You say tomato.......

[Numenor]

The natural can lead us to the existence of the supernatural, but science, strictly speaking, can never lead us to a specific miracle.

Romans 1 tells us this, that God has made himself know throw his revelation through nature. He has made known some of his invisible qualities but it was not sufficient to tell us all we need to know about him.

investigation that must be limited to the natural realm, it's valuable but not in the area of biblical hermeneutics.

Our exegesis though is affected by other human endeavours though, isn't language translation a fallible human endeavour which has a profound impact on our hermeneutic?

 

[Calminian]

lol. When I demonstrated earlier how to scientifically demonstrate that a miracle had occurred you just moved the goalposts on me.

I didn't see any demonstration of how to scientifically verify a miracle. I must have missed something. But you stated categorically that science has no presuppositions. I say this is categorically false. You claim science can demonstrate a miracle, I say, how? Even a miracle observed could not be classified a miracle. It could be shown to be an anomaly at best.

So how's about we talk about where the goalposts are, and will stay before I bite? What rules would you suggest?

You set them by saying science has no presuppositions including methodological natural. Therefore it should be able to discover the truth, miracle or not. So please accept the challenge of my post above.

I would suggest that the miracle in question is the transmutation of elements and/or the addition/subtraction of mass, not the age of the wine btw.

I think you are misunderstanding. No one is arguing over whether or not the universe is here. The debate is over when and how it got here. If science alone can't tell us the when and how about created wine, how can it tell us about a created universe?

 

[vossler]

This is much more than a debate about interpretations. It's an subtle attack on the very Word of God. It's hard for me to see it as anything less.

I don't even see it as a subtle attack; to me it's an outright assault.

 

[Calminian]

Romans 1 tells us this, that God has made himself know throw his revelation through nature. He has made known some of his invisible qualities but it was not sufficient to tell us all we need to know about him.

Correct. We can learn several things from observing creation and need no scientific training to do so. Romans 1 lists the many things we can learn from looking at God's creation. Paul also tells us that men have been doing this since the beginning of creation, agreeing with Moses that men existed from its beginning and were not merely a blip toward the very end.

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

This in no way is a license to use science to try to verify or falsify events recorded in Genesis, especially miraculous events like those in Genesis. Science is based on naturalistic assumptions and is therefore limited to finding natural answers. Just as it can't discover the history of created wine, nor can it discover the history of anything supernaturally created, especially a fully functioning world like ours.

Our exegesis though is affected by other human endeavours though, isn't language translation a fallible human endeavour which has a profound impact on our hermeneutic?

Absolutely. Exegesis is about finding the authors intent so we look at things that would give us insight into his thoughts and mindset at the time of his writings. Historical cultural contexts will give us much insight in that area. But future scientific theories tell us nothing about his mindset at the time of writing. To use them would be pure eisegesis, especially when we consider their bias toward naturalism.

 

[Calminian]

I don't even see it as a subtle attack; to me it's an outright assault.

The problem is, most of the foot-soldiers are christians. Pretty clever if you ask me.

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said........

 

[vossler]

The problem is, most of the foot-soldiers are christians. Pretty clever if you ask me.

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said........

Unfortunately, that's the most significant thing I've learned in my time here at CF. On the one hand it awoke me out of my slumber, but then on the other hand it was rather depressing to know that it wasn't the unbeliever who was fighting God so much, but the believer.

This is why I believe so strongly and have repeatedly said that evolution is a lie straight from Satan himself.

 

[Calminian]

An interesting article from AiG.

The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies

 

[shernren]

This is precisely my concern and why I think it's different than other theological debates.



This is true and I really don't expect much out of liberal churches. I guess I'm expecting more our of YECs though. I do appreciate your zeal. This is much more than a debate about interpretations. It's an subtle attack on the very Word of God. It's hard for me to see it as anything less. If someone can make some points to the contrary I'd like to hear them.

I'd write up another answer over at OT but what's the point? I'm a footsoldier for the devil anyway.

Sigh. I've learned my lesson. I have to stay away from Creationists' at all costs. Creationists need a safe haven to call us liars and heretics and compromisers without having their points rebutted within a few hours. If that gives you satisfaction you can have it. It'll save me some grief too.

 

[Calminian]

I'd write up another answer over at OT but what's the point? I'm a footsoldier for the devil anyway.

I can happen to any christian. The devil uses us all the time. We are to confront one another when it happens.

Sigh. I've learned my lesson. I have to stay away from Creationists' at all costs. Creationists need a safe haven to call us liars and heretics and compromisers without having their points rebutted within a few hours. If that gives you satisfaction you can have it. It'll save me some grief too.

If heard this ostensible refutations. I'll reserve comment.

I've never called you a heretic nor liar (speaking of lies). I’ve not taken it that far, nor have any creationists organizations that I know of. You don't need to be a heretic to help the enemy. You just need to doubt God’s word.

I do find it interesting that you can't even keep your arguments out of restricted areas.

 

[vossler]

An interesting article from AiG.


The Skeptics and their ‘Churchian’ Allies

Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that yet. There was one sentence that stood out in that article that was referring to TEs and I think is clearly demonstrated by those TEs who post regularly in the C&E forum.

"In fact, one gets the feeling that they have more in common with Skeptics than with Christians who disagree with them."​

Sadly, I've always felt that to be true.

 

[Brennan]

I didn't see any demonstration of how to scientifically verify a miracle...

My apologies, it was Shernren I was thinking of.

I see you are trying to back me into a corner with your water/wine strawman. No dice. I trust you are reading the similar thread over in OT. A number of ways of detecting miracles have been suggested. Miracles can be defined as events that contravene the laws of physics, look for events that meet this requirement and there is your miracle - water to wine would violate conservation of mass, changes in the direction or velocity of bullets contravenes conservation of momentum and energy etc. All detectable phenomena.

The only response to this seems to be to say 'well God makes it so you can't detect it, so there'. In which case one wonders how anyone can ever know a miracle has occurred.

Edit: conservation of mass corrected to conservation of momentum. Doh!

 

[FallingWaters]

Is this origins debate really no big deal? I generally am pretty tolerant of the various theological views. I find myself respecting premillennialists, preterists, amillenialists, open theists, molinists (well, because I am one), calvinists, arminians, infralapsarians, supralapsarians, presuppositionalists, evidentualists, pre post & mid tribulationists, determinists, compatibilists, multi-determinists, etc., etc.. I love to debate these issues, but in the end I can go to Romans 14 and disagree agreeably. In fact I’m quite fond of many that hold differing views.

But there’s something different about this debate. The above are all disagreements over exegesis. This is an issue of exegesis versus eisegesis. It seems to be a debate over the very authority of the Word of God and the ability of its authors to convey their message without the help of outside knowledge. Instead of scripture being sufficient in its historical and literary context, we need the outside input of science to reach the correct interpretation. Before we can believe a particular text we need to test it by the 67th book—science.

Seems to me that makes this debate very different. I think the term “compromise” is appropriate. This whole idea that it’s just a fun subject, but no big deal seems terribly naive.

Agree? Disagree? What say you?

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and appreciate your eloquent and insightful portrayal of the matter.

 

[FallingWaters]

I'd write up another answer over at OT but what's the point? I'm a footsoldier for the devil anyway.

Sigh. I've learned my lesson. I have to stay away from Creationists' at all costs. Creationists need a safe haven to call us liars and heretics and compromisers without having their points rebutted within a few hours. If that gives you satisfaction you can have it. It'll save me some grief too.

Thank you kindly. (I know how you feel.)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yet because science seemingly is an endless source of information and knowledge we tend to go to the well more often than we should asking things of it that it was never intended to produce.

how can you go to the well too often if the supply is endless?

Can too much truth be too much?

Then, in our zeal for answers, when we don't see the complete picture we get very creative in filling in the blanks.

Is this statement pro creation or evolution? Because both sides seem to spend a lot of time accusing the other f making stuff up to suit their arguments

 

[vossler]

how can you go to the well too often if the supply is endless?

The supply isn't endless, nothing is endless except God's grace and mercy and even that can be tested.

Can too much truth be too much?

Certainly, if it isn't the truth and especially when it conflicts with ultimate Truth.

Is this statement pro creation or evolution? Because both sides seem to spend a lot of time accusing the other of making stuff up to suit their arguments

Both! Unfortunately creationists in their zeal to counter evolution sometimes do just as evolutionists do.

Further discussions of this nature should be continued in the OT forum.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Further discussions of this nature should be continued in the OT forum.

I'd love some examples of evolutionists making stuff up. Start a thread and I'll come join you!

 

[vossler]

I'd love some examples of evolutionists making stuff up. Start a thread and I'll come join you!

Since you want to know, you start the thread.

 

[laptoppop]

My OP was directed to YECs. I wanted feedback as to the seriousness of this debate from their perspective. Some may have a different perspective. I thought this might be a good place. Why is it TEs can't seem to handle not being a part of a discussion. (do YECs crash their threads?) I'm readily available in other forums where you can hit me with your geocentric and Galileo analogies. I've answered them before. Why must you hijack this thread? Do you feel your message is not getting across? If you would like to start a Galileo thread in OT I'd be happy to participate. I really want to get YEC feedback.

I share your frustration. Yes, there have been times when YECs have posted innapropriately in the TE subforums. It seems to me that it is much more common in the recent past for TEs to post here than it is for YECs to post there - but then again, I only go to the TE subforum once in a while.

Somehow friendly "peer review" as opposed to direct confrontation seems to be looked down upon. I see this subforum ideally as a place to relax a bit, to entertain less fully developed concepts, to express concepts without worrying as much about the parsing of each word, etc. Kind of like getting your thoughts in order before submitting them to a broader audience. When I post here, I'm not looking for TEs to "correct" my thinking.

Both YECs and TEs can have an elitist attitude in different ways. I think it is important to understand that both viewpoints have people that truly, deeply, sincerely love the Lord and want to follow Him completely in every way. Sometimes, it seems like nothing frustrates some of the TEs as a YEC who comes off as intelligent, thoughtful, and learned. How could we possibly be fair and intelligent and not accept evolution?

 

[Assyrian]

My OP was directed to YECs. I wanted feedback as to the seriousness of this debate from their perspective. Some may have a different perspective. I thought this might be a good place. Why is it TEs can't seem to handle not being a part of a discussion. (do YECs crash their threads?) I'm readily available in other forums where you can hit me with your geocentric and Galileo analogies. I've answered them before. Why must you hijack this thread? Do you feel your message is not getting across? If you would like to start a Galileo thread in OT I'd be happy to participate. I really want to get YEC feedback.

I normally do stay out of the discussion, however being described as a foot soldier of the serpent, or having more in common with Skeptics than with the Christians I disagree with is pretty unpleasant.

I wanted to make a post that shows how much we have in common and answer some of the misunderstandings you seem to have that cause such bitter division between us. I didn't argue for TE, or against YEC, but simply against the mischaracterizations.

Geocentrism is not an analogy, or in this case an argument against YEC, though it is used that way too. Instead, it is a perfect example of precisely what you wrote about in the OP, Christians bringing science into their scripture interpretation.

 

[Calminian]

I share your frustration. Yes, there have been times when YECs have posted innapropriately in the TE subforums. It seems to me that it is much more common in the recent past for TEs to post here than it is for YECs to post there - but then again, I only go to the TE subforum once in a while.

But why do they even want to post here? Do they feel that if they allow unsupervised conversations amongst YECs we'll take over the world? Or perhaps they feel there are still some YECs that haven't heard the geocentrism analogy?

Somehow friendly "peer review" as opposed to direct confrontation seems to be looked down upon. I see this subforum ideally as a place to relax a bit, to entertain less fully developed concepts, to express concepts without worrying as much about the parsing of each word, etc. Kind of like getting your thoughts in order before submitting them to a broader audience. When I post here, I'm not looking for TEs to "correct" my thinking.

That's kind of how I viewed it too. I was actually venting my concerns with TE type positions, hoping some YECs would offer me a balance perspective. But the thought police just had to put a stop to it.

Both YECs and TEs can have an elitist attitude in different ways. I think it is important to understand that both viewpoints have people that truly, deeply, sincerely love the Lord and want to follow Him completely in every way. Sometimes, it seems like nothing frustrates some of the TEs as a YEC who comes off as intelligent, thoughtful, and learned. How could we possibly be fair and intelligent and not accept evolution?

I don't doubt for a moment that TEs can love the Lord. This doesn't convince me, however, it's not problematic and the church shouldn't be concerned. I've had several tell me they reject inerrancy even of the original manuscripts and several tell me they reject the concept of original sin. I also dialogued with one that admitted he has no authority to correct liberal christians like Bishop Spong for allegorizing the resurrection. He doesn't agree with him, but admits he has no basis to refute him. These seem to be unique problems to this debate. Are they salvation ending? No, but does that mean they are not important?

Now there's no doubt a YEC can be arrogant. Temptations are always there, especially in these forums. We should strive not to be. But if my above concerns are valid, there's going to be flack no matter how pleasant we plea the case. People don't like being told their beliefs are harmful. So what's a sincere YEC to do?