X-treme Concordism!

[Mallon]

As we've discussed here lately, the biggest difference between evolutionary creationists and neocreationists isn't the tendency of the former to read the Bible allegorically and of the latter to the read the Bible literally. It is that evolutionary creationists subscribe to the idea that God's message is accommodated to the limited perspective of man (accommodationism), whereas neocreationists believe God supersedes the limited perspective of man in order to deliver His message (concordism).
Evolutionary creationists defend their hermeneutic by pointing to instances in the Bible where what we know about the earth obviously doesn't accord with a literal interpretation of Scripture. I did this myself just last week in reply to peace4ever, with reference to the Bible's description of a geocentric earth. In response to this argument, most YECs here have tended to allegorize those passages that refer to the earth being immobile and to the movement of the sun about the earth, which I find odd given their condemnation of allegorizing other parts of the Bible.
Recently, someone by the name of NephilimFree posted a video reponse on youtube to a video series made by author Gordon Glover that defended the accommodationist hermeneutic. NephilimFree makee the point that the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate and even tries defending the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages in order to salvage his concordist hermeneutic. It's quite the sight! He accuses those of us who believe the earth revolves around the sun as buying into "secular science" (where have I heard that before?). You can watch his videos here:

YouTube - glovergj 1​

YouTube - glovergj 2


They are in reponse to Glover's video series here:


BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT Science and Christian Education
​

 

[pgp_protector]

No audio at work I'll have to listen when I get home.

 

[crawfish]

Whoa. Wacky theology aside, the guy creeps me out. It's either the voice or the headset, or a combination of both.

 

[Mallon]

He does kinda look like the Tron Guy

 

[crawfish]

Either way, he's not babysitting my kids.

 

[pgp_protector]

He does kinda look like the Tron Guy

 

[Astronut]

Naturally he's moderating all comments. I doubt he'll allow anything that smashes his geocentric worldview to bits, but I tried.

 

[crawfish]

Did you know that when they do planet flyby's with satelites the satelite does not get captured?

Gravity. It's ONLY a theory.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

They are in reponse to Glover's video series here:

BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT Science and Christian Education

I had not seen this series before. I watched the first two and liked them.

 

[Calypsis4]

"Did you know that when they do planet flyby's with satelites the satelite does not get captured?"

That's an interesting point. So how can much larger objects be 'captured'? I don't think any of them were. I think they were all created in the orbits they were observed in when God created the universe.

 

[pgp_protector]

"Did you know that when they do planet flyby's with satelites the satelite does not get captured?"

That's an interesting point. So how can much larger objects be 'captured'? I don't think any of them were. I think they were all created in the orbits they were observed in when God created the universe.

Are you serious or joking about that being an interesting point
It's so hard to tell now .

 

[philadiddle]

I had not seen this series before. I watched the first two and liked them.

Watch them all, it's so worth it.

About the OP, I could only get 3 minutes into this "response". Is there a reason you posted it? Will i get anything out of it?

 

[Mallon]

About the OP, I could only get 3 minutes into this "response". Is there a reason you posted it? Will i get anything out of it?

Insight into the mind of a fundamentalist?

A good laugh?

 

[Calypsis4]

Are you serious or joking about that being an interesting point
It's so hard to tell now .

If you don't think it was an interesting point then why bother even asking me?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Watch them all, it's so worth it.

About the OP, I could only get 3 minutes into this "response". Is there a reason you posted it? Will i get anything out of it?

He did a very nice job. I watched the 4 at each end. I understood the center set already. I posted my praise and objections on his channel comments.

 

[pgp_protector]

If you don't think it was an interesting point then why bother even asking me?

Well in a discussion forum, people normally like to know what other view points are, but on this site, it's hard to tell if posters are posting their actual view points, or trying to just make sport.

Now that you know Why I asked, care to answer the question ?