YEC's, answer this...

[vossler]

MY Scientific method is the same scientific method that produced that computer you're working on now, and the medicine you take when you get sick... or do you think that God is what makes the light come on on the screen? Maybe those tablets the doctor gives you are "prayer pills"?

Let's not change what was said, we're talking about the evidence. Your evidence must be able to be aligned with the Word of God, if you can't do it don't then try to subvert what was being said by changing the subject.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let's not change what was said, we're talking about the evidence. Your evidence must be able to be aligned with the Word of God, if you can't do it don't then try to subvert what was being said by changing the subject.

What exactly does it mean "to be aligned with the Word of God"?

take a simple example:
The New Testament talks about coins in at least two places, the encounter that has "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and the fish with the temple tax coin in it's mouth.

Does alignment with Scripture mean that paper money is illegitimate because only coins are mentioned in the NT?

Or does it mean that coins are evil since obviously Jesus never touched a Roman coin because the would be idolatry because the image of the Caesar was imprinted on them?

I've read commentaries taking both of these positions. How do you adjudicate between conflicting interpretations, both claiming that the Bible is the very Word of God, both claiming to be submissive to the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture and yet both with very different and opposing ideas of what the verses mean and imply to us in our economic life.

and this is just a small example. ignore the big ones like baptism, creation, church government etc. What does it mean to align with the Word of God when Christians are so divided about what that word is even saying?

 

[vossler]

What exactly does it mean "to be aligned with the Word of God"?

It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed.

one man says to baptize children. another says this contradicts the Word of God. he says you must baptize only adults who confess Christ.

another man says that "this is my body" means literally that this becomes the body of Christ, and another says that this contradicts the Word of God and that you must receive Christ in through and under the bread and the wine and that it does not become the very body, and yet another says they are both wrong it is a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper.

it appears that even on very important spiritual issues where they are crucial to the faith that this standard "It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed." has no consistency nor can it be applied with any type of objectivity so that more than a handful of Christians agree with any specific position.

this is opposed to the science of the origins issue where millions of people fundamentally agree on not just a few issue in TofE but on very specific subtopics like chimp 2p+2q=human 2 chromosome.

where science is unifying the Christian community is fragmented and each contradicting the others. curious situation don't you say. you could list 20 topics in theology that literally no two Christians posting here would agree on all 20. Yet i could list 100 ideas in the TofE and all the evolutionists here, both theist and not theist would agree on all 100.

your rule: It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed.
boils down to nothing more than "he said-she said" for there is literally no external standard of reference that can adjudicate between opposing viewpoints, analogous to what reality does for science.

 

[vossler]

it appears that even on very important spiritual issues where they are crucial to the faith that this standard "It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed." has no consistency nor can it be applied with any type of objectivity so that more than a handful of Christians agree with any specific position.

This is where you're wrong, for me this is very consistent and can be applied objectively. I haven't had any problem yet.

this is opposed to the science of the origins issue where millions of people fundamentally agree on not just a few issue in TofE but on very specific subtopics like chimp 2p+2q=human 2 chromosome.

The vast majority of the Irealites agreed to build a golden calf, that didn't make them right.

where science is unifying the Christian community is fragmented and each contradicting the others. curious situation don't you say. you could list 20 topics in theology that literally no two Christians posting here would agree on all 20. Yet i could list 100 ideas in the TofE and all the evolutionists here, both theist and not theist would agree on all 100.

I don't expect the Christian community to ever be unified and I certainly don't believe science can, in its present ideology, assist in this endeavor.

your rule: It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed.
boils down to nothing more than "he said-she said" for there is literally no external standard of reference that can adjudicate between opposing viewpoints, analogous to what reality does for science.

Ahh...but the thing your forgeting it isn't what he said, it's what He said. You are right about one thing, there is no external standard to adjudicate between opposing viewpoints...nor should there be.

 

[HisWordIsMySword]

This is where you're wrong, for me this is very consistent and can be applied objectively. I haven't had any problem yet.
The vast majority of the Irealites agreed to build a golden calf, that didn't make them right.

I don't expect the Christian community to ever be unified and I certainly don't believe science can, in its present ideology, assist in this endeavor.
Ahh...but the thing your forgeting it isn't what he said, it's what He said. You are right about one thing, there is no external standard to adjudicate between opposing viewpoints...nor should there be.

Dear vossler,

It is refreshing to see someone stand for God on this so call christian forum. Well done thou good and faithful servant. Continue to fight the good fight.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
it appears that even on very important spiritual issues where they are crucial to the faith that this standard "It means that whatever a man says, if it contradicts God's Word then it is to be dismissed." has no consistency nor can it be applied with any type of objectivity so that more than a handful of Christians agree with any specific position.



This is where you're wrong, for me this is very consistent and can be applied objectively. I haven't had any problem yet.


then please tell me the solution to those problems i listed, for they are substantial issues in the church:
credo or paedo baptism
what does "this is my body" mean.

since you can apply this rule objectively and consistently you can solve two of the difficult problems in the faith. origins pales in significance besides either of those issues.

 

[HisWordIsMySword]

There are those who look upon the Word of God in awe.

There are those who look upon the Word of God in sketicism.

There are those who look upon the Word of God as mere fairy tales.



The ones who look upon the Word of God in awe are those who fear God and believe every Word that is written. For the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

The ones who look upon the Word of God in skepticism are those who compromise his Word and have created God in their own image. They have taken compromise as their God and they are lambs for the slaughter.

The ones who look upon the Word of God as fairy tales are those who have no truth in them. These are men know as the sons of peridtion. These are they who's hearts are know nothing but that which is evil in nature.

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't it good then that we all look on the word of God in awe.

when the bible talks about a large solid sapphire dome over the earth you believe that over the current scientific understanding of the atmosphere?

I have no explanation or comment, it isn't pertinent (at least right now) for me to know what it is or was.

This is really strange. What is you basis for deciding a literal solid sapphire firmament isn't important, but a literal six day creation is?

 

[vossler]

then please tell me the solution to those problems i listed, for they are substantial issues in the church:
credo or paedo baptism
what does "this is my body" mean.

Before I answer, I first wish to say I don't have all the answers and don't wish to anyone to think that I do. I also don't wish you to challenge me with further questions of doctrine or faith. I will say this though, if there is a question, pertinent to my life, out there that I need an answer to I believe God's Word has it.

Now to at least partially answer your question. Jesus commanded us to perform communion or the Lord's Supper as outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. He did this by asking us to break bread just as He was broken and to eat it in rememberance of Him. In the process of doing so we humble ourselves by reflecting on our relationship with Him. We do this so that we may never forget the wonderful gift He has given us and so that we may never take Him for granted. The bread and wine are symbolic for Christ's body and blood. They are probably the most profound symbols that the world has ever known and do a great job of effectively summarizing the entire Christian faith.

I've just given you the cliff notes to the bread, but given that this is the Origins forum and not pertinent to this thread I'll leave the rest for another place and time.

I can see why the Lord's Supper might be confusing to you and many other Christians, but it really isn't that difficult to understand. The problem is that today's churches do a poor job of teaching and performing it.

 

[vossler]

This is really strange. What is you basis for deciding a literal solid sapphire firmament isn't important, but a literal six day creation is?

First of all my Bible doesn't say there is a 'solid sapphire firmament' so that should give some credence to why it may not be important; however, it does mention a six day creation.

 

[jeffweeder]

QUOTE ENEMY
Do you have a source for this besides "my pastor said"?

I dont have a pastor.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/25/nflood25.xml

QUOTE RM
It seems England seperated from France in a mere 24hrs by floodwaters. (the suggestion was made that we rewrite the text books, that said long ages of erosion did it)

it was a dam break and the emptying of a large lake, just like the badlands of western washington state. it not only does not support a global flood but shows the evidence that a global flood is not shown by anything in geology.

ask yourself a simple question:
in a global flood, where does the water flow to?
where is there someplace that is not also getting rained on?

Why are marine fossils found on top of EVERY high peak in the world?

Where did the flood waters go?

the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep.’
The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters , and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God’s command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5–6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!
Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).
That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19 We need to remember that about 70% of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21

 

[philadiddle]

First of all my Bible doesn't say there is a 'solid sapphire firmament' so that should give some credence to why it may not be important; however, it does mention a six day creation.

but the bible wasn't written in english, the hebrew word for "expanse" is not reffering to the atmosphere, it is talking about a solid sapphire dome, as i have shown with a reliable source in post 23. It literally means a solid dome. That's how it was written. I would like for u to show me a source that explains how the Hebrew word rãqîa‹ means atmosphere.

Have you ever watched a dubbed foriegn film? ever get the feeling something is missing from the plot? that's because foriegn films are done in another language and take different cultural issues into their context. We must keep this in mind when trying to determine what the bible is "literally" saying.

 

[philadiddle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/25/nflood25.xml

i'm curious, y would u accept part of the finding as evidence for your 6000 year old earth, but ignore the rest of the research

The flood would have taken place between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, sweeping away hills between Britain and what is now France.

do you accept the time frame they gave? or just the part of the article that coincides with your creation myth

The lake, hundreds of feet above sea level, finally overflowed the chalk ridge and swept down towards the Atlantic. The water washed away the soft chalk hills and left the British Isles a separate land mass.

the research indicates a lake caused the flood, not a worldwide epidemic of water from above and below the earth, or do you have information the researchers didn't have?

 

[jeffweeder]

do you accept the time frame they gave? or just the part of the article that coincides with your creation

No i dont accept the time frame, but they are getting closer to the truth arent they? The scientist doesnt look like he's a creationist, yet he is saying a flood must of done it.....He doesnt sound that confident about the date to begin with.

 

[jeffweeder]

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650

Article on the firmament

 

[shernren]

Before I answer, I first wish to say I don't have all the answers and don't wish to anyone to think that I do. I also don't wish you to challenge me with further questions of doctrine or faith. I will say this though, if there is a question, pertinent to my life, out there that I need an answer to I believe God's Word has it.

Then why do you seem to have all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1? You profess to have no authority to explore such pertinent and important issues as the sacramental presence of Jesus in worship (Holy Communion) or the relevance of baptism, and yet origins theology is open-and-shut, "evolutionism contradicts the Word of God" simplicity? If even in pivotal issues like the Eucharist and baptism the Bible gives different opinions to different people, what gives you the authority to decide that there can only be one correct interpretation of such an obscure issue as the historicity as Genesis 1, and that this authentically Scriptural view is YECism?

Now to at least partially answer your question. Jesus commanded us to perform communion or the Lord's Supper as outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. He did this by asking us to break bread just as He was broken and to eat it in rememberance of Him. In the process of doing so we humble ourselves by reflecting on our relationship with Him. We do this so that we may never forget the wonderful gift He has given us and so that we may never take Him for granted. The bread and wine are symbolic for Christ's body and blood. They are probably the most profound symbols that the world has ever known and do a great job of effectively summarizing the entire Christian faith.

This is entirely arbitrary, a view that dilutes much of what Scripture has to say regarding the significance of the Eucharist.

For example, why does Jesus say that this is His body and blood? If it was just a symbol or a sign, why didn't He just say so? Why did He furthermore say in John that nobody would be saved unless they ate His body and blood?

What about Paul's Eucharist passages, the one you quoted is in the midst of a severe injunction to eat the Lord's Supper properly. But if it is merely a symbol why would there be such severe condemnation awaiting those who do not take it properly? Doesn't it make far more sense that those who improperly eat it have somehow transgressed against a Jesus very real and present in the elements?

If your position was truly Scriptural where do the early church fathers not speak of it? Symbol-only interpretation effectively began with Zwingli (AFAIK), a 16th-century Reformationist, so are you saying that for 15 centuries when Christians thought that Jesus was actually present in some way in the bread and wine they were mistaken? Why didn't the Holy Spirit tell them any earlier?

The point I (and others) are making is that if Scripture gives no monolithic, universally-agreed interpretation over such a central issue as the "queen of all sacraments" (in Roman Catholicism), why do you expect it to give a universally-agreed interpretation of Genesis 1? If Scripture cannot discriminate between Christians arguing over such a central issue, who are you to say that it can discriminate between Christians disagreed over such peripheral issues as the age of the earth and the biological origin of man?

 

[vossler]

but the bible wasn't written in english, the hebrew word for "expanse" is not reffering to the atmosphere, it is talking about a solid sapphire dome, as i have shown with a reliable source in post 23. It literally means a solid dome. That's how it was written. I would like for u to show me a source that explains how the Hebrew word rãqîa‹ means atmosphere.

Have you ever watched a dubbed foriegn film? ever get the feeling something is missing from the plot? that's because foriegn films are done in another language and take different cultural issues into their context. We must keep this in mind when trying to determine what the bible is "literally" saying.

I see your point; since this is obviously an important point for you I can see why it is necessary for you to investigate it fully. This hasn't been impressed upon me to be all that important yet, maybe someday it will, until then I'll focus on what has been impressed upon me.

 

[vossler]

Then why do you seem to have all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1?

Did I imply that I had all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1? If so, please show me where so that I can quickly repent and correct the disservice I'm doing to my Lord.

You profess to have no authority to explore such pertinent and important issues as the sacramental presence of Jesus in worship (Holy Communion) or the relevance of baptism, and yet origins theology is open-and-shut, "evolutionism contradicts the Word of God" simplicity?

I have all the authority to explore the issues you raised. If I gave you the impression that I didn't, I apologize. Given that this is the Origins forum I thought the discussions were to be centered around that theme and not others.

If even in pivotal issues like the Eucharist and baptism the Bible gives different opinions to different people, what gives you the authority to decide that there can only be one correct interpretation of such an obscure issue as the historicity as Genesis 1, and that this authentically Scriptural view is YECism?

Yes I believe there is only one correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and the Eucharist, baptism etc., it would appear that you don't. I'm free to disagree and state my opinion why, as well as you. I don't have or claim to have the authority to speak for you or anyone else concerning these matters. What I do have is the authority to speak about what the Holy Spirit and God's Word has impressed upon and convicted my heart on. Now if you or others wish to interpret Scripture contrary to the way I do that is your right and perogative. I in no way wish to silence your voice. God's Word stands firmly on it's own, nothing I or you can say will dilute or corrupt it. I believe when God's Word and His Spirit convicts you of what He is impressing upon your heart that one shouldn't shy away from such conviction, but rather voice it loudly. Does that mean I'm always right, no, but until either the Holy Spirit or God's Word show me to be wrong I will continue to boldly and confidently express my beliefs. I'm certainly not here to exercise any authority other than that which has been given to me by my Lord Jesus Christ.

BTW, I am intrigued that you consider the historicity of Genesis 1 as an obscure issue.

This is entirely arbitrary, a view that dilutes much of what Scripture has to say regarding the significance of the Eucharist.

I'm sorry if I in any way diluted or minimized such an important message. The question was asked and I probably shouldn't have attempted to answer it unless I was prepared to give a complete answer; in hindsight I now see I did more of a disservice by responding. If you and others found my response to be inappropriate and insufficient, please forgive my lack of respect, I promise to do better next time.

For example, why does Jesus say that this is His body and blood? If it was just a symbol or a sign, why didn't He just say so? Why did He furthermore say in John that nobody would be saved unless they ate His body and blood?

What about Paul's Eucharist passages, the one you quoted is in the midst of a severe injunction to eat the Lord's Supper properly. But if it is merely a symbol why would there be such severe condemnation awaiting those who do not take it properly? Doesn't it make far more sense that those who improperly eat it have somehow transgressed against a Jesus very real and present in the elements?

If your position was truly Scriptural where do the early church fathers not speak of it? Symbol-only interpretation effectively began with Zwingli (AFAIK), a 16th-century Reformationist, so are you saying that for 15 centuries when Christians thought that Jesus was actually present in some way in the bread and wine they were mistaken? Why didn't the Holy Spirit tell them any earlier?

Given the inadequacy of my previous response, I choose to abstain and not comment because I'm not prepared to give an answer that would be sufficient or appropriate to the question of this thread. This time I'll be smarter and let that one go. I'll leave it to you to provide the more eloquent and learned response. My intention in responding to this question certainly wasn't to provide a complete and definitive answer to such a profound question.

The point I (and others) are making is that if Scripture gives no monolithic, universally-agreed interpretation over such a central issue as the "queen of all sacraments" (in Roman Catholicism), why do you expect it to give a universally-agreed interpretation of Genesis 1? If Scripture cannot discriminate between Christians arguing over such a central issue, who are you to say that it can discriminate between Christians disagreed over such peripheral issues as the age of the earth and the biological origin of man?

I personally believe Scripture, through the Holy Spirit, can discriminate between the many interpretations of man and filter out those that are incorrect. If we all agree that there isn't a single correct interpretation, which seems to be the present mindset, then we'll each have our own independent one that conforms to our own feelings and situations. What we will then have done is create a god of our own choosing, one that says and does what we want him to do.

 

[shernren]

Did I imply that I had all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1? If so, please show me where so that I can quickly repent and correct the disservice I'm doing to my Lord.

points down ->

I have all the authority to explore the issues you raised. If I gave you the impression that I didn't, I apologize. Given that this is the Origins forum I thought the discussions were to be centered around that theme and not others.
Yes I believe there is only one correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and the Eucharist, baptism etc., it would appear that you don't. I'm free to disagree and state my opinion why, as well as you. I don't have or claim to have the authority to speak for you or anyone else concerning these matters. What I do have is the authority to speak about what the Holy Spirit and God's Word has impressed upon and convicted my heart on. Now if you or others wish to interpret Scripture contrary to the way I do that is your right and perogative. I in no way wish to silence your voice. God's Word stands firmly on it's own, nothing I or you can say will dilute or corrupt it. I believe when God's Word and His Spirit convicts you of what He is impressing upon your heart that one shouldn't shy away from such conviction, but rather voice it loudly. Does that mean I'm always right, no, but until either the Holy Spirit or God's Word show me to be wrong I will continue to boldly and confidently express my beliefs. I'm certainly not here to exercise any authority other than that which has been given to me by my Lord Jesus Christ.

If you don't have all the answers pertaining to Genesis 1 how can you be so sure that only your interpretation is identifiably The Word Of God and that all our other interpretations are Corruptions of The Word Of God?

(capitals deliberate)

I certainly do not deny you or anyone the authority to explore, to discuss, to provoke even, but I was speaking of "the authority to decide that there can only be one correct interpretation of such an obscure issue as the historicity as Genesis 1, and that this authentically Scriptural view is YECism". Such authority surely comes about only by complete knowledge of the Scriptures and issues involved, and as such surely you should communicate this knowledge to us poor illusioned TEs so that we may see the error of our ways and conform to the one true and holy interpretation of The Word Of God.