Critias said:
So then, you agree that the author's intent is wrong when concerning chronology and physical means of creation?
Unless you are using the word "intent" in a way that is unfamiliar to me, no, his intent is not wrong. I don't think he ever intended his six-(actually seven-)day framework to be chronological. I do think he did intend his reference to the firmament to be understood as it was in his time. This is not wrong intent though. This is a matter of being set in a particular time and place in history and having to express his intent through the cultural norms and limited knowledge of that time and place.
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.
You are pulling a Razzelflabben on me.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1582987-for-razzelflabben-lets-communicate-some-more.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1931683-the-quiet-thread-split-post.html
It never ceases to amaze me how she (and now you) can read my post, somehow turn it inside out as you digest it and then tell me I am saying/doing the precise opposite of what I have been saying/doing.
A major theme of all my posts on interpretation is that we must understand the times in which the biblical books were written. We must understand their world-view in order to understand what they were writing. The author of Genesis, like all people of his time and for two millennia after his time, had no inkling of what we call outer space, but believed the sky was a solid structure a finite distance away from the earth and that the sun, moon and stars were fixed to or embedded in that solid structure.
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.
This was covered by other posters.
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 scientists who are Christian agree with these interpretations. They find that when they do the same sort of study or conduct the same sort of experiment they get the same results. So it is not a matter of opinion that these interpretations are correct. It is a matter of observation and experience. Reality, after all, is the same for everyone no matter what their bias or pre-suppositions are.
But again, it just amazes me that you, being a Christian, support people receiving the credit instead of the Creator.
But I have never said that. You have put those words into my mouth. They are your words, not mine.
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.
No I don't understand. A trickster god is common to many pagan and animistic world-views: Anansi in West Africa, Raven among the Native tribes of North-West US & Canada, Loki in Norse mythology, etc. I don't know how trusting that God is not such a deity implies judgment.
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.
"Many" is not "all". I see little similarity between the Catholicism of Miller, the Anglicanism of Polkinghorne, the Pentecostalism of Bakker, etc. on one hand and the militant atheism of Dawkins on the other. And what about Jewish or Buddhist scientists? or even moderate agnostics such as Gould and Eldredge, who, though they are not theists, don't agree philosophically with Dawkins either.
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.
I didn't say "quickly". A better term would be "inexorably".
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.
Scientific intepretations are not just opinions. They are based on observation and experience. Scientists don't easily trust anything that is based on only one study or one experiment. It is necessary for others who do similar studies or similar experiments to get similar results. Also there is the role of prediction. A good theory predicts observations which have not been made yet and suggests what to look for. If subsequent studies turn up what was predicted, there is more than opinion at work here.
When logical arguments lead to false conclusions it is because the premises are wrong. When true premises lead to false conclusions it is because the reasoning contains a logicial fallacy. When the premises are true and the logic is not flawed, the conclusion will be true. It can be pretty difficult at times to avoid wrong -- or at least incomplete-- premises and also logical fallacies. But that is why science is a public quest for knowledge. What one person misses another will detect. What one generation takes for granted another will question.
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.
I don't put my faith in science. I put my faith in God. And as I have already pointed out, my beliefs have not changed.
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.
No, I said "many", not "most". But even if most scientists are not Christian, that doesn't mean that most are atheists. There are non-Christian believers too such as Jews, Muslims, etc. Nor is there any hidden agenda to prove Christianity (or religion in general) wrong. Most atheists don't care if you believe in God as long as you don't require that they do. Very few become promoters of atheism.
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.'
Right on all counts. The earth and heavens will fade away. So will the scriptures, for when we see God face-to-face, there will be no more use for them. But the Word of God which is the source of both creation and the scriptures will remain, for it is eternal. The Word of God is part of the very nature of God. We know the Word of God as the second person of the Trinity and as the agent of creation.
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.
How, when, where -- these are all questions that deal with the mechanics of creation. Who and why are the questions that deal with the metaphysics of creation. The bible focuses on these as they are essential to our relationship with God.
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.
I am not claiming any errors. I am simply claiming that the author used a week-long framework for other than historical, chronological reasons.
So, every test has been done? That would assume there is no more evidence to be found and tested. Quite an assumption Gluadys.
Every test that has been thought of so far. No it does not assume there is no more evidence to be found. All scientific conclusions are understood to be based on known evidence, not undiscovered evidence. New evidence, when found, is a new test of the theory. There has been a lot of new evidence relating to evolution found since 1859, so there have been many new tests of the theory. So far no evidence has falsified or even weakened the theory. In fact new evidence has tended to strengthen the theory. We are much more assured of its accuracy today than Darwin himself ever could have been.
I have not been claiming that six day creation is modern day science.
But you have, since you claim it is a serious alternative to the scientific chronology.
