your life, or do anything different. Sin as much as you wish, just believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God Lord of all."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And I am now aware of why you take such liberties with Scripture. It seems you don't think there is anything you can do that will have God take salvation away from you.

This is a most dangerous view point, in my opinion. That one can truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, then go ahead and commit as many sins as you wish, because God won't judge you accordingly to these sins, since the believer believes Jesus has already paid for them.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, no need to change your life, or do anything different. Sin as much as you wish, just believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God Lord of all."

you haven't thought much about nor seen much reformed theology to make such a erronous set of statements.



....

 

[Critias]

I haven't, huh? Such an assertion would require to know what I have studied and have not. I don't think you are a mind reader, are you? How well do you know me to make such an assertion about what I have seen or studied?

 

[Micaiah]

to understand how the heavens go---you look to science.
to understand how to go to heaven--you look to Christianity.

to confuse the two, to try to find out how old the earth is, or the order of creation in Genesis 1 is to demean the real points: Providence, anti-polytheism and a defense of the Sabbath.
straining at gnats they swallow camels.
....

It appears you assume God cannot or would not tell man some of the essential facts about nature. That is wrong. While it is true Scripture was not intended as a science text book, that in no way prohibits God from communicating essential truths about nature and Creation in Scripture. And guess what. He has in Genesis 1 and 2. As Creator of heavens and earth, He alone is the supreme authority on the matter. If He provides plain and clear statements about Creation, then we should accept and heed them.

 

[gluadys]

So, does the Biblical authors intent change throughout time? Or does it always remain that what the author intended will always be what the author intended?

The author's intent is always what it was when he wrote. Even if he changed his mind during his lifetime, that could only show up in a different document. It certainly doesn't change after his death.

So, if the Biblical author's intent of how God created is outdated, isn't it incorrect today?

It is not the author's intent that is outdated, but his actual description of the chronology or physical means of creation. TEs agree with the spiritual means of creation i.e. that all was created by the Word of God.

I agree God has given us the ability to reason and to obtain knowledge. It seems you are suggesting because God gave us this, we cannot use it wrongly.

I take it you wrote this before reading the complete post. I specifically said later on that we can use it wrongly.

I think in Romans, Paul was already dealing with the philosophical components of evolution. The Greeks believed in long ages of the earth and spontaneous regeneration. They denied a global flood, which was argued against chiefly by Plato in his time.

I am not going to respond to these speculations. I prefer to stick to the text.

I know what bugs you is when someone says scientists ought to give credit to the Creator, but when you see so many scientists who stand on their soap box to demonstrate what "they have done" and what "they have found" negating that they have done nothing other than view what the Creator does, is in itself idolatry. For they are receiving the credit and not the Creator. It still just amazes me that you support this.

I don't know what it is you expect scientists to write in their reports. They have not observed God. They have observed nature. They have found something in created nature or they have proved something about created nature. Many scientists are not Christian or even theists. That does not negate the validity of their findings. They can be entirely right about what they have found or done even if they don't believe nature is God's creation.

I agree that it would be preferable if every scientist did acknowledge the Creator. But that is not in the cards. The most we can ask of an unbelieving scientist is that she be honest about what she finds in nature. When we have ascertained that the scientific finding is true, we can praise the Creator for revealing it to the scientist.

This line of reasoning is nothing more than standing as God's judge.

Trusting God is judging God? That's a new one.

Another TE allusion to the fact that scientists interpretations can't really be wrong because of an ad populum argument.

Scientists' interpretations can be wrong. That is why one scientist's interpretation of her observations are checked against the observations of other scientists. If an interpretation is wrong, that will be found out through the combined experience of many. It is not an ad populum argument, because we are talking of observation and experience, not mere opinion. Scientists do not assume that any hypothesis is to be trusted on the basis of a single study or experiment. It has to be shown that this model fits reality many times in many ways before a consensus builds up around it.

I agree. But we must test the words of men that interpret what they study against God's Word, if it is relevant to what is in God's Word. If they do not agree, we must reject the teachings of men. I still don't understand why TEs accept the words of men instead of the words of the Bible.

Scientists do test possible interpretations against God's Word. Creation is a product of the Word of God, and when they test their hypotheses against the reality of creation, scientists are testing them against the Word of God in creation, even if they do not know that or believe that.

And how did you rule out that scientists are indeed correct and the author's intended meaning of the Bible is wrong?

The author's intention is not wrong, it is just not scientific as we understand science. The author expresses his meaning through the science of his day, when he uses science at all. If we take time to understand the science of his day, we can understand his intention.

We know scientists are correct when we have made every test possible of their conclusions against the reality of creation and found their findings about nature to be accurate.

Doctrine, quite simply, is teachings. The Bible teaches a six day creation, you reject this, therefore changing from a doctrine taught in Genesis.

Right. And doctrine need not be (in fact is usually not) scientific. I do not dispute that the author of Genesis 1 teaches a 6 day creation. (The author of the second creation account teaches a 1 day creation.) What I dispute is that the author intended the 6 days to be understood scientifically.

And I see you automatically assume if scientists change their interpretations that the author's intended meaning of the Bible is wrong and must be changed.

No, the author's intended meaning does not change at all. But our interpretation of the text must accord with the truth. I don't think the author's intended meaning of the six days in Gen. 1 is scientific. Therefore, I do not consider that it is wrong. OTOH, I do think his view of the structure of the universe which includes the firmament of the second day is intended to be "scientific", in the sense that he assumed it to be fact, and is incorrect.

The inclusion of a firmament in the structure of heaven was an early pre-scientific model of the universe which even creationists no longer believe in. They even deny the author's intended meaning here and re-interpret firmament as atmosphere and/or outer space. Since the firmament was conceived to be a solid structure, this is going against the author's intended meaning.

Maybe you would like to speak for me about where I have changed my view point of Scripture to support science?

You may not believe everything in the list I compiled, but if you believe any one of them, your interpretation of scripture does not accord with how the writer himself, or the church for many millennia interpreted it. Same goes for "firmament" as noted above.

my doctrinal stances have not changed due to science, they have changed due to further reading of the Scriptures.

And as noted previously, my doctrinal stances have not changed either. A change in the interpretation of a passage of scripture does not automatically lead to a change in doctrinal position.

I just do not see how one justifies changing Scripture to suit the teachings of science.

So why do creationists jump on the latest scientific findings and change their interpretations of scripture to fit them? e.g. Peleg = plate tectonics, stretching the heavens = expanding universe, etc. Maybe you are not one who agrees with these re-intepretations. But if you think changing our understanding of scripture to accommodate science (or in these cases pseudo-science) is wrong, don't limit your criticism to TEs. Speak to your fellow creationists as well.

For my part, I do believe that we need to change our understanding of anything we have misunderstood when confronted by the truth. That includes, but is not limited to, scripture. Science is constantly changing our understanding of nature. We have reason to believe that it is usually changing our understanding of nature towards a more accurate approximation of reality. And we believe the Word of God produced that reality. In that sense, as science gives us a more accurate understanding of God's work, it also gives us a deeper understanding of God's Word.

And I am now aware of why you take such liberties with Scripture. It seems you don't think there is anything you can do that will have God take salvation away from you.

This is a most dangerous view point, in my opinion. That one can truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, then go ahead and commit as many sins as you wish, because God won't judge you accordingly to these sins, since the believer believes Jesus has already paid for them.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, no need to change your life, or do anything different. Sin as much as you wish, just believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God Lord of all."

I take it you are not Presbyterian nor a supporter of Reformed theology. I suggest reading Romans 6. Your misrepresentation of the Reformed position is much the same as the misrepresentation of Christian liberty Paul is correcting here.

 

[gluadys]

It appears you assume God cannot or would not tell man some of the essential facts about nature. That is wrong. While it is true Scripture was not intended as a science text book, that in no way prohibits God from communicating essential truths about nature and Creation in Scripture. And guess what. He has in Genesis 1 and 2. As Creator of heavens and earth, He alone is the supreme authority on the matter. If He provides plain and clear statements about Creation, then we should accept and heed them.

Oh I definitely believe God can and has told us some of the essential facts of nature. In nature itself.

He has also communicated in scripture some essential facts about nature which nature itself cannot tell us e.g. that it is his creation, that he is the only creator, that he loves his creation and considers it good, that he created us to care for it and so on.

 

[Critias]

The author's intent is always what it was when he wrote. Even if he changed his mind during his lifetime, that could only show up in a different document. It certainly doesn't change after his death.



It is not the author's intent that is outdated, but his actual description of the chronology or physical means of creation. TEs agree with the spiritual means of creation i.e. that all was created by the Word of God.

So then, you agree that the author's intent is wrong when concerning chronology and physical means of creation?

I take it you wrote this before reading the complete post. I specifically said later on that we can use it wrongly.



I am not going to respond to these speculations. I prefer to stick to the text.

One part of understanding the Bible is understanding the times of which these passages were written in. At this time, what I have described, is what the Greeks believed and what Paul taught against in Acts 17.

From what you have said here, it leads me to think that you are not concerned with the times of which the Biblical Books were written in; thus gaining a fuller understanding of what the author's intended to say.

I don't know what it is you expect scientists to write in their reports. They have not observed God. They have observed nature. They have found something in created nature or they have proved something about created nature. Many scientists are not Christian or even theists. That does not negate the validity of their findings. They can be entirely right about what they have found or done even if they don't believe nature is God's creation.

I agree that it would be preferable if every scientist did acknowledge the Creator. But that is not in the cards. The most we can ask of an unbelieving scientist is that she be honest about what she finds in nature. When we have ascertained that the scientific finding is true, we can praise the Creator for revealing it to the scientist.

I have seen TEs assert that many of these scientists are Christians, yet you say they are not. Which is it? It seems TEs cannot make up their mind on this point.

I wasn't asserting that because scientists are not Christians that it automatically negates the validity of their findings. I believe they have actually found many things, they just haven't interpreted them correctly.

But again, it just amazes me that you, being a Christian, support people receiving the credit instead of the Creator.

Trusting God is judging God? That's a new one.

I think you know exactly what I meant. You started with the presupposition that if you are wrong in your understanding, God is a liar. This if...then statment is nothing more than acting as God's judge. Justify it all you wish and all you want, it is still judging God.

Scientists' interpretations can be wrong. That is why one scientist's interpretation of her observations are checked against the observations of other scientists. If an interpretation is wrong, that will be found out through the combined experience of many. It is not an ad populum argument, because we are talking of observation and experience, not mere opinion. Scientists do not assume that any hypothesis is to be trusted on the basis of a single study or experiment. It has to be shown that this model fits reality many times in many ways before a consensus builds up around it.

I think TEs don't want to admit that many scientists share the same philosophical view point and thus interpret very similiar to one another.

I wouldn't so quick to defend scientists "quickly" weeding out wrong interpretations since we have seen one such wrong interpretation last for over 30 years and be taught as truth.

Interpretations are opinions. And some opinions are true. Often TEs like to say 'how could so many scientist be wrong' which is an ad populum argument.

When the mind chooses to believe, the mind can create interpretations that seem valid to support their assertions. Logic can be used flawlessly and still be wrong in its conclusions. Reasoning is not the pinnacle of truth, but a way to assert our beliefs as being valid.

With science being ever changing, it seems quite foolish to put your faith in such a theory that can prove to be wrong tomorrow. TEs, to me, seem like a constant wave, changing beliefs at a whim of the tide to suit the surrounding oceans.

Scientists do test possible interpretations against God's Word. Creation is a product of the Word of God, and when they test their hypotheses against the reality of creation, scientists are testing them against the Word of God in creation, even if they do not know that or believe that.

I thought you said most scientists are not Christians? If this is true, then their is a hidden agenda to prove Christianity wrong because of their current world view.

What you have demonstrated here is that the earth is equal to the Bible. I believe the Bible says, 'the earth and the heavens will fade away, but My Word will always remain.'

The author's intention is not wrong, it is just not scientific as we understand science. The author expresses his meaning through the science of his day, when he uses science at all. If we take time to understand the science of his day, we can understand his intention.

We are not talking about science. Genesis gives a framework of what God did and when. Even this TEs deny as being what happened. Forget the how for a moment and you will see yourself and others denying the when - everything created on a certain day within six days.

I believe the author expressed what God wanted Him to express which lays whatever errors you claim at the feet of God, not Moses. And for the science of Moses' day, it said nothing of creation in six days and what was created on what day.

We know scientists are correct when we have made every test possible of their conclusions against the reality of creation and found their findings about nature to be accurate.

So, every test has been done? That would assume there is no more evidence to be found and tested. Quite an assumption Gluadys.

Right. And doctrine need not be (in fact is usually not) scientific. I do not dispute that the author of Genesis 1 teaches a 6 day creation. (The author of the second creation account teaches a 1 day creation.) What I dispute is that the author intended the 6 days to be understood scientifically.

I have not been claiming that six day creation is modern day science. And if you think Genesis 2 teaches a 1 day creation of all things, I can see why you have troubles understanding Genesis.

No, the author's intended meaning does not change at all. But our interpretation of the text must accord with the truth. I don't think the author's intended meaning of the six days in Gen. 1 is scientific. Therefore, I do not consider that it is wrong. OTOH, I do think his view of the structure of the universe which includes the firmament of the second day is intended to be "scientific", in the sense that he assumed it to be fact, and is incorrect.

If you change the interpretation of Genesis so that it does not coincide with the authors intent, you have put your own meaning into the text. Again, another reason why I think many TEs, such as yourself, have such problems with Genesis.

Atleast you can be honest enough to state that you think the author of Genesis is wrong about the structure of the universe. Since, God is the one who inspired what is written in Genesis, you believe God is wrong.

The inclusion of a firmament in the structure of heaven was an early pre-scientific model of the universe which even creationists no longer believe in. They even deny the author's intended meaning here and re-interpret firmament as atmosphere and/or outer space. Since the firmament was conceived to be a solid structure, this is going against the author's intended meaning.

Actually, many ancient Hebrews believed the firmament was a solid structure and that is where modern day creationists got this idea.

And let me make this clear, I don't think TEs are the only ones who dismiss an authors intended meaning, I see yecs doing the same thing on other passages within the Bible.

You may not believe everything in the list I compiled, but if you believe any one of them, your interpretation of scripture does not accord with how the writer himself, or the church for many millennia interpreted it. Same goes for "firmament" as noted above.

As I stated, the firmament is not some new teaching invented by modern day creationists.

As far as the movement of the earth, where does the Bible say this doesn't happen? I would hope that you could actually give real examples, within context, knowing full well what the author intended to say. Not some Psalms that is poetic or a passage used to speak figuratively.

On one note, I would agree with you that throughout the years many have made the Bible say what they wanted it to say. Today, it isn't just TEs who I think do this, but many others, including yecs, oecs on different issues. I have spent many hours debating fellow yecs on other issues that I think they are completely wrong on.

For me, this isn't about upholding a yec position, I don't care about that. What I care about is Truth, God's Truth that I believe is within the Bible. I believe in treating this with care and indepth study. I don't just disagree with TEs on this issue, I disagree with many yecs on other issues. So, I hope this is clear that I don't care about a yec position, but Biblical Truth.

And as noted previously, my doctrinal stances have not changed either. A change in the interpretation of a passage of scripture does not automatically lead to a change in doctrinal position.



So why do creationists jump on the latest scientific findings and change their interpretations of scripture to fit them? e.g. Peleg = plate tectonics, stretching the heavens = expanding universe, etc. Maybe you are not one who agrees with these re-intepretations. But if you think changing our understanding of scripture to accommodate science (or in these cases pseudo-science) is wrong, don't limit your criticism to TEs. Speak to your fellow creationists as well.

As I said previously, I have not limited my criticism to just TEs.

For my part, I do believe that we need to change our understanding of anything we have misunderstood when confronted by the truth. That includes, but is not limited to, scripture. Science is constantly changing our understanding of nature. We have reason to believe that it is usually changing our understanding of nature towards a more accurate approximation of reality. And we believe the Word of God produced that reality. In that sense, as science gives us a more accurate understanding of God's work, it also gives us a deeper understanding of God's Word.




I take it you are not Presbyterian nor a supporter of Reformed theology. I suggest reading Romans 6. Your misrepresentation of the Reformed position is much the same as the misrepresentation of Christian liberty Paul is correcting here.

I disagree that Paul is speaking about once you accept Jesus as your Savior, there is nothing you can do to lose the Salvation He has given you.

For one who is a TE and believes that Adam died spiritually, after he was with God, your position of eternal security doesn't make much sense.

Look to the following verses and explain how eternal security is true:

Ezekiel 3:20, 33:13, 33:18
Romans 6:16, 8:13
Galatians 5:19-21; 6:8-9
James 1:14-16; 5:19-20

This is just a few verses that warn believers to not turn to unrighteousness. If we are eternally secure, why does James warn believers to not be deceived because it leads to spiritual death? If we are eternally secure in salvation, there is no need for such a warning.

As I said, I understand now why you and others here take such a liberties with Scripture: the belief that there is nothing you can do that would cause God to take away what He has given. This renders the verse "He gives and takes away" useless.

 

[gluadys]

I made the stupid error of attempting an extensive answer on-line and lost two hours work.

Will try again tomorrow, with a word processing program.

 

[artybloke]

It appears you assume God cannot or would not tell man some of the essential facts about nature.

Why is creation in 6 days an "essential fact?* To what exactly is it essential?

 

[Micaiah]

What do you consider to be an essential fact regarding Creation, and why?

 

[artybloke]

Answering questions with questions in not a good way of squirming out of them.

 

[Micaiah]

Here is another thing for TE's to consider. I haven't seen any that came out and said straight that God could not communicate some of the essential facts of creation to humanity in Scripture.

Lets assume for the sake of this argument that Genesis 1 is a historical account of Creation, and the facts asserted are true. Is there any reason that would prevent God revealling these facts to humanity?

 

[Critias]

I made the stupid error of attempting an extensive answer on-line and lost two hours work.

Will try again tomorrow, with a word processing program.

No worries. This has happened to me as well.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Here is another thing for TE's to consider. I haven't seen any that came out and said straight that God could not communicate some of the essential facts of creation to humanity in Scripture.

Lets assume for the sake of this argument that Genesis 1 is a historical account of Creation, and the facts asserted are true. Is there any reason that would prevent God revealling these facts to humanity?

the science of the day.

Say you wish to tell the ancients Hebrews what you know about the universe.

how does it differ from theirs?
your worldview is very desacralized from theirs. you probably don't believe that there are spirits in trees, nor do you believe that gods inhabit the stars etc.
heliocentric
spherical earth
no fixed point in space is privileged
space is not Euclidean
atomic theory
quantum mechanics
disease is not necessarily caused by demons

etc.

now try to explain any one of these to an Amazonian native who just last week discovered that the world is bigger than his few square miles of forest.

then ask yourself why you embarked on this quest. What difference does it make to the statement God is Creator of all that exists if the person is geocentric or heliocentric? or understands quantum chromodynamics or thinks gluon is the constituent of superglue.

now put the universe in fast forward for a 1000 years.
you are now the amazonian native and they are trying to explain their science to you.
Doesn't "In the Beginning God Created" look good, now.

btw
this is one of the reasons that foreign missions and transcultural communication of the Gospel is so difficult. We know we really don't wish to transmit our culture as if it is the Gospel but we have problems separating the message of the Gospel from the cultural complex that we have in our minds.
....