YEC's, answer this...

[Assyrian]

It says that far more clearly and concisely than anything else.

Then it is odd that Christian scholars were questioning whether the days were meant literally long before they reviewed their interpretation of geocentrism and crystal firmaments.

Genesis never says the world was created in six days, and if you want to base your interpretation on the illustration used for the Sabbath Command, then you should also believe God has literal hands and arms, because that was used as an illustration of the sabbath command in Deuteronomy.

First of all, I do wish that you and other TEs quit twisting the words of YECs. No where have I ever read a single YEC state that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. Yet you and others here, in a not so subtle effort to paint us with your brush as ignorant fools, continually come back to that argument when you have nothing substantive to say. What I will say for the Catholics, in their defense, is that at least their interpretation is based solely upon the text of the Bible and not a man derived theory which has no biblical basis what-so-ever. With that said, I believe my signature line states very eloquently what my (I suspect many other YECs) belief or approach is when reading God's Holy Word, His Bible.

Most YECs seem well aware that there is figurative as well as literal in the bible. What I don't understand is the way they nail their colours to the mast for literal interpretation of the six days, while brushing aside the literal interpretation that previous generations nailed their colours to the mast over, geocentrism and the eucharist. These were plain senses of scripture that made common sense to them. The only reason to change the geocentrist interpretations of scripture was science.

No, it definitely does not come down to my feelings, it comes down to what the Word of God says, period! Yes it is a question of science vs. the Bible. Men of God will always make mistakes, Luther, Calvin and myself are not excluded. Given that, I'm glad that Luther and Calvin stood up for what they believed and boldly proclaimed it, every word. I believe God too is pleased. At least when they were wrong they had a biblical case to be made, evolutionists don't.

It is how you feel the word of God should be interpreted. Luther and Co felt the same way and they were wrong, but when the church realised the scientific evidence was good they reassessed their interpretation. And they did it on much less evidence than we have for an ancient earth and evolution.

What biblical case need to be made? Simply that the days in Genesis are not mean literally and even Moses backs that up.

Once you realise the earth can be the billions of years old science has shown it to be, there is no reason God could not have used abiogenesis and evolution to produce all the different species. In fact from the early church Christians have interpreted 'and God said let the earth produce...' as God investing the earth itself with the ability to produce different lifeforms spontaneously.

 

[vossler]

Then it is odd that Christian scholars were questioning whether the days were meant literally long before they reviewed their interpretation of geocentrism and crystal firmaments.

There are always people who wonder about things all the time. My son wonders why we can't fly, scientists during Hitler's time wondered how best to exterminate Jews, I wonder why people continually refuse to accept Jesus. Wonder is something that affects us all, yet in no way would I use that as a legitimate alternative for an established position.

Since you believe six days isn't clear and concise, I take it your alternative of millions of years then is?

Genesis never says the world was created in six days, and if you want to base your interpretation on the illustration used for the Sabbath Command, then you should also believe God has literal hands and arms, because that was used as an illustration of the sabbath command in Deuteronomy.

My Bible says God created everything in six days, not one day more or one day less...six.

Most YECs seem well aware that there is figurative as well as literal in the bible.

I'm glad to hear you say that. We're getting somewhere.

What I don't understand is the way they nail their colours to the mast for literal interpretation of the six days, while brushing aside the literal interpretation that previous generations nailed their colours to the mast over, geocentrism and the eucharist. These were plain senses of scripture that made common sense to them. The only reason to change the geocentrist interpretations of scripture was science.

It has been my experience that previous (protestant) generations didn't have a problem with the eucharist, but then again I really can't say, I haven't studied the matter. As far as geocentrism, the darling of TEs, I don't really understand why it is such an important issue for you. Whether the earth rotated around the sun or the sun around the earth makes little to no difference in my life, it is practically inconsequential. Yet you and other TEs love to use it as proof that one shouldn't literally interpret the Bible. I find nothing to concern me here. The Bible can easily be read figuratively, without compromising it, when it speaks of this issue. However there is no such ease with which one can change the interpretation of the creation week.

It is how you feel the word of God should be interpreted. Luther and Co felt the same way and they were wrong, but when the church realised the scientific evidence was good they reassessed their interpretation. And they did it on much less evidence than we have for an ancient earth and evolution.

My feelings have little to do with this because personally I don't care if there were millions of years or not. As a matter of fact a part of me (my flesh) wishes there actually were millions of years, if for no other reason just so we could finally put this issue to bed. Unfortunately once one compromises, it becomes so much easier to do so again and then again. This is about the Word of God and what it simply says.

What biblical case need to be made? Simply that the days in Genesis are not mean literally and even Moses backs that up.

If you believe that's a strong case, I've got some land...

Once you realise the earth can be the billions of years old science has shown it to be, there is no reason God could not have used abiogenesis and evolution to produce all the different species. In fact from the early church Christians have interpreted 'and God said let the earth produce...' as God investing the earth itself with the ability to produce different lifeforms spontaneously.

Just like once I realize the Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality being a sin I'll be able to see the true meaning of Scripture which says homosexuality is nothing but love between two consenting adults and should be encouraged. Abortion isn't the killing of a human life but a loving response to an unfortunate situation. Premartial sex isn't wrong, it's a means for us to determine if we are right for one another, how else can one know whether they are in love. All religions are equal and that there isn't just one way to God. Really, what harm is there in believing that man evolved from apes and that apes in turn evolved from a primordial soup that established itself billions of years ago? I don't know, according to the world...nothing.

 

[shernren]

Again, I've never stated I have complete knowledge and for you to continually claim that I in some way have, when I repeatedly have stated I don't, is disingenuous and is beginning to become tiresome to repeat.

I've also never claimed or implied that I had the sole valid interpretation of anything, much less Genesis. I've also not said that 'clear sensory experience' shouldn't be included in our knowledge base. Your getting pretty good at attributing things to me I've never said, maybe you should focus on what it is I actually did say.

I'd really like for someone to provide a 'clear sensory experience' that would support millions of years or evolution. As long as I've been here I've yet to come across it.

As much as I could accurately digest what Galileo said, I very much enjoyed reading it. Thanks for posting it.

points up ->

What I am sure of is what the Word of God says. It says God created and it took Him six days. It also says He created man from nothing or the dust of the earth. If you come here and say something contradictory to any of those clear biblical statements I will protest. If you wish to delve into areas that are not specifically covered within Genesis and develop your own theories, have at it, speculate all you want. I will enjoy reading anything along those lines.
The difference here being that you see ambiguity when reading Genesis 1, whereas I see clear and concise language. What I see isn't clouded by what man through scientific speculation has developed.

If I had to wait until I had 'complete knowledge' on any subject before speaking authoratively well I'm afraid there never will come a time that I will then speak. God never told us or implied that we should develop any sort of complete knowledge, but rather He told us to go out and preach the Gospel, with no qualifiers.

Maybe not "complete knowledge", but you effectively identify your interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. "What I am sure of is what the Word of God says": i.e., I am so sure of my interpretation of the Word of God that to attack my interpretation is to attack the Word of God for there is no other way to interpret it. Such identification is legit if and only if one can prove that there is a sole interpretation of the words spoken.

Yes it does require a lot of background. Here's the thing, anyone (talkorigins, AiG, etc) can present their scientific findings and in the process promote their worldview. There are no biblically based evolutionary organizations so from a Christian perspective organizations such as talkorigins are already operating from behind. When professed Christian organizations such as AiG, ICR etc., say they have the scientific evidence to support a young earth and I as a layman look at it and find myself convinced that it is adequate, guess what, I'm going to believe it.

Science is about the physical observation of reality and there is no reason why faith or the lack of it will cause one person to have different physical observations from another. An evolutionist and a creationist looking under the microscope would see the same thing, they might attribute it to different causes but the thing itself they see would be the same.

If you are wary of organizations like talk.origins ask yourself why? Are you concerned that they might fabricate data? Then look at the data they present, if anything seems too simplistic then post it up and maybe we can look in the actual literature if anything supports it. Are you concerned that their data might be real, but their conclusions inappropriate? Then post up their data and we will together see if it is really the case that only an old earth and not a young one (say) can explain what they see. Are you concerned that their lack of spirituality may somehow jeopardize the accuracy of their physical observations? There is no reason at all to think such a thing, the Bible itself talks of God making nature consistent to both believer and non-believer: that sun and rain are given for both the wicked and the righteous.

You can't keep running from their arguments just because they are not overtly Christian.

Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God is a good place to start reading. For me personally in my journey from YEC to TE what I found most compelling was isochron dating. I'd grown up with all the usual creationist stuff about how radiodating utilizes all those unfounded assumptions and been fed a complete oversimplification of the process, then I discovered isochrons and realized that scientists had actually been taking all these things into account and creationists had never bothered to acknowledge that.

 

[HisWordIsMySword]

Mr. rmwilliamsll,

The reason most of the so called christian world do not agree is because most are not all correct. Most do not stand fully in the faith. Most know some, and this is the limit and even that they cannot agree on.

Jesus said we will be hated for his namesake. You find ones who are preaching the gospel of Christ and they are hated by all, most likely they will be the ones standing on the gospel of Christ. These will be the ones who do not compromise the Word of God and they will be hated as was their saviour.

 

[Melethiel]

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 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 face that a great majority of Christianity disagrees with you, throughout antiquity, seems to contradict you.

It has been my experience that previous (protestant) generations didn't have a problem with the eucharist, but then again I really can't say, I haven't studied the matter.

Oh, they had a great deal of squabbling over the Eucharist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Mr. rmwilliamsll,

The reason most of the so called christian world do not agree is because most are not all correct. Most do not stand fully in the faith. Most know some, and this is the limit and even that they cannot agree on.

Jesus said we will be hated for his namesake. You find ones who are preaching the gospel of Christ and they are hated by all, most likely they will be the ones standing on the gospel of Christ. These will be the ones who do not compromise the Word of God and they will be hated as was their saviour.

this is the solution of "me and those like me" are the only True Christians©

i find it uniquely unappealing, for it literally makes 99.99% of all those claiming to be Christians into liars, or self-deceived, false brethren or such. The problem of the divisiveness and divisions don't go away with this solution, what happens is you have a whole bunch of small congregations each claiming the same thing- look here is the Real Church©, all the rest are false and liars. It still doesn't yield any kind of test to see who is and who is not Christian.

And in the final analysis it just casts strong doubt that any of them are actually right.

 

[vossler]

Maybe not "complete knowledge", but you effectively identify your interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. "What I am sure of is what the Word of God says": i.e., I am so sure of my interpretation of the Word of God that to attack my interpretation is to attack the Word of God for there is no other way to interpret it. Such identification is legit if and only if one can prove that there is a sole interpretation of the words spoken.

I'm happy to see we've got the complete part understood.

If you choose to attack my interpretation of the Word of God that is your right and perogative. The only thing I ask is that you do so with the Word of God as your primary instrument. If your argument holds up, I'll be the first to publicly acknowledge it as being well presented and viable. That's not to say that my 'blessing' is necessary or in any way should be sought after. Afterall it is God who we should be seeking to please, not man.

Science is about the physical observation of reality and there is no reason why faith or the lack of it will cause one person to have different physical observations from another. An evolutionist and a creationist looking under the microscope would see the same thing, they might attribute it to different causes but the thing itself they see would be the same.

If only that were true; that science is about the physical observation of reality. Unfortunately our worldviews paint and cloud what it is we see to the point that we begin to see what it is we expect to see.

If you are wary of organizations like talk.origins ask yourself why? Are you concerned that they might fabricate data?

No, I can actually say I don't have that concern. My concern is, as I've previously stated, their worldview will cloud how they see what is in the lense.

You can't keep running from their arguments just because they are not overtly Christian.

I don't run from anything other than that which contradicts God's Word.

Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God is a good place to start reading. For me personally in my journey from YEC to TE what I found most compelling was isochron dating. I'd grown up with all the usual creationist stuff about how radiodating utilizes all those unfounded assumptions and been fed a complete oversimplification of the process, then I discovered isochrons and realized that scientists had actually been taking all these things into account and creationists had never bothered to acknowledge that.

Obviously science plays a major role in how you see Genesis. It should be just as obvious that is doesn't for me. God's Word stands on its own and certainly doesn't require scientific speculation in order to understand it.

 

[Assyrian]

There are always people who wonder about things all the time. My son wonders why we can't fly, scientists during Hitler's time wondered how best to exterminate Jews, I wonder why people continually refuse to accept Jesus. Wonder is something that affects us all, yet in no way would I use that as a legitimate alternative for an established position.

You claimed that six literal days is 'far more clearly and concisely than anything else', yet when we examine how the early church treated these questions, no one questioned the biblical references to geocentrism, no one questioned solid firmaments. They did question literal days.

Even the ones who interpreted the days literally realised there were other meanings, the thousand years to a day taken from Psalm 90:4 was a consistent early church interpretation.

Jerome said that Moses described the creation in the manner of a popular poet. Origen thought no one who possessed any understanding would think you could have days with evenings and mornings without a sun. Augustine was more polite but said the same thing interpreting the evenings and mornings figuratively. From the time of Augustine the figurative interpretation of the Genesis days became the established interpretation.

And your answer to the great scholars of the early church who devoted their lives to understanding the word of God, is to compare to them to kids wondering why we can't fly, or murderous Nazis?

Since you believe six days isn't clear and concise, I take it your alternative of millions of years then is?

The bible doesn't teach six day creationism or geocentrism. Neither does it teach heliocentrism or a 4.5 billion year old planet.

If you take Genesis literally all the work of creation is done in gaps between the numbered days, before the start of each day. We find references to days, seasons and years in these creative periods. Moses also realised God days could referred to much longer periods and referred to it in his creation Psalm, where he also used 'evening' and 'morning' figuratively.

My Bible says God created everything in six days, not one day more or one day less...six.

So what about the day and night mentioned before in Gen 1:5 before 'day one' even began? What about Gen 2:4 which describes God's creation happening in a day?

Does you bible say God has arms and hands too? The only reference to the six days is in the Sabbath commands in Exodus. The same Sabbath command in Deuteronomy describes God working with his mighty hand and outstretched arm. Why insist on taking days literally but not hands and arms?

I'm glad to hear you say that. We're getting somewhere.

The problem with straw men is they tend to be in need of a brain

It has been my experience that previous (protestant) generations didn't have a problem with the eucharist, but then again I really can't say, I haven't studied the matter. As far as geocentrism, the darling of TEs, I don't really understand why it is such an important issue for you. Whether the earth rotated around the sun or the sun around the earth makes little to no difference in my life, it is practically inconsequential. Yet you and other TEs love to use it as proof that one shouldn't literally interpret the Bible. I find nothing to concern me here. The Bible can easily be read figuratively, without compromising it, when it speaks of this issue. However there is no such ease with which one can change the interpretation of the creation week.

You see, I don't see any difference between the mistake Luther made over geocentrism and the mistake YECs make today. The only difference I can see is that the geocentrists had a much stronger basis for their literal interpretation. In terms of what God is teaching us in the bible, both the age of the earth and the structure of the heavens are equally inconsequential. The problem is the damage done to the credibility of Christianity and the bible when sincere Christians deny the plain facts of science.

My feelings have little to do with this because personally I don't care if there were millions of years or not. As a matter of fact a part of me (my flesh) wishes there actually were millions of years, if for no other reason just so we could finally put this issue to bed. Unfortunately once one compromises, it becomes so much easier to do so again and then again. This is about the Word of God and what it simply says.

You hold the interpretation because you feel that this is what the Holy Spirit has impressed on your heart. Yet sincere Christians have been wrong about what they have felt was the correct interpretation, be it geocentrism or believe in the bible clearly taught the lord was coming soon.

You also seem to hold to the literal interpretation out of fear, a fear that if you give up your stand you are on a slippery slope. Fear is not a good way to approach the bible, except for the fear of God that is. The position is also very inconsistent, because you stand on a tradition that long ago gave up the literal interpretation of geocentrism and the eucharist, without any great disasters resulting from the 'compromise'. But it is not compromise if we a really finding out what God's word says, and mistaken interpretations are being corrected by fact.

If you believe that's a strong case, I've got some land...

...in Florida? Don't tell me Dinosaur Adventure Land is up for sale to pay taxes?

Just like once I realize the Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality being a sin I'll be able to see the true meaning of Scripture which says homosexuality is nothing but love between two consenting adults and should be encouraged. Abortion isn't the killing of a human life but a loving response to an unfortunate situation. Premartial sex isn't wrong, it's a means for us to determine if we are right for one another, how else can one know whether they are in love. All religions are equal and that there isn't just one way to God.

I was taught that Jesus made Peter the first Pope and priests have the power to change bread into Jesus' literal flesh. I was taught that if I didn't go to mass on Sunday it was a mortal sin and I would go to hell if I didn't confess it. All these doctrines have their bible verses supposedly backing them up. Once I realised the bible didn't actually teach these things I stopped believing them. Actually it was a struggle and quite frightening. But I followed what the bible actually taught rather than the traditional interpretation I was brought up with. What would you expect me to do?

Really, what harm is there in believing that man evolved from apes and that apes in turn evolved from a primordial soup that established itself billions of years ago? I don't know, according to the world...nothing.

So we are all agreed. None of us, you, me or the rest of the world, know what harm it could be.

 

[shernren]

If you choose to attack my interpretation of the Word of God that is your right and perogative. The only thing I ask is that you do so with the Word of God as your primary instrument. If your argument holds up, I'll be the first to publicly acknowledge it as being well presented and viable. That's not to say that my 'blessing' is necessary or in any way should be sought after. Afterall it is God who we should be seeking to please, not man.

But why is nature, which God created, an inferior tool of interpretation of Scripture? Why would a study of nature to determine the interpretation of Scripture please man and displease God? I fail to see your logic.

rmwilliamsll raised a good argument earlier in this thread. Imagine that I am a Mormon insisting that Jerusalem was/is in America. How would you refute me? Do you have any Scripture proclaiming that Jerusalem is not in America? Suppose you say "Well, the Jews took 40 years to cross the Sinai Desert from Egypt to Canaan, so Canaan and Jerusalem obviously weren't in America", then I could well say that Egypt is in America, too, and you can't prove me wrong until you break out a map. But a map is extra-Biblical evidence.

Or look at the geocentrism controversy. It is a very tired topic here, but the reason I posted Galileo's letter up was because it is essentially an apologetic by Galileo explaining why he saw fit to overturn an interpretation of Scripture with science. If you remember, part of this was in my signature for a long time:

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands.

If only that were true; that science is about the physical observation of reality. Unfortunately our worldviews paint and cloud what it is we see to the point that we begin to see what it is we expect to see.

How much does this happen? Why don't you try to take a typical talk.origins article, read through it, and see what you agree with and don't agree with as a creationist. Or to be more systematic, classify the facts into:

- I agree with this because I know that this is true.
- I agree with this because even if I don't know that this is true, it sounds reasonable.
- I don't agree with this because I don't know that this is true and I don't have the expertise to assess this claim, even though this could well fit into a young-earth framework.
- I don't agree with this because it does not fit into a young-earth framework, whether or not it might be true.

Try it. If, as you say, talk.origins' worldview deeply influences their writings, then you would expect most facts to fall into category 4. Whereas in my personal experience I find that any facts I am uncertain about fall instead into category 3.

Obviously science plays a major role in how you see Genesis. It should be just as obvious that is doesn't for me. God's Word stands on its own and certainly doesn't require scientific speculation in order to understand it.

So my interpretation is inferior simply because I allow science to influence it?

 

[vossler]

But why is nature, which God created, an inferior tool of interpretation of Scripture? Why would a study of nature to determine the interpretation of Scripture please man and displease God? I fail to see your logic.

First of all nature was never intended to interpret Scripture. If you believe that is, I'd like you to support that.

Here's the bottom line. If I were to change the plain meaning of what Scripture says I had better have something strong to refute or amend it with. The strongest means, by far, to do this is within Scripture itself. Does that mean there are no non-Scriptural means to do so? No, but they had better be a slam dunk. So, to answer your question of why a scientific interpretation of Scripture would please man I would say that we should only seek the assistance of science in areas where Scripture itself doesn't speak or speaks in a limited way. If Scripture speaks strongly and we choose to ignore or dismiss it in favor of a scientific explanation then we've done so with the intent to please man and not God.

rmwilliamsll raised a good argument earlier in this thread. Imagine that I am a Mormon insisting that Jerusalem was/is in America. How would you refute me? Do you have any Scripture proclaiming that Jerusalem is not in America?

No, there also isn't any that tells me that Jerusalem is at it's present location of 31 47 N and 35 13 E either. Who knows, maybe it was somewhere else for a while. The point is since Scripture doesn't say where it is of course we're free to figure that out, not that it would take a lot of figuring.

If you remember, part of this was in my signature for a long time:

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands.

I would immediately have a BIG problem with this approach because it states: "...we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense experiences..."

How much does this happen? Why don't you try to take a typical talk.origins article, read through it, and see what you agree with and don't agree with as a creationist. Or to be more systematic, classify the facts into:

- I agree with this because I know that this is true.
- I agree with this because even if I don't know that this is true, it sounds reasonable.
- I don't agree with this because I don't know that this is true and I don't have the expertise to assess this claim, even though this could well fit into a young-earth framework.
- I don't agree with this because it does not fit into a young-earth framework, whether or not it might be true.

Try it. If, as you say, talk.origins' worldview deeply influences their writings, then you would expect most facts to fall into category 4. Whereas in my personal experience I find that any facts I am uncertain about fall instead into category 3.

First of all I would change your definition of categories 3 and 4 where it says 'young-earth' to 'biblical' because I base everything on a biblical framework.

Now when I do read a talk.origins article that I can understand , most of my responses for a majority of articles would probably fall into all four categories. Parts I would agree with because I know it to be true, other parts I agree with because it sounds reasonable, still others that may even be biblically supported, but it's those parts that are in part four that wipe out the other parts that made it through the other three. Once you have one false statement, especially in the summation, all other statements made are now questionable.

What that most likely says is that an interpretation or for me a better term speculation occurred and that is what caused the findings to fall into category 4 overall. I can't accept speculation in scientific findings if that speculation is contrary to the Word of God.

So my interpretation is inferior simply because I allow science to influence it?

Not because it influences it, but because it manipulates and ultimately dominates it.

 

[jereth]

Here's the bottom line. If I were to change the plain meaning of what Scripture says I had better have something strong to refute or amend it with.
....
First of all I would change your definition of categories 3 and 4 where it says 'young-earth' to 'biblical' because I base everything on a biblical framework.

I've been away from this forum for a while, but it seems like things haven't moved on very much in my absence! At any rate, the good old "plain meaning" argument is still being used. And, of course, the good old "my understanding is the biblical understanding".

It will be fantastic when YECs finally recognise that there is no such thing as a "plain meaning" of scripture. That is an utterly fanciful concept. We are dealing with a 3000 year old text produced by an alien ethnic culture. If you think anything in scripture is "plain", you've probably got it wrong, or at best a very shallow understanding.

Does that mean there are no non-Scriptural means to do so? No, but they had better be a slam dunk. So, to answer your question of why a scientific interpretation of Scripture would please man I would say that we should only seek the assistance of science in areas where Scripture itself doesn't speak or speaks in a limited way.

Well, the majority of biblical scholars around the world are in consensus that Scripture doesn't say anything about the age of the earth, and even less about scientific facts of creation. We keep being told that the universe is 6000 years old -- yet this revered figure is based on a patchwork of assumptions and guesses far less substantial than the "slam dunk" scientific answers.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

because I base everything on a biblical framework

This is an interesting statement for several reasons.

The first is the implication that if you disagree with this poster then you do not operate from a biblical framework. The idea is that there is ONLY one biblical framework possible and he has it.

I can live with this, the Church is fractured so badly that this is just sympomatic.

But there is another idea lurking here that i'd like to talk about.

Is it possible to construct a biblical framework that is not contaminated by the world, by sin, by ignorance?
and underneath this is the idea that is it possible to construct a biblical framework on the Bible only? or must general revelation be used in a substantial way?

I think that the first question is obvious. we are and will remain sinners under after the final judgement, everything we do is contaminated with our sin, willful and not just ignorance.

The second is a bit harder, and seems to be consistently answered "yes" by the YECists here and "no" but the rest.

I believe that the problem of the canon only is sufficient evidence that we do and must introduce the world into our "biblical framework". The problem of where is Jerusalem and what does "yom" mean are likewise crucial elements to this argument. History, geography, linguistics are required topics of study in general revelation to build any sort of "biblical framework".

This argument is an extension of the solo Scriptura error that so deeply infects the fundamentalist churches. it is not the Bible only, it is sola Scriptura, the Bible alone.

At one time i entered into these debates, i find it tedious to repeat myself or to go over the same ground repeatedly so i don't involve myself in them now. there is just too much new and interesting stuff to look at. But at that time i used to argue that the Bible didn't tell me who my wife and kids are. Essentially, two of the most important factors in my live are not in, nor will anyone alive ever find who to marry, in the scriptures.

This issue, this metaphor of the two books of God and how to properly read them in concert, doing justice to both in the way God intends them to be read. is an important issue.

 

[vossler]

You claimed that six literal days is 'far more clearly and concisely than anything else', yet when we examine how the early church treated these questions, no one questioned the biblical references to geocentrism, no one questioned solid firmaments. They did question literal days.

I would guess the reason they didn't question it was because it didn't matter. Just like today, it doesn't matter.

Even the ones who interpreted the days literally realised there were other meanings, the thousand years to a day taken from Psalm 90:4 was a consistent early church interpretation.

As do people who interpret it literally today.

Jerome said that Moses described the creation in the manner of a popular poet. Origen thought no one who possessed any understanding would think you could have days with evenings and mornings without a sun. Augustine was more polite but said the same thing interpreting the evenings and mornings figuratively. From the time of Augustine the figurative interpretation of the Genesis days became the established interpretation.

So you believe, I clearly don't see that.

And your answer to the great scholars of the early church who devoted their lives to understanding the word of God, is to compare to them to kids wondering why we can't fly, or murderous Nazis?

I'm sorry if I was a bit cavalier with my response, I apologize. I was just trying to make the point that wonder isn't an excuse or justification for legitimizing a contrary position.

The bible doesn't teach six day creationism or geocentrism. Neither does it teach heliocentrism or a 4.5 billion year old planet.

The Bible does teach a six day creation, you just choose to discount it.

So what about the day and night mentioned before in Gen 1:5 before 'day one' even began? What about Gen 2:4 which describes God's creation happening in a day?

There are a lot of things in the Bible that would sound very strange to me if I thought I needed to understand it in a manner that I could easily explain it to others, unfortunately or probably fortunately, they’re not. Faith, in this case, means that I trust it to mean what it says even though I can’t see it or fully grasp it. Your example however isn’t that difficult for me to grasp, the Genesis 1:5 verse is just summarizing the first day.

Genesis 2:4 states “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

Clearly ‘in the day’ is referring to a period of time that isn’t constrained.

Does you bible say God has arms and hands too? The only reference to the six days is in the Sabbath commands in Exodus. The same Sabbath command in Deuteronomy describes God working with his mighty hand and outstretched arm. Why insist on taking days literally but not hands and arms?

Why this is an issue to be brought up here is quite interesting. I don’t think there is a YEC, OEC, TE, Gapper, etc. that would read this as anything other than figurative. Now just as I say that someone will come out of the woodwork and disprove me. Will that be you?

You see, I don't see any difference between the mistake Luther made over geocentrism and the mistake YECs make today. The only difference I can see is that the geocentrists had a much stronger basis for their literal interpretation. In terms of what God is teaching us in the bible, both the age of the earth and the structure of the heavens are equally inconsequential. The problem is the damage done to the credibility of Christianity and the bible when sincere Christians deny the plain facts of science.

What you consider plain facts are clearly not plain or factual for many, many people.

You hold the interpretation because you feel that this is what the Holy Spirit has impressed on your heart. Yet sincere Christians have been wrong about what they have felt was the correct interpretation, be it geocentrism or believe in the bible clearly taught the lord was coming soon.

Again, geocentrism is a non-issue for me, but obviously a major one for you. As far as Jesus’ return being soon, trust me, no trust God, it will be soon!

You also seem to hold to the literal interpretation out of fear, a fear that if you give up your stand you are on a slippery slope. Fear is not a good way to approach the bible, except for the fear of God that is. The position is also very inconsistent, because you stand on a tradition that long ago gave up the literal interpretation of geocentrism and the Eucharist, without any great disasters resulting from the 'compromise'. But it is not compromise if we a really finding out what God's word says, and mistaken interpretations are being corrected by fact.

Yes I hold on to a literal six days out of fear, but that fear isn’t an earthly fear but a reverential fear. God said it and who am I to even think I could supplement or change what He said. Secondly I don’t believe in compromise, at least not when referring to the Word of God. If you look back to the church fathers I don’t believe neither geocentrism or the Eucharist positions being held today would be considered compromises. I can’t possibly imagine finding a ‘fact’ that would be contrary to God’s Word, if I did I would know it wasn’t the Bible that was wrong but my own interpretation of it.

...in Florida? Don't tell me Dinosaur Adventure Land is up for sale to pay taxes?

Nah…if it were they would be looking for someone else.

I was taught that Jesus made Peter the first Pope and priests have the power to change bread into Jesus' literal flesh. I was taught that if I didn't go to mass on Sunday it was a mortal sin and I would go to hell if I didn't confess it. All these doctrines have their bible verses supposedly backing them up. Once I realised the bible didn't actually teach these things I stopped believing them. Actually it was a struggle and quite frightening. But I followed what the bible actually taught rather than the traditional interpretation I was brought up with. What would you expect me to do?

I noticed how you said ‘supposedly’ but then once you realized the scriptural backing didn’t exist you changed your belief. That’s exactly what we’re called to do. Yet interestingly enough, in the six day creation you take the opposite approach.

So we are all agreed. None of us, you, me or the rest of the world, know what harm it could be.

Sure now you want to take the literal approach.

 

[Melethiel]

Why is it that YEC's put such a great emphasis on the "plain meaning of Scripture", but yet, in my experience, try to explain away as metaphorical or symbolic the passages about Baptism or the Eucharist, why are far more central to the Christian faith?

Why is it that 6 days is literal, but "baptism now saves you" or "my flesh is real food" is not? Seems to be a double standard.

 

[vossler]

It will be fantastic when YECs finally recognise that there is no such thing as a "plain meaning" of scripture. That is an utterly fanciful concept. We are dealing with a 3000 year old text produced by an alien ethnic culture. If you think anything in scripture is "plain", you've probably got it wrong, or at best a very shallow understanding.

That's quite an interesting view and explains a lot.

Well, the majority of biblical scholars around the world are in consensus that Scripture doesn't say anything about the age of the earth, and even less about scientific facts of creation. We keep being told that the universe is 6000 years old -- yet this revered figure is based on a patchwork of assumptions and guesses far less substantial than the "slam dunk" scientific answers.

The 6000 years isn't some number dreamed out of thin air, it came from an in-depth study of Scripture. Now whether it is 100% accurate or not, really isn't important. Your "slam dunk" scientific answer however has no biblical basis what-so-ever.

 

[vossler]

Why is it that 6 days is literal, but "baptism now saves you" or "my flesh is real food" is not? Seems to be a double standard.

Probably because for you and others it's an all or nothing proposition and for us it isn't.

 

[Melethiel]

Probably because for you and others it's an all or nothing proposition and for us it isn't.

Hehe. Considering that I do believe in the literal sense of the Baptism and Eucharist passages, I beg to differ.

But it does mean that there is no "plain reading of Scripture", but a number of interpretations.

 

[jereth]

That's quite an interesting view and explains a lot.

I sense that there is a masked message here... something along the lines of "this kind of raving just proves how utterly wrong you TEists are". Am I right?

The 6000 years isn't some number dreamed out of thin air, it came from an in-depth study of Scripture.

I beg to differ... the 6000 years comes from a shoddy manipulation of certain texts, used in a misguided fashion, based on ill-founded assumptions, and utilising a flawed hermeneutic.

You're welcome to prove me (and the majority of biblical scholars) wrong, of course!

Now whether it is 100% accurate or not, really isn't important. Your "slam dunk" scientific answer however has no biblical basis what-so-ever.

That doesn't make them wrong. The theory of electricity has no biblical basis, yet the computer you are using to read this post is proof that it is entirely reliable.

 

[vossler]

I sense that there is a masked message here... something along the lines of "this kind of raving just proves how utterly wrong you TEists are". Am I right?

No masked message, just an observation that shows how different our worldviews really are.

I beg to differ... the 6000 years comes from a shoddy manipulation of certain texts, used in a misguided fashion, based on ill-founded assumptions, and utilising a flawed hermeneutic.

Whew, I'm glad you got that out of your system.

That doesn't make them wrong. The theory of electricity has no biblical basis, yet the computer you are using to read this post is proof that it is entirely reliable.

True, but then again electricity or my computer aren't making any biblical claims either.

 

[philadiddle]

ok, i admit i've skipped about the last 25 posts, because the topic was to post a scientific evidence that supports the YEC view, but all that i seem to be reading is theology. Maybe there was something i skipped, but i doubt it.

Lets please revert the conversation back to the topic, science. Somehow i fear that switching to science will kill this thread because the YECs won't have anything to talk about anymore.