Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[Mobiosity]

Creationists here all have one thing in common… they use “The Inerrant Word of God” as their sword and shield. Why is the earth not billions of years old?

As with nearly all generalizations, this is wrong. The earth is billions of years old. Creationists disagree on this and many other things.

 

[Catherineanne]

Wow if I post smileys will that make automatically make everything I say correct too?

No. But it might be worth a try, given that your current approach is clearly not working.

Your critique of sola scriptura is a straw man as are your misrepresentations of Luther. Just throw out an accusation without supporting it and people are bound to believe you eh!

You mistake me, F. I don't give a tinker's cuss who believes me. I am sure the vast majority here are capable of making up their own minds without me crossing every t and dotting every i for them.

The truth does not begin to exist when you (or I) see it. It is already there, long before any of us has the remotest idea what it is. I do not need to prove to you that Luther was rather challenged in many areas, not least personal morality, for that to be, in fact, the case.

Meanwhile, I post smileys because I am a cheerful soul. If my equanimity bothers you, then that is a shame, but insufficient reason for me to change.

 

[Naraoia]

Another incarnation of consol?

 

[atomweaver]

Another incarnation of consol?

maybe, but Catholic? That'd cross whole new boundaries of poor taste in sock-puppetry...

 

[Split Rock]

You have constructed an invalid syllogism.
God's word may be inerrant, but various interpretations can still be in error.
No your "logic" does not make sense.

Incorrect. I made two different points. First, that The Bible is assumed to be inerrant, despite the fact it was written by fallible humans and despite the fact that no where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant, just inspired by God. Second, I made the point that any interpretation of The Bible is not inerrant, as those interpreting are also fallible.

The Catholic Church, Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews, and scholars from a variety of Christian denominations all agree that interpreting Genesis 1-11 as a "parable" - like Christ himself used to teach the people, then there is no contradiction with science.

Very True.

God's message is important and inerrant.
God's message can be conveyed through figurative language.
Therefore, God's message about the creation of the world and life on Earth, can be conveyed through figurative language.

Agreed.

Occam's Razor (the explanation that covers all the evidence is true):
ALL the evidence can not be explained through a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore it can not be true.

Agreed, again.

All evidence CAN be explained within a metaphorical framework of Genesis, therefore, a metaphorical interpretation is true.

I certainly think it is a more reasonable way to interpret scripture. Most creationsts, however, would disagree.

 

[Split Rock]

As with nearly all generalizations, this is wrong. The earth is billions of years old. Creationists disagree on this and many other things.

True, but most creationists are YECs. I used that example only as a generalization.

 

[ReverendDG]

You have constructed an invalid syllogism.
God's word may be inerrant, but various interpretations can still be in error.
No your "logic" does not make sense.

but how would you know if yours is right and theirs is wrong? oh yeah because you think you are infallible?

The Catholic Church, Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews, and scholars from a variety of Christian denominations all agree that interpreting Genesis 1-11 as a "parable" - like Christ himself used to teach the people, then there is no contradiction with science.

maybe so, but its mostly because they believe god isn't a god of confusion and the earth is better evidence than a 3000 year old story

God's message is important and inerrant.
God's message can be conveyed through figurative language.
Therefore, God's message about the creation of the world and life on Earth, can be conveyed through figurative language.

tell me again how "gods word", you mean the bible right? is inerrant, if it gets basic science wrong

Occam's Razor (the explanation that covers all the evidence is true):
ALL the evidence can not be explained through a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore it can not be true.

wait what? thats not occam's razor, occam's razor says that the choice with the least amount of entities is probably the correct one.

All evidence CAN be explained within a metaphorical framework of Genesis, therefore, a metaphorical interpretation is true.

i think this just adds too many entities, the best answer is this: the people that wrote the text believe genesis to be 100% fact, they were just wrong.

 

[Alunyel]

Actually, Occam's Razor is that the explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.

 

[ReverendDG]

Actually, Occam's Razor is that the explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.

how about this then from wiki:"Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable, provided that it takes all circumstances into account"

 

[BananaSlug]

Occam's razor discredits the Bible's account of creation because it makes YEC's have to make up stories to explain evidence that goes against the creation story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Occam's razor discredits the Bible's account of creation because it makes YEC's have to make up stories to explain evidence that goes against the creation story.

What evidence?

 

[BananaSlug]

"Embedded age", non-PO past, "hyperevolution", etc. All of those scenarios needlessly multiply entities to try and encompass all of the necessary information.

"Embedded age" doesn't explain why God would create an earth that is existentially 6,000 years old while physically being 4.5 billion years old or why there are fossils in rock that is over 6,000 years old. Your reasoning for the fossils in coal went along the lines of an ancient super-race that dug up the coal, heated it untill it was malleable, then rolled it around in leaves and put it back in the ground.

A non-PO past ignores all scientific evidence that shows the earth is older than 6,000 years. Radiometric dating can be used to date something to 4,000 years but anything older cannot be reliably dated using the same method. If it is dated to 4,100 years it is wrong but if dated to 3,999 years it is right. It doesn't make sense.

"Hyperevolution" is an attempt to explain why we have evidence for evolution by saying a few "kinds" taken on the ark "hyperevolved" into the myriads of species we have today.

All of these examples go out of there way to attempt to explain or wave-away evidence while using needlessly complicated scenarios that become more unusual as more evidence in support of evolution appears.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of these examples go out of there way to attempt to explain or wave-away evidence while using needlessly complicated scenarios that become more unusual as more evidence in support of evolution appears.

Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?

It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.

Spoiler: Very complicated explanation

God did it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The thing is, in God's loving foresight, He didn't do it that way so as to give them time to repent and get saved.

But the only way for them to repent and get saved was for them to heed the ramblings of the town lunatic -- Noah.

Would you have taken the man seriously had you been there?

As the saying goes, 'There's no atheists in foxholes', and I believe that most (if not all) of those who drowned repented and went to Heaven.

Except that repentance can only come before death, not after. Funny thing, that.

So even though they left God no choice but to destroy them, God still ended up adopting them as His children.

God adopted corpses? And if the Flood was as global as you say it was, what about all those unfortunate people who simply never got the chance because they lived somewhere that Noah wasn't?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What evidence?

So, you don't think there's any evidence, and you've already rejected documentation, as shown by your dismissal of God's divine post through me -- what does that leave you with?

 

[Alunyel]

Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?

It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.

Spoiler: Very complicated explanation

God did it.

And here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' ---

It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.

Spoiler: Very complicated explanation on how to gain profit from collecting underpants

?

 

[BananaSlug]

Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?

It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.

Spoiler: Very complicated explanation

God did it... through evolution.

I changed it according to what a thevo would say.

 

[dad]

"Embedded age", non-PO past, "hyperevolution", etc. All of those scenarios needlessly multiply entities to try and encompass all of the necessary information.

Not at all, it simply subtracts dreamed up anti God entities.

A non-PO past ignores all scientific evidence that shows the earth is older than 6,000 years. Radiometric dating can be used to date something to 4,000 years but anything older cannot be reliably dated using the same method. If it is dated to 4,100 years it is wrong but if dated to 3,999 years it is right. It doesn't make sense.

It only makes sense as long as present rates and decay itself existed. That you don't know.

"Hyperevolution" is an attempt to explain why we have evidence for evolution by saying a few "kinds" taken on the ark "hyperevolved" into the myriads of species we have today.

In other words, it fits the evidence and time frame. It also does not deny evolving. wiw win. Except for same state so called science, then it is lose lose.

All of these examples go out of there way to attempt to explain or wave-away evidence while using needlessly complicated scenarios that become more unusual as more evidence in support of evolution appears.

Nothing needs to be waved away, except what so called science waved here to begin with, and that does deserve blowing away.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not at all, it simply subtracts dreamed up anti God entities.

By replacing them with dreamed up limited God entities.

It only makes sense as long as present rates and decay itself existed. That you don't know.

Which means you need to dream up a limited God entity to change those rates -- creating something out of whole cloth to explain a phenomenon you can't even say happened in the first place.

In other words, it fits the evidence and time frame. It also does not deny evolving. wiw win. Except for same state so called science, then it is lose lose.

Except it's only an explanation if it actually happened that way -- dream dream.

Nothing needs to be waved away, except what so called science waved here to begin with, and that does deserve blowing away.

If we "blow away" the word "God" in every post you've ever written, and replacing it with "the Pixies," absolutely nothing about your argument changes. Your thoughts?

 

[theFijian]

The truth does not begin to exist when you (or I) see it. It is already there, long before any of us has the remotest idea what it is. I do not need to prove to you that Luther was rather challenged in many areas, not least personal morality, for that to be, in fact, the case.

LOL! The truth is that you are incorrect about Luther but then hey I don't need to prove it for it to in fact be the case!

Or are you being metaphorical?