Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[meinabox]

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT **NECESSARILY** The Inerrant Word of God

 

[dad]

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT **NECESSARILY** The Inerrant Word of God

One way to find out in a hurry. Check it out. There was a flood, and a creation and all sorts of things. These are not in need of interpretation. The interpretation comes when people try to wave them away, to cowtow to so called science.

 

[Split Rock]

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT **NECESSARILY** The Inerrant Word of God

Considering the fact we are all human and fallible, I doubt very much that any one person's interpretation is the inerrant Word of God.

 

[Split Rock]

One way to find out in a hurry. Check it out. There was a flood, and a creation and all sorts of things. These are not in need of interpretation. The interpretation comes when people try to wave them away, to cowtow to so called science.

An invisible flood that no one observed and left no evidence behind. It makes much more sense to interpret the flood story as an allegory rather than a historical account. Especally since there were no strict historical accounts written back then (oh no...context??). Making Sense, or course, is not part of dad's theology or So-Called "Science." Is it, dad?

 

[meinabox]

Considering the fact we are all human and fallible, I doubt very much that any one person's interpretation is the inerrant Word of God.

What I meant from my statement is that one cannot necessarily assume that one's entire interpretation is wrong.

I agree the we are all imperfect; nothing we ever say about God will be complete; we will never be able to describe God perfectly and we will never see things how God see them (per 1 Corinthians 13) but the only thing that matters is that Jesus is God and that is inerrant

 

[Split Rock]

What I meant from my statement is that one cannot necessarily assume that one's entire interpretation is wrong.

I agree the we are all imperfect; nothing we ever say about God will be complete; we will never be able to describe God perfectly and we will never see things how God see them (per 1 Corinthians 13) but the only thing that matters is that Jesus is God and that is inerrant

OK, but to be inerrant is to be free of any errors. Most creationists here use biblical inerrance as their primary weapon of choice. If they admit to the possiblility of error, then their argument collapses into nothing more than an opinion based of specualtion. That is why they insist on inerrancy.. because they have no other argument.

 

[meinabox]

All I can say is that we will never be able to see things how God see them; we can't possible understand or explain how god created the world...he just...did..

i have to tell you that we're actually not supposed to argue about the specificities...jesus was tempted by satan to try to prove it and said, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

in addition, everyone who has faith in jesus was given it as a gift, by god himself so there really is no point in arguing

 

[Jazer]

What you can learn from this is that it is always very dangerous when preconceived notions - like religious domgas - take priority over empirical testing.

When empirical testing support the religious "domgas" you still reject them. So what difference does it make?

 

[Doveaman]

Hoyle was an astromomer, not a mathematician.

Then you should go edit WiKi:

"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer and mathematician noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory" - WiKi.

Hoyle rejected the BBT because it conflicted with his philosofical preconceived notions.

According to WiKi, it also conflicted with his mathematics.

 

[Doveaman]

The difference is, when mathematicians disagree with a mathematical theory, they tend to have mathematical reasons.

Since when does math conflict with math?

Oh, I just remembered when - in cosmology theories.

Which makes this a moot claim:

Well yeah, but that is the proper name of the event. (Which did happen.)

We know through the power of MATH.

Except that the MATH of one mathematician conflicts with the MATH of another mathematician.

 

[Split Rock]

All I can say is that we will never be able to see things how God see them; we can't possible understand or explain how god created the world...he just...did..

i have to tell you that we're actually not supposed to argue about the specificities...jesus was tempted by satan to try to prove it and said, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

in addition, everyone who has faith in jesus was given it as a gift, by god himself so there really is no point in arguing

I have no argument with any of this. I think creationists should just stick to theology and let scientists do science. Unfortunately, they insist their theology concerning Genesis overrules science and is essential to the biblical basis of their faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

The BBT is a mathematical model that was rejected by Fred Hoyle, a mathematician.

Frankly, Fred Hoyle rejected BBT because his ego would not allow him to accept it. He tried to come up with different theories to explain all of the evidence coming in that supported by BBT (e.g. C-field theory), but in doing so he only demonstrated his own stubborness.

If a mathematical model is rejected by a mathematician then it should be no big deal if a creationist rejects this same model.

It is a big deal for both if the evidence is stacked against them. Also, it is a cosmological model, not a mathematical one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since when does math conflict with math?

Oh, I just remembered when - in cosmology theories.

Apples and oranges. You might as well argue that math falsifies chemistry because 2 hydrogens plus 1 oxygen should equal three waters, but it doesn't therefore chemistry is wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

Also, it is a cosmological model, not a mathematical one.

It's 96% math and only 4% physics. So yes, mathematical model.

 

[barry@lake]

There is only " one correct interpretation of Holy Scripture, and it was only passed on down through Christ's "teachers with authority ' His Apostles along with their successors that Jesus commanded them to ordain. Only by this method do we have the correct interpretation, the Bible even speaks against personal interpretation of Holy Scripture.

 

[Split Rock]

There is only " one correct interpretation of Holy Scripture, and it was only passed on down through Christ's "teachers with authority ' His Apostles along with their successors that Jesus commanded them to ordain. Only by this method do we have the correct interpretation, the Bible even speaks against personal interpretation of Holy Scripture.

So which is "correct?"
YEC
OEC
Gap Creationism
Theistic Evolution

 

[dad]

An invisible flood that no one observed and left no evidence behind.

False. The whole world observed it! The survivors also all observed it. We have the direct record. You have not observed them not observing. You are in no position to know. As for physical evidence, you don't know what to look for.

It makes much more sense to interpret the flood story as an allegory rather than a historical account.

No. It is absolute. Jesus confirmed that.

Especally since there were no strict historical accounts written back then (oh no...context??).

Yes there were. We have them passed down.

 

[driewerf]

Since when does math conflict with math?

Oh, I just remembered when - in cosmology theories.

Which makes this a moot claim:
Except that the MATH of one mathematician conflicts with the MATH of another mathematician.

First: mathematicians make mistakes. So math doesn't conflict with math, mathematicians conflict with mathematicians.

Second: mathematicical models are just models. They are never the reality. They are tools to investigate reality.
Models are highly dependent on the premisses you make, whereup on you build yor model. (Creationists love the word "assumptions".) Every model has to be checked against the real physical world. And models are very influenced by the basic premissies. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Hoyle's math might be good, his work was - at best - based on false assumptions, so it went totally wrong about the BBT.

 

[Nostromo]

It's 96% math and only 4% physics. So yes, mathematical model.

That should be a picture of a parrot, not a dove. I hope you're not this boring in person.

 

[Greg1234]

I have no argument with any of this. I think creationists should just stick to theology and let scientists do science.

All who search are permitted to publish their encounters, theological or otherwise.

Unfortunately, they insist their theology concerning Genesis overrules science and is essential to the biblical basis of their faith.

Theology doesn't overrule encounters. Theological encounters come first, then the physical.