"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is a ridiculous fiction. How do you think these germs in the air can be numerous enough to develop into all these organic infusions? If that were true, they would be numerous enough to form a thick fog, as dense as iron." Professor Pierre Pochet, 1872
NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC/Caltech)
(With thanks to Dr John Lennox and Fixed Point Foundation)
Your humble blog queen has seen the error of her ways. She now believes that we must take the Bible literally whenever possible. No more literary framework, no more cultural sensitivities, historical perspectives or scientific discoveries will be considerd. If the Bible says it; I believe it and I intend to believe it as Calvin's simple plouwboy. Calvin taught that every plowboy should be able to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself. Link (Calvin knew his Bible almost as well as Jesus).
None other than Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, has declared war on all those who do not adhere to a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact, he said it is of Gospel importance. In a talk entitled Why Does the Universe Look So Old, he said:
“I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the gospel an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters.”
Then on his blog, he says the following
“Ever since the challenge of Darwin and evolutionary theory appeared, some Christians have tried to argue that the opening chapters of the Bible should not be taken “literally.” While no honest reader of the Bible would deny the literary character of Genesis 1-3, the fact remains that significant truth claims are being presented in these chapters. Furthermore, it is clear that the historical character of these chapters is crucial to understanding the Bible’s central message — the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
So, the very Gospel itself is at stake! Well, being at least as intelligent as a simple plowboy in Calvin’s day, although I am also, as many Calvinistas declare, a gullible and easily deceived woman, I went to my Bible (although I did not use an ESV which may disqualify me from discussing this subject) to see what God has told us.
Imagine my surprise to learn that the Bible “proves” the earth is fixed by pillars in position and the sun revolves around it. I was never taught this in any of the churches that I attended. This is a matter of utmost urgency and could change how we view the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are in danger of denyng the doctrine of the atonement!! Good night! If man is not at the center of God’s universe, then why would Jesus need to die for us. We can’t be on some insignificant inner spiral of the Milky Way. This planet is far too important for such nonsense.
Here is the Biblical “proof” that the earth is fixed. All quotes from the NIV.
- 1 Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
- Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.
- Psalm 96:10: Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
- Psalm 104:5:He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
- Job 9:6: He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
- Psalm 75:3: When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm
- 1 Samuel 2:8: “For the foundations (translated pillars in the ESV) of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world.
But what about the findings of Copernicus? Thankfully, I was able to find the Fixed Earth blog, which exposes the Copernican conspiracy to undermine the Bible. Did you know that this was the beginning of the slippery slope towards total Biblical denial? And I had been taught that Theistic Evolution was the beginning of Biblical denial. Oh no, Satan has been plying his diabolical trade of Biblical heresy much, much longer.
“Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.
This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new "truths" in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: "You have given me the basis for my system". Thus, the "Social Science" disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility.”
"Read that piece and you will know why God's Judgment begins in the Christian churches…. Without exception, all of these churches have denied plain Scripture which declares a moving sun and a stationary Earth. Instead, all have bowed the knee to Occult Scientism on this pivotal Origins Subject, and, in doing so, have given Satan the platform he needed to subvert all "knowledge" and bring Bible Christianity to the very brink of destruction. Yet, God has written: "…the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ's Church" (Matt:16:18). So; Churches: God's Judgment Begins with you, and it begins with your repentance for your role in giving Satan the platform he needed to accomplish his goal of destroying the credibility of the Bible without which neither Jesus nor His Church can stand. Get ready for it….”
This Gospel building, Biblical site exposes the conspiracy.
“There is abundant hard proof that both the Copernican Counterfeit and the Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm that is built upon it are factless frauds from start to finish.
Indeed, the diligent reader (and listener) will be astonished at the level of demonstrable hi-tech fraud, baseless assumptions, occult mathematics, etc.,–all part of a Satan-empowered, anti-Christ religious Cabal–that has been at work over many centuries implanting the incredible evolution myth about the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind”.
Did you know that some of the greatest theologians believed in a fixed earth? Have you ever heard their teachings on this? If not, why not? I found the following quotes at this site.
John Calvin:
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'…[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
– John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72
"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced — YEA, he hath established it."
– John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7
Martin Luther
"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
– Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
– Martin Luther, Table Talk
Of course, there is a group of theologians which cannot believe that Calvin, who is almost inerrant in his pronouncements, could ever say such things and there has been frantic research”proving” he couldn’t have said these things. Which raises a question about the amount of resources on spent on polishing Calvin’s image but that is for another post.
However, out of Notre Dame comes research by M. Dowd Link
“There has been no small amount of scholarly work devoted to the question of whether or not Calvin knew of Copernicus or his work.”
“We have seen that Calvin was certainly not an adherent of the Copernican theory. He took for granted that the Ptolemaic system accurately described the physical construction of the universe. Yet he was not oblivious to the astronomical revolution which was occurring around him. However, he only spoke of it once that we know of, and then only to denounce it. But this denunciation, as we noted above, was not of the Copernican theory per se, but was an attack against a theologian with whom Calvin had other disagreements.”
But, you say, Dee, look at the space flights, the telescopes, the development of astrophysics, etc. Surely these are “proof” of a rotating earth? I say that it is a trick of Satan. Man’s mind is so clouded by the Fall that he is unable to perceive the truth. However, God has graciously given the Fair Education Group which created the Fixed Earth web site and me clarity of mind to see beyond the sinful attacks on God’s Scriptures. This rotating earth science has been a trap for guileless men since the time of Galileo. From the blog C Sharp.com we read:
“When Galileo turned his telescope to the sky, some in the Roman Catholic Church accused him of desecrating the sky with his telescope. The argument being presumably that only knowledge obtained from the Bible is true, and it was somehow sinful to gain knowledge from other sources. Implicitly at least, young earth creationists still follow this same line of thought. When Galileo discovered the four large moons of Jupiter, which are now known as the Galilean Moons, some in the church denied that he really saw the moons, and that they were some sort of an illusion perpetrated by Satan or demons.”
If only true Christians had stood with the church during those times of the Galileo heresies, our churches would not be filled today with agents of the evil one masquerading as scientists.
Brothers and sisters, this is a matter of Gospel urgency. It is time to take back the sciences and make them Gospel sciences. In fact, we must confront men such as Mohler, Ken Ham and others who are deceiving people by promoting a belief in a rotating earth. They are in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement. For, if man is not central to the universe, why would we need a Savior? Surely God would not waste his time on a little planet on the Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. We aren't even in the center of this tiny galaxy if these fools are to be believed!
I end with this quote by Augustine. Even he went over to the dark side.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens… and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason.”- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982), chap. 19, v.39, p. 42.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 13:1-14:29 Acts 18:23-19:12 Psalm 146:1-10 Proverbs 18:2-3
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Brilliant!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Stanley Jaki, Benedictine monk and physicist, once said that Augustine DID shrink back when it came to the idea that there was no such thing as a firmament. When he felt he had to pick between saying the firmament wasn’t literally there and vouching for it because it seemed to be how Genesis ought to be read he went with it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ahh Augustine…you see, that’s the point…we wouldn’t believe the other tales either…and for exactly the same reason…critical thinking, science and reason have proven over and over again to be far better predictors of reality.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Can science explain how life started from non life? Can they make life in a lab from non life? NOT!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Mohler’s a foundationalist in terms of his epistemology (a style of evaluating and validating what is true and real).
Foundationalists look to axiomatic truth first to discern reality. The determine basic ideas that are self evident and are not dependent on any other more “foundational” ideas. In terms of Christianity, the Bible is the sole source and sufficient source of truth. A foundationalist then puts their understanding of the Bible and related doctrines into the basement layer of their understanding of all other things.
Many Christian foundationalists have said that those who also looked to rationalism or empirical evidence to validate truth as antinomian. Hard foundationlists say that creation science is capitulation to the material world, placing its truths above the truths in the Bible. Foundationalism also argues that all truth is presuppositional. To trust in that which you experience can be problematic, too.
So what Al Mohler is saying here is that truth in the Bible about origins is superior to all other truth, and he trusts that over things that are not obvious such as the way the solar system and galaxy has been laid out.
It creates problems, however, if what you believed was self-evident, self-sustaining and a non-disputable truth is put into that category in the foundation. Your understanding of that propositional truth may be flawed or incomplete, so you may find later that your understanding of what is really true might be flawed.
It is a natural style of understanding truth, but each style has its pitfalls. I’m not surprised that he’s made this argument, though.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Science cannot even make a blade of grass!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT,
Actually, to answer the first part…yes, there are several plausible possibilities for how life arose…secondly, no we cannot yet make life in a lab
But so what? That’s like trying to make a point by saying (before the wright brothers), “can man fly…NO!” ….once technology catches up and we learn a bit more there is no reason to suppose that we won’t be able to create life in a lab.
Not that many years ago we couldn’t splice genes, or create designer drugs, or fly to the moon, and on and on and on. It is not an argument against anything.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Parody can be an effective means of making a point, no doubt.
I read Mohler’s speech. Whether one agrees with his conclusions (or their underlying presuppositions, ac Cindy pointed out), he provided an intelligent and articulate presentation of the key issues at hand. What I’d like to see is a response that is just as thoughtful and takes careful consideration of the theological implications he addresses, without summarily dismissing his views as antiquated, unintelligent, or irrelevant.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Can science lower the divorce rate? Can science cure terrorism? Can science stop child abuse?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
Dr John Lennox argued precisely as I did in this post. Note my thanks to him. Lennox did a 2 hour presentation on Genesis and science. I think Lennox’s points could be applied to the possibility that, if Mohler had lived several hundred years ago, he would have argued for a fixed earth for precisely the same reason he argues for a young earth now.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT,
If by science you include the best of what we have learned over the past 2000 years in the fields of human well-being, nutrition, psychology, neuroscience, counselling techniques, sociology, anthropology, etc. then YES it can at the very least make a positive impact toward a better society.
Next question…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
But, isn’t that foundation based on how one interprets passages in the Bible? So, when you say that the Bible is the source of truth, how does one read that truth? Do the passages really mean what Mohler would propose that they mean? Could it be that when nature appears to contradict Scripture, it only contradicts one reading of said passages. Obviously this is the case with the fixed earth.
It is rather amusing to me to see how Christians reinterpret these passages as soon as the science is absolutely proved to their satisfaction. But doesn’t that mean they didn’t read it correctly in the first place?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous, I though you said that you preferred reality? What you said is NOT reality. Terrorism on the increase? The divorce rate is higher than ever. Science has NOT improved these things. Science has no cure for sin. Care to try again?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Eagle,
Mohler merely stated the obvious in the divorce issue. It has been known for years that Baptists have worse divorce rates than atheists. He was admitting what polls had said for decades. I am hoping that one day he might come out and say that pedophilia and domestic abuse are rampant in the SBC and something needs to be done. Now that would take real guts and leadership.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT
Science contributed to prolonging our life expectancy. It helped doctors operate on my daughter’s tumor which would have been fatal a mere two decades ago. Science has found the treatment for diabetes and many other diseases. Science created the wondrous computer. Science is a gift from the Almighty which allows us to use the incredible properties of his creation to discover and improve life for many.
There were divorces before insulin. Now, at least, diabetics can live when a century before they would die. Science can’t cure sin but it sure can find solutions to many of mankind’s problems. But, you don’t have to take an antibiotic the next time you have a bacterial infection.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT
Anonymous is stating reality You are arguing for sin. He is arguing for science. They are different.Could you try to be a bit more understanding in your replies? His response made perfect sense to me. It was your response to him that seemed off base.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Eagle
Now you’ve gone and done it! I had a KJVO fly buzzing around this blog for a couple of weeks when we first got started. I thought he would never go away. I understand that the Internet Monk would just tell them to buzz off and stop their comments. I almost got to that point.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, sin is our main problem, and science has no cure for it. All of the church problems discussed on this site are the result of sin. Science cannot do a single thing to help us with our sins or false doctrines. Can science help the SBC or SGM? NOT! So what if we live longer? Big fat harry deal?
Science teaches evolution that denies God. People believe science over God’s word. THAT is the problem.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, I just read your above post about science and the Bible. Do even know what “the Earth cannot be moved means”. How about “the 4 corners of the Earth”? Your post was absolutely pathetic and your exegetic skills nonexistent. PLEASE go learn what the Bible REALLY says and REALLY means! PLEASE! Quit embarrassing yourself with such nonsense.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, you are right.
Foundationalism can get tricky if you’re wrong, because like one builds a house, you put everything else on top of that foundation. We know what is is like to have to repair foundation problems in our homes and how far reaching the effects of a bad foundation can be. Sometimes you can’t see the foundation well or what is really wrong. You need help!
Coherentists criticize foundationalism as too theoretical in nature. (“Too heavenly minded for any earthly good.”) And that’s one of the pitfalls. Mohler’s logic may be spot on perfect, but his assumptions may be too far removed from the empirical world.
What makes foundationalism work? A desire to pursue truth and a love for it, and a willingness (or ability) to admit when you’re wrong.
Junkster notes that a good consultant (like a good foundations specialist who knows what they’re doing) can hopefully meet Al Mohler where he is and perhaps get him to consider possible flaws in his argument if certain problems arise. Foundationalism lends itself well to certain professions and such, and the approach is invaluable. And coherentists have other strengths and their own pitfalls, and sometimes foundationalists think that they are too given to experience and tend to sell out to pragmatism at the expense of principle and the intangible things like ethics in favor of function. In the end, the different styles complement one another and balance one another.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Excellent post Dee!
Looks like MOST of our readers got it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT you must be bored because your buddy Jerry is missing so now you’re picking on dee. You’re so rude!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT,
When you say terrorism is on the rise…you are taking a very short term and narrow view…look at the world we live in now compared to the middle ages or before…the world on the whole is a much more civilized place to live. Of course there are still terrorists (much of that being driven by religion, by the way), yes we still have thieves and murderers…but on the whole I’d much rather walk down main street at night now than I would have at almost any other time in history.
Since divorce has come up before, let me add this thought…when you use the bible as your only guide, then you are forced to believe and treat all divorce as sin. When you allow science and modern understanding to guide you, you quickly realize, and can deal with the fact, that divorce is not always a bad thing. There are many times (and I am not just talking about abuse here), where divorce is the best thing for all involved…theology, unfortunately, does not provide that flexibility.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT
“Science teaches evolution that denies God. ” That is not true. Some scientists believe that. Many scientists are Deists as well as Christians. Biologos, started by the great Francis Collins, a committed Christian, is a theistic evolutionsit as is my husband.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT
Now you have crossed the line. You are about to be banished. Do I know what the four corners means. Yes, I do. I have not only studied this but my husband and I have led classes on science and the Bible.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
Al Mohler will not let anyone that does not agree with him stay in his seminary. He got rid of Dembski who was an ID, old earth guy. He gets rid of anyone who does not side with him on women. Mohler is an ideologue and has restricted the word “Christian” to his definition of the Gospel. And as you have seen, the word “Gospel” now includes everything. So, if I am not a strict complementarian, I am not a believer in Gospel gender roles . If I don’t believe the Gospel, I am not a Christian. This is not intelligent; this is usurping of Scripture. In fact, it is pseudo-intellectulaism at its worst because it condemns thoughtful Christians to being in danger of being outside the faith.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To all readers:
NBTT has been banished to the TWW hinterlands. His comments are still around but they won’t be easy to find. Anyone who really, really wants to know what he says can drop me an email and I will either direct you to where the comments can be found or I will cut and paste them into an email.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Deb
I am weary of NBTT. I am playing the game we invented with Cooper called “Where’s NBTT?” I figure NBTT can now see how interested our readers are about his comments. They are available, readily, to one and all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There are many theologians that teach a literal interpretation of Genesis, but they also teach the gap theory. The gap theory teaches a possible millions or even billions of years between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter one.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT said:
“Dee, sin is our main problem, and science has no cure for it. All of the church problems discussed on this site are the result of sin. Science cannot do a single thing to help us with our sins or false doctrines. Can science help the SBC or SGM? NOT! So what if we live longer? Big fat harry deal?”
This is for the most part true NBTT. But what you are failing to understand is that the Bible does not address the same subject matter that science does, and when one assumes that one can take comments made in the Bible about nature and scientific statements, one ends up in folly. For the most part EVERY attempt to find absolute scientific meaning in Biblical comments ‘sola scriptura’ has failed, and generally given unbelievers valid reason to mock the Christians attempting to do so. Bibilical statements about nature are generally made within the understanding and culture of the writer and generally are not useful for scientific exploration.
NBTT also said:
“Science teaches evolution that denies God.”
This is also grossly incorrect. Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain the history of life we find preserved in the geology of the planet. It is a false theology that says if we can explain the history of life on Earth via a sequence of natural events that there is necessarily not a God. It is the SAME false theology that thinks that God is only at work in the world when a clear and unmistakable miracle is observed. God is at work both in and and THROUGH the world, through the creation which He long ago established and set in motion.
“People believe science over God’s word. THAT is the problem.”
Again, grossly incorrect. What people believe are other people who claim that science has proven there can be now God. And what you fail to understand is that those atheists who believe science has shown there is no God apply the same false theological principle that you have applied here: that God only is working in creation when a provable violation of natural law (miracle) occurs. This could not be farther from the truth and denies the very spirit of Genesis you claim to believe. What Genesis 1 tells us is that all the pagan deities of the Egyptions and Bablylonians are created THINGS, not gods. That God made all that there is, and He is in control of it all. And it is this view of creation, and ordered, created thing that can be understood that gave rise to the science we take for granted and even many preach is some kind of evil.
Go back to your first paragraph. It is SIN that is the problem. And this applies to how men in their arrogance think that what they have learned about God’s creation somehow proves God Himself does not exist. Don’t buy into that foolishness. But also don’t buy into the foolishness that claims that when God does not somehow override the cultural understanding of nature this somehow invalidates His scripture.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
I have no problem with any theory of creation. Although I am OE trending towards TE due to the incredible amount of scientific evidence, this has not been a problem for me until a bunch of Christians tied it to the “gospel” as they define it. This is a way of marginalizing over 50% of Christians and over 90% of Christian scientists from being considered part of the faithful. Ken Ham has accused people like me of denying the doctrine of the atonement. He has accused wonderful men like Hugh Ross of heresy. And Mohler is adding to the mix by throwing the word “gospel” into the mix. Mohler has said that he intends to make this issue a “primary” issue. This is wrong but it fits his “my way or the highway” approach to the faith.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee, what would any creation theory possibly have to do with the atonement? I do not understand.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
OE = old earth TE = ?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard,
Simple…if you agree that human life is not a special creation, that we evolved from other mammals…then the story of Adam and Eve is just allegorical….if it just allegory, then how did the fall of man occur…if the fall also is allegorical, then why the need for redemption…and so on.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous – thanks. That makes sense. Good explanation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Or is it possible that Jesus died for animals also? I think it is Colossians that talks about all THINGS being reconciled? Would that include the animal kingdom – the lion laying down with the lamb?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT said:
“Dee, I just read your above post about science and the Bible. Do even know what “the Earth cannot be moved means”. How about “the 4 corners of the Earth”? Your post was absolutely pathetic and your exegetic skills nonexistent. PLEASE go learn what the Bible REALLY says and REALLY means! PLEASE! Quit embarrassing yourself with such nonsense.”
NBTT, you are a product of what is call ‘atemporal isogesis’. The texts of scripture you reference are in all likelyhood colloquialisms from the culture. Unfortunately, the meaning of those colloquialism at the time of writing, and most likely as understood by the writer, is scientifically INCORRECT. Just as in Genesis the cosmos is described in accordance with the ancient understanding of the Earth as being flat, surrounded buy water and covered over with a fixed dome in which were the sun moon and stars and above which was another ocean or set of waters, most discussions of nature in scripture are found to be in accordance with what the writers themselves understood of nature.
This is just simple fact. And while we can, in hindsight, perhaps find other ways to interpret these texts than what they were understood to mean for centuries or millenia does not mean that our atemporal need to have these texts conform to what we currently understand is what they REALLY, REALLY mean!
Let me take as an example the issue Dee addresses here. The scripture speaks of the fixity of the Earth, of the sun moving from the east to the west and then hastening back to its starting point. I talks of there being waters ABOVE the firmament in which are the sun moon and stars, and even ascribes these waters as one major source of water for the great flood. It describes openings in this firmament that not only did these waters flow out of,but that manna was given to the Israelites through, and that angels could go through to travel from heaven to earth and back.
And God did not ‘fix’ this ‘unscientific understanding’ as the writers wrote. And Galileo sat in house arrest because people of the same spirit as yourself and Al Mohler and Ken Ham regarded as heresy the idea these texts might be less ‘scientific’ than a superficial reading might conclude.
And yet we are now quite comfortable reinterpreting, even improperly rendering these texts in modern translations so we see something different that what the original writers understood. As Dee pointed out, most of the reformers still thought of the heaves as a fixed domelike thing and the Earth as fixed while the sun moon and stars revolved about it. The implications of ridigity in the Hebrew word ‘raqia’ caused the latin and greek translators to used terms that conveyed the same concempt, firmamentum in the latin. This became ‘firmament’ in the english of the KJV. And at the time of tranlsation of the KJV, people still understood that big blue sky we see as some kind of dome or set of ‘spheres’ – this is what people understood these texts to ‘literally’ say for millenia!!!
And yet none of the modern protestant translations still render this text in this fashion. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE YIELDED TO THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY that the sky is NOT a fixed dome, and they use alternate meanings for this word that strip the original Hebrew of what it REALLY,REALLY implies (a fixed and firm dome) to conform to that thing you so despise – science, and a modern understanding of what the ‘sky’ is.
We simple MUST look at scripture in light of what we KNOW about nature to properly understand its meaning and intent. Otherwise how do we know ANY of the metaphors used in describing nature are metaphors at all? Think about it. “Sun rise” is a commonly used metaphor from a time when it was NOT a metaphor. In ancient times people thought the sun literally rose and set over a flat Earth. We only ‘interpret’ this as a metaphor because of what we KNOW from science.
Likewise we MUST look at Genesis 1 understanding what we know to be true. The sky is NOT a fixed dome, it only appears that way to the naked, uneducated eye. The stars are not fixed to it. They only appear that way. The sky is not blue because of water above the firmament, but because of the scattering of light in its oxygen. God is not giving us a science lesson here. He is inspiring Moses to use a culturally familiar creation framework to tell the Israelites the Egyptian gods are created things. Much the same as some of the reformers used old bar tunes as a musical framework for religious hymns.
So likewise we cannot derive from it a valid time frame for creation, or even a necessarily correct order for the history of life. That was never its purpose. And we make a mockery of our faith when we try to convince that world it was.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I found the verse. Colossians 1:20 in part reads “and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself,” So could that possibly include animals? If so, then evolution theory would not necessarily affect atonement theory. But Adam means man. I doubt that God thinks that animals sin. (Except when my dog chews up my shoes!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
If you go over to Ken Ham’s site answers in Genesis and look for the article entitled” It Is Not About the Age of the Earth,” you will see how he ties it to salvation. I reject Ken Ham and the bogus science he quotes on his site.
The problem with what he does is this. Most people have little understanding of the hard sciences. It’s kind of like me with higher level math. I don’t get it so I avoid it. Then, if some genius guy-like a good friend of mine who reads this blog and has a PhD in applied mathematics- puts a complex equation on the board and says it is true, I am inclined to believe him.
All of the studies on his site have been trashed by good scientists, many of whom are Christians. But, to keep people in line, Ham makes it a “gospel” necessity to believe in his paradigm. So, most people do not want to be condemned to hell and they cave since they have great difficulty understand the science involved anyway.
So-to the doctrine: There can be no death before the Fall so animals couldn’t have died before the Fall although the Fall was about man. The very earth itself is now affected by the Fall so any observations we make are clouded. This gets around the problem of the earth and universe “looking old.” This also allows people to discount science when it is inconvenient. So, we can take the new anticancer drug and trust it but we cannot depend on the speed of light being constant.
As for TE, that is theistic evolution. We have discussed this at length on this blog and you can look under the category of creationism. This is a believe that Genesis 1: 1 is correct-God created the heavens and the earth but He used a process for the development of the plants, animals and man.
At one point, God breathed the breath of life into man and made him different than the animals. That breath made man an immortal being, imbuing him with a soul. What happens next is interesting. God placed man in the garden which was a small, set aside place on the earth. Why? What was going on outside the Garden? These is much that can be extrapolated from there.
And, just as Adam and Eve represented all mankind in the Great Test, so Jesus represents all mankind in our redemption. There are many questions that could be raised about what was going on at the time of Adam and Eve and the Bible is silent on this. What was outside the Garden?
So, I believe that one can be a TE and be a Christian and believe the Biblical narrative and not compromise the authority of Scripture no matter how hard Ham and Mohler try to say it is not possible.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
Zeta, Orion’s Belt, just weighed in above with a comment. He is KOATAP on our blog (Knower of all things astrophysical). He is a deeply committed Christian and TE. If you would like an expert opinion, he is awesome in this area.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I have heard of theistic evolution. They also believe that we evolved from a common ancestor that had 48 chromosomes. Ken Miller teaches this and I find his theory totally implausible. He is a Catholic. I was raised Catholic and they do not have a very high regard for God’s word in the first place. They prefer tradition over the bible.
Ken Miller’s fused chromosome #2 theory is way out there. Each human parent passes on 23 single chromosomes. So both parents would need to have fused the same chromosome to get a matching pair #2. Then that offspring would also need to mate with someone with that same fused chromosome – and on and on. The odds of that are a kazillion to one.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
You all are a lot more studious than I am but I do know this. We see in part and we know in part. If we knew it all we would be like the German scientist in the most recent Indiana Jones movie and our heads would explode with what we know.
I also know the following comment is correct too.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Tem – there is another expression that goes like this: “If you tell a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, people will believe it.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Perhaps you should reconsider. NBBT comments can be invaluable in subsantiating the point in the post. They woke zeta up this morning.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
http://www.genome-engineering.com/the-worm-turns-%E2%80%93-a-new-amino-acid.html
Just a little info about the advances of technology going places thought impossible, but since NBTT is banished, there’s really no point. Still I post it because it’s interesting.
I haven’t commented in forever because I was of the opinion, based on earlier responses to my comments, the people with an Open view of the future (which fits very nicely with the reality of evolution and the word of God), nor people with a Trinitarian, inclusive view of redemption were considered “real Christians” by the illustrious bloggers here, Dee and Deb. However this is such an interesting blog post, I popped in.
As to the sin problem, as Deb and Dee have noted (though not in such direct wording, but rather by statistics) Christian doctrine is no cure for sin. People get divorced not because divorce is a sin, but because they can’t seem to live the life of love Jesus called us to live. I propose it is because their religious instruction is focused on silly things like refuting irrefutable scientific findings and upholding ancient social distinctions rather than specifically: how DO we live out the command of Christ to love- our neighbor, our selves, our brothers, even our enemies?
If that were indeed to focus of Christian instruction, methinks the divorce rate would be much lower…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NBTT said:
“I have heard of theistic evolution. They also believe that we evolved from a common ancestor that had 48 chromosomes. Ken Miller teaches this and I find his theory totally implausible. He is a Catholic. I was raised Catholic and they do not have a very high regard for God’s word in the first place. They prefer tradition over the bible.”
I am very amused by your comments NBTT. You are why Ken Ham has lots and lots of money. And it is you arrogance that is the problem, not your scientific illiteracy. You see, the only reason you ‘find his theory totally implausible’ is your own ignorance, and your arrogance is that you trust your ‘common sense’ shoot from the hip understanding of what is plausible or not over a careful study of the relevant subject matter.
To see why, look below …
“Ken Miller’s fused chromosome #2 theory is way out there. Each human parent passes on 23 single chromosomes. So both parents would need to have fused the same chromosome to get a matching pair #2. Then that offspring would also need to mate with someone with that same fused chromosome – and on and on. The odds of that are a kazillion to one.”
No NBTT. Do you not understand that in the human population today are folks with 22 or even 24 pairs of chromosomes? And that they mate just fine with folks with the ‘normal’ 23? Do you not also understand that chromosome fusions (and splits) can happen and do happen? Further, that the real ‘odds’ make it essentially impossible that the arrangement of the DNA in the human Chromosome 2 would match so closely the two Chimpanzee counterparts, complete with certain intrisic retro-viral insertions and the ‘telemeres’ in the middle, end points of the two source genes fused end to end at EXACTLY the right spot based on the associated Chimpanzee counterparts?
No, the only real question would be did God decide to reuse the same genetic material He used in a Chimp with some modification and a change in configuration, or did God use/allow mans form to develop naturally over time with this fusion event simply one of thousands of historical remnants from that process.
And again, Ken Ham makes his living preying on the ignorance you display here. And the children of our world are sucked into atheism by that same ignorance. We, the church, only give the new atheist fuel for their own agenda by hiding in ignorance. It is hard to face the realities that contradict our traditional beliefs, but in facing them we find that the ROCK of our salvation is nonetheless solid and more than up to the task. God is not afraid of the truth. He made the world, and He approved the methods He used. They can’t be wrong. It is our comprehension of what God is saying in scripture and in nature that is flawed and producing the apparent conflict. But the solution is not to deny what is known, but to have faith in the one who made and gave both the cosmos and the scripture.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oh dear. In my last post could have implied 22 or 24 chromosomes in humans is normally ‘OK’, and that is not true. I apologize – I was writing too quickly and there is no way I know of to edit a post after it has been ‘launched’.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To clarify:
“But we do know that chromosomes can stick together. And we know that people who have two chromosomes stuck together usually have no problems.
How do we know this? Because there are lots of people like this running around. Something like 1 in 1000 live births has this kind of chromosome mix up.
So there isn’t really an issue with the chromosomes sticking together. The tricky part of your question is how this changed chromosome could have taken over the population and became what is most common in people. ”
from : http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229
Which is a discussion of the Ape/Human gene fusion.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
asachild
Unfortunately, NBTT has caused so much trouble here that it is becoming wearying to me to calm him/her down. I don’t care that he/she is a universalist. I think that causes people to think. But his/her routine insults, which have been escalating, make it difficult to discuss anything. I have asked NBTT to tone it down, to cut our filling up the comment section (sometimes it is 4 NBTT to 1 other).
When people come to this site, in some posts the page is filled with comments from NBTT. I have not banished him totally. If her comments come in and show some moderating influence, he will be welcomed back. But I am tired of it.
I have been doing this blog for over two years. i have only banned 4 people in that time and they were for good reason-including one liar who was posting in my husband’s name.
So, 4 people over 2 years= toleration with gritted teeth.
I have never met a YE universalist and it could be interesting to continue the discussion with emphasis on the word “discussion.” This person is the KJVO version of his particular theology.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, yes we know that chromosomes can stick together. But for all humans to have the same exact fused chromosome (#2) is the problem. Ken Miller points to this specific chromosome to explain why the common ancestor has 48 (and the other great apes) and why we have 46. I find his explanation to be totally preposterous. He admits that without an explanation, common ancestry is wrong. So these evolutionists are forced to come up with an explanation, no matter how absurd and far reaching it is.
There is a very good debate between 4 evolutionists and 4 creationists that took place at Seton Hall University. It is posted on YouTube. The evolutionists all use forced puzzle pieces and square pegs in round holes. The gaps in the fossil record are huge. Evolution (as far as common ancestry with humans and gorillas/monkeys)is pseudoscience. It is not observable, it is not testable, and it is not repeatable.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
asachild
NBTT did wake up Zeta. Zeta did not realize that NBTT was also a universalist which fascinated him. KOATAP is back!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
shadowspring
I am sorry for any impression that I gave you about “real” Christians. Could you please tell me what i said that caused you to not feel welcomed. I know that there are lots of thoughts flying around out there. Today I learned that there is such a thing as a YE universalist.
I may disagree with certain thinking but I am in no position to make a judgment regarding what goes on in the heart of a person. I feel bad if I conveyed such a thing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
In that debate, you mention there are 4 evolutionists and 4 creationists. Does this mean that you do not consider theistic evolutionist to be creationists? i believe that you can be both. I think that this is a redefining of the word “creation.” Theistic evolutionist would agree with Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Therefor, they are creationists. Perhaps you meant to say secular evolutionists?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, also how did this so called fusion become the 99.9% norm? Chromosome fusion is very rare. So where are all the humans that din not fuse this chromosome? Where are there any humans with 48 chromosomes?
Are humans fusing chromosomes today and that fusion spreading to an entire population? How about chimps or gorillas? Where is the repeat of such a phenomenon?
Again true science can be tested. Let’s test this theory in reality and let’s see if it can be duplicated population wide – not rare exceptions. Are there ant peer reviewed articles to confirm such a thing ever happening anywhere else in humans or chimps? Any chimp populations that have this fused chromosome #2?
Car manufactures often use the same materials to make things. That is not evolution. Because God made us similar to chimps or gorillas, does not mean that we evolved from them.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
None of the 4 creationists are theistic evolutionists. Ken Miller is a theistic evolutionist and he is on the evolution side of the debate.
I just went and found the debate. Here is the link for those interested. It is 8 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&feature=related
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I should clarify. 4 of them are refuting evolution. I do not know if they are all creationists. I have not watched this debate in years, but I remember it being very good.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
Then, are you saying that Miller does not believe in creationism?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ken Miller believes we humans evolved from a common ancestor. I do not know what his views are about creation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is what Wiki says:
“Kenneth Raymond Miller (born 1948) is a biology professor at Brown University. Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin’s God, which argues that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God; and Only a Theory, which explores ID and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case as well as its implications in science across America.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
Let me ask it this way. Can a person who believes in Genesis 1:1 but also believes in evolution be considered a creationist?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I suppose, as in God created life and then made it evolve into differing life forms.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is the problem. “Science” comes up with a theory that many buy into, so then those who believe in God and the bible, have to go and change how they look at the Genesis account of creation. So now God’s word takes a back seat to man’s so called “wisdom and knowledge”.
Like I said earlier, telling a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, does not make it the truth. Like global warming – is that the truth? It does not really matter because most believe it because they have heard it long enough, loud enough, and often enough.
Did you watch any of the debate I posted?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is a good web site to check out. It is called “Science Against Evolution.”
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
So, did the church have to compromise the Bible when the earth was discovered not to be fixed?
As for watching the debate, I have actually sponsored such a debate in church that went on for weeks, using Ken Ham’s DVDs in his debate with Walt Kaiser and Hugh Ross. I have thoroughly read all of Ham’s site as well as the opposing sites of Answers in Creation and Biologos.
If you go to our category section called creationism, you can look and see the extensive material and resources that we have used and recommended. I have read so many books on this subject , including the Three Views on the Creationism. I have presented Wayne Grudem’s material on the subject.
I would venture to guess, that outside of people who spend their lives dealing with this subject or my friend Zeta, I have read, attended and listened to more than most people who do not have a hard science background within the faith.
I have put this you tube video on my short list to listen to but i predict I have heard it all before.
Please take a look at our articles on this subject. It might give you an idea just how much we have covered in this area.
Dr John Lennox did a wonderful series at the Fixed Point Foundation on the God of Genesis. I have been blessed to attend several lectures at Lattimer House in Birmingham. I also listened to Hugh Ross lecture there and did a post on it at TWW.
Here is my main point-I, along with almost all others who are OE/TE believe in authority of Scripture. For Mohler and others to denigrate out commitment to both Scripture and our Lord is ignorant and condescending. Both sides care just as much about the Bible.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee–
Thank you for banishing that jerk! I cant believe his response to you. That was so disrespectful and ignorant of him. and he had the nerve to try and paint you as ignorant. Pathetic? You? I THINK NOT!! He, on the other hand, is.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
On another note… I found this post a little hard to understand. Forgive me.
So Dee–
Are you saying that you are a believer in the YE model and you also believe the earth is fixed and the sun revolves around it?
Thanks
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard,
The idea of evolution, that fact that inherited changes occur in the gene pool of a population over time is… well a fact, it is easily demonstrated. What most people seem to have an issue with is the idea of common descent, the idea that all living things share at some point a common ancestor. There is an enormous volume of support for this idea, in fact, there doesn’t exist any other scientific theory which explains both the diversity and shared characteristics of all living things on earth.
Here is a fascinating stroll down one path of common descent, it’s a bit fast so you may need to watch it more than once (I’ve watched it numerous times and always pick up something new), it should provide at least a general feeling for how much evidence there is for common descent…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
This was written tongue in cheek. I am OE/TE in my beliefs. If you tae a look at the subject of creationism in our categories, you will see a number of posts on this subject. My favorite one? The Flintstone Doctrine.
In fact, there are a few people out there who are very mad at me because of my stand on this issue.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, the earth is fixed. Here are some of the meanings of the word fixed.
1: not subject to change; stable (fixed prices)
2: steadily directed
3: not fluctuating
4: firmly maintained
5: held in chemical combination (fixed nitrogen)
6: equipped or provided for
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
Does not “yom” have many meanings?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Yes, yom has many meanings. Why?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I am not a YEC. Is that why you ask?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard said:
“Zeta, also how did this so called fusion become the 99.9% norm? Chromosome fusion is very rare.”
Well, if you looked at the article I linked to, you’d see it runs about 1/1000, .1%. While this is rare, it means in a population of 10,000,000, you have 10,000 folks with a fused chromosome.
Richard: “So where are all the humans that din not fuse this chromosome? Where are there any humans with 48 chromosomes?”
Well, at this point, 23 pairs is the norm. You mention 48, which I assume means 24 pairs. There are two ways to get 24 pairs. 1 would be a split in an existing one, another is to get a duplicate. The latter tends to be destructive. Typically though, moving down (23 to 22) involves a fusion which is more likely to be docile.
As far where are the ones that did not fuse – they are gone, just like the dinosaurs. We don’t even know when the fusion took place. It may have been long before mankind as we know it now existed (assuming evolution is purely natural). Keeping in mind God is in command of ALL that is, was, and ever will be, there is no way to know how ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ this event was. How does one differentiate between God causing something unlikely to happen on purpose and God simply allowing the universe to unfold? And is there a real difference? He is omnipotent and omniscient and clearly would know how to position creation so it unfolded as He intended – no?
Richard: “Are humans fusing chromosomes today and that fusion spreading to an entire population? How about chimps or gorillas? Where is the repeat of such a phenomenon?”
I don’t know the answer to this. I is likely a fairly rare thing – but consider this. IF evolution is how the history of life unfolded, then it did happen a good many times along the way, as the chromosome number varies a good bit even among mammals. Perhaps it requires a ‘population pinch’ – a catastrophic reduction in a population that happens to leave alive a subset of the population that is closely related and thus has a higher percentage of the fused Chromosome. Another is that it is possible the fusion actually presents or accompanies another mutation that confers a significant survival advantage (like intelligence?). When the fusion and a significant advantageous mutation are correlated, the fusion can be spread in the same way the new mutation does – by those having it tending to survive to reproduce more often than those that do not.
Richard: “Again true science can be tested. Let’s test this theory in reality and let’s see if it can be duplicated population wide – not rare exceptions. Are there ant peer reviewed articles to confirm such a thing ever happening anywhere else in humans or chimps? Any chimp populations that have this fused chromosome #2?”
Actually, if this kind of event happened successfully with the frequency that would allow such observation, evolution would likely occur much more quickly than it does. It is clearly something that is rare (in terms of it becoming fixed in a population), but it is also something that the evidence implies has happened. Remember there is a great deal more here than JUST a fusion. When you compare Human and Chimp DNA, and Human and other primate DNA, you see a hierarchy develop that matches the morphological hierarchy. Changes naturally nest as expected if they were the result of a slow process over time. Further, there are certain kind of viruses (retroviruses) that will insert themselves into DNA. We can identify them and we can see, again, the same kind of nested hierarchy in their placement as would be indicated by an evolutionary history.
See, if this was simply God re-using material, then you are stuck having to explain why He mimicked the expected evolutionary history as relates to retro-virus insertions. God working through natural processes is a in many ways a more realistic explanation.
(see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm)
Richard: “Car manufactures often use the same materials to make things. That is not evolution.”
Well, in a sense it is. Much of what we have in cars today represents an ‘evolution’ of technology over time. That is was intelligently directed does not mean that there was not an evolution. We learned over time how to make better, faster, safer cars, and we can track that evolution of technology over time by analysing the automobiles that are left behind.
Richard: “Because God made us similar to chimps or gorillas, does not mean that we evolved from them.”
First of all, no one thinks we evolved FROM chimps or gorillas. The theory of evolution says we evolved from some species no longer living that is a common ancestor of humans, chimps, and gorillas. This is a very common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.
Now you are correct in that commonality does not necessarily imply evolution. God could indeed have simply reused similar designs in various creatures for variety. But we have MUCH more evidence that we are the evolutionary descendents of apelike creatures than just similarity between humans, chimps and gorillas. We have a 500 million year history of life on the earth. And we have a rather lengthy 6 million plus history of primate life as evidenced in the fossils. We have the many different kinds of correlations in the DNA itself, not the least of which are the ‘mistakes’ (like the loss of vitamin C production) which also arrange themselves according to what would be expected if life had a evolutionary history.
Indeed Richard, ultimately, if God wanted to fool us into thinking life evolved, He would have been hard pressed to do so any better than what we find existing in out DNA and in the rocks. Which begs the question: why would the record of life on the Earth and the state of the DNA in our genes so carefully and closely evidence an evolutionary history if indeed there was no evolutionary history? Does God make fake histories in the rocks and in our genes and even in the heavens to try to trick us into thinking the universe is billions of years old and life evolved, or is God a God of truth and His creation simply carries in it the record of what it was and has become?
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
On further introspection, it was actually your dear reader Lydia who was thumping me relentless with her interpretations of Bible verses, purporting to show me the presumed error of my ways.
I left with the distinct impression that anyone not ascribing to the traditional (exclusivist, predeterminist) evangelical model of faith would be obligated to spend all their attention debating Lydia and defending their theology, regardless of the subject of that particular day’s blog post.
I spent years of my life living in that system, and don’t intend to give it even a moment’s more of my time and attention. Therefore, I withdrew. And withdraw again.
However I wish only peace and good will to the illustrious blog queens! And thank you for this: my son wants to be doctor, and I now have no fear that anything he learns in college could ever corrupt his faith in God, or refute the existence of a Creator. I found BioLogos via this site. 🙂 If he makes it through all of the studying ahead and gets his M. D. license, I will drive to Raleigh and take you ladies to lunch. (He’s a senior in high school now, so it will be at least eight years in the future. But still…)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I just looked up the Hebrew word for (established) from the first verse you posted above “1 Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.”
The Hebrew word translated “established” for Strong’s # 3559 – kuwn – defined as: “direct, fashion, fasten, firm, fixed, frame, ordain, order, provide, make provision, be stable,” just to name a few.
The word translated “moved” is Strong’s # 4131 – mowt – defined as: “be out of course, slide, slip”
So there is absolutely nothing in that verse or the others that goes against proven Science. In fact, it confirms the science we know. The earth never goes “out of course”.
It is crucial to look at all of the possible renderings of the Greek and Hebrew words, and not rely on the English translations.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
The point that I was making is that many YE people will agree to the definitions of fixed because they know the earth rotates. But, they will not give on the many definitions of the word yom. They are reading this blog so i was making a point with your excellent comment .
I was on the receiving end of an ugly YE crowd who came into a class in which a respectful, all sides of the issue, discussion was ongoing and caused a terrible ruckus. It will take me years to recuperate. Not all YE folks are like this but the rabid ones act just like the KJVO crowd.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, God did not fool man. Man fooled himself with the pseudoscience of evolution. All of your answers are based on assumption, speculation, and conjecture. That is not true science. That is mythology and science fiction.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Which begs the question: why would the record of life on the Earth and the state of the DNA in our genes so carefully and closely evidence an evolutionary history if indeed there was no evolutionary history? Does God make fake histories in the rocks and in our genes and even in the heavens to try to trick us into thinking the universe is billions of years old and life evolved, or is God a God of truth and His creation simply carries in it the record of what it was and has become?”
Well said.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I think we are missing a far more interesting question when we discuss word meanings…
We all agree that words can have more than one meaning…we all would probably agree that given any 10 people reading a particular verse they may “interpret” it differently based on the words chosen.
Here’s the question…if God is at least as smart as the rest of us, then He surely knows those things as well…since He knows that people will understand that same phrase in different ways (one would presume some of those ways are more in accord with reality than others), then isn’t He culpable for intentionally leading some people astray? Think about it for a minute…He knows that some people will interpret day one way vs another (same is true with “fixed”), so knowing that, and using the word anyway, which He knows they will misunderstand, isn’t he responsible for that misunderstanding…hence He has intentionally mislead a person from the truth.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
DNA evidence is mythology? Starlight and the proven vast distances of space (traveled by the Hubble telescope) is science fiction? Huh?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
DNA “looks like” evolution. There are numerous examples of things that “look like” such and such. That is still speculation, assumption, and conjecture. “Looks like” is not science. The fossil does not show evolution. Look alike species are many and varied. Evolution is extremely assumptive.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
All humans share a 99.9% DNA similarity. Humans always give birth to humans and chimps always give birth to chimps – no exceptions. That is real science. The latest findings on DNA show about a 96% similarity with chimps and humans, not the 97-98% originally mentioned.
Chimps and gorillas have no capacity for human languages. None whatsoever. Why not? Why are they so different? EVOLUTION! Why are they so similar? EVOLUTION! Why are people so deceived? EVOLUTION!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous – God is not responsible for people nit studying the original languages to find out out all of the possible meanings. People need to study – not just read – God’s word. Reading English only translations is not a serious way to study the bible.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
I believe that God set up the Bible to be authoritative, not a science textbook. Flexibility in the language gives meaning to primitive culture and also freedom for a more scientific based society. The people of 1000 years ago had little ability to parse the meanings of words. The fact that they believed in a literal 6 day creation and I do not makes no difference to the salvific text. The Bible has accomplished its purpose. I am a believer and so are they. And one day we will know far more clearly in heaven. There will be YE and theistic evolutionists in heaven, in spite of AIG.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard
Zeta is one of the finest Christians that I know. He is a role model to me of forgiveness and kindness. He is also a serious student of both Scripture and science. To accuse him of believing in mythology and science fiction is patently ridiculous and shows that you have not taken the time to carefully understand his positions. Seek first to understand before you attack.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The problem is not God, but humankind’s assumptions about God and about the Bible.
First, there is the assumption that because God is sovereign, everything that happens is his will, also known as strict Calvinism, predestinarionism, etc. I only present two contras to that here, but there are many: (1) Jesus said we should pray that God’s Will will be done on earth as it is in Heaven; a strange prayer if it always is and always has been. (2) Sovereignty is the capability to do what you chose to do within the power you have; God’s sovereignty is tempered by his love, mercy, justice, etc., the other characteristics we ascribe to God. Strong predestination makes for a god that is unloving, unmerciful and unjust.
Second, many people assume the Bible was dictated by God in the form in which we have it (some even to say the KJV is the “original Bible”!!!). But what we have is truth in the language and understanding of the people of the time, after much oral passing down, rendering into writing beginning in during the Babylonian exile, in early Hebrew, with the NT spoken in Aramaic and written in Greek, then copied repeatedly with opportunity for additions and deletions and copy errors. Then we have translations by people with social and political pressures and biases (e.g., KJV to support divine right of kings, hierarchy, patriarchy, etc.). And we have languages that have different ways of dealing with concepts. For example, when the Greek says the work we translate as “men”, in can mean men and women, since plurals of mixed groups use the male in many languages, including Greek and Latin, but in English we rarely and normally do not do so. (e.g.., a man and woman together — we would not say there were two men, because English speakers would be misled, but Romance language speakers would understand the ambiguity. A sister and brother in Spanish are called dos hermanos, and hermano is the word for brother.)
The Bible has a higher form of truth that literal. It is true in what it teaches us about man’s developing understanding of the nature of God and his love for human beings. That he is the creator (mechanism not really specified). The language is not scientific, nor could modern concepts have been understood by the people of the time, which would have led to rejection of the Bible as fantasy.
To me, the most important things about the creation stories in Genesis are that (1) God created; (2) everything the neighbors of the Israelites worshiped was created by the God of the Israelites; (3) God is actively interested in human affairs. The balance of the OT — (4) the extreme love of God for humans exhibited in the crucifixion was predicted 500 years before the birth of Jesus; (5) the inability of humans to live in accord with the behavioral limitations asked of them by God.
That is a sufficient understanding of the OT for me. To put more into it than that is to trust the human chain of oral transmission, writing in exile, and copying over and over for hundreds of years. So YES, I believe the Bible and I believe the Bible is true, but not that it is an accurate literal history.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
You write:
Al Mohler will not let anyone that does not agree with him stay in his seminary. He got rid of…
And in other news, water is wet. 😉 I know well of his reputation and iron fist (personally via those in his employ and those who are terrified of his power).
I’m so disappointed to see a person like Al Mohler who has so much ability to reason demonstrate behavior that is not equally as balanced and informed by that doctrine. His foundationalism (cognitive preference) is apart from his behavior which is influenced by motive and emotion.
John summed up the primary problems of man as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Others sum it up as money, power and sex which could be said to correspond to John. We all need a certain (limited) degree of capital to meet our God-given needs for survival as a minimum and optimal functioning to be optimally healthy, though sex can be suppressed or sublimated. Unhealthy lack of these things which results in covetousness or lust for overabundance/self-gratifying excess can make us weak and cause us to be fearful or paranoid. They can motivate us to do things that aren’t in line with good ethics because they cause us to follow the flesh.
I really believe that Mohler, like his associates, has a need for power and prefers authoritarianism. This can certainly be a personality thing, but it is also a power and control issue for people, and for these ministers like Mohler, I see it as a problem. People who are very wounded can do the very same types of things, seeking to control so that they are not exposed to more pain.
What I think plays out in Mohler is his foundationalism which intensifies his dogmatic nature (how Baptists are trained), and then when combined with a power and money motive (followed behind by gender as sex), it shows us just how human we can be. I see it from this vantage, and I don’t know if that plays out with him on a personal level. That is a sad thing, and I pray that God continues to work in the area of his life that seems to drive him to seek power and likely the things that come with it. (This is a lot like Voddie Baucham, too.)
But in terms of his argument, it is in line with his epistemology, and it is well-reasoned, based on how he makes sense of what is true. That is apart from how his emotions then mix with how his mind makes sense of the world to produce some of these controlling behaviors. I hope that we live to see a lot of growth and maturity in Mohler. He’s got so much going for him, but he’s definitely got a lot of intolerance and uses heavy handed tactics to maintain control.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I believe that I was created, and I personally accept a young earth theory and not because I was indoctrinated, one way or the other. I think that how we develop a causality about facts depends upon our belief system and our suppositions/presuppositions.
I think that evidence from science affirms the Biblical record, though I do not have all of the answers, nor have I worked out all of those causalities. I do find that it is much easier for me to accept and see the causality (explanations) in terms of creation, and I think that both approaches to origins require faith in something. You do have to trust in evolutionary process in order to accept evolution, just like a person must trust in a creation causality. I see the empirical evidence coming together nicely in most cases through intelligent design, though I am very comfortable with the ambiguity that faith in God requires sometimes. Some things affirm creation for me quite clearly in a beautiful way (like the handedness/chirality of the universe). Other things I cannot explain. But I am not that driven by the discussion at this point in my life, either.
And that isn’t a solicitation for debate to which I do not have time to commit presently.
I do think that reasonable people and scientists can believe in creationism without committing intellectual suicide, and it is a matter of the causality you presuppose by faith either way. One has faith in the appearance of the natural world and one has faith in the causality offered in the Bible. And creation science is not a part of essential doctrine in Christianity. Belief, one way or the other, does not disqualify you as a Believer or as a reasonable or rational person. We all have to remember to affirm that for one another in the Body of Christ.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I have this sneaking feeling that 100 years from now, our descendants will look at our society and think “Oh, how wrong they were about [add science/tech/medical/whatever things here].”
Because that’s what happens… start reading history and it becomes quite clear that no matter how educated and “advanced” a society/culture believes itself to be, there’s always room for change and growth in knowledge, education, etc. etc. (And not just in the “hard sciences,” either.)
I am not very good at hard science-type stuff, but… I don’t need to be able to understand every iota of the latest developments in marine biology or astrophysics or [insert name of discipline] to realize that there is always something more to learn, and that our knowledge is very finite.
Whereas God is not (finite), which makes the paradoxes of Scripture (recorded by finite beings, using many different literary forms, in several languages, in cultures most of us don’t understand) even more fascinating, though often baffling. (I scratch my head at a lot of things in the Book, partly because I know that I’m seeing through lenses that the original writers were not and am missing a ton of allusions and ideas that their immediate contemporaries would have grasped in the proverbial snap.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Not to mention that the infinite became finite in the Incarnation, which is a whole ‘nother topic! (One that will never be exhausted.)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
then you are forced to believe and treat all divorce as sin
Anonymous,
This is not the case at all. Remarriage is an issue for some, but even the Jews under the old law could be granted a divorce. It is better to marry than to burn, but it is better to be divorced to resist the loathing unto sin (wanting to burn the house down!).
There are many reasons why people may divorce and that is provided for in the Scriptures. Even Jesus discussed it.
Remarriage is another issue, however, and people tend to lump them together.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Science cannot make a blade of grass but scientists have created the first artificial cell. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2981138/Scientist-creates-first-man-made-cell.html
Genetic analysis *does* support evolution. At the moment, I am studying the evolution of the Central Nervous System. Originally, people thought that many types of CNS’s evoled but we can all trace the evolution of everything that has a CNS to one prehistoric lifeform, the ubilateri (sp?) The major genes that control the expression of proteins involved in the development of the CNS is very highly conserved across species that possess a centralized nervous system.
There are some things that speak to evolution. We all use either DNA or, rarely RNA to store the information needed to pass our information on to the next generation. This is highly conserved.
Fixing carbon from CO2 and using the energy from sunlight to split a water molecule are highly conserved. The Calvin Cycle is the way to fix Carbon.
Science isn’t fixed, however, and this is the best we know with the information we have. Scientists are eager to be wrong and to learn someting that takes us closer to the truth.
My faith, however, is fixed, it does not depend upon nor does it change with the information I have at my fingertips.
Both of these things can be true at once.
When I learn about something like most polypeptide chains fold into proteins without the need for energy I get blown away and my initial response is to glorify God for His wonderful creation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard. Your responses are quickly becoming generalized declarations, something common in these kinds of discussions. If you are to make an cogent point, you need to back up these declarations with actual examples and data, something which supports your assertions.
You said: “Zeta, God did not fool man. Man fooled himself with the pseudoscience of evolution. All of your answers are based on assumption, speculation, and conjecture. That is not true science. That is mythology and science fiction.”
I never said God fooled man Richard. You need to read for comprehension. I said that IF God wanted to fool man, He could not do any better than what is. The key point begin that the evidence in creation points very, VERY strongly toward and Old (4.5 billion years) Earth and some kind of evolution (change) in life over extremely long periods of time.
This is not just a matter of ‘pseudo science’. This is a matter of clear science. For example, consider that the observable universe itself extends out almost 13 billion light years from the Earth. That is, the most distant observable galaxies are so far away from us that light traveling at its measured speed requires almost 13 billion years to reach the Earth!. What is the most logical conclusion about how old those distant objects are then?
Ah, but you will say this is based on the assumption light does not vary in speed as it moves across the universe. And yet this ignores at least two very important other concepts. 1) the speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe. If it changes everything from the amount of energy in a fusion reaction to the amount of gravity exerted by a star changes. 2) the speed of light can and has been observed at great distances from the Earth, and it is always found to move at the same speed it does here to the limits of measure precision (consider super nova 1987a).
So how better then to convince us the universe is billions of years old than to make it billions of light years across, with things we can see at distances that require light billions of years to reach us and all observable evidence of lights motion over those same vast differences showing us that light has always moved the same speed it does here?
But what of the Earth and the Solar system? While there are many ways of assessing the age of both, there are several issues that point us way beyond the 6000 year time frame associated with faulty assumptions about the 1st chapter of Genesis. One that I find fascinating is the issue of asteroid impact craters on the Earth and the moon. Do you realize that if the known set of craters existing on the moon and the Earth had been made in the last 6000 years, it is virtually impossible that mankind would find this planet habitable? Let alone would have been able to establish the civilizations that have existed over the past 6000 years. The largest craters on the Earth not only would have been the result of catastrphe’s unsurvivable by human civilization, it is also impossible that they could go from the kind of scar we observe on the moon to what they are on this earth in a mere 6000 years. Some of these crators are Billions of years old.
But we also have that wonderful clock God put in the rocks called radiactive decay. This decay occurs in a very regular fashion, and through the use of isochrons can be used to establish very precisely the latest possible formation time. The issue of radioisotope dating is so strong an evidence for the great age of the Earth and the solar system YEC organizations have tried desparately to float ‘research’ that shows these decay rates have changed by millions of orders of magnitude in the past to account for what is observed. The only problem? To do so would release so much heat the Earth itself would still have a molten crust as a result!
And yet, almost every meteor that can be radiometrically dated pops in at right around 4.5 billion years of age.
But even without this methods, we can see from the extant geological state and that many millions of years are required to form what we currently see.
But what if God just poofed it into existence as we see it? Well, the problem there is the same evidence that tells us life on this planet has been here over 500 million years. In these layers are DISTINCT life forms. And for the majority of these life forms, they are found only in the layers that date to certain time frames. And from these fossil remnants and their associated times in the layers, we see a history of life. The Earliest life forms had no hard parts and are only rarely preserved. That history shows life beginning in the seas and them moving onto land. We see changes in form over a very long period of time, with the sets of life we see commonly in our everyday life (with a few notable exceptions) occupying only the more recent layers.
This is the evidence itself. But there is something else. The cross correlation effect. Just as when one is building a puzzle, it is possible to be mistaken about the placement of a piece or two, most of the time the pieces around the piece define it as having one and only one possible place it can fit. Likewise we have all sorts of cross correlating data available to us.
While I could probably write a book on this, we are short of space here. But the reality is Richard, the current scientific position on the age of the Cosmos and the Earth, on the history of life on the Earth, and on the most likely explanation for that history is NOT just a matter of random assumptions by people determined to reject God’s truth. It is solid, incredibly well verified science.
But that does not mean there is something wrong with Genesis. I simply means we misunderstood the implications of the text as regards the history of the world, just as we misunderstood the implications of the text as regards the fixity of the Earth in Galileo’s day. The key mistake in BOTH situations is assuming the Bible is suitable for use as a science text. That its statements can be used to DERIVE scientific truth. They can’t.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, I already stated that I am not a YEC. I have never argued for such and I will not argue for such. And I am not attacking you as dee suggested. I am attacking the pseudoscience of evolution.
Let’s get back to chromosome #2. Chromosome #2 is a matching pair – one from mom and one from dad. Both parents would have to had fused this same chromosome to pass on a matching pair. Then that offspring needs to do the same with their partner, and so on and so on. Again, each parent passes on single 23 single chromosomes. They need to match to make the resultant 23 pair – 46 chromosomes.
For 99.9% of humanity to wind up with 46 chromosomes via this process is totally absurd. That is why I call it science fiction. No such phenomenon can be produced in any lab with mice, rats, or any other animal.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard: “Zeta, I already stated that I am not a YEC. I have never argued for such and I will not argue for such. And I am not attacking you as dee suggested. I am attacking the pseudoscience of evolution.”
Sorry I missed that (You are not YEC), it would have saved about half my last post 😉 And actually, I’m quite impressed so far with your ability to discuss these issues rationally. It is not common, though more common to those that are not YEC … 🙂
Richard:”Let’s get back to chromosome #2. Chromosome #2 is a matching pair – one from mom and one from dad.”
If this were necessarily the case, then it would be impossible for people with a fused chromosome to mate unless they found a counterpart. It is my understanding this is not the case. That is, that it is still spossible for a person with 2a/2b to mate with a person with 2, the a and b parts bond with their corresponding section on 2. But I am NOT a geneticist. Figuring out HOW such a thing could happen is beyond me.
Richard: “Both parents would have to had fused this same chromosome to pass on a matching pair. Then that offspring needs to do the same with their partner, and so on and so on. Again, each parent passes on single 23 single chromosomes. They need to match to make the resultant 23 pair – 46 chromosomes.”
Again, I think the problem here is your base assumption that 23’s can only mate with 23’s. There is more to the blockage of inter species mating that chromosome number. And indeed, a person with 22 chromosomes (two fused) is still indeed quite human. If the fusion causes no loss of functional genes (as is the case for 2a/2b in humans vs chimps), then mating is possible, though there are possible issues. We can see all of this in action in Downs Syndrome cases. The issue here is that the gene fusion that can produce Downs does have a potential negative side effect – but not always. (http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=12). What we don’t know is what was the effect of the apparent 2a/2b fusion. Apparently it either was good (net positive) as we are here OR there was some very rare set of circumstances that allowed it to become the norm. Or God just did it (Adam and Eve) and that separated us from the chimps. I personally don’t have an issue with some miraculous intervention producing mankind. The Bible clearly indicate man’s creation was distinct from that of the animals. God took special interest in him – molded him directly. The implications, even in a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, imply there is something unique about God’s process in creating mankind.
Richard: “For 99.9% of humanity to wind up with 46 chromosomes via this process is totally absurd. That is why I call it science fiction. No such phenomenon can be produced in any lab with mice, rats, or any other animal.”
No, it is just unlikely from what we currently understand. Even you will admit of two 23’s could find each other they could mate. We are talking about a huge genetic bottleneck with just two, but accepting evolution from a theistic perspective as the general explanation (and most likely implication of the evidence) for the history of life on earth does not exclude the possibility of God’s direct intervention for mankind.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Richard,
you said…”anonymous – God is not responsible for people nit studying the original languages to find out out all of the possible meanings. People need to study – not just read – God’s word. Reading English only translations is not a serious way to study the bible.”
You miss the point, it’s not a matter of “responsibility for not studying”, it’s a matter of God knowing they would misunderstand his words and believe something which is not true…it is not limited or even primarily about people studying ancient texts either, but about the primary receiver’s of God’s word….just like today, with full contextual understanding, you still can’t get 10 people to view anything identically…let alone thousands!
The point is the if God is Holy and pure…He cannot lie or deceive, while you or I may not be responsible if someone misunderstands our words…God surely IS responsible for someone’s deception if He knows in advance that they will misunderstand and yet uses the same verbiage anyway, that is intentional deception.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
So, when you say that “I believe that God set up the Bible to be authoritative, not a science textbook. Flexibility in the language gives meaning to primitive culture and also freedom for a more scientific based society.”
What you are saying is here’s the bible…find your own truth? That’s a bit far out there isn’t it…even for a liberal Christian?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy,
Your statement that “I believe that I was created, and I personally accept a young earth theory and not because I was indoctrinated, one way or the other. I think that how we develop a causality about facts depends upon our belief system and our suppositions/presuppositions.”
I need your help .. could you put into simpler language the phrase “develop a causality about facts”…I don’t want to misunderstand what you are saying…thanks
Secondly, I find that paragraph to be a bit self-contradictory. In the first sentence you state that your beliefs are NOT the result of indoctrination…then later in the paragraph you say that how we think about facts is a result of our belief system….isn’t that indoctrination?
When you say that “I think that evidence from science affirms the Biblical record”. What is that based on? Later on you profess belief in special creation and a young earth… neither of which is taught or supported by any recognized scientific organizations or published scientists in those respective fields of study.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Annonymous
The language of creation will mean progressively deeper things as mankind becomes more adept at observations. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. There are no lectures on thermodynamics, atoms, electron, quasars, relativity, etc.,etc. So, primitive people believed that the world was fixed, even standing on pillars. As we discovered atoms we began to understand better how things are fixed or hold together.
These discoveries only deepen the meaning of the text. It does not “disprove” what the primitive people understood.The world is fixed and steady, only in a different way than those ancient nonscientific people understood.
How does this change the Bible? God has fixed the universe and our planet. The Bible tells us to trust in a God who will hold thing together until He comes again. I believe in the same Scriptures as the tribe of Israel, but I know a bit more. That does not contradict the Scripture. If the Lord tarries, I would not be surprised if we learn more of this complex creation put together by an omnipotent and complex God.
And, if those who come after us discover something we do not know now, my guess is that it will only buttress the fact that God is in control and has fixed our position in the universe.
So, if liberal means believing in the authority of Scripture, the miracles and the Second Coming, then I am a liberal. But, according to many atheistic liberals, I am a throw back to the Stone Ages. So , I guess i have managed to be both, somehow.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous to Richard:
You miss the point, it’s not a matter of “responsibility for not studying”, it’s a matter of God knowing they would misunderstand his words and believe something which is not true…it is not limited or even primarily about people studying ancient texts either, but about the primary receiver’s of God’s word….just like today, with full contextual understanding, you still can’t get 10 people to view anything identically…let alone thousands!
The point is the if God is Holy and pure…He cannot lie or deceive, while you or I may not be responsible if someone misunderstands our words…God surely IS responsible for someone’s deception if He knows in advance that they will misunderstand and yet uses the same verbiage anyway, that is intentional deception.
If you are born of the Spirit and become a new creation in Christ, the Holy Spirit opens up your understanding. Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 2 telling us that we have not received the spirit that is of man but the Spirit of God that we might know those things freely given to us by God. When the man who does not have spiritual understanding (is not regenerate in Christ), spiritual things are foolishness because he doesn’t have spiritual discernment that is imparted by the Spirit.
So when we read the word, it is not just the word or the translation alone, with or without textual criticism. Reading of the Word of God, for the Christian, happens in concert with the illumination of the text by the Holy Spirit. You read those things with the mind of Christ. So the understanding of the text is not entirely dependent on the letter of the law of the text, but the Spirit imparts understanding and shares the mind of Christ with the Christian as they read.
Bible study is important, and people can go as deep as they want or can when it comes to the original languages, and now there are so many free tools that make much of what I learned in Seminary so easy! It kinda ticks me off sometimes! Depending what the application, if you are really scrutinizing the meaning of a text, you want to try to discern deeper things about the original language which is sometimes misleading. I specifically started in seminary because I wanted to know more definitively what the text means. But bamb! Reading the original text, in some cases, actually adds more possibilities to the interpretation as opposed to narrowing down the meaning. I was very angry about this when it finally hit me, because I essentially took on the task in order to find a theophany. And there are no theophanies. Educated people and ministers may let on that the original texts clear up any ambiguity. In many cases, they add in extra problems and possibilities. To read to translate required years of discipline to develop any proficiency as well. I found that the original text made things harder, not easier. I was still dependent on translations in English. Sometimes it helps, but often, it opens up things to broader debate.
Maybe God does that so that we have no other alternative but to trust Him in faith believing that He is guiding us and revealing the truth. As Believers, we have the promise that the Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, and it is a synergy between the Spirit and the Word that brings understanding.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
DB said:
The Calvin Cycle is the way to fix Carbon.
And there you have it, folks — scientific proof that Calvinism is the solution to Global Warming.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy,
Your primary rebuttal is difficult to believe. Claiming that the Holy Spirit gives “understanding” to the words doesn’t seem very likely, since Christians seem to disagree on the words as much as, if not more, than non-believers do!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I agree it is not a scientific textbook, and even though successive generations might have gotten more and more from the story, it still doesn’t absolve God of deception.
If those words proceed from the “mouth of God” as it were…and they can be shown to be inaccurate, then any way you slice it…God was either ignorant of the facts himself or unable to control what was finally written and selected as “His word”, or allowed people to be deceived as to the true nature of things.
God was certainly under no obligation to discuss anything in particular, so if something was impossible to explain…why include it at all? To do so under the guise of illuminating successive generations at the expense of perpetuating the ignorance of those who wrote the scriptures…doesn’t seem to be the act of a benevolent, omnipotent, truthful God.
I believe that I could rewrite the first few chapters of Genesis myself to tell the same story, have it be in language that simple people could understand and still not lose any scientific truth. If I can do it, what’s that say for God?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous,
Your statement that “I believe that I was created, and I personally accept a young earth theory and not because I was indoctrinated, one way or the other. I think that how we develop a causality about facts depends upon our belief system and our suppositions/presuppositions.”
I need your help .. could you put into simpler language the phrase “develop a causality about facts”…I don’t want to misunderstand what you are saying…thanks
What we believe and understand to be true flows from how we perceive reality best and what we believe to be true, before we ever get into looking at a matter (this gets at epistemology again and how we validate truth). Al Mohler may want to get out early in the day on July 1st and mow his grass, and I want to do the same thing with my yard (not that I think that he mows his own lawn). 🙂 My neighbor’s houseguest who is from a primitive tribe in Ecuador may have agreed to mow the lawn, too. He loves the lawnmower because he doesn’t have one in the jungle.
Al believes that the universe is revolving around the earth because of a Biblical argument (what he accepts as as self evident collection of truths as he understands them). Though the earth is fixed, he “knows” that the sun will change position in the sky in a predictable way, possibly because he’s read about this in Scripture in addition to observation (another self evident basic idea that doesn’t need support to observe that it always happens), as the universe revolves around him. It’s hot because we have seasons because sovereign God wanted us to have seasons to tell us stories about life, communicating truths about Himself. Al might ponder how God purifies our bodies through hard work, and how the curse is responsible for our human toil. It’s all Eve’s fault, anyway. I have to get done by 9AM because I have 12 really important things to do by 6PM.
I believe that the earth is orbiting around the a star that we call sol and that the earth is rotating, and the closer I get to the direct peak of most direct sunlight based on the earth’s position in rotation, the hotter it gets. It stays hot and may get hotter in the afternoon because I “know” the atmosphere has retained that heat throughout the day. I also know that the earth travels in in elliptical orbit, and I know that the earth is about as close to the sun in that orbit as it gets during the year. Six months from now, I know that it will be summer in the western hemisphere of the earth because the earth tilts on its axis and they will get their turn to get toasty, and I will be shoveling snow instead of mowing. I also consider that when I mow for the last time in the fall in a month and a half, I will need a sweater, so this motivates me by remembering that it will not stay this hot. I thank God how He uses creation to motivate us and to encourage us as I think about how life can sometimes be like the seasons. How wonderful and beautiful! Hey, mowing isn’t so tough when I think about more lofty things. I love Jesus and I love how he reveals himself to me in different ways like mowing in the heat. Distraction is amazing, and this was not as bad as I thought, though I’m glad I finished before 10AM.
My neighbor’s guest believes that the warrior rides over the world daily. When pleased, he rides across the sky far above us and the heat and light that falls on the earth comes from the fire generated by the dragons that carry him on his journey. On days when the warrior is displeased, there are storms in the day. When he is sullen, there are clouds and dampness. Today, he is happy, but this guest “knows” that the happier the warrior gets, the hotter it gets. He is so close to the equator, he doesn’t know anything about the change of seasons. It is always hot. I love this lawn mowing and this mower. I like the heat, and I’d mow in the late afternoon, but the mosquitoes get bad later in the day because the day gets hotter as the sky warrior gets happier. We have nothing like this in the jungle because we have just a little clearing with little grass. The goats and the llamas keep it trimmed. Why don’t these people all get llamas and goats?
We all are doing the same tasks for the same basic reasons (the grass is high), using the same style of lawn mower, and we are motivated to get the job done early because we all believe from experience that as the day progresses, it gets hotter. For Al and I, we know that summer is different, but our summer is like every day for the neighbor’s guest. Same task and same end product by the same means.
We all agree on many things except the explanation of the cause of why and how the day progresses and why it gets hotter and is especially hot in summer. We believe that these things occur and would agree on those facts. We believe them because of observation and experience. Everything’s the same. But we share a different causality because our presuppositions about the nature of the world is different. How we explain them is different, and that causal relationship (the cause and effect that I use to link different ideas together in a meaningful way that helps me to best make sense of the universe) shapes our thoughts in very different ways. It affects how we problem-solve and how we plan our choices.
Who is right? If your purpose is religion, Al will have some choice things to tell the visitor, some of which will be very similar as the things I say, but I suspect that we would say them differently. Al doesn’t want to talk to me because I’m an evil antinomian and a false teacher, most likely. If your purpose an interest involves lawn mowing, does it matter at all? The end product is the same.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous,
Secondly, I find that paragraph to be a bit self-contradictory. In the first sentence you state that your beliefs are NOT the result of indoctrination…then later in the paragraph you say that how we think about facts is a result of our belief system….isn’t that indoctrination?
I had the liberty and freedom to choose my belief system and the particulars the system. I was not coerced into becoming a Christian. By indoctrination, I meant that I was not coercively imbued with an ideology and manipulation was not used to force me into that belief system. I joyfully choose to put my faith in creationism, after much study, and I have volumes upon volumes of material that I have to house and dust regularly. I believe that it is an intramural issue in Christianity, and no one encouraged me to believe one way or another.
I just have a great and abiding faith in creation because I know and love God as my faithful creator. (I also did not grow up with the idea that Christianity was all about shame and guilt, and I saw Jesus as my greatest advocate, friend and source.) One famous evolutionist said that (paraphrase) “We believe in evolution, not because of scientific theory or fact but because the only alternative is creation, and that is unthinkable.” Well for me, the opposite is true. I don’t and can’t make sense out of the world from their view. It just makes absolutely no sense to me to think in terms of evolution.
And I see and find causality through a belief in a Creator that comes so much easier to me than any evolutionary theory. That is the most deeply satisfying and sensible Occam’s Razor explanation for origins that I can find that makes sense. It is origins by special creation for me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy,
I like your example, but our “perceptions” aside, there are real facts to be known in our universe
The reasons why or how something happens are just as much facts that can be known as are the events themselves. A person may believe that at some ultimate level the great peacock drank too much spring water and so it is raining outside, but it’s still nonsense…there is no peacock, not a shred of objective, verifiable, testable evidence that can be shown for its existence.
A person can chose to believe anything they like, but that doesn’t make the facts change or go away. You may choose to believe that the great warrior chipmunk has put his great striped cloak of invulnerability around you for the day, but I dare you to test that belief by stepping in front of a moving train!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
When you say that “I think that evidence from science affirms the Biblical record”. What is that based on? Later on you profess belief in special creation and a young earth… neither of which is taught or supported by any recognized scientific organizations or published scientists in those respective fields of study.
One of my presuppositions about life and part of the glue that holds meaning in my life together is a belief that there is a God who created me. And though I have suffered a great many things that were very traumatic and difficult, rather than my faith in God as a faithful God who loves me getting weaker, the bad stuff has made it incredibly strong. My faith is here and it just is, at least in terms of the discussion of origins. It may be that I had a very good early experience and found solace in my faith and in my church experience (though that was not always easy when I was young either). I went to public school through eighth grade and only had ACE curriculum in high school, and I don’t even remember one day when the topic was discussed. And I used to faithfully watch Cosmos and Nova and loved it.
Some people struggle with origins and stuff and I just don’t and never have at all. Not for a minute. I don’t get threatened about it, either. I guess I don’t care because I have this enduring trust in God that I experience as greater and beyond myself. If it is not real and is just programming and imagination and stupidity or whatever, I could care less. It is my trust and joy. I don’t really care what people think. And one of my dearest friends is a marine biologist, and we talk, and we just laugh and smile after some long discussions, because we are both confident and sure. (Not that he is not formidable and doesn’t ask fantastic questions, but not one has ever caused me to doubt.) Evolution is just not something that makes any sense to me. What I started to see around 2000 though was a shift of explanation about origins from pure modernism type approaches by evolutionists to accept more phenomenal causes through mystical explanations for quantum mechanics as society has become more openly postmodern. I do experience evolution as a religious belief system, however, because it requires absolute faith in empiricism itself which I think is empty, so I am not surprised that people are shifting over into knosis arguments based on quantum reality and stuff which is religious. And look at Carl Sagan. He needed to find a stronger causality, and he went over into new age religion and extraterrestrial life causes to hold meaning together.
I mentioned chirality. In the mid-eighties, I subscribed to Scientific American. Most Christians find it appalling to read, but having had training in science and then hanging out with scientists and stuff, I could love the facts that they present, and I don’t care about their causality. I know my causality. Things happen in the same way because the laws created that maintain creation are similar because of common design. I could care less if Peter Levine calls the limbic system and the amygdala and the basal ganglia the “reptilian brain.” I can agree with him on how the structures of the brain work and the physiology of what happens, and I don’t care. I believe that what he calls the reptilian brain is just a closer to first order brain structure that God built with more complexity when He put together the human brain, though He used the same design when he made reptiles. That is not difficult for me.
I mentioned chirality, the spin of nearly everything in the universe. Everything has a similar spin, and it’s mostly all dexter – a right spin. If a right handed person makes a coil, the coil will have a dexter spin. Off the top of my head, I think only about 5% of things like proteins and sea shells and trees and vines and stuff have a sinister spin, hense the name. Thats where OS and OD come from as a medical abbreviation. One stands for ocular dexter (Rt) and the other is sinister (Lt). The article was called “The Handedness of the Universe.” I sat and wept and wept with joy. Does that mean that Scientific American published an creation science article? Nope. I don’t think there were even any organizations that were that established at the time. It offered a few weak explanations as to why this happened. I don’t remember what they were because they weren’t that compelling to me. The article definitely established the fact of handedness.
So I saw a miraculous picture in my mind of my Creator starting with proteins and sea shells and crafting them with the “righteousness of His right hand.” It is the same righteous right hand that holds me up and has held me all the days of my life and I have nothing but just “there it is” faith that it is true with no reason to doubt Him in a way that is beyond me. God hung the heavens in the sky and made ever star and ever galaxy and every protein and every atom and subatomic particle and wave and form, and He hold them all together every moment in harmony by the power of His word that spoke them into being. And my heart is so full of awe and love and gratitude in that thought, that God who created stars so far away that I can only see their light after they’ve actually stopped burning and no longer exist knows how many hairs I have on my head and hears and sustains every beat of my heart and every breath I take. And on top of that, He loves me with an everlasting love, not because I merit it, but just because it is true. That is my faith, and with all of the science I have studied and continue to study, I have never doubted that. Perhaps it is because I have never doubted God’s faithfulness to me and His care of me through adversity.
Science proves facts. We lend causality (the chain of causative factors that links events and facts together) to them to give them meaning based upon what we believe. We all start from a place of confirmation bias, and this is mine and it is me. It is a part of my identity and has been for as long as I have known anything. We need a causality to make sense of our world, the glue that holds meaning together for us. The meaning and causality of my life flows out of my belief in God who I believe came and found me and loved me because He wanted to do so. (And don’t get me started about how He emptied Himself to become a man in whom the whole fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily so that He could go to prison and death for me to pay my pardon, even the shameful death reserved for criminals on the Cross.) That belief flows from my faith, and that faith is just there, and everything about it speaks of love. If all that makes me a fool and if this is all just the wisdom of a fool, then I bear the title proudly, because my confidence comes from so deep inside me I don’t even fathom it. I believe that it is what God has poured into me because of love because it is more sure than anything I know and greater than me. It is my all in all.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
A person can chose to believe anything they like, but that doesn’t make the facts change or go away. You may choose to believe that the great warrior chipmunk has put his great striped cloak of invulnerability around you for the day, but I dare you to test that belief by stepping in front of a moving train!
Who says I believe in a great warrior chipmunk? Who says I deny reality or empirical evidence? I don’t. I’m a coherentist. I test and validate truth. That’s why I love statistics. We can take data that we think might mean something after we’ve accumulated information about it in a systematic way. We can throw every mathematical test at it, a beautiful and inspiring discipline that God gave us to evaluate truth, something that works in concert with the objective wisdom we find in the Word of God about ethics and value and philosophy and metatphysics as well as the subjective experience and witness of the Holy Spirit that guides me into all truth and gives me discernment that I might know truth from error. And we can find truth. Truth. That truth might be a banal truth or a natural law or a spiritual truth or a piece of scientific evidence.
Here’s an example. I love Michael Persinger. He’s a PhD at Laretan (sp?) University in Ontario. He invented a thing called the God helmet and has done all kinds of experimentation to alter levels and states of consciousness with magnets that are manipulated around the head. He can reproduce the felt sense of God and religious experience. People with very active temporal lobes who have what he calls a “spiritual personality” (that has some things in common with TLE, actually) will have very predictable behaviors such as speaking in tongues or channeling when the brain is stimulated in a particular way.
Michael Persinger believes he’s proven that God doesn’t exist and that all religious experiences are meaningless and invented, a musing of the brain. He also believes that because of the close proximity of certain brain structures that the reason behind the common elements that people describe as UFO extra terrestrial experiences are really a very slow brainwave pattern that allows the person to have a felt sense, Right brain experience of the homonculus, the neurons in the brain on the motor strip that are devoted to certain parts of the body.
In physiology lectures, they draw a picture of a distorted body on the brain on top of the motor strip. He has induced these experiences in his lab and believes that people have them in response to changed in geomagnetic stress from the earth that causes us to shift out of a resting state of a summation of 7 Htz into a slower one or altered one, triggering these events. There also seems to be increased cult activity at that time (like the Toronto Blessing!).
He believes he’s proven that there is not God. I believe he’s mapped the mechanisms about how God connects with us and how we interact with God and our environment in ways that may seem elusive. In my eyes, because of my causality, I see reasons to glorify God. (I will admit though, that most Christians feel intimidated by his information and may even call it evil.) He’s searching to understand the marvelous and mysterious nature of being, just like all of us. And I am not in the least bit threatened by his different causality. I am at rest in mine.
I even paid over $100 for his book at the time because I loved his lectures and found them fascinating. It’s come down in price since.
http://www.amazon.com/Neuropsychological-Bases-Beliefs-Michael-Persinger/dp/0275926486/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315096178&sr=1-1
He talks about evolution on almost every page as he offers reasons for the facts he presents. And where he sees evolution, I see the Ancient of Days and remarkable meaning and purpose because I was created fearfully and wonderfully.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I believe most Amino Acids are left handed and sugars are right handed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous
“I believe that I could rewrite the first few chapters of Genesis myself to tell the same story, have it be in language that simple people could understand and still not lose any scientific truth. If I can do it, what’s that say for God?”
The Bible has stood the test of millennia. It is the best selling book of all time. It is always the best selling book, so much so that the NY Times doesn’t bother to list it as such anymore.
I am glad you can think you could do a better job than God. You could make yourself a fortune! I, on the other hand, find the book of Genesis brilliant and can think of no way to improve upon it. It seems we are at odds.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy,
A very nice answer, I wish I could write as eloquently! I am pleased that you have found happiness and contentment in your beliefs and that they help you make sense of your world.
I must say though that I could never be happy supplanting what science can tell me about the world I live in, or by closing my eyes to it in order to maintain the integrity of a fantasy, no matter how pleasing or comforting it may be.
I also find that I have no desire or need to explain my world or what I learn about it. The facts are sufficient and can stand on their own, they do not require a consoling explanation, nor do they have to be molded to fit into my world view. I am more then happy to allow my view of the world to be driven by what I learn.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
I respect your point of view. However, for so many scientists who adhere to the Christian faith, evolution does make sense within the paradigm of Scripture. My husband is one, John Lennox is another, so is Francis Collins. Frankly, I do not care what people believe in this area so long as they believe in a Creator God. All of the Christians I know who believe in evolution do so. And , if truth be told, I am leaning that way myself.
Those of us who believe in a God who can do this also believe in both miracles and love. We are exactly the same as you are. There is no difference except for our understanding how God accomplished this feat.
This is a B issue that is being raised to an A issue by Mohler and Ham who are seeking one more criteria to prove that one is a gospel believing Christian. That is a sham and is causing disunity which is unnecessary. But ,of course, Mohler also believe that there is only one Biblical way to view the role of women so he is used to causing rifts.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Eagle
You have said what I want to say in a most succinct and heartfelt manner. Kids are leaving the faith because people insist that this is an A issue. I know of a young man who walked away from the faith when the science he was taking in college overwhelmed the supposed science on Ham’s site. He told me that he was lied to about the science and therefor the whole Christian faith was one big lie.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Two thoughts, sure it’s “best selling” but why…is it because it is such a wonderful work of literature that people can’t stop reading it…or is it because organizations buy and print them by the millions to be used in missionary activities, left in hotel rooms, to fill church pews, prisons, etc.?
To my second point, I wasn’t claiming to be able to write a better work of literature, per se, but rather that I could certainly write it in such a way that none of the theological essentials are left out and yet still not imply, or say anything that could be construed as contradicting current science. In fact, I could probably correct some of the early beliefs in the process.
Might be duller reading (is that possible?), but that’s not the point 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And with that, I’ve seriously have no more time because I seriously neglected other things I needed to do and have to do.
I’m leaving town and have a million things to do but chose to talk about the passion of my life and my heart.
If people don’t agree or don’t get it, that is fine.
I guess that I have never identified any problems that I have with God. That isn’t out of any fear or shame or coercion or because I was told not to have problems with God. I tend to have more problems with myself and with other people. I have had major, life-crushing problems that resulted from spiritual abuse in churches at the hands of corrupt leaders who I understand are also just fallible men trying to make sense of things themselves.
Some of those disappointments drove me into philosophy, and I lived for a time when I thought that,like I did during my search for a theophany through NT Greek some time later, that if I could just talk to the long dead Franz Kafka, Soren Kierkegaard, and especially Fyodor Dostoevsky, I could answer a lot of unanswered questions that troubled me about pain and suffering and wanting to understand God. I read everything I could lay my hands on by Bertrand Russell, too, and I liked some of Ayn Rand but was troubled by her lack of a message of gift of the sacrificial helping others in need in beneficence and benevolence.
Somewhere along that way, I came back to what it seems I already knew — that I could “strive to enter” that rest that faith in Jesus brings, another wise statement of those who become fools for Him that seems like foolishness to those who haven’t seen it before. (That is also more of 1 Cor 2.)
I believe what Paul said to the Corinthian church about God giving spiritual discernment, and if that is all just a made up causality on his part, that’s fine too. It’s been great glue — and has been the hope that has found me when I felt like I had none, when nothing else made any sense. All things have worked together for good for me in my life, and whether God chose me or I chose Him and how you look at it, I am ever being changed, day and day, into the likeness of the character that Jesus lived as recorded in the Gospels. That’s not such a bad aspiriation, if that’s all it is.
I’m reminded of what Jim Elliot once wrote, a missionary who died in Ecuador where I have served as a missionary myself once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” I’ve “given” my life in service to my Creator, and if I’m right, I believe that I will see God and have eternal life, that which I “cannot lose.” But here’s something great because I have lost nothing and have gained more that I think I could have ever wished for my life, here and now. I have experienced a great deal of pain and suffering, but I think that is just a part of life. Even so, I have gained and gained and I don’t think I lost anything.
If you use different glue and you have different presuppositions as a frame of reference for what things mean, and you live a rich and full life, and you find joy and meaning in your life, I am happy for you. Many people live and are troubled and have pain and frustration all their lives, and they never find any kind of transcendence. But I would rather that I could share the abundance of what I have, in meaning and care and fullness and that sense of blissful connectedness that comes during those moments when everything seems right with the world (not that this is my baseline!).
I’ve been given a wonderful gift and benefit in my faith in Jesus, and nothing would delight me more than to share that with anyone who would have it and receive it. If they don’t want it, that is their free choice and liberty to turn it down, and that is also something that I see as God’s precious gift to us — freedom to choose Him. Christianity should not be the selling of hell insurance, and I believe that is wrong and is not faith. What I hope that people do is make their own choices, because of emotion and reason and faith together based on full disclosure. As I see it, the most infinite and all powerful amazing God who is above all others and all things saw me and reached down to rescue me. I put my faith in Him, but I feel like He looked down into the mire of where I was, and for reasons that I can never fathom, He saw something of value in me and pulled me out and then gave me His life, His promises to me, His Name, even authority in His Name, and He calls me His own. I lost nothing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I think it is an “A” issue, how can you make sense of the rest of scripture (in particular the need for redemption), if you relegate the genesis creation account to allegory?
Also, on what basis do you believe that Genesis account was written more for later generations where we have a more refined sense of understanding and parsing works of literature then the Jews of Abraham’s time? I would think that, if for anyone, those works were written to be taken at face value. Is there any evidence that the early Jews took that story any other way?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee et al,
Sorry to be absent from this discussion. My hubby and I have had a couple of relaxing days at the beach, and now we’re back home. I will catch up all the reading. No damage to our condo PTL!
Just thought I would share the following information.
Al Mohler will be speaking at the Answers for Pastors conference this October (10/18-20). You’ll never guess the venue… It’s The Creation Museum.
Answers for Pastors
So predictable…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous
Let me try it this way. When my children were tiny, they would ask why things were the way they were-why is the sky blue, why does that family have a mommy but no daddy, etc. When they are young, we give simplistic answers. Not to deceive but to build on in the future.
I believe the Bible is like that. It has transcended all cultures in all times and in all languages, long before the Gideons were placing them in hotel rooms in Los Angeles. There is something about that book that is different than all others. I know you think you could do better but I am not sure that you could. You live in this culture, in this time, with your own sets of understanding of how the world works. My guess is that you might experience difficulty in explaining this to a Celtic peasant from 900AD.
This tiny rebel offshoot of Judaism, born in the backwaters of Israel, 2000 years ago, arose from being considered an irritating cult to be wiped out by the Romans to being the predominant faith in the word in a couple of hundred years. I know a few cult leaders who would love to be able to do that.
This is a Middle Eastern religion that is as relevant to America today as it is to South Korea, Russia and Thailand. It survived the Dark Ages and the French Revolution . I don’t know, anonymous, you have some pretty high ambitions if you think you could explain something that good. But, i wish you well. I will be happy to prepurchase your book. It sounds quite ambitious.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Deb
Yep- we will be told we are now denying the very Gospel. Surely Mohler knows the science on Ham’s site isa disaster? Is he ignoring it because it fits his agenda? First women, then OE/TE, what’s next? I guess then the Calvinist baptists will call the nonCalvinist Baptists heathens and all out war will ensue.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Deb
Please check your email-important.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hey, anyone else feeling lonely over here in Right-Brained Land with this thread? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo
I am right brained. I am married to a left brained guy so, being the awesome spouse that I am I forced myself to learn about this stuff. I would still like to discuss history.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Abraham did not have a written bible! What existed was, for the most part, oral tradition, passed down from generation to generation. The Levitical and Deuteronomic codes were put in writing fairly early, lost at least once, found, destroyed during the razing of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (if not before and recreated and again lost), the entirety of the OT other than Ezra and Nehemia, put into writing in Babylon from recollections of the oral tradition and earlier written versions. So even IF, God had dictated it in the beginning, it had passed through a lot of human minds by the time of Jesus.
Whatever we believe about the “original autographs” of the Bible, it has had human hands all over it. That is why I believe that it is theologically true, but not accurate as history or science. Even if God had explained about the OE, evolution, the solar system and universe as we understand it, how would that ever have made it to the present coming from a people who had limited writing capability, were essentially nomadic, were vanquished over and over, exiled, etc.
And we need to consider how the canon came to be as it is now, especially since there are Christians in the world with different books in the Bible than we have in the U.S.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hmmm — “Richard” took up right where “NBTT” left off. Perhaps we should discuss cloning…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
There is a difference between simplistic answers and ones that are outright incorrect. For example, when your child asks what that loud bang is (thunder), you can say…when the lightning flashes it’s so powerful that all the air moves out of its way..the bang is when the air rushes back and bumps into itself…(optional demonstration with square blocks, toy cars, sand at the beach)…or you can say it’s the angels bowling.
Both answers will probably satisfy, while one is simplistic, the other answer is clearly wrong and misleading.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I am going to take you up on that challenge and try to rewrite a few chapters of Genesis…maybe God will hire me as His ghost writer for the next book.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Eagle,
I agree with you completely about the harm that comes from a misplace weight on the creation of the world. I have seen harm done by putting scientists on the spot and rejecting Christianity because of that. (and at one time, I was there also. Probably not to the extreme that is is being taken now, though.)
I also see harm in the fact that they are missing out on so much beauty in the universe. I go to the Astronomy Picture of the day, daily, just for a dose of beauty. (not every picture is like that, but some are more fascinated by Mars surface than others )
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce provides declarative statements about the origins of the Bible, but readers should be aware that there is actually no evidence for what he claims as fact. They are theories held by some theologians, mostly those with a low view of the reliability of Scripture (which Arce himself demonstrates). There are many scholars who affirm, without reservation, that “all Scripture is God-breathed” and “Your word is truth” and “I trust in Your Word”.
Likewise, readers should be aware that both OE and YE views present difficulties and issues that ought to be carefully considered. Certainly, YE claims, particularly those which run counter to generally accepted scientific principles or concensus, ought to be criticized and scrutinized. Likewise, OE, and especially TE, presents serious difficulties that must be considered and addressed as well.
Mohler’s article that inspired this post also deserves careful consideration, and the theological concerns raised there should not be dismissed without attempt to grapple with them in an intelligent and thoughtful fashion.
Some folks are just as rigid and dogmatic in their liberalism or in their evolutionism as are the so-called fundamentalists.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster,
Good post!
I just don’t see any good arguments for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis which doesn’t at the same time undermine the basic concepts of a sinful nature, fall and need for redemption, or at the very least one that doesn’t undermine the authority of scripture (who’s version is correct?).
Of course the literal interpretation brings along with it, a whole separate host of issues and problems in the way in which it runs counter to many of the things we’ve learned about our universe in the last 2000+ years.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Genesis is a mixture of literal and non literal.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Art,
So who decides which part is literal and which part isn’t? Who decides in the other books, the same things?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Enough is ENOUGH!
Art and “So What” and I suspect “Nothing but the truth”,
While I haven’t posted in quite a while, I have ben following and I take offense to your posts. I am an atheist, I have posted on the board for quite some time, I rarely agree with Dee or Deb (or numo or Zeta or Cinty or Arce for that matter) but I have NEVER had cause to accuse any of them of hypocrisy or cowardice.
Yes sometimes they do have to stick certain posters in the corner, but it is NEVER for what they say…it is ONLY for the rude, disrespectful, and argumentative what that they say it.
This is one of the best boards it has ever been my pleasure to post on, the discussions are intelligent, open minded, and where an agreement cannot be had, those here are always respectful of the other person’s right to their opinions.
On the other hand, you have been childish, arrogant, intolerant, rude, abusive, shallow and narrow minded…I for one have no problem with them not only blocking your posts but confining you to the nearest fiery pit they can find.
Karl (Atheist and friend of the blog)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To those reading,
It is my guess that Art is Richard/NBTT on a rant.
Most blogs have basic standards of behavior. And many Christian blogs (especially YEC/evangelical blogs) censor on content, but THIS Christian blog is one of the more open ones, tolerating even opinions that express doubt in God’s ability to write genesis correctly! ‘Academic Freedom’ is well tolerated here – as long as the proponent reciprocates an equivalent tolerance of opinions contrary to their own.
However, any blog will find itself in the unfortunate position of having to suspend privileges or outright ban folks whose behavior grossly violates its standards. Unfortunately, it is also likely that the same people that can’t conform to the most basic of blog behavioral standards also can’t accept any form of discipline when they get out of line.
And the truth is, such individuals do not understand the most basic principles of scripture – which are not how old the earth is, or how literal Genesis is, or whether Calvinism or Armenianism is best. It has to do with how to walk humbly and righteously with God and one’s fellow man, in love and graciousness as ministers of the Grace and Peace of God in Christ Jesus.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Karl!
Well said 🙂
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster,
Would I be correct if I summed up what you saying as: when it comes to Genesis, we are essentially forced to ‘pick our poison’. If YEC, then the poison is “science”. If TE, then the poison is “undermining the authority of scripture”.
If I am incorrect, feel free to correct me, but launching from that I would say this is a common view, indeed many YEC’s hold that view and pick science as the poison. And a good many liberals Christians adopt TE with the concept that are accepting the poison of “undermining the authority of scripture”
I resist both. I really do not believe it is necessary to take either of these poisons in order to arrive at an understanding of scripture and science that is in harmony.
However, I do think it is impossible to find a position that reconciles the two without having to accept that certain concepts of scripture are probably in error.
As a kind of allegory, often when a counselor is trying to negotiate a compromise between two warring parties, the difficulty in reconciling them is not so much that their basic needs and desires are incompatible, but that each party has settled on a means of appropriating the needs and desires that are incompatible, and they are unwilling to consider that other approaches may be just as satisfying without the incompatibility.
As an example. For the most part YEC’s take as an axiom that the Authority of God’s word in Genesis is established by it’s simplicity of interpretation. Many Atheists also. Indeed, in this very thread we have one saying that since Genesis contains language describing the cosmos derived from the (incorrect) cultural understanding of the day, God messed up, and it’s just not true.
Yet most of us are willing to accept Biblical descriptions of The Earth on Pillars as metaphors, even though the writers may well have also thought that was indeed as the Earth was. We accept God allowing the writer to describe Gods acts in that case according to what they understood. We don’t think the authority of scripture is undermined in those cases. Consider the use of “sun rise” in scripture. Do we think God messed up letting them use that term when it is technically wrong?
I mean, is “sun rise” ok for God to allow the writer to use, and “firmament” is wrong? How does that work? Even more to the point concerning our own arrogance – is “sun rise” ok because WE still use this ancient and archaic, and technically false, term?
And do we suppose that the gnats we swat at over God allowing the writers to use archaic natural descriptions when conveying Natural truth are in reality significant in God’s eyes. That is, do you suppose our Present Day “understanding” of the cosmos is really all that much better than the understanding of Moses when compared to God’s comprehension of the same?
Consider a symphony clarinetist listening to a 5th grade clarinetist rebuke him for tolerating or even approving of the playing from a 4th grade clarinetist based on how much ‘better’ the 5th grader feels he is compared to the 4th grader!!!
My guess is that these gnats we are swatting at are much the same, and God’s response to us would be to point out that IF He wrote Genesis in a way that WE thought was ‘correct’, it would in the grand scheme of things be not really much better than what Moses wrote, and that WE, as the more mature, more responsible party have the greater responsibility to understand that!!!
Anyway – I again emphasize I do not believe we must chose a poison. We need faith, we need humility, we need grace, and most of all we need to resist the urge to deny the truth of one or the other just because our puny minds struggle to put them together.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Karl – so nice to see you here!!! [:waves from the bleachers:]
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi, Zeta,
Good questions and comments. My answer to youq initia question is no, that’s not what I meant. But I can see how that one might think so. All I meant is that we ought not to summarily dismiss either the theological concerns raised by YE creationists, nor the scientific concerns raised by OE creationists, as though one so completely trumps the other that the concerns raised by either side can be easily ignored.
As to the rest of your comments, I completely agree and would say the same thing, though probably not as well.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
On the lighter side:
Grandma to Annie: “You’re my little baby”
Annie: “I am NOT a baby!”
Grandma: “Ok, then you are my sweetie pie.”
Annie: “Iam NOT a pie!”
Grandpa: “Now THAT is a literal interpretation …”
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
Well said. And that was my point. Not that God got it wrong, but that the truth is wrapped in language limited by the understanding of the people who had and transmitted the original revelation and by the process by which it has come to us. We must be careful to look for the truth that is contained within that language.
BTW, there is no evidence that Moses wrote Genesis or Exodus, only extremely weak evidence for his writing down the original text of Numbers, Leviticus or Deuteronomy. These were, like some of the other books of the bible, attributed to a famous person of the faith.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
Many thanks. We are now dealing with the problem and the guy has a decent solution. It should be up in minutes.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
KARL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOu made my day. I have missed you. And you have come on to support us! Thank you so much..YOu have been sorely missed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
anonymous
On rewriting the early part of Genesis-this ought to be very interesting. Keep me posted. The theological implications of your attempt are potentially stunning.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
Could you explain your perspective on the Bible as either authoritative or infallible or literal or any combination thereof? How does one determine if something is a metaphor or literal. For example-will there be a huge pearl on a literal gate in heaven as is stated in Revelation?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster,
Ok – that makes sense. And I do agree. Indeed, even though a good bit of the time YEC’s I talk to see my perspective as only slightly better than that of the Devil Himself, I really do try to listen to their theological concerns and make sure I am not overlooking something legitimate and important in my attempts to deal with these issues. As you say, they are not trivial.
And it does point out a common tendency we all have: to paint those we have major conflicts with as Makivellian. Or worse, even as pure evil. Rarely is that the true state of affairs, and it is a challenge to our goal of humility, love and grace for us to listen to and act on those legitimate complaints and concerns that come to us from those we would tend to dismiss as evil or wrong.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
Also, not only did I read Al Mohler’s statement, but I discussed it with others. I found his statement to be offensive since it linked the work Gospel to his preferred view of creation.
I know you don’t like it when YE are perceived as scientifically illiterate. But you are still considered a Christian as YE. What is worse to you? Being called scientifically naive or being told that you are not a Christian? When one links the word “Gospel” to a particular brand of creationism, one is saying that those other folks don’t know the Gospel and are, therefore, unsaved.
Let me give you another example outside of the charged area of creationism. This might be one you would agree with me about. There is the Council of “Biblical” Manhood and Womanhood. I italicized the word Biblical in the title. Do you understand what is meant by this? If one is NOT a strict complementarian, then one is obviously not Biblical. And if one is not Biblical, then one may not be a Christian. And that is a serious charge that is being made oh so subtly. And it is arrogant to do so.
To me, the worst thing I could do is accuse someone of not being a Christian. Because, to me, the worst thing I could be is outside of the grace of Jesus. I would be happy to be called stupid, liberal, reactionary, #@%*&, whatever. But, to imply that I might not be a Christian, that I am outside the Gospel, is devastating. It has eternal consequences.
The word “gospel” is now being attached to things like Gospel parenting, Gospel marriage, Gospel communion, Gospel baptism, and even, I kid you not, Gospel smoking cessation. I heard one pastor say that attending a local church is the Gospel. I, for one, am sick of people who are diluting the word Gospel. It is far too precious to put a theological agenda behind it.
So, in my book, what Mohler is implying is both devastating to those of us so accused and he is putting himself into the capacity of judge and jury as to who is following the Gospel. And that is dangerous.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
So, you’ve examined Copernicus’ and Newton’s mathematics? You’ve studied the data from NASA satellites and know from your own investigations that the earth must, in fact, be moving relative to the sun, and not the other way ’round?
If not, then allow me to point out that yours is as much a faith position as is the position of the biblicists you are lampooning. You don’t know that heliocentricity is true; you’ve taken your teachers’ words for it. You are a True Believer, just like they are.
I’m just now reading Pearcy and Thaxton’s “The Soul of Science,” and learning that Copernicus did not have sound grounds for claiming that the earth rotated around the sun. His primary evidence was merely that the mathematics was marginally simpler; he only had to calculate 30-odd epicycles to explain the motion of the planets instead of the 80-odd that terracentric math required. In fact, Copernicus’ motivation was his faith in neo-Platonism, which held that the Sun was the proper center of the universe because it was more noble than the earth. Until Newton came along and provided gravity to explain the relationship between heavenly bodies, nearly everybody who believed Copernicus was, like him, a neo-Platonist.
Even today, the difference between heliocentric and terracentric models of the solar system is small, and hardly anybody you know has actually examined the math. So perhaps you should take it easy on the derision toward some who hold scripture in higher regard than you (or at least imagine that they do.) You might resemble them more than you know.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
philwynk, that was an outstanding post! I wish that I understood more of what you were saying. I think you are saying that people believe in science more than they have true factual knowledge. Is that correct? If it is then – wow!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
philwynk
I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about the pillars! Welcome to the site. I always enjoy folks who are definitely thinking outside the mainstream.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
freedom
And people also listen to their pastors more than they read their Bibles as well.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Freedom,
That’s pretty much it. You got it.
There really is physical evidence that the earth rotates around the sun. Among other things, you’ve probably seen Foucault’s pendulum knocking over pegs in a circle, proving that the earth is not stationary; it rotates. That doesn’t prove heliocentrism, but it’s a start.
But if you ask most folks what evidence there is that the earth revolves around the sun, you’re most likely to get a vacant stare; most folks don’t really have a clue.
Remember that the next time some fatuous atheist preens at you regarding how evidence-based his life is. Chances are that if you ask him to produce the evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, he’ll punt unless he’s an astronomy student. And if he IS an astronomer, ask him next to prove that Botswana actually exists — and if he can’t, why he believes it’s real.
We all live by faith, whether we know it or not.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Martin “Marty” Phillips a.k.a Stangela is trying to create a schism in our small church with Jim Brown “Seneca”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
pillars is a figure of speech in the bible
as far as pastors are concerned, no one has to go to church, but children are required to go to school
i do not want my kids being brainwashed in school nor in church
maybe that is why some people choose to homeschool
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There is significant evidence that Moses write the books of the Bible historically attributed to him; the most significant evidence being that Jesus attributed them to him. See Mark 7:10, Mark 10:3-5, Matthew 19:8, Mark 12:26, John 5:46-47. Denial of Moses’ authorship of that which Jesus affirmed was written by Moses is denial of the impeccability of the Savior. That is no small heresy.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oh, yes, one more thing, for dee:
(Surreptitiously sweeps the earth’s pillars under the Carpet of Neglect.)
There. Another pat argument made perfect. How dare you ruin a perfectly good jibe?
🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
great posts philwynk
what about the “pillars” of our faith
please compare that expression – is that literal?
also – the sun rises in the east and sets in the west – what does that expression tells us?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
Could you explain your perspective on the Bible as either authoritative or infallible or literal or any combination thereof? How does one determine if something is a metaphor or literal. For example-will there be a huge pearl on a literal gate in heaven as is stated in Revelation?
I believe the Bible is authoritative, infallible, and inerrant in the original autographs (and that what we have today is a very close approximation of those autographs, with no major doctrine or historical or scientific fact being different in what we have today from those originals.)
The Bible is literal where it is literal, metaphorical where it is metaphorical, poetry where it is poetry, etc. A wide variety of styles and literary forms were used. Sometimes it’s not easy to tell how “literally” something should be taken, but even then there can be other levels of truth beyond the literal that are spiritually discerned. The Bible is never wrong, but our understanding of it often is.
I also believe, like you, that it’s entirely possible that the writers of the Bible may have misunderstood something about the nature of their world and written accordingly, but God so inspired their exact words so that they could have a breadth of meaning that allowed them to be accurate in spite of the misconceptions of the human author. In fact, this is pretty much guaranteed to be the case in even the simplest of the Bible’s statements, as no human fully understands anything as God understands it.
I don’t know if the description of the gate in heaven is literal or not. I tend to think that most of the descriptions of both heaven and hell in the Bible are metaphorical in some sense, as they describe things outside our realm of physical experience.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Freedom,
I pretty much agree with you regarding the use of “pillars” in the OT.
We have to remember just how primitive the Hebrew language was. By contrast to the 150,000 entries in the latest Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language, Strong’s Concordance of the Hebrew Bible contains fewer than 9,000 entries. That says something profound about Hebrew culture. The Hebrews were not literal and precise thinkers like we are, they approached the world through pictures and stories. It’s not likely that they spent much time trying to figure out the mechanics of planetary motion or calculating the cycles of the sun. So even the things that they meant literally, they didn’t really mean literally — not the way we do. They were far more interested in “who” and “why” than they were in “how.”
(That, by the way, is one of the reasons I think the “literal 6 days of creation” folks are barking up the wrong tree.)
The sun rising and setting is a figure of speech that conforms to our practical point of view. Even though we know we’re hurdling through space, it sure looks like we’re standing still and the sun is moving. It makes perfect sense that the ancients thought so; why would they have imagined otherwise?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
that was my point exactly
we today even use many expressions like the sun setting – but when the bible uses such expressions – people hop all over it to claim the bible is wrong or unscientific
some people have an obvious agenda when they start picking apart the bible like that – intellectually dishonest
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
In beginning, God created the universe and all that was and is therein. God said, Let there be a big bang, and there was a big bang, and energy and matter scattered throughout the universe and is still expanding today. And God’s morning and evening were the first aeon.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I am certain you read Mohler’s statements carefully, and you have probably read much more on this topic than I have, at least within the last 10-12 years.
I am questioning neither your conclusions nor your commitment to any aspect of the essentials of the faith. You have every right to follow your own conscience and reasoning to the conclusions that seem best to you in your interpretation of Genesis (or any other part of Scripture, for that matter). YE, OE, and/or TE is definitely not an “A” issue.
I don’t have a problem with questioning the scientific basis of YE views, and if those most knowledgeable of the science say there are serious concerns with scientific theories put for by YE creationists, then those concerns should be taken seriously and not dismissed outright as merely a capitulation to or compromise with unbelievers.
If someone believes that the most proper understanding of Genesis teaches a YE creation, I think it would be more humble and intellectually honest of them to say they do not know or understand why the evidence put forth by modern science does not match up with their understanding of the Bible, and that perhaps their understanding of the Bible is wrong or perhaps science doesn’t have it all figured out yet.
I fully understand how distasteful and annoying you can find it for YEers like Ham to arrogantly stand against the claims of modern science and put forth alternative theories that they are unwilling to subject to the criticism of the scientific community.
I also understand that it is offensive to you for someone to claim or imply that your view is incompatible with the gospel or approaches a denial of the atonement. That is also hubris on their part, as they have placed their own interpretation of certain passages of Scripture at the level of salvific doctrine. You have every right to take exception to it.
All that said, however, there are genuine potential theological implications to OE views, and particularly to TE. Mohler captured the essence of those concerns in an intelligent and coherent manner. If a person wishes to demonstrate why his concerns can be addressed by putting forth cogent contrary arguments, more power to them. But what I see here, and in most of your responses to YE views, is a minimizing of those concerns, without actually engaging them.
It’s no better to assert that science proves YEers wrong without coming to grips with the theological issues at stake (especially the connection of the fall and redemption) than it is for YEers to assert that their views are scientifically accurate without coming to grips with the conclusions of modern science.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Freedom wrote:
people hop all over it to claim the bible is wrong or unscientific
some people have an obvious agenda when they start picking apart the bible like that – intellectually dishonest
Concerning those things which we cannot derive entirely from empiricism, all of our beliefs about such things are entirely faith dependent. An hypothesis must be observable AND testable AND measurable to be deemed fact a fact, and until you’ve had to do some of those kinds of statistics yourself, I don’t think that you can appreciate the nature of how thorough the testing process really is mathematically. Ideas that are not robust don’t even make it very far and can’t.
We have not observed our origins, therefore any hypothesis that aims at establishing definitive cause requires faith. We cannot apply testing about origins to see if it is reproducible, because we have not observed the process. We can test single factors that have resulted from origins, but we can only learn more information about those factors, but the interpretation of the meaning of that information is completely dependent upon our preferences and presuppositions and theories about origins. All that demands faith in something. Concerning origins, it demands faith in some cause of those origins, and each position has its pitfalls such as infinite regress.
We do have to be careful about being intellectually dishonest, and we do have to consider what a person’s presuppositions are and how they make sense of the world via style of thought to meet them with respect. If we don’t do that, then we run the risk of being hypocritical. We have to be careful not to let our ego get in the way which is often complicated since we are all human and have egos. With that in mind, it’s important to be mindful of the standards of logic and respectful discourse.
I have to chuckle as I don’t even have to move from where I’m seated to be able to reach over and pull my copy of “The Soul of Science” off the shelf!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Mark 7:10 cites Moses as saying (not writing, and by the way not God saying, which is what the text in the Pentateuch says!) “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'”
Mark 10:3-5 cites Moses as giving or writing a law, not a book: “‘What did Moses command you?’ he replied. They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’ ‘It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ Jesus replied.”
Matthew 19:8 does not cite Moses as writing: Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
Mark 12:26: This is the only passage that refers to Moses and a book. That was the then common name of the Pentateuch and was how his listeners would have understood to what he referred them; it does not say that Moses wrote it. “Now about the dead rising–have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?”
John 5:46-47: This is the only passage that refers to Moses writing something. “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
I think it is an overreach to say that Jesus’ remarks, later reported second or third hand, prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, first of all, and second, prove that, if Moses wrote it, what was extant was not reconstructed during the Babylonian exile from memory of the scribes, because of the previous destruction of the scrolls.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
An hypothesis must be observable AND testable AND measurable to be deemed fact a fact,
I am continually amazed at how my cat can tromp over me while vying for my attention and do things to text I’m trying to type that I can’t even do with intent. He can reprogram the TV remote, too.
This was meant to say something like “An hypothesis must be observable AND testable (reproducible and with a measure of incorrigibility per statistics) AND measurable to be deemed a scientific fact as opposed to an hypothesis or theory.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Even today, the difference between heliocentric and terracentric models of the solar system is small, and hardly anybody you know has actually examined the math.”
The problem comes up when those of us who have looked deeper into these area get attacked by people who are quoting KH talking points to us without any understnding of what they are talking about. And saying we must be wrong because their talking point say so.
As to “difference between heliocentric and terracentric models of the solar system is small”. Well yes but only if you’re talking in respect to our galaxy.
Aircraft carriers and sport bass boats are similar in size. Well I guess they are relative to the size of the Atlantic ocean but certainly not when compared to each other.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dan: Martin “Marty” Phillips a.k.a. Stangela is trying to create a schism in our small church with Jim Brown “Seneca”
So Dan, I am assuming that you have read the many previous unconscionable comments made by Jim Brown a.k.a. “Seneca” and you are condoning them. Is this a qualification for an elder in your church? This is so typical of what Dee and Deb have been writing about. The leaders in the church covering up for their own.
P.S oh caught!!!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Thanks, Arce, for demonstrating that it requres significant mental gymnastics to conclude that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch. And for clarifying your own lack of trust in the reliability of the NT as well.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
There are cogent arguments, that I have discussed in on this blog over the last two years, for ALL of the theological problems of OE/TE. The Fall is easily handled-there is a difference between man and animals in term of the immortal soul. Same with the doctrine of the atonement.These have been addressed at length by Lennox, Biologos, Ross and many others through Fixed Point. This post was directed toward an issue that I ddi not cover in the past. That is that current arguments mimic arguments from a few hundred years ago. In fact, there is little new under the sun.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Junkster and Arce: I think you gents are not as far apart on things regarding the ancient texts that we know as Scripture than you might believe…
As someone who is leaning more and more toward Arce’s overall view on this (including the authorship of the Pentateuch via study of word usage and other aspects of actual, extant manuscripts), I am by no means assuming that errors and interpolations (etc.) dilute the content.
But I’ll let you fellas sort that one out. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oops – should be “ancient textS,” not “text” [singular].
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Does it really matter if Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible or not? I just want to know if it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and if these writings were meant to be Holy Scripture.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM,
It wouldn’t matter who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible except that those books claim he did, as do Jesus and the apostles. If the Bible is not accurate on such basic historical matters, it can’t be trusted on weightier matters.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Where does the Bible specifically say that Moses wrote the first 5 books?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Nowhere in the Bible is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
It’s possible that your negative personal experience with ill-mannered YEers as you tried to conduct a class on this topic has left a sour taste in your mouth. Quite understandable. But if you mock someone’s positions with a reductio ad absurdum, as with this post, and ignore the essense of the article which inspired your lampoon, you haevn’t seriously engaged the issues raised in the article. What you’ve written in the past does not negate the importance of addressing the issues raised in the article at hand.
I am no fan of Mohler personally, nor am I defending his positions. But this particular article was well written, logical, coherent, and intelligent. I just feel the arguments therein deserve to be addressed on their own merits, not pushed aside as if irrelevant or ignorant.
If you know of resources that address the theological concerns raised in an irenic, respectful, and non-dismissive manner, it would be good to point your readers to them so they can grapple with them in an intelligent manner and not in a reactionary one.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
If your trust in the Bible is susceptible if it is not literally true, then you have a very weak faith and a very low view of the the scriptures. The value of Jesus parables is not dependent upon them being literally true, but they are true in what they teach about the kingdom of God, His righteousness, our need of Him, and the way to salvation. The work as a whole is theologically true. Literal truth is a low and weak form of truth, because it is susceptible to contrary evidence. Theological truth cannot be so challenged.
There is substantial historical evidence, textual evidence, etc., that most of the earliest texts of the OT books were put in writing in Babylon during the exile. To what extent they were in writing prior to that is a matter of some academic debate, but at least some were. At least some portions of the text show Babylonian influence, Assyrian influence, and other cultural influences. Those are facts.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM,
True. But when something is attributed to and generally accepted as having been written by a particlar individual, when pulling specific quotes out of it, the tacit assumption is that the author wrote the whole. If I said, “Shakespeare wrote, ‘To be or not to be'”, you can claim with reasonable confidence that I believe Shakespeare wrote all of Hamlet. And if I said, “Shakespeare wrote, ‘All you need is love, love'” you can be reasonably certain I don’t know the difference between Shakespeare and John Lennon, and that my words are not worthy of trust.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
junkster – understood and good point
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And we all really believe that George Washington, as a lad, said “I cannot tell a lie.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There is NOT substantial historical evidence, textual evidence, etc., that most of the earliest texts of the OT books were put in writing in Babylon during the exile. There is merely speculation to that effect.
If your faith does not incorporate belief in the absolute trustworthiness of God’s Word, then your faith is anemic, if it is true faith at all, and your view of the Scriptues is deficient.
In reference to the Word of God, pitting “literal” truth against “theological” truth is nonsense. It makes a good soundbite, but it is devoid of real meaning. Everything that is theologically true is literally true.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster,
Along those same lines, the first book of Genesis gives a theistic evolution perspective some problems. Please note that I have not read anything by Ken Ham in almost 20 years, and I was not overwhelmingly impressed by him. By the time he came along, I had already gone through these arguments and done my reading on this subject. This is something that dawned on me when I was about ten years old when I was shown that evolution clip from Walt Disney’s Fantasia.
Plants, herbs, and trees were the first organisms created and were said to be functioning, yielding fruit and seed, so they were going through their life cycles. Plant cycles as we know them are dependent upon sunlight to produce energy and function and grow, and some are dependent upon seasons and rain cycles, too, and this is presuming that their cycles have not adapted themselves over time to environmental changes. It seems reasonable to assume that those plants were distributed over the whole earth rather than just in the garden, doesn’t it?
Houston, we have a problem. The cycle of day and night, the sun and moon, the seasons, etc. are said to have been established after God created plant life.
So if plants evolved over millions of billions of years, how would light with no cycles and no planetary movement and perhaps no planet itself sustain life for such a tremendous length of time when plant life as we know it today is highly dependent on all of these influences?
You could say that God just sustained that life over that course of aeons, but if He had the where with all to do it, why could He not just make everything in a single, 24 hour day. If He is omnipotent, and unlimited, this wouldn’t be a big stretch. The single, 24 hour day makes more sense and requires less explaining and searching for a reasonable solution.
So did God get it wrong? It depends what your presuppositions about origins are and why you believe them.
If you believe that a YE Creation is impossible or unscientific, or that God is somehow limited by the nature of the very thing He created, you’re pushed to confront the issue of whether or not Scripture is a God-breathed message to mankind which men wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, something a sovereign God would have seen to do sufficiently.
We are told that Scripture is sufficient for doctrine, etc. If someone got the order mixed up, or if God didn’t watch over His Word to perform it, then God is not really completely sovereign, He can’t perform His Word or didn’t, and the Word isn’t sufficient for doctrine like we are told. If those Scriptures and principles are flawed, then what else is? That means God started lying to us on the first page of the book which means His character is not one of faithfulness, and those Scriptures are brought into question. The book then does become a kind of religious fiction.
The order of creation in Genesis forces the choice, and I tend to think that God put this in there because He wants our faith and is jealous for it. Without faith, the Book of Hebrews tells us that it is impossible to please him, and we cannot be translated into the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
If you prefer creation as your presupposition, the Genesis order is not scandalous. Jesus said that he was the scandalon, a part of a trap that is used to catch animals. What if He wrote all of that into the mix through a clever plan to draw us to a deeper place of faith in Him? We are first drawn and wooed to repentance by His kindness, and by the time we get around to thinking more deeply about the nature of origins, he has yet another scandalon ready for us so that we have to put our trust in Him because He is so jealous of our love and trust.
I always go back to Occam’s Razor, and the easiest and most obvious explanation is usually true. That’s why I start with the presuppositions because you cannot escape them. Textual critics that followed after Bultmann and the like can challenge the reliability of the authorship of the Book. But what does that say of God’s character? If Moses and the apostles claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then can we trust anything they wrote? If Jesus claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then what does that say of His knowledge? If Moses didn’t write it, then either Jesus is not an all knowing God, or He is lying about it. It’s the same thing with the order of creation itself. If God got it wrong and couldn’t deliver and watch over the Word to perform it and give us the right message, then He’s a pretty limited God. If He used an evolutionary process to create the earth over aeons, and He is all powerful, He lied to us. In both examples, God’s power and character are weakened.
That doesn’t mean that if you’re still working that out in fear and trembling that you’re not a Believer, and Paul didn’t say “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and in YEC and you will be saved.” I don’t know how to get around all that from an old earth theory and still remain a Christian. If the text is flawed, one way or another, and this is done over a presupposition of evolutionary process, I have no idea of how to reckon that. But I never had to get around it because I never found the argument compelling.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Note: I don’t know how to get around all that from an old earth theory and still remain a Christian.
Let me stress that “I don’t know” means that I cannot put that together from my vantage because I can’t see how it works given my presuppositions and how I make sense of the world. I don’t have an affinity for certain topics, and even in areas of strength academically, there are subjects I don’t like or don’t click with. For instance, I think I’ve dozed off during every single A&P lecture on respiratory physiology, but I did just fine as a nurse in clinical areas that specialized in respiratory disorders specifically for about five years, and cardiac areas for many more than that, the bulk of my clinical experience. I did very well. I can read English translations from Russian and devour them, but I have never managed to get through more than twenty pages of a Jane Austen novel.
(This was not a statement that people cant believe theistic evolution and not be Christian. I have my own problems!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
PhilWynk: “So, you’ve examined Copernicus’ and Newton’s mathematics? You’ve studied the data from NASA satellites and know from your own investigations that the earth must, in fact, be moving relative to the sun, and not the other way ’round?”
Why Yes Phil, I have. Not only have I studied it, I have debated several ‘scientific geocentrists’ of the Catholic persuasion off and on for over 4 years now and covered just about every idiotic objection they can come up with. And I can tell you, and will tell you in a rather clear way later in this post, that the claims you make in this post are both ridiculous and hogwash.
PhilWynk: “If not, then allow me to point out that yours is as much a faith position as is the position of the biblicists you are lampooning.”
That is ridiculous. I could fill to the brim this post with reasons why, but let me start with a few that are rather simple to follow:
1) When observing the stars over the course of the year, they move back and forth. The closer ones appear move back and forth against the backdrop of the more distant star, and they all move back and forth and amount proportional to their distance from the Earth. There are two possible explanations for this movement (called parallax). The first is that the Earth orbits the sun,and the oscillation and movement we see is due to that motion as viewed from afar. The second is that the entire universe rotating about the Earth wobbles back and forth exactly in sync with the Earth’s year. Which if these do you think is the more likely?
2) When the moon orbits the Earth, it pulls on the Earth and the Earth/Moon system actually orbits each other around a point about 3000 miles from the center of the Earth called the Barycenter. This wobble of the Earth that is exactly in sync with the lunar orbital period is observable when watching the nearer planets and asteroids, and in the doppler shifts of signals from probes sent to the nearer planets. It also happens to correspond in magnitude with the mass ratio of the Earth/Moon system. Now once again we have two explanations A) the Earth/Moon system is in orbit about each other or (again) B) there is yet another systematic wobble in the entire universe as it rotates about the Earth That just happens to match the Lunar orbital period.
And guess which one of A or B is the more likely?
3) The tides which the moon induces on the Earth actually induce drag on the Earth which change the Earths rotational velocity over the course of the month. This change can and has been modelled AND MEASURED. How you might ask? There are extremely distant objects called Quasars that are so far away (billions of light years) that they any motion of their own is essentially unmeasurable. They are the closest thing to a fixed point in the sky that exists. There is also an ultra-precise why to measure objects positions in the sky called Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) using radio telescopes all across the entire Earth. Using VLBI, we can actually measure small changes in the apparent position of there quasars that correspond almost perfectly with the modeled drag induced by the sloshing oceans in the tides.
Now once again we have two explanations. A) the Earth is rotating freely and the moons influence on the tides is doing what know physics expects it to do and transferring momentum from them to the EArth and back inducing changes in rotational velocity or (again) B) There is yet ANOTHER wobble in the entire universe that is causing quasars billions of light years away to accelerate and decelerate over the course of the lunar month. By the way, these accelerations would be so severe that the stars in the galaxy that harbors the quasar would be ripped to shreds. But why bother with such realities – eh?
PhilWynk:” You don’t know that heliocentricity is true; you’ve taken your teachers’ words for it.”
Well, I haven’t. I’ve studied it rather extensively. And frankly, even if I hadn’t a high school knowledge of Physics could generate more that 10 basic reasons why Geocentrism is idiotic! Further I have seen the voyager photo taken of the entire solar system from beyond Neptunes orbit – have you? Probably not. You are talking completely out of ignorance Phil. But you have no excuse now, what I’ve said you don’t understand feel free to ask. But a Heliocentric Solar system is NOT a matter of faith. It is a matter of science.
PhilWynk: “You are a True Believer, just like they are.”
No Phil. One can’t go out and verify every single fact and concept in the universe to be sure. But the issue of whether the sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the sun does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. Not in our day and age.
PhilWynk: “I’m just now reading Pearcy and Thaxton’s “The Soul of Science,”
Oh boy – I’m sure that makes you an expert now. (Shudder)
PhilWynk: ” … and learning that Copernicus did not have sound grounds for claiming that the earth rotated around the sun.”
How about that. You are right. But we don’t credit Copernicus with discovering this fact, merely credit him for exploring and developing the concept. But GALILEO DID have evidence, and some of the religious folk refused to even look at his evidence lest the be ‘deceived by Satan’.
PhilWynk:” His primary evidence was merely that the mathematics was marginally simpler; he only had to calculate 30-odd epicycles to explain the motion of the planets instead of the 80-odd that terracentric math required. In fact, Copernicus’ motivation was his faith in neo-Platonism, which held that the Sun was the proper center of the universe because it was more noble than the earth.”
But he was still right about the fact the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, whether he had evidence to support it or not. And again, it was GALILEO who OBSERVED the phases of the inner planets Mercury and Venus and the moons of Jupiter that is credited with discovering and showing that the Earth orbited the Sun, not Copernicus.
PhilWynk:” Until Newton came along and provided gravity to explain the relationship between heavenly bodies, nearly everybody who believed Copernicus was, like him, a neo-Platonist.”
No Phil, IT WAS GALILEO. And it wasn’t even Newton who showed how gravity could simplify the issues modeling the planetary orbits that induced the ugly epicycles but rather Kepler, realizing that an ellipse solved all the problems. And of course, you had yet more religious clones of yourself ready to slam Kepler because he proposed that God would use the ‘imperfect’ ellipse instead of the ‘perfect’ circle to define the planetary orbits. When oh when will you folks LEARN from history, and LEARN about science enough to at least say something that actually makes sense!!!! ARGH!!!!
PhilWynk: “Even today, the difference between heliocentric and terracentric models of the solar system is small,”
THAT IS BULL. Sorry to be crude, but you are talking about that which you clearly know NOTHING. And in the process deceiving and misleading others. Don’t rant about theological matters using ideas from fields you are completely ignorant of. You do the Devils work!!!
PhilWynk: “and hardly anybody you know has actually examined the math.”
Again you speak out of the orafice best used for eliminating waste!!! She knows all sorts of people that have examined not only the math, the the astronomical observations on which this conclusion is based. I am one of them!!!!
PhilWynk:” So perhaps you should take it easy on the derision toward some who hold scripture in higher regard than you (or at least imagine that they do.) You might resemble them more than you know.”
Hardly. People like Al Mohler are only marginally better than you. HE does take the word of incompetent men like Ken Ham because he doesn’t know any better, and he is condemning souls to Hell as a result! both with his words by labeling folks that are not YEC substandard Christians at best, and by his deeds. But lending support to the trash pseudo-science put out by the likes of AIG and ICR, he sets up every person who bothers to look at what the real evidence is to fall from grace and the faith. THERE IS NO SCIENCE SUPPORTING A 6000 year old Earth. If someone takes that stance – they need to recognize every bit of physical evidence stands against it. Telling young people and ignorant moms and dads that there is science which supports that position is a lie. Plain and simple. It is one thing to take a position of faith that is against the evidence. It is another thing to lie to people and tell them you have some kind of proof of that position when you don’t!
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Freedom: “philwynk, that was an outstanding post! I wish that I understood more of what you were saying. I think you are saying that people believe in science more than they have true factual knowledge. Is that correct? If it is then – wow!”
Freedom, Phil has no clue what he is talking about, and if you follow him you’ll wind up in the same ditch he will.
To all: I am sure my post to Phil appears harsh, and I apologize for that harshness.
I have been debating and discussing with people for over 10 years now this issue. And the #1 problem is out and out ignorance of science by the majority of Christian people – including your leaders dragging you down the primrose path with such lame catch phrases as “Same data, different interpretation”. These things tickle your ears, but they are hogwash. And the only way to figure that out is to take some time to learn some basic scientific facts.
I realize that for many of you it is essentially impossible to learn what you need to know to figure out if Ken Ham or someone like me is correct about what the scientific evidence is. And the truth is, what the scientific evidence is does challenge certain notions of how to interpret scripture. And what scripture is saying in certain areas. And that is made all the more scary when one does not really understand WHY the scientific implications can’t be ignored.
But I wish to assure you I am no liberal who has tossed the baby out with the bathwater. I believe in the virgin Birth, the Crucifixion and bodily Resurrection of Christ, have been Born Again and believe the Bible is the word of God, given by Him through men inspired by the Holy Spirit. I in clear conscience can recite any of the major historical creeds, believe in a Living God, active in the world TODAY as YESTERDAY. Most importantly I confess and call Jesus Christ LORD!!
And I fear for the souls of many. I do believe we are very close to finding what will be for many essentially proof evolution is indeed verified. And I believe that discovery will likely challenge and perhaps even crush the faith of many. We know of at least 3 places in our solar system that could harbor life. Three places with liquid, salty water. And we are discovering more and more planets around other stars every day, and getting closer and closer to being able to not only tease out an Earth size planet, but to being able to examine its atmosphere and look for traces of life. We also each day learn more and more about the history of life, not just from fossils but from genetics. And it is the work in genetics that has presented us with so many facts that simply can’t possibly be ‘coincidences’ of God’s creative process.
If we find life off of the Earth, the case for evolution will essentially be settled. And if we the Church do not deal with this from a vantage point of FAITH, MANY will fall away. Please stop running from science and the truth, but rather seek God to understand how these things can be so in light of what His word says, so that others will have an easier time dealing with these issues. As it is now, Al Mohler and Ken Ham and others have hypnotized half the church with the mantra “If evolution is true, the Bible is false”. “If the Earth is billions of years old, the Bible is false”.
That is HOGWASH. The Bible is the word of God and fully compatible with how God made the universe. We do not have to hide from the truth to be Christians. We do not have to be ignorant, anti-science men and women spouting nonsense to be faithful to the Cross! These ‘false prophets’ have created a foundation of sand on which to build faith in the Bible called ‘Creation Science”. And when the storms come of learning what the real evidence is, or perhaps when comes the hurricane that would be the discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system, that house in the sand will fall in a pile of rubble. In reality, that house on the sand falls 95% of the time a Christian man or women goes to college and majors in a scientific field.
Evolution of some sort is clearly evidenced, AND the Bible is the Word of God. The world is billions of years old AND the Bible is the Word of God. THIS is the truth. The truth the church must proclaim and face. Jesus is not Lord only if science is wrong – Jesus is LORD period! And it is up to us to CHANGE the tide of ignorance based faith in the evangelical church. We cannot be a people following the God of truth if we continue to demand our leaders support lies about science supporting a 6000 year old world and universe. That may work for someone ready to hide from the truth, but most young people are not too enamored with people that pretend the world is different than it really is – and what they REALLY resent is being lied to about what is real! We have to deal with this. Too many young souls are hanging in the balance.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Marty i’m not condoning anything, the wars you are trying to create by airing the laundry online is unacceptable, i’m not taking sides, both parties are wrong if you ask me, but you are the antagonist
grow up!
Dan
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
Hogwash! 🙂
What it means is that to more we actually learn about our universe and the more facts we acquire, the more intellectual hoops we must just through, the more spin we must put on certain versus of the Bible so that they are not in conflict.
The Bible, or to be more correct, the oral and early written versions of what we now call the Bible were written for simple folks who who had neither the inclination nor need to play a game of literary twister in order to understand what they were told.
Evolution and the Genesis story are quite incompatible from a factual perspective and while Dee might chime in that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific description of creation, there are nonetheless, “facts” included which are wrong and those facts aren’t necessarily to make the theological points. In other words, God could have clearly not mentioned many things at all without losing His message…so there is no reasonable explanation for their presence other than…the person who wrote it down didn’t know any better.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
I disagree with you assessment of this argument being “reductio ad absurdum.” I had a pastor say a similar thing when I spoke of the church’s response to Galileo. I told him the church argues similarly today. His response was that he attended a local “top notch” university. I responded that the greatest minds of that day were also educated in some of the best institutions and the still believed the eart was fixed and still used arguments that Mohler makes back then.
Mohler uses the same approach to his assertions that the church did 400 years ago. I find his arguments to be simple rehash and disagree that it is well reasoned. i would love to see him argue why he is different than the Catholic church of so long ago.
I have discussed various aspects of his reasoning on this blog over the past 2 years. This time, I was using an historical argument which is not absurd since many others, far more adept than I, have also used such an argument. But maybe the likes of Dr John Lennox do not approach the intelligence level of Mohler?? Mohler’s arguments are reasoned but his are not?
As for resource, look at my links-ASA, Reasons to Believe, Answers in Creation, and Fixed Point. All of these resources have tons of info that address, without much difficulty, Mohler’s contentions which are not innovative but simply repetitive.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dan: Seneca a.k.a.Jim Brown created the schism in the church long ago. Let me help educate you:
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/08/jim-smyrls-church-lhbc-distributes.html
Do your homework so you are not labeled as a little weenie wing man !!!!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
You then dismiss every Christian, including the vast numbers of Christian scientists (over 90%) that believe in the compatibility of theistic evolution and Scripture. It must be nice to be so gosh darn sure of yourself. I guess they are all stupid and Scripturally illiterate and you are right. You are like the pastors who put Gospel in front of everything they say because they no, without a doubt, they are absolutely correct. And we have how many people wounded by churches and how many denominations that claim a corner on the truth?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
Sounds like a good talking point. Please tell me the Christian scientists who believe in TE that you have read, in depth-not short paper by Ken Ham proponents. And tell me why their perspective is absolutely wrong.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I know of no reputable scientists who say that a literal interpretation of Genesis and our current scientific knowledge is not in conflict. If you know of one, reference please.
Those who claim there is no conflict do so by turning Genesis into allegory or “interpreting” Genesis in a manner that seems to be based less on literary guidelines than it does to intentionally avoid the conflict in the first place.
Of course, there are those who believe there is no conflict because they reject out of hand, what science has to say and assume, a priori, the correctness of scripture.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
But as many theologians would point out, the word day, when used in conjunction with a numeral (1st day, etc) and/or a reference to day/night refers to a 24 hour period, the passages in Genesis come with both. In addition Exodus 20:10 lends credence to a 24 hour days, since it is the justification for the Sabbath.
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM,
Sorry that last post was for you too!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon: “Zeta,
Hogwash! :)”
Although you are entitled to your opinion, Really? Of course, I wrote a good bit. May I assume that this Hogwash is related to my comments about evolution, not geocentrism 🙂
Anon: “What it means is that t[he] more we actually learn about our universe and the more facts we acquire, the more intellectual hoops we must ju[mp] through, the more spin we must put on certain versus of the Bible so that they are not in conflict.”
Now that is an interesting comment. You might want to think about that because what you are saying (though I doubt it is what you mean) is that the only way to preserve Faith in the Bible is to remain ignorant of the real, physical history and structure of the universe. I simply can’t accept that as a valid stance, either scientifically OR Biblically. The Bible tells us that God is a God of Truth. It also tells us the heavens declare His glory, and that they reveal certain of His attributes to us. If you are correct, those same heavens lie to us – and by implication this means one of God’s attributes is lying. That’s just crazy!
Anon: “The Bible, or to be more correct, the oral and early written versions of what we now call the Bible were written for simple folks who who had neither the inclination nor need to play a game of literary twister in order to understand what they were told.”
This is true. But you assume, against all the BIBLICAL evidence God dictated facts about nature. You assume Genesis is trying to tell us something factual about how God made the universe, or the structure of the universe. I do not believe that was EVER its purpose. I think the writer KNEW exactly what they were writing. They were taking the traditional, pagan, creation stories of their day and RESETTING them to point to the TRUTH that God made all these pagan things the heathen worship. The sky, the earth, the waters, the sun, the moon, the stars, these are all pagan Gods. And God made them all. Not only that, but sticking the Sun near the end, almost as an afterthought, the write slams right in the face of its importance in the pagan Pantheon. The purpose is not to give is facts about how God created, but to slam the pagan mythologies and turn them on their heads in a way that will stick in the minds and hearts of the Israelite people who hear it!
But interestingly enough, BELOW the surface of the text are some remarkable correlations to what we have Learned IS the history of the universe. But we can only rightly appreciate that AFTER we recognize the overall thrust of the text. If we keep trying to map it superficially to the history and structure of the cosmos, we will continue to make a mockery of our faith.
Anon: “Evolution and the Genesis story are quite incompatible from a factual perspective and while Dee might chime in that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific description of creation, there are nonetheless, “facts” included which are wrong and those facts aren’t necessarily to make the theological points.”
Again, you assume the purpose of these “facts” is to communicate technical data. The purpose of these “facts”, like the order of creation, is to degrade the most important gods of the Egyptian and Babylonian pantheon. When you get that the folly of trying to map the ‘order of events’ in Genesis becomes clear. And yet, as I said, BELOW the surface there are some remarkable correlations.
For example, I can’t imaging a more poetic description of the earliest phases of the Big Bang than “And God set let there be light, and there was light. And God separated the light from the darkness and He called the light day, and the darkness night …”
Now this meant something completely different in the day it was written, BUT, we know the universe began as an almost infinitely hot burst of inconceivable energy from what is easily understood as a ’emtpy waste and void’. Further, that at approximately 300,000 years from this incredible and instant ‘burst of light’, the plasma soup cooled enough to allow light to piece its substance, to propagate through the universe, and for the first time light and dark became separate things.
There are a few other interesting correlations. One is that a very common form of Hebrew poetry involves Parallelism, the use of parallel descriptions of the same event for emphasis. IF we look at the first set of 3 days and the second set of 3 days, they line up as parallel accounts of the creation IN BASICALLY THE CORRECT ORDER, where the first 3 days describe the creation of the basic immobile structure of the world and the second set of three days concern the filling of each created domain with animate life.
Finally, there is this statement: “Let the water teem …” and “Let the land produce …”. These, especially the second’ are in effect better translated as commands: Waters team… Earth produce.
God commanded the earth and the waters to make life. This lends itself very well to the idea life arose from the capabilities God gave this planet in response to His command they do so. There is nothing in Genesis that describes the technical mechanism by which these created things obeyed God. And what the Earth and the Sea tells is in the records of life contained withing them is that they obeyed God’s command over millions of years through the natural capability He encoded into the universe the ‘day’ He spoke it into existence.
Anon: “In other words, God could have clearly not mentioned many things at all without losing His message…so there is no reasonable explanation for their presence other than…the person who wrote it down didn’t know any better.”
Ah, but you are succumbing to the Romans 9 paradox. ‘What right does God have not to give me a version of creation that looks right to me’. I don’t think it works that way Anon. He gave us the scripture, and he let the events of history leave their mark. It IS our responsibility to IN FAITH accept BOTH sets of truth and do the hard WORK of finding a way to deal with both sets of truth without denying either one. The answer is out there Anon – but it isn’t in manufacturing “Creation Pseudo-science” as a cover-up to ‘protect’ the masses mislead by the misunderstanding of scripture by Christian leaders. The answer comes in humbly, prayerfully, seeking God and trusting him that neither the scripture nor the creation are lying. By recognizing we can be wrong on BOTH fronts (Biblical interpretation – theology – and Physcial interpretation of the record in nature – science), not just the one front.
While I am speaking strongly about the science side, it is not that I don’t recognize some aspects of this can be wrong. Indeed, I am quite sure some, even many aspects are wrong. But not the major points in terms of age and structure, and the amount of time and variation of life on the Earth as relates to the simplistic 6/6000 rendering of Genesis.
The issue is that the logical implications of the data are what they are. And lying about that is wrong. If we want to say “I understand that the evidence implies the world is very old and life evolved, but I can’t see how that maps into Genesis, so I BY FAITH chose to simply accept Genesis is correct and leave on the shelf the implications of the physical evidence” – that is a perfectly fine position. It is honest. But it is a whole other thing to TEACH people that if evolution is true the Bible is false, or if the world is billions of years old the Bible is false. And It is out and out sin to build a scaffolding of misleading half-truths and SELL that as ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ the 6/6000 reading is correct.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta/Junkster/JM/Anonymous
It is the young souls hanging in the balance which spurs me on in this debate. Ham and some others believe it is the theory of evolution that is turning kids away from the faith. In fact, it is just the opposite. People give a 6 week AIG course in their churches and then send kids out with stupid talking points which are easily dispatched by any low level professor in colleges. My daughter’s friend, studying to be a doctor, left the faith in his first year of college because all the supposed “proofs” offered up by Ham and associates are stupid science and are disproved quite easily. So, he gave up the faith because he said his church LIED about YE and so the entire system is suspect. Testimonies by others on this site confirm this.
We took our kids to the Smithsonian exhibition on evolution. We helped them to see that, no matter what science comes up with, the Bible remains trustworthy. So, no matter what side they fall out on, the Bible’s truth is not dependent on these discoveries. For my increasingly older children, they all now relaxed about the issue and are committed Christians.
Now, other “really committed” Christians might judge them and us as lukewarm Christians who are “liberals.” However, they would be wrong.
We love the Lord, we minister, we believe in the essential doctrines of the faith, we are in small groups and help lead Bible studies, we are well read amongst Christian authors, etc. At the bottom of each post are Bible verses that, if read, will get people through the Bible in about 1-1/2 years. We are committed to the study of Scripture. I have developed a 2-1/2 year course on church history.
My husband is a cardiologist who did bench research and won Young Investigator of the Year for the American College of Cardiology. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He gave that all up to minister to patients on a full time basis and has gone on a number of mission trips to Guatemala. He and I serve on the board of Triangle Medical Fellowship, a part of Christian Medical Dental Society. We recently gave a talk on bringing Jesus to the bedside of patients. We have also given talks on integrating faith and science.
I have had a number of letters to the editor published in the News and Observer, which have taken on a chaired professor of religion at Duke and the head of the UNC Law School who both wrote editorials on limiting faith in the public square. If you think getting these letters published is easy, I urge you to try to do so, especially those which speak exclusively for the Christian faith. In fact, I think it might be interesting to republish those letter on this blog. It might alleviate any thought of me being one who compromises this faith.
I have walked through a terrible trial with my tiny daughter who had a malignant brain tumor. I experienced a profound sense of the presence of God during those years and have no doubt that the Lord of the Universe intervenes in the hearts of His people. I spend time mentoring a young woman from a low income background. I am starting to volunteer with profoundly handicapped children, many of whom will die of the ravages of their genetic misfortunes.
So, why am I “bragging” on myself? I’m not. I want to show some new people that we are deeply committed Christians who are not sell outs in any sense of the word. So, if you want to make judgments based on one area of the “age of the earth” then do so. But it is far more complex than that. And I, for one, am saddened that some in the Christian community would judge the faithful who happen to believe that TE and deep, vibrant Christian faith can coexist.
But, those who believe in the Hamite approach to the faith, can dismiss us as rejecting the Gospel as Mohler has done in his ill-conceived diatribe. There are answers to his questions. But he refuses to acknowledge them. He has his agenda, and he proceeds to give the same old, same old. And no amount of “proof” by the large number of us who believe differently will make a difference because he, and others, are the “real” Christians.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
Francis Collins is Southern Baptist. Take a look at the American Scientific Affiliation.
Also, I am interested in your parameters. Did Henri Nouwen make your short list? How about Brother Lawrence? Mother Theresa who said “when I see a leper, I see Jesus” and scolded a certain President on his position on abortion and forced him to give her a standing ovation? Did any Catholics make your short list of salvation?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
Do you know that there is an explanation for that? Have you gone to those sites which talk about it?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
Have you listened to the debate between Ken Ham, Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser? Ham was so miffed off at how he came across, he redid the DVDs to give more explanations as to how he had been discriminated against? It deals quite nicely with your “interpretation” of the days.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
But as many theologians would point out, the word day, when used in conjunction with a numeral (1st day, etc) and/or a reference to day/night refers to a 24 hour period, the passages in Genesis come with both. In addition Exodus 20:10 lends credence to a 24 hour days, since it is the justification for the Sabbath.
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
Anon – that is a ‘rule’ invented to provide ‘proof’ 6/6000. It is not some historical rule of Hebrew translation. It is just an attempt to derive a rule based on the limited Hebrew we have in scripture. And even as an observation it is flawed.
Consider this except from http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
‘”Let’s look at some notable exceptions to this “rule,” just using the first day as an example. The number used for “first day” is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means “one.” The first exception to the “rule” is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13
In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he “will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul.”14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.’
There is no such ‘rule’ Anon. It’s yet another fictional half-truth invented by the YE leaders to prop up a failed interpretive paradigm.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
My last post I forgot to make clear the quote from Anon followed by my response. I apologize for any confusion.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
The ASA. However, you are on a witch hunt and will now spend the rest of your time trying to determine if those on the list believe by your definition. So, knock yourself out. My guess is that the only ones you will think are true Christians will be those who are on Ham’s list of “important” scientists. And that is one list that deserves a closer look.
I have been through this quite thoroughly on this blog. You can spend some time reading or you can spend your time disproving that people are not JM Christians. This sort of tactic is used by all sorts of groups. If you are not a 5 point Calvinist, you may be a heretic. If you are a 5 point Calvinist, you are a heretic. if you believe in pedobaptism, you do not deserve communion. CS Lewis wasn’t a Christian. Neither was Bonhoeffer. And anyone who does not agree with Ham, a man who was educated with only a an undergraduate degree in biology high school science teacher, now says anyone who does not agree is “in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement (read-nonChristian).
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
So Mother Theresa and Oprah believe the same thing? Really?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
You take me for a fool when you make such statements. Do you actually believe that i do not know the nonsense that Oprah espouses? Let’s see-The Secret for one. Have you actually read this blog or have you jumped in and made a bunch of assumptions about what I believe? It sure is a whole lot easier than reading what i have written.
Do I know that Oprah talks about Jesus and is not a Christian? Oh, Good Night. I need a vacation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee, I did not say that. My point was that “love” does not qualify someone. Both of them “love” people. That does not make them a Christian, nor does it give them Biblical insight or wisdom.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
I also know a lot of Christian who actually think that Jesus drank grape juice, for goodness sake.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM
Oh no, I wish I hadn’t said that. Now i will be visited by the “gotcha team” for the Jesus did not drink alcohol club which is almost as vociferous as the KJVO crowd who only pale in comparison to the Hamites.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
That is exactly what I am implying. Yes, it does imply that God is lying (or that God either doesn’t exist or that He had nothing to do with the Bible and this is just the result of man’s story-telling…far more likely)
Here’s a question for you…can God even use literary devices like metaphor or allegory. Aren’t they all, under the covers, still either incorrect facts or exaggerations, used to make a point?
Can a being who is supposedly holy…the epitome of truth use falsehoods to make a point? Do you think Him incapable of making a point directly? Before someone points out that Jesus used metaphor and allegory, remember that then you are assuming a priori that Jesus was God and are trying to derive traits of God from His actions instead of starting with a trait and seeing if He measures up.
I assume by 6/6000 you are referring to the NT reference of a day is as 1000 years…the problem with that reference is that it actually shows that the word day was thought of as 24 hours in that context or the analogy wouldn’t make any sense at all…and if you continue with that verse it says 1000 years is as a day … so it effectively cancels itself out. To use it as substantiating the idea of long days in Genesis is untenable.
What does “Basically in the correct order” mean anyway…God got it ALMOST right? Wrong is wrong…this isn’t new math where you get an “A” for showing your work even though the answer is wrong. 🙂
Lastly, saying that “I BY FAITH choose to simply accept Genesis is correct and leave on the shelf the implications of the physical evidence”
It may be honest, and call it whatever else you like, it is still willfully ignoring or closing your eyes to something simply because you don’t want your beliefs to be challenged. In my world, and I mean no personal offense by this, but that’s just the basis of ignorance. I believe what I want to believe and refuse to examine the facts and their implications because they might upset my apple cart.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee and others, Consider these comments:
“I was homeschooled K-12 (really 11 because I graduated early), and we used Apologia. Now I’m a college graduate, and atheist, and an evolutionist, and I plan on ordering your book but I don’t know if I can afford it. Stupid economy. Anyway, I count being homeschooled as a very positive experience, but I regret that I wasn’t taught better about biology and some other things. My parents saw evolution as incompatible with religion; I agree, and when I decided the evidence did not support a 6-day creation, I stopped believing in God. In a way, I’m still honoring my upbringing, but probably not the way they envisioned.”
or
“Same here: homeschooled K-12 and now an atheist. I also was taught that evolution and Christianity are logically incompatible (and continue believing that to this day) and ended up rejecting God when I discovered that the evidence for evolution was simply overwhelming.”
from: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/homeschooling-and-evolution/
Dee is right folks. I know so many are well meaning when they try to support the Bible using YEC materials, but the bottom line is these ‘scientific proofs’ pedaled by those folks are just so much toilet paper. And when our kids look at what the evidence REALLY is the recognize they were lied to – it just isn’t good. Some have the faith to persevere, some can forgive the adults who mislead them recognizing their good intentions and motive, but all stumble and many fall when they are confronted with the simple fact AIG nonsense is nonsense. And the people that repeat their nonsense are simply at best well meaning but ignorant.
This is reality. We can’t run away from it. It’s all around us, in the rocks, in the sky – it’s everywhere. It’s not some vast conspiracy of the evil atheists, It’s just the way things are. And we as Christian MUST stop hiding our heads in the sand and blindly parroting folly in the ‘name of Jesus’. All my children are believers. All my children understand that live evolving is no threat to their faith. They understand that real, vibrant faith in Christ is beyond such things. There is no reason for what is described above to be such a common occurrence in our youth. All we have to do is tell them the truth about God AND the truth about creation. Most children have plenty of faith to accept that God gave us Genesis to teach us about Him, not science. Doesn’t bother them a bit. What is a problem is teaching them it IS a book of science and THEN they discover that is folly. THEN there is TROUBLE!
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
JM is a TROLL.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, please send me an email when this blog gets back to reasonable discussion instead of calling believers unbelievers.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
No metaphors allowed? Metaphors are simply another means of conveying the truth. Jesus is the Light. He is not literally the light but by believing in Him, we are given light in order to see this world. So, Jesus is not a light bulb but he functions as the light. So, functionally the metaphor is true.
Does the gate to heaven have a big pearl on it as mentioned in Revelation? Or is that giving us the functional truth (pearl of great price. Must be able to pass through the ate into heave so some will be locked out- will we be behind a literal gate watching people outside the gate, ).
Could metaphor be one way of bringing a deeper truth?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee
thanks for making my case. I think all of Genesis 1 and 2 and possible more, are metaphors. And I am a believer, worshiper and follower of Christ, living a life of service for minimal financial compensation, as you well know.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce
Do you know how many people who come here and imply that I am not a Christian? Ot they use a “nicer” term- liberal which is double speak for you don’t take the faith seriously and may not be a real Christian. Also, people like Mohler and other Calvnistas on the outside do the same.
Such people would say that only God judges salvation but so many of them, deep down inside, know that they “know” who is not a Christian. This is a very dangerous game. None of us know the heart of another. We can judge some outward actions but we can’t know the inner man, for sure. I can hear God saying to some us-“So you said Jimmy wasn’t a Christian. Who made you my designated Judge?” Judge not lest you be judged is talking about salvation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
ANON:
“Zeta,
That is exactly what I am implying. Yes, it does imply that God is lying (or that God either doesn’t exist or that He had nothing to do with the Bible and this is just the result of man’s story-telling…far more likely)”
I don’t agree Anon, though this IS the common thought pattern shared by both YEC’s AND atheists. What it implies is what Paul TELLS us explicitly about how God gave us scripture:
“All scripture is INSPIRED by God and profitable for teaching …”
God didn’t physically write scripture. Men inspired by Him wrote scripture. Now what does inspiration mean? Does it mean they were in some kind of pagan trance and God moved the pen? NO! That is the pagan way. God uses us AS WE ARE, He works THROUGH us, which means some of who they where made it to the page. There are grammar errors, styles of writing, all sorts of imprints on the text that are HUMAN. And one of these imprints shows up as the cultural understanding of nature. And yet, the scripture IS inspired by God and, as Paul says, profitable for all these things.
Unfortunately, there is this ‘magic book’ mentality that pervades Evangelical Christianity. The Bible is Holy, inspired, the word of God, perfect to its purpose and intent. But it is not an idol or god in and of itself. It bears the imprint of both the writer AND the God who inspired it.
Anon: “Here’s a question for you…can God even use literary devices like metaphor or allegory. Aren’t they all, under the covers, still either incorrect facts or exaggerations, used to make a point?”
Sure, as I said, He spoke through the writer, not in spite of them. He made sure His message came through, but allowed elements of the individual to also make it to page. God, the god of scripture anyway, does not violate us. He respects us and works through us. So Paul is recognizable from John and John from Peter. And yet, they all wrote inspired by God and what they wrote is the word of God.
And you also ignore the fact that virtually ALL communication to us from God is like a parent talking to a child. It must be filtered and made comprehensible in one form or another by its initial intended audience. And in the most technical sense that means His communication is limited, even ‘imperfect’ in a sense. Indeed, even the use of HUMAN LANGUAGE ports the perfect message into an imperfect vessel, because all human language is itself an imperfect medium of communication.
That is at least in part why the scriptures can’t really be understood to their true purpose (the redemption of the soul and restoration of a relationship with God) unless the Holy Spirit reveals it’s truth to the reader.
Anon: “Can a being who is supposedly holy…the epitome of truth use falsehoods to make a point?”
Clearly He can, because ‘sunrise’ occurs many, many times in the Bible. And to be fair. Sunrise is only a falsehood to the most pedantic and uptight of individual. It’ a colloquial expression that is technically inaccurate and PERFECTLY and BEAUTIFULLY describes what those who rise early enough see as the Earth rounds the corner to expose the still shining sun 😉
Do you see Anon? Sunrise is technically WRONG, but it is ALSO PERFECT. Do you get it yet???
Anon:” Do you think Him incapable of making a point directly? Before someone points out that Jesus used metaphor and allegory, remember that then you are assuming a priori that Jesus was God and are trying to derive traits of God from His actions instead of starting with a trait and seeing if He measures up.”
God is not appealing to us so we can stand with Him in our pride and arrogance. He is appealing to our hearts, so that we will repent and follow Him. Is a painting ‘wrong’ because it is not technically perfect like a photograph? Which reaches us more – the Monet or the polaroid?
Anon: “I assume by 6/6000 you are referring to the NT reference of a day is as 1000 years…the problem with that reference is that it actually shows that the word day was thought of as 24 hours in that context or the analogy wouldn’t make any sense at all…and if you continue with that verse it says 1000 years is as a day … so it effectively cancels itself out. To use it as substantiating the idea of long days in Genesis is untenable.”
Anon, you are so wrong. Two things. The verse in the NT is based on a similar verse in Psalms that is specifcally speaking to the age of the mountains. The context of BOTH is NOT some technical mapping of time, but the God is outside of, unaffected by Time. The verse doesn’t cancel out, it says that For God, 1000 years is not more a long time than a day is to us, and that likelwise God is capable of seeing a day like we would see 1000 years! God is NOT affected by time, either long or short, he is timeless. So worrying about time as relates to creation or the return of Christ is a HUMAN concern. God’s timing is always perfect and outside our capability to identify with.
Anon: “What does “Basically in the correct order” mean anyway…God got it ALMOST right? Wrong is wrong…this isn’t new math where you get an “A” for showing your work even though the answer is wrong. :)”
Err no. It means that those three days in parallel represent such a broad brush and poetic painting of the creation event that to look for precision in its expression would be like complaining about a Monet because the shape of the sun was squashed. God is not just a physicist and a mechanical engineer, He is also an Artist. 🙂
Anon: “Lastly, saying that “I BY FAITH choose to simply accept Genesis is correct and leave on the shelf the implications of the physical evidence”
It may be honest, and call it whatever else you like, it is still willfully ignoring or closing your eyes to something simply because you don’t want your beliefs to be challenged. In my world, and I mean no personal offense by this, but that’s just the basis of ignorance. I believe what I want to believe and refuse to examine the facts and their implications because they might upset my apple cart.”
You are not following me. The reality of God and Christ is beyond the scope of scientific examination. We can’t prove God is or is not with science. So what I am describing is a person who trusts in what tells Him God is real, but is not capable of necessarily reconciling certain aspects of that belief with what is known about nature through science. He accepts the truth of Genesis by faith without necessarily knowing the technical details of how to connect the two.
Frankly anon, this is a requirement of faith. You can’t always see what you know is true. You can’t prove your wife loves you, but you can believe it. And indeed, if you require absolute proof she loves you, you will likely drive her away. Life is not all about proof. Life is also about faith, and hope, and love. And that part of life is where God is seen the most. The creation reveals certain of his attributes, but only in shadow. It is FAITH in CHRIST that reveals HIM to us in ALL His Glory.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I hope this isn’t an abuse of the blog, but I thought it might be fun to engage with someone on a practical level not always on an ethereal, philosophical level! I need help from someone with basic electrical circuit understanding to help me with the fuse box on my car which isn’t functioning properly.
Any takers, plenty of photos, old car, some fun (I hope)!
email me and I’ll give u a phone #
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
Arguing with Anon is useless. He IS the troll. Guy is working on this.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
So, this troll is a shape-shifter eh? Who will he be next – Capn’ Kirk, Spock? Does he drive a Klingon Bird of Prey that can fire while cloaked?!? Say it isn’t true!
Where is that neutron trail when you need it …
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Sorry. But one person has ruined it for everyone. Comments are closed until further notice.
OK. They are open again but we’re under full moderation. So it may be a while before any comment you post shows up.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
221 (arguments) comments on one post about YE creationism.
221 comments arguing points in the first few chapters of the first book of the Bible, thousands of years before Jesus ever shows up.
Thank you, Ken Ham, for creating yet another idol to be an obstacle in our relationship with Jesus, our relationships with others, our understanding of God, and our witness to the world.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
It’s like a storm at sea – you’ve got to batten down the hatches and ride things out.
It will not last forever.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ok, I have a dumb question from a non scientific type about this topic.
If God created Adam and Eve as fully grown adults who could do adult things like tend the garden, have sex, etc then surely He has the same power to create the world looking older than it is? He also created animals in their mature state and planted a garden to be tended. The trees were mature enough to have fruit on them, etc.
Is it possible?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
With God – ALL THINGS are possible! Great question Lin!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Possible? Yes. But we then have to work with the universe as if it IS old. So what’s the point.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
To further Lin’s question, could God have placed some stars millions of light years away and brought their light to the earth instantly? Of course He could! So there are obviously more possibilities. I had never heard that question before.
Thanks Lin!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
You stated that young lives hang in the balance because the theory of special creation has driven them away from Christianity because they hate to be lied to about the “facts.”
First, we do not have “facts” that prove evolution to be true or false, we have facts that we fit into the framework with which we approach the topic: our presuppositions. We know facts about things, but because we didn’t observe, reproduce, test those reproduced studies (even on a basic level), scrutinize them with statistical analysis to establish statistical significance/reliability as proof of fact, and from there reproduce trials with measurable results that disprove false theorem, all we can do is return to our faith in the presupposition to lend a causality to the facts we learn about the nature of what is and more about the nature of facts about the material world. Those facts do not establish scientific causality about the who/what/where/when/how of those facts. We read that in because of what we presuppose as a foundational, a priori truth upon which we establish other ideas.
Second, Your own view about the Bible being God’s Word and the Gospel being the power of God unto salvation demonstrates that people can believe both a degree of evolution and have faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. If it works for you, why is it that it does not work for others? You were once a young person, no? You came, at some point, to accept Christianity. It is true that some people believe or reject Christianity based on a particular issue that becomes like their own personal litmus test, but each person has their own. For those that reject the faith, it is more oft an issue that they observed a Christian or a contingent of them being abusive, defending their abusive behavior as though it were their divine right. From my reading of Bertrand Russell, he rejected Christianity because he could not get past issues concerning eschatology.
Kids don’t reject Christianity primarily because of evolution — it is a greater issue for them and it has more to do with political correctness and what Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio called “totalitarian niceness” which comes out of our post-modern culture as modernism falls away. Many more modernists reject Christianity because of special creation alone than do postmodernists.
Postmodernists reject Christianity because of how they understand the nature of truth — an issue of epistemology and presupposition. Ideas are not true because of objective fact but rather by whether a truth is believed and also meets some demands that can be described as politically correct or “be nice to other people.” The Barna group elucidated this along with studies done by people like Tim Clydesdale and others who are looking at the “mosaic” who have followed generation X and perhaps even Y. Truth becomes inextricably bound to the knower in postmodernism because belief makes a thing true.
When truth is established by the individual’s subjective belief rather than some degree of reliable, objective fact in the empirical world as a litmus test for truth, truth becomes inextricably bound to the knower. If I believe in a particular thing, for the sake of argument that smoking tobacco improves health, then my belief that it is healthy becomes on par with the studies that prove empirically that it is unhealthy. For the postmodernist, the person’s strong belief in tobacco smoking as healthy makes it true. If I am a modernist, and I start arguing the data from science only, something interesting happens. By arguing that the person who believes a thing because they want it to be true takes the argument personally because the “fact” comes from them, not objective reality. If I reject your truth, I reject you. Postmodernism says that you can’t reject anyone (they reject the law of non-contradiction). My integrity is hinged on the veracity of my belief, and the younger generations believe that it is wrong to challenge anyone’s integrity.
Clydesdale elucidated that young people prefer a god who is more like a “golden retriever,” a warm, cuddly God who is there to be loving no matter what, even at the expense of truth. What they dislike is the idea of God as the arbiter of truth — any truth, empirical or moral truth or any truth in the Bible. That is what is driving kids away from Christianity, not theories of origins. And because this generation is consumed with what other people think about them (the problems with bullying as one example), moral priorties (accepting all people no matter of their beliefs or practices/”be nice”) supersede any empirical fact or belief about it. They’re rejecting Christianity because of the nature of the standard of truth.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce wrote:
Dee
thanks for making my case. I think all of Genesis 1 and 2 and possible more, are metaphors. And I am a believer, worshiper and follower of Christ, living a life of service for minimal financial compensation, as you well know.
I am a believer, worshiper and follower of Christ, living a life free of committing adultery. So that makes my opinion that Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphorical more valid? How? Apples and oranges.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn, one point would be that we do not need to see any contradictions with science and Genesis. Maybe God wanted a mature earth that was well seasoned. We just don’t know. His ways are far above our ways.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin,
It is plausible for you to believe that God could make fully formed adults instead of growing them up from a single celled organism (which is full of amazing little organelles which is full of atoms which is full of sub atomic particles and order in wave form, substance and energy and perhaps something even smaller than that which we cannot yet discern.
You assume that special creation is or could be a viable possibility.
For those who cannot imagine God as greater than what they are able to conceive which is limited because God is not confined by time, space, power or human comprehension as is consistent with the analogy of being, special creation cannot be a viable possibility.
Why is that?
Faith. Faith in a preferred presupposition. Either God can do it by whatever way He wants, or He who created us is limited to only that which His creation can conceive. That has nothing to do with appreciating true science. It is a matter of the philosophical framework through which a person interprets science. God or man? God always presses us to choose.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I hope that in eternity God will reveal the mysteries of how everything came to be. Until then, none of us can know beyond the shadow of a doubt how the world and everything in it were created.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
deb, some Christians think they already know those mysteries, and they are waiting for the rest of us to catch up!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Another dumb question: Could the fall have possibly introduced a rapid aging of the earth since death and decay were introduced at that point?
I thought of this because of the flood which would also hasten decay and then because man lived a very long time until God had enough and limited it to 120 years
So, if we look at the creation of a mature earth with brand new ‘adults’ and mature but brand new, fruit bearing trees and the fall with a now decaying earth, flood, etc….could we have old earth as a result?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin
I answer as an OE/TE believer. If Romans is to be believed, then nature declares God’s glory and in it, we can see HIm. I do not believe that God is playing a game of cosmic gotcha. If everything we observe is to be mistrusted then we cannot be sure of any discovery. I prefer a more simple explanation. We see an old universe because it is old. God created Adam and Eve fully formed to begin the story.
Also, He created man from the dust of the earth. Why could not that be a simple way of saying DNA? God could have created man from nothing. Why say the dust of the earth? Why then did He place Adam inside the Garden? What was going outside the Garden? Why did God breathe the breath of life into man? It does not say He did that with the animals. Could it be that this breath was what made us created in the Imago Dei? Could it be that this action is what gave us the soul which differentiates us from animals?
Now, this does not mean that I don’t believe God could do anything He wants and when He wants. I think He gave us plenty of clues.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous,
Agreed. It’s such a shame that some Christians have to be so dogmatic on their particular view of creation. I choose NOT to take sides. The only question I have regarding creation is WHO. And the answer is GOD.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin
I believe that the death or animals is different than the death of immortals (meaning us). Therefore, i believe that animals could have died before the fall of man. Once again, what was outside the Garden that God needed to place Adam on the inside? Also, we are looking at the difference of 6000 years and 41/2 billion years (which is what I believe is the age of the earth). That would have to be one heckuva an aging process!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
Arce is making a point that affects all of us who believe that one can be a Christian and be OE/TE. We can look at Genesis differently and still be committed Christians. He needs to say this because the YE crowd has made us out to be less theologically committed. You know-Mohler’s “gospel” creationism.
I am TE/OE, I view Genesis differently than do you and I know that I am a committed Christian although the Hamites would accuse me of virtual non-belief in the Bible.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin
You are NOT asking dumb questions. In fact, your questions are precisely the questions that AIG uses to disprove TE/OE. I think they have answers that allow for a belief in an ancient earth.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
LIN: “Ok, I have a dumb question from a non scientific type about this topic.”
There aren’t any dumb questions, just dumb answers to them 😉
LIN: “If God created Adam and Eve as fully grown adults who could do adult things like tend the garden, have sex, etc then surely He has the same power to create the world looking older than it is? He also created animals in their mature state and planted a garden to be tended. The trees were mature enough to have fruit on them, etc.
Is it possible?”
Yes, it is possible. God can essentially do anything (lets avoid things like make a rock He can’t move, we don’t need that to pursue this issue).
This is actually a fairly common way of trying to resolve this issue of age in the universe.
But let me ask this question to help you realize on your own what some of the problems are.
Let us suppose God created Adam and Even as 21 year olds and they woke up in the Garden with perfect bodies and God said “Hi there Adam and Eve. I just made you and this is your home, the Garden of Eden”. That’s probably just fine. No issues there.
But suppose God made Adam and Eve and they woke up to find themselves in the Garden of Eden … with a full set of memories of their non-existent childhood, memories of their non-existent parents, their non-existent playmates, their non-existent house. Their stomachs full of the contents of their last non-existent meal, their minds thinking about the pleasant non-existent dreams they just had.
Now they wake up and God says Hi there, I’m God and I just made you, and this is your home, the Garden of Eden.
Any problems with this second scenario?
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin,
Yes I suppose God could have made the universe “appear” old….but once again, there is no evidence for such an event, so unless God was just playing a grand cosmic joke on us, why would He do it…and if He did do it, but we can’t tell…does it matter?
Most of what I see is just presumption, speculation and spin to lesson the conflicts with what seems to be true from an evidence based standpoint.
Since God is all powerful, then the answer to all your questions is yes, and that’s the problem, ANYTHING becomes a viable possibility, pick a fantasy, anyway you want the universe to have unfolded and the answer is “yes”, God could have done it that way. When you reach that point, you might as well throw all arguments and reason to the wind.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I am confused. Why would someone think that because God may have created a mature earth…that it would be a cosmic joke on us? Which parts of scripture are we to take on faith and which parts are we not to take on faith? That is what I do not understand. I do understand trying to make sure we understand the translation is correct.
Zeta, I admit, I am not smart enough to get your point. Why would they be created with memory of things that did not happen? And why would that matter to my scenerio?
To all: I do not think this is a salvic issue.
However, I get a bit nervous when people try and declare that Genesis is all metaphorical, though. And that is what concerns me about this issue.
When one uses the parables to make this point about metaphors, I do want to point to the fact that Jesus said he used parables so some would NOT understand. :o)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Just so you know, at least some if not all, of the most recent books by D. A. Carson and Tim Keller quote from the NIV. I find your blog helpful, but you do tend to oversimplify sometimes. You could learn a lot from both these men.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Cindy, thanks for your thoughtful reply:
CINDY: “You stated that young lives hang in the balance because the theory of special creation has driven them away from Christianity because they hate to be lied to about the “facts.””
Well no, that is not at all a fair reflection of what I said. I did not say anything about the theory of special creation driving them away. I said that what drives them away is being lied to about what can be scientifically supported in relation to the specific view of special creation that ascribes an age to the Earth and universe that is less than 10,000 years, typically 6000 years. There is a substantial difference between what I said and what you said above.
CINDY: “First, we do not have “facts” that prove evolution to be true or false, we have facts that we fit into the framework with which we approach the topic: our presuppositions.”
No Cindy. This IS the way AIG characterizes the situation, but it is not what the actual situation is. And that is why so many young people go to college and fall away from their faith when the learn what the actual situation is. What we have is a record of the history of life in the rocks of Earth. This record spans more than 500 million years. So life has been around for a very, very long time on this planet. The facts also are that the kinds of life that have been around have changed over time – A LOT. We don’t find dinosaur fossils in ANY layers younger than 65 million years. Period. And we don’t find any dinosaur fossils in any rocks much older than around 250 million years. We can indeed trace a fairly detailed history of life from as old as 3.5 billion years or so to the present. This is not a matter of presupposition Cindy, this is simply what the evidence shows is true.
Now, HOW and WHY this history exists is what the Theory of Evolution addresses, not IF the history exists.
CINDY: “We know facts about things, but because we didn’t observe, reproduce, test those reproduced studies (even on a basic level), scrutinize them with statistical analysis to establish statistical significance/reliability as proof of fact, and from there reproduce trials with measurable results that disprove false theorem, all we can do is return to our faith in the presupposition to lend a causality to the facts we learn about the nature of what is and more about the nature of facts about the material world. Those facts do not establish scientific causality about the who/what/where/when/how of those facts. We read that in because of what we presuppose as a foundational, a priori truth upon which we establish other ideas.”
Again, you are mistaken. First of all, evolutionary theory does make testable predictions that can be compared against the existing evidence. Indeed, one rabbit skeleton found in rocks that date to the Triassic and Evolution is done. It has NEVER been found.
Now I know there are many twists and turns in this debate. How do we know how old the rocks are etc etc. And Cindy I will be glad to discuss in as much detail as you like like as many of those twists as you would like to go down. However, in the end, as far as being able to leave open the door to a 6000 year old earth full of every kind of life we see in the fossils, there just isn’t one shred of possibility THAT is the real history of our planet – and for many different reasons and lines of evidence. But I do not mind taking the rather large amount of time it would take to back that statement up if you so desire.
CINDY: “Second, Your own view about the Bible being God’s Word and the Gospel being the power of God unto salvation demonstrates that people can believe both a degree of evolution and have faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. If it works for you, why is it that it does not work for others? You were once a young person, no? You came, at some point, to accept Christianity.”
Yes I did. And I also almost lost my faith when I came face to face with the reality that a Young Earth interpretation was untenable. Thank God for His grace and several others who had been down the road before that I survived that trial with my faith intact.
CINDY: “It is true that some people believe or reject Christianity based on a particular issue that becomes like their own personal litmus test, but each person has their own. For those that reject the faith, it is more oft an issue that they observed a Christian or a contingent of them being abusive, defending their abusive behavior as though it were their divine right. From my reading of Bertrand Russell, he rejected Christianity because he could not get past issues concerning eschatology.”
Cindy, honestly you are being far too narrow in your understanding of what makes people Christians and why people reject the faith. You can’t lay all the blame on the individual all the time. Whether or not the Gospel message is TRUE is a critical component of faith. If the disciples had returned to the tomb to find Jesus’ body still wrapped in the burial cloths – would they have been able to believe the ladies report? When the Gospel message is communicated with a connection to the falsity of certain scientific theories, when people are told over and over “If evolution is true, the gospel is false”, then why would you expect there NOT to be a causal relationship between loss of faith and them discovering that the evidence for evolution is not scarce as they’d been taught but instead overwhelming?
CINDY: “Kids don’t reject Christianity primarily because of evolution — it is a greater issue for them and it has more to do with political correctness and what Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio called “totalitarian niceness” which comes out of our post-modern culture as modernism falls away. Many more modernists reject Christianity because of special creation alone than do postmodernists.”
Cindy, you are denying reality. I posted at least two comments where the atheist in question state quite clearly that it was when they discovered the evidence for evolution and coupled it with the ingrained believe that the gospel and evolution were incompatible that they fell away. We see this all over the web, and in many, many, many testimonies of college kids that lose their faith. Indeed, this is why AIG etc want to target kids with their message. They think if they can show them how science supports their position the kids will be able to stand. But the cold hard facts are science doesn’t support a YE position. And all it takes is a kid willing to look objectively at both sets of arguments for that house on the sand to fall down flat.
CINDY: “Postmodernists reject Christianity because of how they understand the nature of truth — an issue of epistemology and presupposition. Ideas are not true because of objective fact but rather by whether a truth is believed and also meets some demands that can be described as politically correct or “be nice to other people.” The Barna group elucidated this along with studies done by people like Tim Clydesdale and others who are looking at the “mosaic” who have followed generation X and perhaps even Y. Truth becomes inextricably bound to the knower in postmodernism because belief makes a thing true.”
Cindy – you can’t put people in little boxes like that. You might be right in terms of general trends, but not the specifics of real individual. And this psychobabble simply does not explain why the popularity of atheism as espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins et al is on the rise, not does it explain why so many in the sciences come out believing Evolution is strongly supported by the data, even if they do manage to maintain their Christian faith.
CINDY: “When truth is established by the individual’s subjective belief rather than some degree of reliable, objective fact in the empirical world as a litmus test for truth, truth becomes inextricably bound to the knower. If I believe in a particular thing, for the sake of argument that smoking tobacco improves health, then my belief that it is healthy becomes on par with the studies that prove empirically that it is unhealthy. For the postmodernist, the person’s strong belief in tobacco smoking as healthy makes it true. If I am a modernist, and I start arguing the data from science only, something interesting happens. By arguing that the person who believes a thing because they want it to be true takes the argument personally because the “fact” comes from them, not objective reality. If I reject your truth, I reject you. Postmodernism says that you can’t reject anyone (they reject the law of non-contradiction). My integrity is hinged on the veracity of my belief, and the younger generations believe that it is wrong to challenge anyone’s integrity.”
Cindy, it IS the objective truth concerning the state of the universe and the Earth that undoes a YE position. All this talk of postmodernism may apply to some liberal arts major, but it isn’t what is driving the physics, biology, and geology majors away from the Gospel.
CINDY :”Clydesdale elucidated that young people prefer a god who is more like a “golden retriever,” a warm, cuddly God who is there to be loving no matter what, even at the expense of truth. What they dislike is the idea of God as the arbiter of truth — any truth, empirical or moral truth or any truth in the Bible. That is what is driving kids away from Christianity, not theories of origins. And because this generation is consumed with what other people think about them (the problems with bullying as one example), moral priorties (accepting all people no matter of their beliefs or practices/”be nice”) supersede any empirical fact or belief about it. They’re rejecting Christianity because of the nature of the standard of truth.”
Cindy – those that reject the gospel over the issue of YE verses science are a subset that I am specifically targetting here. And all that you go on about above has little to do with them. And it does not address the issue at hand. The physcial evidence strongly, overwhelminly supports an evolutionary history of life on a very, very old Earth. And for those that were raised being taught “If evolution is true, the Bible is false (a large portion of the Evangelical church) this is a MAJOR problem. A problem that is being denied by many of the movers and shakers in the evangelical church (read Al Mohler, Ken Ham, John Piper etc etc etc)
It is a huge problem Cindy. Ken Ham and his disciples are teaching us to base our faith in the reliability of scripture on a set of falsehoods. The younger generations want to know what there parent are teaching them is true. And if we’ve fed them a pack of lies about how strongly we can support a YE point of view with science, they are going to figure it out. It is in our best interests to figure it out for ourselves BEFORE they do.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin
He created the universe and our earth with laws that allow us to discover things that help mankind-nuclear power, medicines, etc. It is part of how we are created in the image of God. He is infinitely creative and He has allowed us to discover and create (things like plastic, for example) as well. What some would say is that God changed the rules of the game and we can assume that nothing is as it appears to be.
So, if an atheist looks at the world and all data points it to being 4 1/2 billions years old and then is told that to be a Christian he must believe it is 6000 years old, as happened to Eagle on this blog, and many others, these Christians are responsible for preventing some from coming to the faith.
Hugh Ross started Reasons to Believe for precisely this reason. All of these questions are well discussed both on his blog and on Answers in Creation. I highly recommend studying these sites. It makes me very nervous that some Christians would make this a salvation issue as Ken Ham and even Mohler are suggesting.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
debtomercy
I happen to like Tim Keller and DA Carson. They run a bit different than many in their crowd. So, it does not surprise me that they use NIV. I think both of them are OE/TE as well but correct me if I am wrong.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
debtomercy
And I have read them as well. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I am the father of a brilliant 20 something who is on the faculty at an Ivy-league University in mathematics. He has left the faith precisely because of the dogmatic YE-ers. He does not want to be a Christian if to be one is to share a label with those who deny the science, those who detest people who are gay, or those who put the life of a fetus over the life of a child born and living already. And both parents have science backgrounds and are OE creationists who believe that evolution is a tool by which the creator created every living thing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, if someone’s faith goes down the toilet based on the supposed age of the earth, that is a problem. The Bible never states the age of the earth – theologians do that. False teaching or inaccurate teaching, does not produce real faith, it produces deception. The age of the earth, should not enter into anyone’s faith. It is a non issue because the Bible never specifically says how old the earth is.
I agree with what Deb has said – she does not take sides. It should not even be an issue.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Lin,
LIN: “I am confused. Why would someone think that because God may have created a mature earth…that it would be a cosmic joke on us? Which parts of scripture are we to take on faith and which parts are we not to take on faith? That is what I do not understand. I do understand trying to make sure we understand the translation is correct.”
I feel your pain Lin. I think the answer is we take all scripture on faith, but that we also recognize we might be wrong in our understanding of aspects of it. And when clear evidence comes to light that we have been mistaken, we humble ourselves accept it and move on. I would never expect someone to just instantly change what they believe scripture is saying. Nor would I ask them to. But we have to recognize we can be wrong about some of it and when confronted with a potential problem, take it prayerfully to God study carefully to come to a resolution in time.
LIN: “Zeta, I admit, I am not smart enough to get your point. Why would they be created with memory of things that did not happen? And why would that matter to my scenerio?”
Well, I was not trying to trick you. But why my question is a puzzle to you is why it is such a problem. Would any of us expect God to make Adam and Eve with FALSE memories of a life that never existed? No, none of us would. Creating a mature item by fiat is not the same as creating a mature item with a false history. The rocks in the Earth record a history. A history that is false if the world is <10,000 year old. Likewise the light from the stars in the sky record a history of the universe – a history that again is false if the universe is <10,000 years old. For example, in central America is a scar from a huge asteroid impact on the Earth, and all over the Earth is a layer of iridium enriched soil that was deposited from the ejecta from the event. There is shocked quartz in the crater and all sort of cross correlating evidence that puts this event some 65 million years in the past. All of that is false if the planet is only 6,000 years old. Here is another one. There is a massive supervolcano in Yellowstone. There is evidence all around this caldera that it last erupted some 600,000 years ago. And do you know what lies under the sediment from the mississipi delta that also dates from 600,000 years ago? ASH. huge amounts of volcanic ash that was washed down the mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico when that event happened.
I could go on and on, but all over the Earth there is history from events that span a time from 4.5 billion years ago to the present. And they all cross correlate with each other perfectly where such cross correlation can be expected to exist. And not just the Earth, the this entire universe is the same. Records of collisions and supernovas and neutron stars ejected some thousands, some millions, some billions of years ago. And ALL of this history is FALSE if the world and cosmos is a mere 6,000 years old. Just like memories of a childhood and parents and a house to grow up in would be FALSE in the brain of Adam if He was created 21 years old.
LIN: "To all: I do not think this is a salvic issue."
Amen Lin. Amen. I do not question the salvation of ANYONE over this issue. And I gladly fellowship with all my brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of where they stand on this issue. At least, those that will return me the grace of not questioning MY salvation over this issue 🙂
LIN: "However, I get a bit nervous when people try and declare that Genesis is all metaphorical, though. And that is what concerns me about this issue."
Lin – so do I. This journey I've made has NOT been easy. I do not ask anyone to take me at my word. I merely ask they do not take Ken Ham at his word either. Listen to all sides, prayerfully consider what the truth is. And most of all stay true to your convictions in Christ.
LIN:"When one uses the parables to make this point about metaphors, I do want to point to the fact that Jesus said he used parables so some would NOT understand. 😮 )"
Right. I don't think God was trying to hide truth from us. I think in many ways truth was lost along the way, much the same as how the correct pronunciation of the name of God was lost, and we have to rediscover it if possible. If my hypothesis is correct, that one of the purposes of Genesis 1 was to provide a convenient way to keep Israel aware of the fact the pagan gods are merely created things, then the Israelites of Moses day all knew that is exactly what it was. But over time that key piece of information was likely lost and we have simply had the fortune of being alive when it was rediscovered. As you said, it isn't salvific – except insomuch as those that stumble over our ignorance.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Above, you listed your husband’s credentials. This is appeal to authority. And if you can play it to support evolutionism, I can play it to support creationism. Actually, I don’t think it means anything, but I will play that card if that’s what it’s like here.
Do you want me to list my husbands? My husband was only shy two engineering classes for his undergrad degree at Virginia Tech and changed majors to straight chemistry as a basic science (spending an additional year in school). He aced quantum mechanics and blew the curve. He completed a year with a 4.0 in a masters degree program at Northeastern in Boston in forensic science and decided he wanted to do medical oriented toxicology, but specializing in postmortem work. He went to MCV for one semester, and straight As, but left because he could not get Drs. Blankey or Polklas as major professors because they were full, and they wanted him to do vitamin E work with rats. He left (since he had to take a signature loan at that time to pay for school).
He got a full stipend to train at a medical school that did offer forensic toxicology. He was required to take the same coursework that medical students did for the first two years, save for gross anatomy and psych because they didn’t let him, and he obviously did no clinical. As a distinction in pharmacology, he had to complete additional coursework that was unique and in addition to the medical school component and an essay upon the completion of each course and module.
And he was required to sit for the national board component in each area along with the medical students for those classes. He scored better than all of the medical students at the school in every single area. The only other student that was able to once surpass his board score was another graduate student. And during his second year, he was also required to revamp the biometry course for the school because he’d shown so much proficiency in this area in the first year.
I cannot even begin to list the numbers of publications he has, while in school and since graduation with his PhD from that medical school. He also won the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Toxicology Section’s Irving Sunshine Award for excellence among young toxicologists, about four or five years after completing his PhD while he was co-director of the Forensic Toxicology Lab at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathologists.
And for that matter, the two of us won the The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists’ award for best presentation abstract at a stateside joint meeting in 1998. (We don’t make enough money to get to to the ones that aren’t stateside.) I’ve also done a CME work for toxicologists through U of Texas, and I’ve done a workshop on the Materia Medica of Natural Products for the Society of Forensic Toxicology/American Academy of Clinical Chemistry. I am listed on a dozen or more toxicology studies and published papers.
My husband holds a masters degree in biblical studies as well and completed several courses in logic through Greg Bahnsen’s graduate school but became ill and did not finish his doctorate through them.
For four years, while also employed full time at AFIP, he was academic dean for a seminary where he taught creation science.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I think I can hold my own here. None of that has anything to do with presuppositions and the faith that one must have in those presuppositions. You have to assume some starting point about origins. A scientist must do the same, believing in the religious implications that science demands, exactly like the philosopher and the layman in the pew.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
I was merely trying to say, obviously very, very badly, that my husband is not stupid when it comes to science. That means that he can speak to the special challenges that scientists face when confronted with a Gospel that requires a belief in a 6000year old earth. It sounds like the two of you are very, very bright. I already knew that you were.
Look, bright people can support many things when it comes to faith. I have a friend who is a highly placed Mormon and runs a multinational company and is a graduate of the Naval Academy. He believes that Brigham Young’s statement about Amish like people living on the moon is plausible. I am so sorry that my comment did not make the point I wanted it to make. I think I shall go and curl up in fetal position. It has been a very bad day.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Cindy
Just to make sure you do not think that the last comment ‘s ending was aimed at you. Back to sucking my thumb in remorse.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
“Evolution” – States that heritable changes occur in the gene pool of a population over time. – this is a fact, demonstrable and supported by overwhelming evidence.
Mechanisms of evolution include: – Mutations, genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow. – these are also facts, however most scientists would agree that more study is required to determine what part and how strongly each of these effects the evolutionary process.
The “Theory” of evolution, is on the same level with “germ theory”, the “Theory of gravity”, “atomic theory” and so on.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I understand your point about Eagle and a 6000 year old earth. The problem is, I believe, that we are going about resolving the situation in a backwards manner.
On the surface, Genesis taken at face value, contradicts current science in many places. You have to then make a choice. Either you leave Christianity, or you adjust the simple reading of genesis by injecting random time frames, turning “difficult” passages into allegory and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to second guess and impose a meaning which softens or eliminates the contradictions, or you simply close one eye, claim belief in the scripture and claim that you trust the facts of modern science, but never allow yourself to look too closely at the issues.
You look at the bible through the eyes of faith, which is fine when we talk about religion and belief systems, but it is absolutely backwards when we are talking about factual statements. You come at the bible with the presupposition that an infallible God wrote it, so rather than see the conflicts between the bible and science and make a dispassionate decision about which is right based on evidence, you impose an allegorical framework on it, and/or scour the landscape for alternate word definitions to make it “fit”.
No one read Genesis like this until after the scientific discoveries supplied the conflict, then, all of a sudden alternate viewpoints popped up all over the landscape.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I’m not one to go pasting quotes into the “reply” field, but I just wanted to say that the following passage from 1 Cor. 13 has helped me a lot, re. feeling conflicted over interpretations (includes metaphorical vs. literal):
“For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (NIV; I actually prefer “through a glass darkly,” as mirrors in Paul’s time were not silvered glass – they were polished metal surfaces and gave a distorted image.)
I personally have felt for a long time that I will never, ever understand many of the intricacies of how science relates to Genesis chs. 1-2 – and that I don’t have to understand in order to be able to believe in Christ.
Why force a literal reading of poetry? (Gen. ch. 1 is a poem; our translations render it in prose.) Why assume that God would ask anyone to have to believe in things incomprehensible to them (dinosaurs, the fossil record, etc.) in order to write what we know as Gen. chs. 1 and 2?
It would be most unlike God (I think) to force that kind of knowledge on anyone – instead, we’ve got this amazing anthology of books written in all kinds of prose and poetic genres/styles, not a continuous narrative of history from Day 1.
I have largely been outside the YE/OE/TE arguments (also the “new atheist” stuff) and that is by choice. As others have stated, this is not 9again, imo) a salvific issue.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
ANON:
Zeta,
“Evolution” – States that heritable changes occur in the gene pool of a population over time. – this is a fact, demonstrable and supported by overwhelming evidence.
Mechanisms of evolution include: – Mutations, genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow. – these are also facts, however most scientists would agree that more study is required to determine what part and how strongly each of these effects the evolutionary process.
The “Theory” of evolution, is on the same level with “germ theory”, the “Theory of gravity”, “atomic theory” and so on.
Thanks for giving a summary of evolution and the Theory of evolution. I am hard pressed to know if I should read this as an aid to me or some kind of correction – but either way its good information. But I am well aware of the robustness of evolutionary theory and did not intend in any of my posts to suggest it was somehow inferior to other theories we take for granted. The closest I came was to infer that there are indeed elements of the mechanism of evolution that are not well understood. And indeed, there are a good many issues that at this point do not have good solutions. Many of them tend to show up in YEC propaganda as ‘proofs’ evolution is a failed theory. But the same is true of Gravitational Theory and so forth – except YEC’s don’t see any need to rail on them 😉
However, You left out natural selection, which is a fundamental key to the theory. Natural selection ‘filters’ the changes allowing mutations/alterations that increase an organisms fitness in an environment to spread to the entire population, and eliminating changes that are deleterious from the population. Indeed, NS was the key insight Darwin had that put his Origin of the Species on the map so to speak. He actually had no solid evidence for how the changes that are the input to NS came about. That came along later with the discovery of DNA.
Most biological scientists at the time knew life had a long history, and that it was changing over time. But Darwin is the one who realized Natural Selection could drive a process of continued refinement per the constraints of the environment.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, FYI – ANON did not leave out natural selection. You need to read his/her post again.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I have the utmost of respect for Cindy who contributes so much to the body of Christ. One of the concepts that comes forth from the information on her website is the reminder that we need to think about where our ideas come from. I really do agree on this point and I think it is helpful to determine where our ideas come from and what experiences have contributed to the formation. This applies in a big way to my former YEC beliefs.
As a young believer in college, I had a friend that cut short his studies ONE SEMESTER short of graduation to transfer his studies to young earth creationism. Then came the challenges from atheists to faith which included evolution as an excuse not to believe. Then came rebuttals from Christians saying the world was going to ______ in a handbasket because of evolution and secular humanism. And so it went. A home school Dad and professor started a YEC group and gave talks at our church. My children went to Christian school and they had a wonderful science teacher a Creation science advocate. Then a church close by had some conferences by ICR and there you go — I could not enjoy museums anymore, dreaming of one like Ken Ham’s.
That is just the way it went in my life, until my husband, a devout man and a thinker, decided to attend a scientific creation class at our church to learn more about it and find out what was new on the scientific front. He found, as Zeta says, it was “hog wash” on every front. The arguments did not hold water. I watched as he asked intelligent questions from the class and from AIG and was just abused!! It got ridiculous. Over several months and now years he examined every single argument that young earth creation had to offer thoroughly and found them wanting. He almost wanted it (scientific creationism) to be true at first. However, the church was teaching ridiculous stuff as fact. Then they taught it to our children and others. He watched as a new believer, a scientist, attended our church, and walked away from the class shaking his head. An agnostic also did. (However, my husband began intelligent discussions with him and they continue to be friends.) Over the time and years, my DH connected with other scientists who were believers and OE or TE. And over time I began to see that my fears of evolution were truly unfounded.
Our oldest children suffered for our early igonorance and while committed believers, their experience contributed to choosing a different way of expressing that faith that allowed for more intellectual freedom than their conservative charismatic Baptist history. What I am saying really is that my ideas on the subject began with hearsay. They changed with serious study and just a few real scientific facts and alot of inaccurate information (to be generous) put out by young earth creationists. The scales fell from my husband’s eyes first and then mine. This process was stimulated by narrow mindedness from members and leadership of the church we attended and (almost) every big name young earth creation teacher we encountered. I believe now the science of young earth creationism is pure tee junk or as Zeta puts it “hogwash.”
So think about it, where did your ideas, if you are YEC, begin? Were they a response to evolution because an atheist used it thinking foolishly it justified his unbelief? Did the YEC POV or the atheist evolutionary once hinge on the belief that if Genesis 1-11 wasn’t science then your faith was not true? Think about the arguments you have heard-where did they come from? Who told you that there were human footprints in dinosaur tracks? Who told you that if you believed in evolution there was no atonement? Who told you that evolution promoted immorality? Have you spent time with believers who lean OE and TE and found out who they are and why and how they love Jesus and that this love and faith are enhanced by science? Have you talked to a Christian professor who had YEC’s misstate and lie about their work? Have you looked at the stars and do you really know how far away they are? Who told you the geologic record was flawed? Have YOU talked to a child who lost their faith or nearly did when they found out how far away the stars REALLY are? And was the child your own?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I must thank God, once again, for the professors in our department who are devout Christians as well as outstanding biologists.
On the same vein, my church is filled with people who believe in 6 day creationism as well as those that believe evolution is real.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon – my apologies! I can say I thought I read the entire post – but you are right. You included NS.
So – I never did figure out if you were trying to correct something I said or just filling in some blanks in the discussion. Which was it?
Thanks,
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon:
To further Lin’s question, could God have placed some stars millions of light years away and brought their light to the earth instantly? Of course He could! So there are obviously more possibilities. I had never heard that question before.
Thanks Lin!
Not picking on you anon, but again, there is a huge amount of history in that light. History that is a fiction. For example, about 230 million years ago M32, a satellite galaxy of the great Andromeda galaxy (M31) collided with its parent. How do we know? The shock waves that resulted from the collision are still propagating through the galaxy, creating concentric rings visible in the infrared.
And closer to home, but still hundreds of thousands of years in the past, a star exploded in the Magellenic clouds about 168,000 years ago, its light just arriving in 1987. There has been a huge wealth of information gathered from this event, not the least of which is a DIRECT measure of the propagation of light across the intervening medium. Guess what, it’s moving at the same speed there it is here – which implies it took 168,000 years to get here. But even more so, we can watch not only the light from the explosion propagate, but the expanding pressure wave as it compresses gases that had been expelled just before the explosion. And we can observe through stellar spectra the decay of short term radioisotopes – noting that their decay rate 168,000 years ago was EXACTLY the same as it is now here on the Earth. All that history is FICTION, FALSEHOOD, if God made it all 6000 years ago and made the light ‘in transit’. Indeed, he had to put all the images we observed of this explosion about 162,000 light years from the star itself – if indeed it ever really was there.
This is the problem with apparent age arguments. And likely the reason they are rejected by most YEC’s as well as OE’s and TE’s. They are a theological nightmare because for it to be true AND the state of the universe to be as it is, the majority of what we see in the night sky, and the majority of the history we see evidenced in the geology of the Earth and the moon and the other planets in the solar system is all a fiction, a falsehood. It makes God a trickster.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi, Dee,
Just getting back to the blog after a nice holiday with family and then catching up on some emails.
Please don’t think that I meant any insult by referring to your post as “reductio ad absurdum.” I know that phrase can be used to refer to a logical fallacy, but I didn’t mean it that way. I just meant that you were attempting to show fault in Mohler’s arguments by taking them to an extreme conclusion. That can be an effective tool for making a point. And you do make a good point, very worthy of consideration.
But because some in the past used a faulty understanding of the Bible and/or of science to persecute others, or to call their faith into question, that does not mean that someone who raises questions about the theological implications of certain scientific theories is doing the same thing.
I did not read Mohler as making the claim, or even the insinuation, that one cannot be a Christian, or even that one cannot believe the Bible, if they believe in an Old Earth. Yes, he does point out some of the theological considerations that must be addressed if one hold to OE views, and some of the particularly significant concerns raised by the TE position. And he concludes that a YE view best addresses those concerns.
You do not need to be persuaded by his arguments, and you may feel that there are very good responses to those concerns. But the concerns themselves were presented well and simply cannot be dismissed as the same thing as claiming the sun revolves around the earth.
I know that your experience with YEers has been bad, and you are offended that some would question a person’s commitment to Scripture or to the Gospel or to the atonement if they do not hold to a YE position. But the fact remains that the OE/TE position requires a response to the theological issues Mohler raised, so his concerns cannot be dismissed as unintelligent. You feel that others have adequately addressed those issues; Mohler remains unconvinced. It is quite unlikely that he does not know of the arguments used by OE/TE folks; it is more likely that he simply is not persuaded by them and feels that a YE view more adequately addresses those concerns.
It’s just my opinion, and you are under no obligation to agree, but I think a more effective response to Mohler’s article would be to actually examine the points he makes, acknowledge the theological concerns at stake, and provide counter arguments to those specific points, either your own or those of other scholars who have already done so.
Perhaps it’s just a matter of style and personal preference, but I would rather see someone say, “No, Dr. Mohler, you are incorrect when you say that one cannot hold to TE and still believe in the fall and the need for redemption, and here’s why”, rather than say, in essence, “Oh, yeah, Mohler, you’re just a stupid windbag who is so ignorant of science that your views are no different from those who claimed the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I have a question. Mohler’ article includes the following:
The BioLogos website has just even in recent days focused its attention on the direct rejection of biblical inerrancy. Understanding that any rendering of the bible as inerrant makes the acceptance of theistic evolution impossible. Certainly implausible. Kenton Sparks writing on that website suggests that, intellectually, evangelicalism has painted itself into a corner—that we have put ourselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac with our understanding of biblical inerrancy. He suggests that the Bible indeed should be recognized as containing historical, theological and moral error. Peter Enns, one of the most frequent contributors to the site, suggests that we have to come to the understanding that, when it comes to many of the scientific claims, historical claims, the writers of scriptures were plainly wrong.
Is this accurate? Is a denial of inerrancy, or an affirmation that the Bible’s writers were “plainly wrong”, a part of the cureent direction of Biologos? If so, how do you feel about that?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
A question for you. You said to Lin:
Would any of us expect God to make Adam and Eve with FALSE memories of a life that never existed? No, none of us would. Creating a mature item by fiat is not the same as creating a mature item with a false history.
Following this same line of argument, would not Adam and Eve also have the appearance of history, even without memories? Would not their fully formed bones, muscles, respiratory system, neural pathways, size, capacity for speech, etc., etc. lead one to assume that they came to have those characteristics through the usual history of human developoment?
I’ve heard many reject the notion of the universe being created “full grown”, with an apparent history, on the basis that it makes God a deceiver. How would He be any more a deceiver to have done this with the universe than with Adam and Eve? And how is one a deceiver when they have specifically informed you of what they did, how they did it, and when they did it?
Don’t misunderstand; I’m not making any assertions about the age of the Earth or the proper interpretation of Genesis. I just wonder about these kinds of things …
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ok, everyone, I think it’s time we turn to the real experts on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster: “Following this same line of argument, would not Adam and Eve also have the appearance of history, even without memories? Would not their fully formed bones, muscles, respiratory system, neural pathways, size, capacity for speech, etc., etc. lead one to assume that they came to have those characteristics through the usual history of human developoment?
I’ve heard many reject the notion of the universe being created “full grown”, with an apparent history, on the basis that it makes God a deceiver. How would He be any more a deceiver to have done this with the universe than with Adam and Eve? And how is one a deceiver when they have specifically informed you of what they did, how they did it, and when they did it?
Don’t misunderstand; I’m not making any assertions about the age of the Earth or the proper interpretation of Genesis. I just wonder about these kinds of things …”
Excellent question Junkster. The difference between “appearance of age” and “appearance of history” is not always trivial. My example of false memories makes it kind of obvious, but your question brings forward some of the more subtle issues. For example, to create an Earth suitable for plants to grow, the planet does need to be covered with some kind of regolith, which is simply worn rock. That worn rock does imply a history that wore it down, but it is also functional, necessary for plants to grow. Or another example, a comet would need to be placed somewhere in its orbit, even though the orbit itself might require 10,000 years of more to complete. And in your example, Adam created 21 years old would require full grown bones, even though they never officially ‘grew’.
We could characterize this issue’s grey area then with the question “would Adam and Eve have a belly button”. That is, the belly button is the remnant of the umbilical chord, an indicator of a live birth that never happened in their case, but it is also an esthetically pleasing part of the human form.
And so I think the answer to your question would be “it depends”. If the bone contains a scar from a break that never happened, that would be a problem. If however it only contained the functionally necessary historical markers, there would be no question it was just a necessary part of making the creation.
But the real issue is, even our DNA contains what appear to be markers from a history. And most certainly the geology of the planet itself contains far more than is necessary for it to be functional or even beautiful. Why there are even complete yet ancient river system buried under thousands of feet of sediment! (could this be the flood? – in most cases no because of the pauses in layering that contain various kinds of fossils that indicate extended alternating periods of differing climactic environments like fossil termite mounds or underground burrows etc) There are even inverted river systems that are the result of some ancient volcanic lava flow that filled-in a river channel and then later is exhumed from the softer, surrounding rock sediments through a long process of erosion.
In other words, it isn’t that created mature or with the appearance of age is not possible for God, its just that as the Earth and cosmos is today, the question is why would God make it not merely look mature, but invent a false history for the universe and then place in it at every possible spot to infinite detail every possible ‘memory’ of that history that would have been left behind had that history actually taken place? As far as I can tell, God doing that is very inconsistent with His character as a God of truth, much more so than some of the standard questions about death before the fall, or death being a component mechanism of the creation of life. Indeed, most of our questions about death before the fall can be answered though some of the vagaries in interpretation of scripture. Accounting for this false history in creation though as part of some accidental necessity in making a mature universe or with some alternate yet <10,000 year history is a nightmare of implausibility.
Indeed, taking just a moment to actually say something nice about AIG etc – many of these scientists are actually VERY intelligent men and women. Humphreys, Sarfati, Wise, Baumgardner. These are not intellectual slouches. But what they are faced with is trying to 'find'/'create' an alternate explanation for what naturally are trillions of data points that just naturally fit an old universe history.
You see, only God really has the capacity to cross all the t's and dot all the i's that would be required to fully compose by intellectual exercise a fully consistent history for the universe. So for me, indeed a lesser mind than many of these men, my job is actually easy. I count on the fact that REALITY will just automatically line up perfectly. If these guys are right about YE, then REALITY will line up in absolute precision and conform not only to what we know, but to what we do not yet know.
But the reality is, THAT 'falling into place' only happens in the OE/TE view. The monumental efforts by the folks at AIG always fall flat because they are trying to force fit the data into a paradigm that as far as I can tell just isn't reality. And how do I know, because every attempt they make misses important counter examples that blow the idea out of the water, and almost invariably is strongly contradicted by the evidence outside the small subset their superior human minds are capable of taking into account.
Incidentally, this is one reason why real science is defined not by the a priori determination of what is 'correct', (which is what Creation Science itself is), but rather simply by a 'follow the data' approach where one lets the natural world itself guide you to a better, better, best theoretical explanation. We can count on REALITY to be self consistent IF we've managed to find the right explanation. And we can count on the wrong explanation eventually being exposed by some inconsistency with REALITY.
And Why can we count on REALITY to be self-consistent? Because of the very nature of God as a God of truth. Many believe this is the reason our culture has advanced as it has – the belief God the creator is not some capricious god as in the pagan deities of other culture, but an ordered and truthful God, and that His creation reflects those attributes of Himself.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
I believe that I may have disappointed about 4 people that I really care about because of my belief in OE/TE. I stand by my post and will discuss this with other people who come to this blog. I truly enjoy a great and lively discussion and disagreement on these secondary issues. It means something to me because I personally have seen people walk away from the faith because of it. We will continue to write on this subject and I will continue to believe as I do. But, I do not want to cause further pain to a few folks so, for now, for these folks, I rely on Zeta who has no established relationships with these 4 folks who I love.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee – thank you so much for sharing that. That has been very hard for me as well, figuring out how to keep my beliefs from disappointing others. I do not think it is possible. Perhaps that is why there are so many churches and church splits.
I understand wanting to be with people who agree on doctrinal issues. Disagreements can cause tension and division. So do we keep quiet? I hate rejection and some doctrines seem to bring being rejected by some.
So what are we to do? I do not know.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
My experience is that when I have the right explanation for the “problem,” that all the data fall into place. Until I have the right explanation, there are always data that don’t fit my explanation. This has proven true in relatively simpler systems than the earth and it appears even easier to apply to earth and the universe.
The YE people will never make the data fit because their explanation is just not right. In the meantime, their insistance that their explanation is the right one is trashing a lot of lives.
I used to look at the rock layers as the interstate highway cut through them in Arkansas. The same layers would be repeated on hill after hill and they were clearly OLD (and laid down flat even though they now were bent). I always wondered how I would feel if I were an 18 year old driver who had been taught YE and then passed through this area. I could not have maintained that belief any longer. Now, how much other stuff do I have to discard to become honest again. YE beliefs are bad as well as stupid.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
I think part of the problem is to know with whom one can discuss an issue. I come from a no holds barred type of family in which everything could be discussed-loudly but with fondness. Then, it is important to know when to back off. Both of these things can be very difficult to understand within the blog medium. Here is the bottom line. When it becomes personal on a blog, then the discussion has lost its objectivity. Then all that occurs is pain.
This blog is the opinion of the two of us. It is not meant in a personal way. Some people will take offense when you discuss certain issues in certain ways. Goodness, I just mentioned that I might look at Calvary Chapel and I have some guy who is totally freaking out because it is his sacred cow. I have’t written one word yet and I am already getting threatened. So, when I get around to it, I will discuss my thoughts on CC but I most likely will not engage him in the comment section. It is way too personal to him.
But, I will not change what i write or what I believe or even how I say it-unless I need to clarify. I also will not remove people from the blog except for gross profanity, unprovable accusations that border on potential libel or crazy trolls who say things just for “the sake of it.” I have only banned two people from this blog in 2 1/2 years. Both of those were within the last month or so. I don’t like what some people say or even how the say it. I know many people don’t like what I say or how I say it. But we like open dialogue and are not into babysitting. If people don’t like how someone says something, ignore them and find people you want to talk with.
But, right now, I have 4 people who are quite upset with me and I feel badly about it because I truly love and respect these folks. So, I have decided to back away and let others take on their comments. This probably won’t help and they will continue to be mad at me but it is the best solution that i can see unless someone has a better idea..
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee–
That makes me sad…that people are hurt because of YOUR beliefs. A good friend of mine told me one day that she wasn’t sure that Christ was the Son of God and that there was a trinity because the Bible doesn’t use such terms.
These past six months has been a time of tremendous growth for me. In discovering what you have espoused almost daily is that there are simply A issues and B issues. This OE/YE thing is that for me. I honestly don’t care how old the earth is. I dont believe God has intended for such things to be “proof” of the verity of his word and whether he exists or not. Believing in God, His Word, and Him being the Creator is largely an act of faith on part of the believer and that strength to do so endowed to them through the Holy Spirit.
It seems that Scripture can point to science as much as it points to God, yet, there will always be others who simply won’t believe–and not because we cannot prove the earth is young or old. Yes, there are many like as you have said, who have walked away from the faith because of these issues. But the majority of us believe because of faith. Not because we can really prove much of it.
I do love Strobel’s books because they helped me a lot. I am a scientist at heart and I understood the many theories and scientific arguments presetned in the book. I think they were well defined. I did also believe that a person can be a Christian and also undersatnd and believe science. I dont believe Scripture was meant to answer all of the questions regarding science. And if that is my belief, then that leaves much room for those I know, love and care about to believe differently than me.
At the end of the day, Dear Sister, I know that you believe Christ died for your sins and he rose on the 3rd day. That you have been given salvation through faith and grace in Him alone. If I were you friend and someone who loved you and vice versa, that’s all that really counts. I believe that God is merciful and kind; compassionate and overwhelming in forgiveness. That he delights in us, all of our questions, beliefs and nuances. And I believe his grace overwhelms such that we are not required to have all of this figured out in order to believe and even to be coutned as righteous.
Anyways, I wanted to just offer you a hug and some love here because you are indeed my sister in Christ. Like my friend who is struggling with her beliefs, I believe that the Lord is just so merciful, kind, and gracious to allow us to even ponder such great thoughts. But the one that matters most is the one you have come to understand clearly: That Christ is the only way to the Father. I hope that your friends who love you would choose not to be offended by your beliefs, and that they would put their feelings and assurance in perspective here and see that you really love God and what qualifies you as a Christian isn’t your thoughts on OE/TE/YE but on who Christ is, who you are in relation to God, and what you must believe in order to be reconciled to Him.
I’m sure if they did that, their hearts and minds would have peace that you are their sister forevermore. Bless you! My heart is inclined to pray for you and just ask that the Lord would open our hearts and minds that we would not judge each other on issues that don’t affect our salvation.
Peace and Comfort to you today.
-NLR
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wow Dee what up…I’m go away to a meeting of my cult for one weekend and the whole blog goes crazy! You even banned my good buddy NBTT! I know he was a pain, but he was so easy to spin up. I’ll miss that….anyway back to the matter at hand…doesn’t this whole debate boil down to how one views scripture? If you’re in that literal interpretation crowd you have to take the YE view to be intellectually honest and you have to vigorously defend it. If you loose on that one point then the whole literal interpretation argument falls apart right at the very beginning of the book. That is (I think) why the “literalistas” (coining that phrase) fight so hard on this and say we kept Dinos as pets. The mature Christian merely recognizes that God’s way are not our ways and that the Bible is not perfectly clear on every issue, but it is perfectly clear on the important ones. If it was that important to God for us to fully understand how and when He created the whole thing, I think it would say so unequivocally and this discussion would not even occur. There would be nothing to argue about. Christians don’t argue about whether we should steal, lie or murder do we? We may do those things but we all know them to be wrong.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
For me it is no less easy to have folks look at my cross-eyed, or even with hostility over this issue. But I am reminded of what I thought of Christians who accepted evolution when I was YEC. And many times it was not a controllable reaction in the sense that it was so deeply ingrained in me evolution was evil, even Satanic, that my reaction came from somewhere equally deep.
This issue is deeply part of our culture. I was amazed at the ‘miss usa’ answers Junkster pointed us at. Almost everyone with an evangelical background, and many even without, look at this as a belief issue, not a science issue. From the first day Darwin’s book was published this issue of evolution has stabbed at the core or our culture and our faith.
I could speculate on why, but those of us that are trying hard to deal with this issue but are also convinced scientifically evolution has a leg to stand on are fighting an uphill battle to be sure. I suppose we need to have understanding and not underestimate how deeply this thing goes, and how difficult it is for all involved.
I hope your friends can recognize you are deeply committed to Christ and can maintain trust that if this is what you have been convinced is true then there are valid and powerful reasons this is so. But there are no guarantees where a Christian friendship will go over this issue. Many times my solution is simply to not discuss the issue with those for whom it is a stumbling block. They know where I stand, but I don’t press the issue. That’s harder for you since it comes up frequently on this blog.
I hope and pray for you and for these 4 friends that all of you can find a place of peace continued fellowship, even if you all may not agree on this particular issue.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee,
I am reminded of the verse “Love does not take into account a wrong suffered.”
I do not think that anyone chooses to be wrong. There are many things that influence our doctrinal bents. I am appalled by what some believe and some area appalled at what I believe.
God’s word encourages us to be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger. I am not very good at the listening part. My mind is made up on most of my beliefs, but I do want to be teachable. But I also do not want to be deceived or brainwashed, so I keep my guard up at all times. There is so much weird teaching out there today.
So here we are on a blog trying to sort through it all. May God be merciful to us.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I forgot to expand my point about my friend who isn’t sure about Christ’s diety… And it was this… I love my friend. I love Christ more. But I can leave it to Him to do this work in her heart and her mind. It is not my place to reject or chastise my sister for something I believe is concrete and clear in my own understanding and in my own heart. I love her too much for that. The most important thing she needs to believe, she does believe and it is this: That Christ died for her sins. That he rose on the 3rd day. That his blood atonement has reconciled her to God.
The Lord will have to do the rest; He will have to minister to her understanding and open her heart and mind to see if this is true. If it is, God will do it. He has promised to complete the work He has begun in her. The same he will do in me.
So if you are Dee’s friend and you are hurt by her beliefs, by her words… You should understand that (1) God is not offended; neither is he moved. (2) Your sister has not been moved; neither has she been released from His grasp. (3) She has been granted salvaation through Faith in Christ alone; not because of her works or knowledge about the foundations of the world, but that becasue she believes in Him who died for her and rose again–she has been reconciled to God, FOREVER! Is there NOT praise for that!??? What knowledge can compare and what knowledge shall mute the incredible knowledge that your sister has in Christ!
Be glad and rejoice in that, Friends. Satan is tempting you to anger, despair and hurt over issues that don’t matter in the end. Dee is firm in the grasp of the Lord. She shall not be moved. Adn so is my friend. So am I. And not because of these theological arguments here. Please let go of these hurts and embrace what God has given you, through Christ, for each other. It’s just not worth it.
In the end, none of us REALLY know what these truths be and can only know by faith. Let’s believe God to be the mystery that He is, and let us be humble with what he has revealed. We simply cannot know it all.
Dee, again, bless you, Sister.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee, Personally, I do not care whether it is old or young. I am not smart enough in this discipline to debate it and just have questions.
I think the problem comes from defining how we discuss the issue. Are we discussing both positions and how individuals came to those positions or are we discussing how the YE earth people, who attach it to the Gospel, approach the issue? Those are two different discussions.
One reason this issue makes me uncomfortable is because of what it does to Genesis. How far are we to go when allegorizing the Bible? Are people here saying that Adam and Eve evolved? Someone said earlier that they think animals died before the fall. Where is there any evidence in the Word for that? A big deal was the first sacrfice of an animal to cover Adam and eve in clothing. Was there not a literal serpent? Does anyone else see the continual problems with saying that it is not literal?
Yes, Jesus used metaphors in his parables but they did not suspend truth. They were stories meant to teach and even then he said not everyone would understand. Was that mean? How does that map to allegorizing the creation narrative?
I am also very uncomfortable with the idea that people lose their entire belief in Christ because of this issue. Since I believe that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit through conviction, I have a hard time with this one. There are many questions we cannot answer to our satisfaction such as why babies get cancer. Yet, we have faith.
What does this have to do with Faith if everything must be proven? Personally, I think bounded reality has had the best comment so far.
We have to ask ourselves a question. Did God, through the Holy Spirit, inspire the very words of scripture? If yes, then why would he allegorize the process of creation? Wouldn’t that be deceptive? No matter when scripture was written down, if we do not believe what was written by the Holy Spirit, then what is the point? I do realize we have to question translations, etc, but we are talking about the very basic narrative of creation being an allegory. How is this not the fantasy an OE person mentioned earlier? We can make it anything we want.
The problem with OE is that you can’t use scripture to argue your point except to say the creation narrative is not literal. And that is the whole point. Why start with science? Why not start with scripture? This is a stupid point but I think of my great grandmother reading Revelation and wondering how it could possibly happen. But today, we know exactly how it could happen and we will know things in real time because of technology. She could only take it on faith that it would happen.
What concerns me is that anyone here who wants to debate YE is immediately put into the same category as Hamm, AIG guys by some here. I do not think this is fair at all. But we are seeing this sort of response. As if someone who thinks Genesis is literal is a dumb hick.
With all that said, I do not believe this is a salvic issue at all. I do think it brings very hard questions that we should all debate (except for me. I just ask the pedantic questions). And we should all be quick to tell the Gospel/creation people to stop making it a salvic issue.
It is a stupid issue to divide over. Now comp? That is NOT a stupid issue to divide over. :o) (just kidding)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Holy Cats…an intense set of comments!
Origins always get people riled! 🙂
The Bible does not position itself as a scientific document or set of scientific documents. Scientific truths in Scripture are incidental to the point. Jesus Christ is the point (cf. Luke 24:27).
I prefer the Framework Hypothesis interpretation of Genesis 1 put forward by Meredith Kline. Understands the creation account like more of a poem or song. Seems to reckon more with the genre of text you’re dealing with in Genesis 1. The Hebrew behaves more like poetry than prose there.
Evolution – maybe God used it. That’s fine. *Gasp* – Have I gone to the dark side? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
By the way…no refrigeration (like in 1st century Palestine) = no grape juice. It was wine. Just throwing it out there. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Matt – grape juice can be produced fresh just by squeezing grapes!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I’m pretty much confused. I agree with a lot of what Lin said, but then I like what Zeta has been saying, but then…it’s the “what ifs” that get me wondering again & confused. How do we explain things like the big craters where astroids have hit? What about the whole PlanetX thing? What about Atlantis? What about the stories in many traditions about men coming from other worlds & giving mankind amazing technology for the times? Then what about the part in the Bible about if it would be possible, something so “earth-shaking” to our beliefs, could even deceive the elect?
Does anyone else wonder about this kind of thing?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Matt: definitely no *chilled* grape juice, either!
It’s interesting to realize that things we take for granted – like refrigerator-freezers – are an unreachable luxury for most of the world’s current population. Ice cubes are for the wealthy…
*
On another note, I wonder if this whole “origins” thing is much of an issue outside the US? We’re good at working ourselves up about things and assuming that what those things are of major importance to the rest of the world. The thing is… do we really know that, are are we (I) making assumptions?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bennett
I absolutely agree with you. In fact, have you ever heard how those who believe in YE have to twist themselves into pretzel to answer the rock strata. Yet, when you call them on it, they believe they are being logical. Here is what I wish the YE groups would do. Say they have no logical explanation scientifically and then proceed to say that it is just a matter of faith. That, at least, is honest. The scientific drivel on AIG is an embarrassment to thinking scientists and that is why some scientist will not even consider the faith. And Al Mohler is best buddies with Ham. One day, he may be sideswiped by the nonsense on AIG. And once again, I stress, I am discussing the science “evidence” not a strict faith in a literal translation.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Andrea Barrett, who has written some great historical fiction about science and scientists, tackled the OE/YE thing (plus the then-new theory of evolution) in one of her short stories… will have to dig up the book and post the title, because I think it’s a very, very interesting way of looking at the whole debate.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
Thank you for your kind words. if you go over to the link on our blog to Reasons to Believe which is a blog by Hugh Ross, you will see that his stated purpose is to reach out to those scientists who will not darken the door of a church because they have been told that they must believe in a 6000 year old earth in order to be a Christians. Outside of the Christian community, there are few such believers. If the evidence were so strong, their would be atheistic young earth creationists. There are none because there is NO evidence. Of course, the yE claim that it would be suicided for anyone to admit it. They believe in a vast conspiracy of silence. How well does that work out in real life? Watergate, Wikileaks, disgruntled housekeeps and jilted lovers all talk at some point.
There was a man in a Sunday school class who actually said that the Discovery Channel is sitting on evidence that would prove the earth is young. Yeah right, and Proctor and Gamble executives worship Satan and benny Hinn is a mass healer of terminal cancer.
However, I love discussing this with you and I appreciate your wonderful input on this blog.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ellie–
Wondering about it is all good. It’s good to wonder. But being angry with a friend over how they interpret the creation account or if they believe the earth is young or old isn’t sensible, as Paul would remind us in his letter to Titus. So while we all wonder in amazement at God’s creation and how he must have done so, let us continue to wonder in amazement but not condemn one another, or sever our relationships, or put hurt and discord between us. It’s just not that important. If my friend didn’t believe in God and wasn’t a Christian flat out, now THAT’s something that would make me cry or hurt my feelings, or maybe even cause strife between me and my friend. But NOT that she thought the earth was old or new. Especially if said friend wasn’t linking my beliefs in either to whether I was a Christian or not.
I’ve come to the conclusion that many Christians will go to Heaven and the diversity of them all will naturally provide that they will all believe differently regarding certain things. Personally, I agree with Matt that Hebrew is much like prose, and certain books in Scripture are read certain ways. Friends should understand that we are considering ancient documents here where we were not its audience. It’s as difficult as understanding why we need imaginary numbers to figure stuff out. Unfortunately, the Bible isn’t easy to figure out and there are many things that will never be clear to most of us. I can accept that without it ruining my life, relationships, and anything else for the matter.
Lin–
You said comp was one thing that we could divide on. I laughed out loud. True. True. But you know what, some of my friends are still comps. I’d lean more towards egal almost definitely. But truth is, I dont know absolutely if they are right or if I am right. I have a feeling that none of it will decide on where we spend eternity, etc… But I’ve kinda stopped preaching to them and sharing with them my egalitarian beliefs and about there not being male headship, atuhority and rule in Scripture. At the end of the day, it’s what they believe and what they want. So you know what, they can marry that guy, they can build a life with him. They can encourage his rule and authority over them. They can also do that in their church. But as for me and my house–NO SIR REE!!!
My friend can plead with God for the marriage she wants–and she may just get that. Many women do. But my prayers are different. I want a man who believes what I believe–who sees me as his equal, who will love me, all of my talents, who won’t make my gender and any associated “roles” a matter of my salvation. Who sees me as I am and a gift to him. That’s the man I will love passionately…just as my friend(s) choose the men they want to love passionately. ANd for them, it works. They want someoen to have that much control over them, decide for them, becasuet ehy think they are honoring God, that they are living right, and it’s how it’s supposed to be.
So for me, I’ve had to decide what to discuss with them, what not to discuss. i’ve had to decide to allow them to want what they want, even if I see there are huge errors in their thinking, and even if I see that down the road, there will be serious fallout from it. I already have a friend whose marriage lasted 14 months because of their complimentarian (authoritarian) beliefs. And even though her marriage has fell completely apart, she still believes that men have authority and headship over women, that they should lead in the home. She just believes that “sin” entered the picture and her husband abused it. She doesn’t realize (at least in my opinion) that the belief alone is sinful from its origin and never could be made right with that line of thinking.
Anyways, too many women I know right now still go to my old church and they still believe and want these types of marriages and relationships. I have compassion for them and I feel sorry for them. But they might feel sorry for me that I would marry a man who didn’t “lead” inour home and let me make decisions and didn’t always “take charge” with everything. I’ve heard of women going off to marry men like that in my ex-church and people report back that because of their desperation to be married, they “settled” for someone. Basically, anyone who is not a CHBC guy is settling. And any guy who isn’t a comp is settling. They have no idea the treasure that these women have found in other amazing men who love God. I’m excited for those women adn I am curious to know how beautiful their marriages might be.
I’m still praying for God to provide a wonderful egal husband for me. But I have let go of trying to convince my friends that that isn’t what God designed for us. I just accept them, and their marriages, for waht they are–and just thank God that it’s not me who’s in it. At the end of the day, she’s the one that has to live in that home with that man. not me. Adn not to sound selfish, but I’m just worried about what my life has to be because I can’t really change anyone else’s.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
meant to say that because Barrett writes (for the most part) historical fiction, she is able to impose a certain objectivity and perspective that’s lacking in up-to-the minute debates and discussions (like this one!)
I love her books (most of them set in the early-mid 19th century, when a lot of the great scientific expeditions were mounted), partly because the subject matter appeals to me, but also because she just plain makes me think. Her prose is spare but beautiful, like many of the scientific topics she takes on…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee
What do you think about the Discovery Institute and Dr Steven C Meyer? Are they better than AIG? I just recently heard about this and I am curious. I am not up on this sort of thing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
And Noah’s Ark is on a mountain in Turkey…they just won’t let us in to see it 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Jerry
Now you are meddling. Maybe Christians should focus on pedophilia in the church, lying, stealing etc. ? We all agree that they are wrong but it can be so gosh darn inconvenient to have to live up to those standards. Nope- they need to make sure we are all YE proponents because that’s the way to get to heaven. What do you mean that dinosaurs didn’t romp with humans? Didn’t you ever watch the Flintstones?
Here is what I do not understand. They want a literalist teaching so why don’t they literally look into the science produced by AIG and others. It’s called a REAL peer review not a fake one that Ham purports to have.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Matt – grape juice can be produced fresh just by squeezing grapes!”
So, they are squeezing grapes every day? (ha ha)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Peer reviewed research…puuhhhlleeaassee…that’s just so so…secular 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
And that is what i intend to do. When it upsets folks, I do not discuss it with them and instead enjoy debate with those who are comfortable exploring the issue, even if we disagree. That happens a lot around here as well with other subjects. I am just praying that we don’t have a return of the KJVO hit squad that invades all blogs off and on. They are just as bad.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
I enjoy the debate and have fun punching holes in arguments and have fun with people fighting back. i just have to get quicker in understanding when some folks have had too much. However, the debates will continue. It is so much of who I am.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Eagle
Thanks for the encouragement. My first wish for this blog was to look at the panoply of issues that face the church and discuss them all. Now, SGM is interesting because it is a church whose leader got his start in the shepherding movement. It is rare to watch the rise and fall and rise…of one church group. They also have had so many accusations of spiritual abuse that is interesting to document them and help those who are hurting. So, I am looking at some new topics including the accusations that some of the political candidates are Christian dominionists, what that is, and is it really true? I am also reading a book called The Family about a little known Christian groups with some interesting ties to power in DC and around the world.
I am going to get really tough with the trolls and plan to revamp how we do comments to cut down on the nonsense without stifling discussion and debate.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Haha–
My comment has gotten erased 3 times!! I keep hitting strange keys on my keyboard. Damn devil!
Anyways, Dee, it seems to me that as you have stated to Zeta, that we really need to understand the limits to debate. While we debate and think, we should understand what the purpose of debating is.
Essentially, we are all a circle of little kids laying out on the lawn, starring into the heavens and wondering what God is like—wondering how he made this–why the sky is blue–why the grass is green–and if God is bowling when it thunders. Yet, as adults, more educated and less dreamy, we make dreaming and guessing a matter of salvation, or relationship, or classification. I’m okay with you “dreaming” that the earth is old along with me (because I dream that too), but I could be okay with you dreaming that it was brand spanking new AND still know that as we twiddle our toes in the grass together and stare at the sky, that you love God as much as I do.
I think as adults, we are our childlike versions of ourselves. We still wonder but sometimes forget how to do so in amazement. Adn still even stand up afterwards, dust off our clothing and go skipping down the path together.
The Calvanistas tend to theoologically link any and everything in Scripture as a matter of salvation:
If I am a woman and not performing accroding to my gender–then my salvation and the Gospel is at stake (whatever they mean by “the Gospel”)
If I am a man and I am not “leading” my family–then the Gospel is at stake and the salvation of my family, friends and children.
If I believe in a YE/OE–then the Gospel is at stake and the salvation of many.
They seem to know who is saved, who is not. Who are true Christians, who are not. Nothing seems to really be a mystery even though they claim that there are many–it’s just not the things they claim to know. But isn’t that always the case–the things we think we know are no longer a mystery and couldn’t possibly be. I think people think they know all of there is in God’s Word and because it has been revealed to us that there is no mystery in it. But as I read this ancient document, written to a particular people at a particular time, I am confident that no amount of education, study and knowledge on this earth would ever answer all the questions I have and would resolve every dispute there is.
So as far as debate goes–let’s debate, but let us not allow the debate to set the boundaries, but we should come to the table knowing what the boundaries are. If this is not an issue of salvation, we know that from the jump. And we can start there.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
In seriousness, I appreciate a forum like this one where you can be honest with your opinion and receive constructive criticism on a personal view.
It’s difficult, even in church (maybe especially in church) to share issues or questions that come up.
I have found (personal opinion to follow) that if God is God and Jesus Christ is who He claims to be then our questions and even doubts can’t do harm. Also, if God is God then we can be VERY VERY SLOW to proclaim an issue of salvific importance. There shouldn’t be many of these. I think our spiritual fruit should likely carry more salvific importance than our position on Six Day Creation or Theistic Evolution.
I’m pretty sure the Bible backs me up on this…and Jesus too.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Matt
Interesting thing about the literary framework point of view. I thought it would be outright rejected by the conservative seminaries. But, i had a conversation with a highly placed professor in a majorly conservative SBC seminary. All SBC defenders-HIGH ALERT!!!!!! he said he believed in the literary framework and so do many of the profs but they keep it rather quiet due to controversy.
There is much to be said for the framework point of view. Many inerrantists will spaz over this. But, i like what John Lennox said about metaphors recently. he said that a metaphor may not be superficially true but they may be functionally true. So, if Jesus is the Door-well, He is not a literal door but He functions as one because He takes people from the outside and brings them inside. So, that is what a door does.
So, a literary framework may be one way to view the overall intent of God as Creator. As for evolution, look at the universe and the complexity of creation. Why not?So long as we all agree that God is in control and did it, no problemo except to a very tiny few.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
Oh, good night. Of course it can but then it ferments sitting around.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oh and BTW–I have a Christian friend who believes no doubt that there are aliens… I am intrigued by her belief–yet, I think well, if there are, why the heck has it taken them so long to take over the earth. Or maybe they aren’t trying to take over the earth and living peacefully somehwere. She told me before that I was arrogant to think that we are God’s only creation, and that just because Scripture doesn’t say so, that it may be just one mystery that hasn’t been revealed. I have to honestly say that yes, it would be arrogant of me to think that I know for sure that there aren’t aliens…. Truth is, I dont know. I sure hope not–at least if they are dangerous. hahahaha!
******************
On the whole YE thing, I’ve read many of the arguments. What I dont get clearly from the blogs that I’ve read and the YE crowd’s arguments, is how they are saying this is an issue of salvation. How are they linking that?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Having hung around Biblical scholars (conservative-ish ones by the way) for a number of years and counting some of them friends (at least on Facebook) I will assert the following: it tends to be followers rather than leaders who get all worked up. Most folks who are trying to work these things out full-time AND are intellectually honest (i.e. not as much of an agenda like AIG) can politely disagree without getting all “Well if you believe that then you’re not saved” on people.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ellie
I wonder about those things all the time! Glad to know that I am not the only one although I had a friend who is into this stuff as well.
CS Lewis wrote a marvelous sci fi trilogy called Out of the Silent Planet. Is there life elsewhere ? Did they fall from grace? Did Jesus’ Cross cover them if they fell? Could we be the only ones? Lewis believed that many of the legends that we have, such as dwarves and fairies, may have their basis in some truth that has been lost to us over time. Is he right or is it a bunch of baloney? The universe is so big we are so small and there are probably many, many stories that we may learn about in eternity. But, true confession, I love to wonder about it all.
I have a great sci fi trilogy to recommend written by a professor at Wheaton called The Lamb Amongst the Stars. It’s on Amazon. Very cool. It is set in the far future and Jesus has not yet returned. But, the people are living as deep Christians. All begins to change as sin starts to increase. The first noticed sin- A woman with a beautiful voice doctors a recording so it sound like she can hit higher notes than she can! Awesome!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee,
all they need to do is to squeeze just enough for one glass each time they needed a drink.
But if need be for a larger amount, it could be kept cold in a container in a stream or a well. How was milk kept from going bad?
Here is a link to an interesting article on 1st century preservation methods:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
In about three days, fresh squeezed grapes (unless washed with clorox or anti-yeast detergents that are recent developments) in temperatures in the 70 degree range, will become alcoholic. In fact, if picked a little late, the grapes will have alcohol content. This is one of the denials of reality that evangelicals, especially of the Baptist variety, have put forth for years. It was wine at the last supper, which followed the seder, with several rounds of wine, which is why the disciples could not stay awake in the garden later that evening. The alcohol content gradually increases, and if left too long, then begins to decrease as the acetic acid (vinegar) content increases, making it sour wine.
The guests at the Cana wedding had been drinking wine that was a little too ripe, so had some sourness due to vinegar content. The wine Jesus made was without that vinegar content, hence considered better wine by the master of the banquet. Probably 12 to 15 percent alcohol.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR, ask your friend if Jesus died for these aliens also, or are they sin free? 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
In those stays, some wine was stored in wineskins, made from the hide of sheep (leather) or cattle. The statement about not putting new wine in old wineskins was that the new wine, as it quickly fermented, would give off carbon dioxide and burst the stiff old wineskins. In addition, the old wineskins would have a tendency to accelerate the vinegar production, ruining the wine as well as the skins.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous (do me a favor and pick a pseudonym-another anonymous has left a bad taste in my mouth-to help you may I suggest Fred, Bob or Sugar)
Now, if you read CS Lewis’ trilogy-Out of the Silent Planet-one planet never fell, in another, our planet earth brought the in to them, etc. Interesting discussion for this lover of all things sci fi much to my family’s dismay. They get dragged to all the movies and forced to watch Fringe.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I guess I can confess my own sci-fi geekdom now…. and I love the way Lewis frames things in Out of the Silent Planet.
But if you want to know what that is, then you’ll have to read the book – no spoilers from me! : )
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
You would like me church or at least my Sunday school teacher who is a pastor. He says that so many Calvinistas reduce the faith to a series of questions in which they have ALL the answers. They don’t, no matter how hard they shout that they do. All to often, we want formulas so that life is easier. If only i raise my kids via Ezzo, homeschool them and protect them from the world, they will become good Christians. They don’t. In fact, some of the strongest Christian kids I have met have come from nonChristian families because they so appreciate the faith.-Hey wait-that’s me. Forgive me, friend, I am in a rare mood today. I have done no housework and the breakfast dishes are still in the sink. What would Carolyn Mahaney say!!!!!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR, you said:
“Ellie–
Wondering about it is all good. It’s good to wonder. But being angry with a friend over how they interpret the creation account or if they believe the earth is young or old isn’t sensible, as Paul would remind us in his letter to Titus.”
I was just commenting on things that I wonder about – ancient artifacts, things that don’t add up with the world as we’ve always known it – strange things. In fact, this is the first time I have ever commented on something like this anywhere, let alone getting angry with a friend. Are you commenting because of an experience with a friend that you’ve had?
I just really really wish there was somewhere that discussed things like these & the whole PlanetX thing from a grounded Christian perspective.
btw: I once did see a UFO – it was a black triangle. Went right over my house, was absolutely huge, and absolutely silent. But I don’t think there were any aliens in it – I think they are government aircraft, lol. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anon–
Funny… But I wouldn’t care if he did. And they could be sin free if they existed. I just care that Jesus died for the people and beings that I can see, whom I do know exist.
Matt–
For some reason, like you, I just dont think God gets all bent out of shape by our questions like we do. Or even our thoughts. I just see him sitting on his throne, saying uhhhh yep… I know everything. They don’t. I’ll give them time.
When I was going through a lot of healing and issues from childhood, one thing that helped me tremendously and showed me God’s heart and his kindness was that he was present and that God would meet me exactly where I was. That God could handle it all; that he could not be moved. I think as fraile people, we need a God who can’t be moved. One who is rock steady, unchangeable, but abounding in love, mercy and compassion.
I do, though, think that it makes God angry when someone tells someone that a particular belief is going to send them to hell, or make them unsaved, or that they aren’t Christian at all.
That’s like telling a parent a kid isn’t theirs who is just because the child is blonde with blue eyes, and the parent is brown with green eyes. The parent and child obviously have some differences, but that kid is still theirs.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee–
I believe I would like your church. I think it’s a-comin’ soon that I might be able to step foot in a church again. A scary day that will be. You better go run a Clorox wipe across that counter real quick before your husband stumbles and cheats on you. 😉 (insert tongue in cheek firmly).
Why don’t they ever think about God when they make all those rules… Seriously, God gave us paradise and we STILL showed our tails! So you cant protect your kids from sin and promise them paradise on earth or an easy life, in the same way God chose not to make Adam and Even do it either; and HE gave them EVERYTHING. Blows my mind!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce,
“It was wine at the last supper, which followed the seder, with several rounds of wine, which is why the disciples could not stay awake in the garden later that evening. ”
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, is that why?? That’s interesting!!
Thanks!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is part of an article on the cup of the Passover:
“Wine is not a firstfruit of the grape. It is a byproduct. Wine is produced when yeast, a leavening agent, acts on the sugar molecule of fruit juice to produce ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. Wine, then, is juice that has been chemically changed into something different. It is not the original, pure fruit of the vine, but a secondary byproduct. As a symbol for the pure, uncorrupted, sinless blood of Yahshua, a modified substance like wine would be inadequate. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Messiah?…” (1Cor. 10:16)
More importantly, wine has been leavened in the same way bread is leavened by yeast. The Passover was to be eaten only with unleavened bread, Exodus 12:8. Nothing leavened was to be used at the Passover Memorial.
Unleavened bread represents Yahshua’s body unchanged by the corruption of sin, Mark 14:22. Similarly, the cup represents His pure blood, untainted by outside influences of the sinful world. Would a chemically altered drink like wine best represent His pure, unadulterated blood, or would the virgin juice from the grape?”
http://www.yrm.org/wine_or_grape_juice.htm
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Matt
I love this sort of forum. I throw out my thoughts and subject them to lots of critique. Even better, i really like the idea of anonymity for my readers because, in general, this helps people to be more real and not be afraid they will be censored. I still remember a man whispering to me at church that he really didn’t believe that dinosaurs cavorted with man but he was afraid to tell anyone because he feared being rejected. I want this place to be a place that anyone can come, ask questions, float ideas and find discussion, even if they are not Christians. Better yet, especially if they are not believers. This is a place to learn and we can learn much from those outside the faith . This is a place for all to come and learn from one another. Of course, I don’t need to learn-I have ALL the answers and am, along with my friend, “anointed” glamorous bloggers.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Do the YE people believe there were dinosaurs with man and the OE obviously don’t, right?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
Please go to Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis blog and look for the article entitled “It’s Not About the Age of the Earth.” Basically, they have linked man’s fall to the deterioration of things on the earth. Sin has infected the very rocks. Oh, as an aside, that is why you cannot trust science because even the earth is infected with sin so therefore you are wrong if you think the earth is old. It is a trick of the Evil One and your stupid sin nature.
When Jesus comes again, He will create a new heaven and new earth. Therefore, His salvation is not just for man but for the planet. If you do not buy this, you are in danger, to quote the Ham himself “in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement.” It is a clever way to link salvation issues to age of the earth. if your salvation is dependent on it, of course you will believe in whatever you have to believe in to be saved. And Ham has the answers for you. Buy his material and you are on your way to true enlightenment.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I’ll have to check those books out, thanks!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Anonymous
I visited dugouts in North Dakota with root cellars. I understand it. Water was limited in Israel. Paul talked about not being drunk with wine. Also, a little wine is good for the stomach-grape juice does nothing for a stomach-but wine is. Also, as we know now, red wine is really good for the heart in moderation. Argue away, once again, a small group of people really, really believe this with no significant evidence.
I know, maybe they had a Keurig machine to squeeze grapes in the morning-a one cup version.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce
I totally agree with your assessment. It was wine. Dan Wallace, one of the translators of the ESV (to help my Calvinistas friends to listen carefully) wrote one of the landmark papers on this matter. he was a friend and shared it with us over dinner. There is no possible way to say it was unfermented via the Bible. You just have to believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary but there are some Baptists who have perfected that art as well.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
After 300+ comments and going against my better judgment, I’ve decided to pipe in with a comment. I have an opinion about origins, which I’m not going to share. I think the research on both sides is interesting. I think the debate is fun, until it turns ugly. I think that when I get to heaven and I ask about the beginning, whether my opinion is right or wrong, I’m going to go, “Wow! That is sooooo cool! I never would have thought You would have done it that way!”
I always find it amazing how we humans with our finite minds try to understand our infinite Lord. I also find it amazing (sadly so) that when we do that and we start to think we understand the infinite ways and mind of God, that we arrogant, finite humans start to become divisive.
The other thing that amazes and saddens me is that if we took even a small fraction of the effort that is spent trying to beat each other over the head with origins (or insert your favorite divisive topic here) and spent it on winning the lost instead, we would be making a much greater impact for eternity.
The squirrel will now run back into his tree and watch.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee–
Thanks… On my way over (flip flops flapping)… I wonder if Ham knows if the animals talked or not. I’ve always wondered that! Hahahah
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Or maybe they actually had fresh grapes 24/7/365!!!! A MIRACLE.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Having grown up in North Dakota, I can vouch for the lack of water there. 🙂
Also, be careful, even mentioning Dan Wallace’s name on your blog may bring about a KJVO invasion. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
Yep, the YE believes that dinosaurs coexisted with man. If you go to the Creation museum, you see a tableau with mom doing the dishes and Junior playing with the dinosaur. Fred Flintstone yet lives! Also, the believe that baby dinosaurs were brought on the ark with Noah.
Here is a link to a real funny skit on you tube about the museum-a couple of cuss words alert but nothing you wouldn’t have heard Mark Driscoll say so it must be ok-yes? It will make you smile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8MGAsidFI
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
CitationSquirrel,
After reading all of these comments, we are lost! 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Citation Squirrel
There is an issue that is really important and that is why I cannot let it go into la la land. There are scientists who are refusing to consider the faith because of the requirement to believe in YE by some ill advised Christians. This has been documented on sites like Reason to Believe. So, if we are preventing people from coming into the kingdom until they believe thusly, then it is a matter that must be discussed with utmost dispatch.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob (you rejected Sugar?)
Being a nurse, I can speak to the use of alcohol to destroy germs. So, it depends on how you define pure. Given the choice of wine or grape juice in an emergency situation, i would choose to bring wine any day of the week.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
It’s interesting–this debate… because part of it also depends on if you believe one day is as a thousand years, or if one day is 24 hours in these passages of Scripture.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Age of the earth and the revolving of the earth around the sun are scientific facts; that is, they can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt fairly quickly and easily by today’s methods and technology—methods and technology that have been around, are tried and tested and proven consistent again and again. Also, only a small number of people, relatively, and only fairly recently, I think, actively disavow these two scientific facts. In general, they are taken as given, and for good reason. They can be, again, seen and proven quickly and easily. Also, in my mind, and more importantly, I don’t find anything particularly contradictory about old earth views and the earth’s rotational orbit in regards to Biblical accounts of creation. I quickly can grasp the metaphorical nature of fixed earth references (pillars, foundations, etc.). And in regards to the six days in Genesis being literal days as we know a day – well, one thing, in addition to the many other points about this, I notice very quickly that Genesis mentions “day” even before the creation of the sun and moon. Now, I’m not astronomer or astrophysicist, but my understanding is that the sun and moon both affect the earth’s rotation. So how can you have a “traditional” day before either of these two bodies have been created? And even on a more basic level, how do you have a traditional day without a sun? How can you have a traditional evening and morning (as Genesis acknowledges prior to the sun and moon’s creation) before there is a sun to give light to dusk and light to morning? ! So I have no problems when it comes to viewing creation as non-literal.
However, that is not the case for me for macro evolution (ocean going to land dwelling, common ancestor evolution, I mean…I believe in micro evolution within species). There is just no mention or even subtle reference, I think, to this common ancestor in the Bible. I would think that this is a strange omission, given the arguably significant spiritual and physical ramifications of such a life form. It seems odd to me that God’s word would speak so persistently and specifically about the separation of the species as they are being created. Nowhere is there any implied or even hinted commonality, except that God created them and they occupy the same earth. All animals and plants and man are described from start to finish as being quite separate from one another. Note how often in Genesis Chapter 1 the phrase “according to their kind(s)” is used. It shows up constantly, as if to emphasis the separation between things. I simply cannot see how you can square common ancestor macro evolution with the Bible’s view of creation, even taking into account the whole of scripture, and the metaphorical and symbolic nature of it at times. Also there is the question of why God would do it this way; what would be the point of this? Now, God’s day in Genesis is appropriate because the earth is not in its formal course or creation yet; even a day is described prior to the creation of the sun and moon, therefore, you can see how the word day might be used in Genesis, but that it might mean something different. You can see how the metaphorical use of “foundation” and “pillar” would fit in a Psalm…a poem. But I don’t see that with evolution.
Evolution radically alters man’s physical and spiritual relative place in the animal kingdom. Applied secularly, old earth or earth’s orbit around the sun have little practical consequence as to how humans view and related to each other. They have little moral implications. However, applied secularly, evolutionary theory can have (and has historically had) devastating effects on how humans treat and respect each other; everything from genocide to euthanasia to genetic engineering to abortion. Therefore, it must be proven, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the other two issues, before being accepted as fact implemented.
My concern and opinion is that, though some wonderful Christians believe in evolution, and certainly a belief in this is by no means a limitation to salvation, many people are quick to accept evolution and other theories as fact and rush their practical implementation, in addition to other motives, because they are progressive and seem to challenge so forthrightly the biblical account. I find the unrestrained and seemingly categorical acceptance of this theory, and implemented thus, to be very disturbing.
I offer for example the forced sterilizations of criminals and the mentally challenged back in the early 20th century. Back then it was theorized that this would eliminate unwanted behaviors and social stumbling blocks and therefore rid civilization of many of its ills. This was massively accepted by the scientific community. In fact, there was a time were you could not find a geneticist that disagreed with this theory based on all of the evidence and all of the things they saw that fit the theory so well. The theory was accepted and implemented accordingly based on science’s great wisdom. The thinking on this changed only after the damage of cruel forced sterilizations did nothing to solve anything they were supposed to. Let’s not supposed that we too cannot be so misled by our overwhelming evidence for theories that, implemented to their logical conclusions, which are practically always secular and utterly separate from any religious virtue, can marginalize at best and even destroy our fellow human beings. Theories should be held suspect, constantly and with a dubious eye, until proven beyond rational doubt, especially when they can have such consequences.
Evolution’s merits have been discussed by the scientists on this site. What are its weaknesses? Are there any? If so, how significant are they? Is evolution utterly proven in your eyes? Are only the ignorant and unlearned in disbelief? Are there any rational, objective scientists who disagree?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
…then there’s that whole thing about the Good Samaritan using oil and WINE to treat the injured man’s wounds…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee,
Yes, I rejected Sugar. Too feminine sounding.:-)
Deuteronomy 29:6: “Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the Lord your God.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Ellie: you beat me to it re. wine as an antiseptic in that parable! (Hoping this doesn’t provoke a big fracas over whether it was necessary for people of that era to know how and why wine and some other types of strong drink had sound applications re. medical treatment.)
I guess Jesus didn’t mention penicillin or sulfa drugs for a reason, right? ; ) (I know I’m being naughty!)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I’m not too big on those “until you believe thusly” types.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Proverbs 20:1 “Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler…”
Yes, a “little” wine for the stomach’s sake was medicinal, as was the Samaritan’s use to cleanse the wounds.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The yeast that makes grapes and grape juice into wine does not have to be “added” to the juice. It is naturally occurring on the grapes. Wait long enough, break the skin of the grape, or mash the grape to get the juice out and the yeast is in the juice automatically, w/o any additional effort. Now modern wine makers may choose to use a process to select the specific yeast to make their wine, and add it to the juice, but that was not the process until relatively recently. Mashing grapes means yeast is present and wine forms. It is not the same yeast, btw, that is the leavening in bread. I am not sure whether the bread yeast works in making wine or not. I suppose someone could search for it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Ellie again: You’ve got company as far as liking to imagine things… and I definitely believe you about the UFO/stealth spy plane. (Including its triangular shape… ;))
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob,
So they did not drink the juice of the grape, or whatever beer was being made from grain, which we know some surrounding cultures made.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“…Anon: “I assume by 6/6000 you are referring to the NT reference of a day is as 1000 years…”
I hate to be a prig, but let’s at least get our arithmetic straight. Shouldn’t 6,000 occupy the numerator? But bless Providence anyway, at least nobody’s tried to put zero into a denominator.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
you said “So how can you have a “traditional” day before either of these two bodies have been created? And even on a more basic level, how do you have a traditional day without a sun?…”
In your follow up you assume that the absence of sun or moon, MUST imply a different meaning to the word day, but that only makes sense if you FIRST assume divine authorship and are looking for a way to reconcile the verse to what we know.
A just as plausible, and in my opinion, far more likely explanation is that this is evidence of anything BUT divine authorship, it reads, just like one would expect, as a typical creation story or myth told by humans to humans…and intended to make a good story, not necessarily to be accurate.
For those science fiction buffs here, it’s sort of like those stories where the main character is a ghost and they can pass through walls, not be able to touch furniture or sit on a chair..yet, inexplicably they don’t seem to fall through floors.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“But if need be for a larger amount, it could be kept cold in a container in a stream or a well.
Communal wine wells in Jerusalem? You think they labled their wine bag with a sharpie?
“How was milk kept from going bad?”
They just milked the goat?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob (Sugar)
Be not drunk with wine but with the Spirit. Be careful with OT- guess you shouldn’t eat bread-a thing that my Russian heritage would consider heresy.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Numo
If He didn’t say it, maybe we shouldn’t use it? Remember, if you are sick go to the elders and have them anoint you with oil. No mention of going to the doctors. I left you a message,btw. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Citation Squirrel
Glad to hear it. But at least you understand my concern.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
I will be sure not to include you in my CS Lewis type gathering some day at a local pub. But ,in deference, we can have one meeting at The Coca Cola factory in Atlanta. That place is a gas (and there is double entendre intended)!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce
i learned something today. Thanks
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff
I dated a guy from MIT many moons ago. he gave me this poem which relates to your 0.
“She is the fairest of her sex
And I would be her hero
My lover for her is like 1 over x
As x approaches zero.”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bounded
Great Scott! I never considered that. One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation involved a similar scenario. I never noticed they didn’t fall through floors! Not bad for a nonbeliever! 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lin
You are making me laugh. It’s kind of like keeping Michael Scott of The Office fame from stealing food from the communal refrigerator.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ Dee: got it, thanks so much!
@ Muff: it’s good to see you back here!
@ Dee again: love that little verse. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“communal wine well” + the Sharpie – heeheehee!!! 😀
Maybe that was somewhere near the Pool of Bethesda?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@ BR/Karl: that’s kinda like the “twist” in The Sixth Sense, I’m thinking… 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Good one Dee! That is so long as his love approaches zero from the right. In which case no limit exists and his love increases without bound! ===> (smiley face goes here)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Bounded,
Yes, your are correct in interpreting my assumptions in your opening paragraph. I do assume divine authorship; I’m a Christian and believe in God and His creation of the universe and all in it. So, yes, I accept divine authorship as granted (I’m just addressing the form of this authorship, per this thread; I think defending my belief in God in general is a different topic). Also, yes, I do rigorously assume that you cannot have a traditional day without the sun, for a couple of reasons. The sun affects the earth’s rotation, and also, where, in any literature or other reference for that matter do you speak of a day without regards to the sun, as you find in Genesis? For the Bible to speak of “days” BEFORE the sun and moon are created, yes, I think MUST imply a different basic meaning to the term. But that’s me. I’m not a YE guy.
Well, as for the ghosts not falling through the floors; Jesus walked on water, and that’s even better. 🙂 And I don’t think it’s science fiction. I think the very definition of God explicitly indicates not being beholding to the natural laws he created. I would struggle worshiping a God who was bound in the same way I am.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Numo
i spoke with Dr Lennox about the view of creationism in Europe. I wrote him flaberrghasted with the response that I got when i brought up OE/TE at my last church. Finny thing about that. he ended up coming to America and speaking at He said the discussion over there is not on evolution, etc. They have accepted the science and have no problem with combining it with faith and they find the Americans a bit perplexing. The real issue in Europe is atheism and that is the emphasis.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Several things:
(1) We all have our natural and preferred ways of communicating — I hope that anyone who feels hurt by anything you’ve said, or how you’ve said it, extends grace to you, and you to them. Everybody kiss and make up now! 🙂
(2) Any deity can create the universe in 6 days — let’s see who can create a Dyson Sphere that fast!
(3) Carolyn would no doubt be mortified at the thought of even putting dirty dishes in the sink, much more at leaving them there. If you can’t have a toaster sitting on the counter, then surely dirty dishes belong in the dishwasher, not the sink. (“Thus saith the Lady…”)
(4) What did you think of the Miss USA interview video I posted?
(5) Fringe returns September 23!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo,
Appreciate the response. Sometimes it’s nice to know when you understand someone correctly.
For me, making a huge assumption such as divine authorship of a book and then trying to resolve it’s inherent problems is little more than perusing an untamed ornithoid (to continue the Star Trek theme).
Once you commit to a pretty big unsubstantiated premise like the supernatural (let alone the assumption that He authored your book), any logical arguments that follow are pretty useless.
I remember as a young teen, someone once showed me a geometry proof on a blackboard, which, step by step, proved that a right angle was equal to an obtuse angle…I struggled with it for quite some time looking for the tiniest flaw in the logic, but to no avail. Finally in desperation I begged the other person to tell me how it could be! Well, turned out the proof was perfect…what was wrong was one of the givens which depended on the drawing being done incorrectly, (but unnoticeable to the naked eye)…start with a faulty assumption and everything else doesn’t matter.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
Still not sure that I want to go down this path with you. It might be better to pretend that I am a gullible and easily deceived woman as opposed to a strange middle aged woman who definitely marches to a very different drummer. I am feeling a bit burned right now and want to enjoy the discussion, not feel like I am about to be judged on how I parse some words or if I am a “liberal” or conservative or a sell out. In some respects, i have been all of these at some point in my life.
There are 360+ comments on this thread and I am doing my best to make sure everyone who posts here feels welcome and valued for their opinion and thoughts. I try to make sure everyone gets some sort of response because they deserve it. They have thought long and hard about it and they are important to me, and even if they don’t believe it, to God. This is not just some lark to me. I actually give a darn about everyone who comes here. And to throw off a couple of people brings me much pain because I care about them.
So, between lots of emails that I try to respond to within a couple of days and all these comments, I, along with Deb do our best. I find that I am often shown more grace by the lost, let down and looking than the, as Eagle so aptly calls us, the fundagelicals. So, give me some time. I tend to pop back quite well after I resolve some issue in my mind. I am chronically recovering.
If it were up to Miss USA to produce scientists, we would still be using using leeches to get rid of the bad blood that “causes” the vapors.. Good night. i was once again reminded why i don’t watch that show.
And I am looking forward to Fringe. After some of the antics of this past two days, i am looking for some good clean violence in an alternative universe. Long live Walternate.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Citation squirrel
I understand what you are saying-why spend all this time on this issue? It could be used for better.
However, many of “our” children are suffering for our (the church’s) ignorance. Many unbelievers think we are ridiculous not because of the cross, but because of bad science of scientific creationsism. The Cross of Jesus becomes less than the focus. Many scientists who are old earth and evoulutionary creationists are persecuted by their own brethren. We have MILLLIONS of children being told that the age of the earth is a foundational issue. And they can and will eventually will know HOW OLD THE STARS ARE!!!! Good grief my 9 year old can google this!!!! (oh yeah I know anyone can google anything and get any answer….) We have Sunday school teachers rebuking children, teens, young adults and adults for even asking reasonable questions.
So now I would like to defer to Zeta and ask him once again for Lin and the rest of us to review why we must at least consider the value of looking at Genesis from the eyes of the cosmological view of the ancient people to whom Moses wrote.
So yes Citation Squirrel -evangelical Christianity has believed a Lie. Not the lie that the earth is 6-10,0000 years old (or at most 100,000) Nor that the Bible teaches it. The LIE is that science confirms and substantiates that the earth is 6000-10000 years old.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee said “Still not sure that I want to go down this path with you.”
This appears to be in response to to my wish for your and whoever you feel at odds with to be in harmony, so I don’t understand what it means, but it sounds sounds like you don’t want to talk to me. If that’s because I disagreed with you or had a different opinion on Mohler’s article on how best to respond to it, well, that just makes me sad. If you feel I’ve mistreated or misjudged you in some way (certainly not my intent), I welcome your rebuke and correction.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
asachild
Thank you for putting into words the pain that many, many people are experiencing. I’ll make sure Zeta sees this.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I am starting a new movement called the “Middle Age Earth Creationists” (MAEC). 6 – 10,000 yrs is too young and 4.5 billion is too old. I think I will go with 750 million years. So who wants to join my new sect? Just think, you can have EVERYONE upset with you, instead of just some! 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bounded Reality said:
Argo,
you said “So how can you have a “traditional” day before either of these two bodies have been created? And even on a more basic level, how do you have a traditional day without a sun?…”
In your follow up you assume that the absence of sun or moon, MUST imply a different meaning to the word day, but that only makes sense if you FIRST assume divine authorship and are looking for a way to reconcile the verse to what we know.
BR (Karl), you are correct. We are first ascribing divine authorship (according to some set of rules) to the scripture and specifically Genesis. In reality, after thinking a bit about your comments here in this post, I think you really have kind of chanced upon a very key part of this whole issue that is really getting glossed over and missed.
The cornerstone of our faith is not the Bible, it is Jesus Christ and Him raised. It is the Resurrection of Christ that tells us God is speaking to us through the Bible, through Paul etc. If the Resurrection of Christ did not happen, If Jesus Christ is not Lord, then it does not matter one bit whether the Book of Genesis is a book that supernaturally tells us every technical detail of creation or not. We would still be condemned by our sins. And If Jesus rose from the dead it does not matter one bit whether Genesis is allegory or literal history. Because by believing in Him we are saved from the curse of sin and death. HE is the ROCK upon which our faith is built, NOT the Bible. The Scriptures point us to Him. They are not Him. The Bible can’t save us. Only Jesus can.
So we START with who is Jesus, and do we believe He is the Son of God, God incarnate, who died and rose again for our sins. Do we believe this or not? If we do, then we know He treated the scriptures as holy, the word of God. As such it does not matter what kind of writing they are, or how confused we might be about why Genesis might look like history but really be allegory. He defines it as God’s word, so it is. And so we trust in it and believe it. And when we discover some aspect of it is different from what we thought, we don’t stop believing. We look for what WE got wrong, and look for what God is saying that is different from what we thought in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, the Bible is VERY important to our understanding of God. But it is not the word of God because it gets the creation story right, or even because it is inerrant. It is the word of God because it is, and we know that because Jesus said it was, and we know we can trust Jesus because He is God in the flesh, and we know that because he died on the cross and rose from the dead. So it doesn’t matter if God decided to let Moses write Genesis as polemic against pagan gods using the framework of other creation myths or if God gave Moses a supernatural revelation of the order and timing of creation. We do not decide if the Bible is the word of God based on whether we can prove it to ourselves.
A just as plausible, and in my opinion, far more likely explanation is that this is evidence of anything BUT divine authorship, it reads, just like one would expect, as a typical creation story or myth told by humans to humans…and intended to make a good story, not necessarily to be accurate.
And if Jesus did not rise from the dead, you are absolutely correct. But if He did, then you are absolutely wrong. It all boils down to who is Jesus. God chose to put ALL things under Him. And He has chosen to subject ALL things to Him. And He has made sure NOTHING, not even the Bible itself, can take from Jesus the primacy of position in being THE determining factor in our faith and our salvation. And anyone who puts ANYTHING, even the Bible itself, above Jesus as the determining factor in their faith, the ROCK upon which their faith rests, is building the house upon the sand.
For those science fiction buffs here, it’s sort of like those stories where the main character is a ghost and they can pass through walls, not be able to touch furniture or sit on a chair..yet, inexplicably they don’t seem to fall through floors.
Good point. But it misses the key point. We don’t trust in Jesus because we can show the Bible is perfect. We trust the words of the Bible because Jesus rose from the dead. I think a very large portion of the Evangelical church has missed this.
The appeal of Ken Ham is that a person no longer has to have faith. They can trust in God by sight, because they can prove to themselves the Bible is a miracle book, and since It tells them about Jesus, they can then believe in Jesus.
But that is NOT the way it works. Jesus said blessed are those who have NOT seen, but have believed. Most of the people Jesus called he gave merely a call. They followed Him because something about Him called to them and convinced them He should be followed. And that is how it is now too. Jesus calls to all of us. And we have to react to that call based on what is going on at a level that really is not intellectual, or even emotional. There is a level of working that God’s call reaches that is beyond any of these things, and it is for the most part beyond any kind of proof. And the odd thing is, God holds us accountable to how we react in this most uncomfortable of levels. I think it is because the place that Jesus calls to in us is more real and more trustworthy than intellect or emotion or any other level of our being to which God can call.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
ASACHILD: “So now I would like to defer to Zeta and ask him once again for Lin and the rest of us to review why we must at least consider the value of looking at Genesis from the eyes of the cosmological view of the ancient people to whom Moses wrote.
So yes Citation Squirrel -evangelical Christianity has believed a Lie. Not the lie that the earth is 6-10,0000 years old (or at most 100,000) Nor that the Bible teaches it. The LIE is that science confirms and substantiates that the earth is 6000-10000 years old.
“
hmm, as odd as it may sound, that question is not as easy to answer is it may seem on the surface. You kind of summed it up yourself in that ignoring the culture in which the text is written allows us NOT to see what kind of writing it is. This in turn results in us being mislead into thinking this is literally history, which then drives the tendency to think we can derive a correct scientific understanding from it, or at least use it as some kind of litmus test for the correctness of some subset of scientific theories.
For me the KEY verse in Genesis that tells us this is NOT technical writing, that it is writing that is wrapped up in a culturally derived cosmology, is where it describes God dividing the waters from the waters and placing a firmament between them to maintain that division. An ocean of heavenly waters above, and the earthly oceans below. This firmament later becomes that across the face of which birds fly, and that which within is placed the sun moon and stars.
This IS the cosmology of the ancient world. A flat earth surrounded by waters above and below. If Moses is using the cosmological understanding of the day to ‘paint’ the picture of God creating all that there is, then there is not one credible reason to think we can use it to derive ANY technical aspect of creation from it. And any and all attempts to do so are destined to err and confuse and cause much grief, because they err from first principles.
Let me repeat the very astute observation of our friend Karl:
“I remember as a young teen, someone once showed me a geometry proof on a blackboard, which, step by step, proved that a right angle was equal to an obtuse angle…I struggled with it for quite some time looking for the tiniest flaw in the logic, but to no avail. Finally in desperation I begged the other person to tell me how it could be! Well, turned out the proof was perfect…what was wrong was one of the givens which depended on the drawing being done incorrectly, (but unnoticeable to the naked eye)…start with a faulty assumption and everything else doesn’t matter.”
How right he is.
The assumption Genesis 1 is technical/historical writing is a faulty assumption, and we know this by comparing the text to the cosmology of the day. Any all manner of false conclusions can be derived even with the application of perfect logic when you start with a flawed set of initial assumptions.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
I do not want to do the YE thing with any of the four who are upset with me. No rebuke, no correction. That sounds way too SGM/anointed pastor weird to me. I am not mad at you. I just don’t want you guys to be irritated with me personally because of my opinions on this subject. It’s not worth it to me. I like you all too much.
You know I am fascinated by different opinions. It is the spice of life for me. I would be desperately bored if everyone thought as I did. I even get bored with myself. I love an intense and thoughtful debate. But not when people end up being hurt and then have to discuss whether I am going “liberal” or whatever. I don’t even know what I am. Different kind of fits, I think. I just want to avoid this subject with you guys for a bit. I’ll discuss anything else.
But, for the rest, the game is afoot!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
Very good post. I am truly learning new insights into my faith. Very refreshing after so many years in SGM.
Bounded,
I appreciate your perspective. Obviously, “proving” God’s existence is sort of a different topic, but that’s okay. I would say that in discussing that particular issue, however, you’ve crossed over from science and the bible to philosophy and the bible; that is you’ve introduced a philosophical argument, instead of a scientific one. Again, that’s not a criticism. It’s okay, too.
However, instead of looking at God as the stuff of science fiction, I would challenge you to observe how the universe runs efficiently, by well-defined and consistent physical laws. In the same way, one look at any organ in the human body speaks to some kind of massive intelligence, as opposed to cosmic accident. What in nature naturally evolves to such perfection alone and unguided? My car cannot drive itself to the store, a feat much simpler it seems than the firmament and the spinning of random matter in space coming together and creating an ear. So, the belief that all of this is an accident is “not logical” (keeping with the Star Trek theme…I love Star Trek, though it is dreadfully humanist, that is, man is sooooo good).
Speaking of philosophy, it is interesting to note that most philosophers interested in pursuing the meaning and purpose of life, as it were, generally start with the acceptance of a divine Creator. There are two reasons for this: the first is that, philosophically it is actually easier to prove the existence of God than the existence of yourself, and secondly, without a basic, logic-based presupposition of a divine creator with a truth and understanding meant to be discovered and explained, the whole of philosophy and the study thereof is quite pointless.
I respect the opinion of atheists, but, again, I think the idea that the atheist’s opinion is no more sensible than that of the person of faith, in any logical, scientific, or philosophical way is axiomatic. Actually, a more complicated and interesting debate is with the agnostic or the deist.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Fred Bob
And that comment is why i think of you as “sugar.” Sign me up for your movement.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Argo
As for Star Trek, man may appear to be good but what about the Ferengi, Q, and the Borg? All is not well in Star Trek land.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
I agree. I love different opinions…civil, that is, of course. It forces us to think. It forces us to evaluate our beliefs critically, to become our own apologists. All of this is nothing but healthy. Thinking is a good thing!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Well put Zeta & Bounded. Unless stuff is agreed upon up front, say the axioms of arithmetic, Euclidean propositions, proof that a limit exists, St. Paul’s authority or what have you, any further discussion is futile.
The discussion will quickly devolve into: IS TOO! …. is not! …IS TOO!…..+ the next term + the next term +… and not converge to anything either party can agree upon.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Final Anonymous,
Your comment should now be posted. The comments have been coming in fast!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
Thanks for the support, you know though, that I’d take it a few steps back…the assumption that anything supernatural, i.e. God, exists, is the first, most likely, flawed assumption.
So within a group of believer’s there is probably some value to the discussions, since they all agree upon the initial proposition. But when you ask non-believers to get involved, this is the primary reason, for the frustration and difficulty in having a dialog. The non-believers look at your initial assumption, find no objective evidence to support it, and so, they feel there is no real point in going further.
I think this more than anything is what stops the dialog. Non-believers feel that Christians are unwilling/unable to look at the evidence for their initial premise and then take rational action based on what they find, they simply move on to “other” discussion points that only exist once you accept the premise.
I understand that Christians live “by faith”, but I would add to what James said…not only is faith without works a dead faith, but faith unsupported by evidence is faith built on sand.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta (added note)
I personally think that debating the things that flow from the assumption that God exists is actually a good thing. It is ultimately what brought me to be an atheist from having been a Christian. As you sharpen your critical thinking skills and as you bring more and more theology under scrutiny where reason and logic is applied, then at some point the “existence of God” can no longer hide in the shadows, and though I’ve found it tends to creep into view and be pushed back for a while, eventually the honest person must apply the same scalpel to bear on the initial premise as he/she has on the rest of theology…and then the bricks start to really crumble…
So, from your friendly atheist…by all means let me encourage your debates and discussions, because even though they may seem fruitless to the non-believer, after a period of time, they have the potential to bear great fruit.
OK, now I can go have my morning coffee…thanks for indulging my long winded speeches (although I still don’t hold a candle to Zeta in that regard!) – Chao!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Recently, I had a conversation with an earnest young Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher-in-the-making. Great guy that I genuinely love, and love to torment with opposing theological views. He was absolutely convinced that all “wine” in the Bible was grape juice, completely different than today’s wine. So, I answered, “That may be — it may have been different — but too much of that grape juice still made people drunk. So what difference does it make if it was grape juice and not wine?”
I think I won that one — but didn’t get as far on the KJVO subject! (Oh, I don’t know for sure, but I may be posting from a suspect location, not my usual hangout — but I promise, it’s really me, and can provide a secret code word known only to the blog queens if necessary…)
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Wow, Dee. This is some good stuff here. One of the most important articles you have written. Keep up the great work.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bounded Reality:
“Thanks for the support, you know though, that I’d take it a few steps back…the assumption that anything supernatural, i.e. God, exists, is the first, most likely, flawed assumption.
I understand that. Our application of the principle is different, nevertheless the principle itself is sound. As an aside, this very issue was impressed upon me in a very similar way to how it pressed itself upon you. It was a graduate level Topology class after I’d just presented a beautiful proof of one of its theorems. In my case it was even more subtle, because the theorem I was proving was correct, as was the logic of my proof. But in my case I arrived and the right conclusion using perfect logic that was based on a false understanding of the definition of a limit point … and as a result the entire proof was wrong!
“So within a group of believer’s there is probably some value to the discussions, since they all agree upon the initial proposition. But when you ask non-believers to get involved, this is the primary reason, for the frustration and difficulty in having a dialog. The non-believers look at your initial assumption, find no objective evidence to support it, and so, they feel there is no real point in going further.”
Well here I think you are overreaching. “No objective evidence to support it” is not a fair characterization of the situation. There is a good deal of evidence that supports our conclusion that God is real. But it is the kind of evidence that would be used to decide if some historical event was real. It is not the kind of evidence that would be used to derive a scientific theory. In the end, the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead because of the empty tomb coupled with the testimony of the women there who saw him raised, coupled with the fact the stone was guarded by roman soldiers coupled with the fact they themselves saw and talked with him later. And they communicated their story to others, and people believe the story.
We also have a set of prophecies recorded in the old testament that Christ fulfilled. And so on and so forth.
But this is not the kind of evidence you necessarily find convincing. But it does fit into the kind of evidence we use to convince ourselves that Julius Ceasar was a real historical figure and so forth. And I realize that part of the problem is the claim itself: God became man and lived and died and rose again. The oft used mantra is: incredible claims require incredible evidence. I get that.
But I really do believe there is another level here that is not quantifiable. And that is the level where God calls to us. And I do believe that when He calls to us concerning Christ, it is fundamentally different from what happens when a muslim decides to follow mohammed, or a Morman decides to follow Joseph Smith. That part of course, I can’t prove and don’t really have objective evidence for 😉 Unfortunately, I think that level is the level we are judged on when we stand before God. Something in us knows Jesus is Lord or responds to that message, and how we respond to that is something for which we are held accountable.
“I think this more than anything is what stops the dialog. Non-believers feel that Christians are unwilling/unable to look at the evidence for their initial premise and then take rational action based on what they find, they simply move on to “other” discussion points that only exist once you accept the premise.”
That may be how it appears. But from our perspective, we feel we do have real, but personal, evidence for the reality of God. And it is the kind of evidence I can only tell you about, I can’t make it real to you. It is many times the kind of evidence an intellectual such as yourself will reject as being subjective, unreal, imagined. It is the kind of evidence that possibly has a non-supernatual ‘explanation’, but not to the person to whom it belongs.
There is a line from the movie “Second Hand Lions” that I like in this regard. One of the two older, wilder uncles is giving the young ward part of his ‘what it takes to be a man’ speach and says this:
“Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love, never dies… No matter if they’re true or not, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in.”
Now i can’t quite agree with everything in that speach, but the principle I have in bold I really think applies here. The good news of Jesus Christ is one of those things that is worth believing in.
“I understand that Christians live “by faith”, but I would add to what James said…not only is faith without works a dead faith, but faith unsupported by evidence is faith built on sand.
Karl, you missed the part where faith is “the substance of things NOT SEEN”. Faith fully supported by evidence is not faith.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
O dear, I swapped the key phrase:
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.
Properly quoted, it makes the point even stronger I thank. “faith IS the evidence, of things not seen.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Not saying much over here but I really appreciate the discusion.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
hi dee,
This comment got stuck in moderation, so I am sending it again. I hope that is ok.
Luke 1:13 – 15 “But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son; you will name him John.
14 – Joy and gladness will come to you, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord.
15 – He must never drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth.”
Why the restriction against wine and strong drink for John the Baptist?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
This is a bit outside the intent of this post however, the Bible also indicates that it is OK for a little alcohol to be consumed. It is amazing how I can pick out verses to just about “prove” anything like women should wear veils. Once again, don’t drink alcohol if that is your conviction. It is not mine.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
Today at the exChristians site a man is giving his reasons for leaving the faith.
His first two reasons are
“Some specifics (in random order):
– God did NOT create the universe 6,000 years ago, nor in 6 days. In fact, he probably didn’t create it at all, because he almost certainly doesn’t exist!
– Astronomy clearly has shown that the earth was NOT created before the sun, stars, etc. (as told in Genesis)”
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
hi dee,
That is not my conviction whatsoever. I was just giving the “winos” a hard time. 🙂
All of those verses I posted were written to Jews under the law. We are no longer under the law, but under grace.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Fred Bob:
hi dee,
This comment got stuck in moderation, so I am sending it again. I hope that is ok.
Luke 1:13 – 15 “But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son; you will name him John.
14 – Joy and gladness will come to you, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord.
15 – He must never drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth.”
Why the restriction against wine and strong drink for John the Baptist?
In Jewish culture, wine is a bleesing, a gift of God. During the highest of holy days God is specifically thanked for giving it:
Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu Melekh ha‑olam, bo’re p’ri ha‑gafen.
“Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine.”
So NOT to drink wine is a kind of fast, a denial of self from that which one is normally entitiled for the sake of righteousness.
It does not mean there is anything wrong with drinking wine (not to excess).
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Zeta,
I was arguing against wine just for the fun of it. But if I had even a small glass, it would be to excess for me. I get drunk just smelling the stuff! I have no tolerance whatsoever to any alcohol.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bounded Reality: Zeta (added note)
I personally think that debating the things that flow from the assumption that God exists is actually a good thing. It is ultimately what brought me to be an atheist from having been a Christian. As you sharpen your critical thinking skills and as you bring more and more theology under scrutiny where reason and logic is applied, then at some point the “existence of God” can no longer hide in the shadows, and though I’ve found it tends to creep into view and be pushed back for a while, eventually the honest person must apply the same scalpel to bear on the initial premise as he/she has on the rest of theology…and then the bricks start to really crumble…
So, from your friendly atheist…by all means let me encourage your debates and discussions, because even though they may seem fruitless to the non-believer, after a period of time, they have the potential to bear great fruit.
OK, now I can go have my morning coffee…thanks for indulging my long winded speeches (although I still don’t hold a candle to Zeta in that regard!) – Chao!
Keeping in mind that smiling back at you over his cup of tea Zeta expects the same discussions to also bear much fruit in Karl’s life … to the goal of rekindling a vibrant faith in Christ.
Shalom!
😉
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Fred Bob
“Hi Zeta,
I was arguing against wine just for the fun of it. But if I had even a small glass, it would be to excess for me. I get drunk just smelling the stuff! I have no tolerance whatsoever to any alcohol.
“
No worries. It was quite some time after I had convinced myself that drinking a glass of wine was not a theological feaux pax from scriptural study that my conscience was actually clear to do so.
And indeed, if for you to smell the stuff is to be drunk, well then, I guess for you there is not such thing as not drinking to excess. So there you go 😉
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee said: “Zeta
Today at the exChristians site a man is giving his reasons for leaving the faith.
His first two reasons are
“Some specifics (in random order):
– God did NOT create the universe 6,000 years ago, nor in 6 days. In fact, he probably didn’t create it at all, because he almost certainly doesn’t exist!
– Astronomy clearly has shown that the earth was NOT created before the sun, stars, etc. (as told in Genesis)”
“
It is indeed all to common. And I doubt very much it is a random order. He put those first because they are the first things that come to mind leading him away from belief in scripture and by consequence God. That means they rank fairly high on his list of reasons not to believe.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Can anybody here help me out? Zeta is probably the best qualified to answer, but anyone’s help would be greatly appreciated!
The biological sciences were never a forte for me. To the best of my understanding, non-theistic evolution (Dawkins, Hawking, et. al.)holds that natural selection (NS) operates in a perfect vacuum all by itself (no God, no great turtle of enormous girth etc.).
In TE (theistic evolution), God has used NS over time much in the same way that Michelangelo used the tools of his trade to create the Pieta. Is this overly simplified? Am I off base?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff/Zeta
Divide your answers into four parts each. This post stands at 391 comments-well 392 after this one. I want to hit 400 comments for one post.
Muff, well stated in simplicity. Zeta-up to you.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is my contribution to reaching a new milestone in TWW history…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
How old are we (OE proponents) believing the earth to be? A billion, 2 billion years old?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
would
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
this
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
help
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
with
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“How old are we (OE proponents) believing the earth to be? A billion, 2 billion years old?”
If you believe in something should you not have a basis for that belief?
Personally the evidence I’ve looked at indicates about 4.5 billion. What does the evidence you’ve studied or experts you rely on indicate?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
the
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
post
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
count?
Whoohoo 400+ here we 🙂
Now back to real posts …. 😉
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR – current estimation is 4.54 billion years old.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
No Longer Reformed: “How old are we (OE proponents) believing the earth to be? A billion, 2 billion years old?”
I am pretty sure all the official OE variants stick to where the most current evidence puts the date, 4.54 billion +- some error margin. It really represents a date for the formation of the solar system. The oldest material found on the Earth itself that appears to be of the earth (i.e. not a meteorite) dates from around 4.4 billion years.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
With the universe clocking in around 15 billion years old.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
However, since there are somewhere around 12-13 dimensions, Zeta, Bounded and others would know exactly, the question is, how old are they and did they wink into existence at the same time?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn–
You assume much, friend, by your “questions”. Just because I believe the earth is several billion years old, doesn’t mean I have an exact figure; and I wanted to know what scientists are saying. It’s why I freaking asked. Don’t try and discredit me or imply ignorance simply because I didn’t have an exact figure. I have a ton of basis for my belief which I care not to even bother to explain. But isn’t it possible I could believe that even if I didn’t know if the earth was 1 or 4 or 5 billion years old. Plainly, I believe the earth is much MUCH older than 6-10,000 years old. That satisfy you? And my experts: A majority of the scientific community up until now. Probably many of the scientists who helped Strobel write his books, and others… You could turn around in the dark, blind folded and land on one who believes the earth is very old. I’m sure I needn’t be specific.
Everyone else—Dee, Zeta, OB… My guess was 3 billion but I wasn’t sure. I haven’t read much literature on the subject lately.
Thanks for answering my question.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
Hugh Ross theorizes that God lives in a dimension different than our own and His omnipresence is a function of this God dimension. Ask me if I understand it. Nope. Oh, one other thing he said at a lecture that I attended is that time is most likely it’s own dimension. I await the analysis of those smarter than me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
MuffPotter: The biological sciences were never a forte for me. To the best of my understanding, non-theistic evolution (Dawkins, Hawking, et. al.)holds that natural selection (NS) operates in a perfect vacuum all by itself (no God, no great turtle of enormous girth etc.).
Well, that is what they’d have you believe. But no-one knows how all the perfectly balanced parameters that are required for a universe like ours that supports life just happened to come to be here in our cosmos. The think the ‘multiverse’ will solve the problem, but infinite sets are finicky, and it is possible to have an infinitely large number of universes out there and still never have one like ours pop up 😉
And there are a good many other ‘problems’ Dawkins et al face, but their belief there is no God helps them trust (read as ‘have faith’) there is a natural answer to them all 😉
“In TE (theistic evolution), God has used NS over time much in the same way that Michelangelo used the tools of his trade to create the Pieta. Is this overly simplified? Am I off base?”
More or less, but there are variants. Some would have God operating more at the beginning, setting things up so they’d end up where they are now. But the quantum physics tends to tell us setting up such an initial condition my well be impossible, which would imply that to get where we are God would have to be involved at the lowest levels making sure things turned out according to plan. Others think that the specific form of mankind is not necessarily planned, but that the way the universe is designed eventually man or the equivalent would eventually form.
One of the key problems with ‘theistic’ evolution as a term is that it is sort of misleading. The ‘theistic’ conveys the wrong message. God is sort of barnacled onto the existing scientific theory. A better term I think is evolutionary creationism (EC), used by Denis Lamoureux, a charismatic Christian and associate professor of science and religion at St. Josephs college in alberta. In this term the fact we as Christians still hold to the fact God created and is intimately involved in the creation, and evolution is the after thought, the idea of secondary importance that clarifies how He created. Dr. Lamoureux has written several books on this issue, and is interesting to listen to. Very different from the Catholic Ken Millar of the same basic persuasion concerning Christian faith and evolution. In his take God is very active in the process from beginning to the current day.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
OB–
What surprises me more about the infinite universes and the singularity of ours in type is even our location within the Milky Way. That particular “arm” of the galaxy being the perfect spot for life to exist on earth. I also appreciated the work that has been done to modify the theorems and appropriate physics to see what the results are if we were to change by the most miniscule amounts like a one followed by a billion or so zeros, and so forth. I mean, that is precise! One thing is for sure, considering what we know about the planets in our own galaxy, as well as distant but close galaxies, it appears that this is the only place that would support life as we know it. The science, algorithms and applied physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc… behind it all blows my mind. The numbers are just unreal.
Dee–
I find it hard to wrap my mind around how God created time, but is separate from it. That he can observe eternity past, present and eternity future all at the same time. The only thing I could fathom would be like those futuristic movies where a person exists in all three planes, sotospeak, but you can see what they are doing at all three times. I dont know. That’s confusing–what I just said. But I think you might get it.
I also think about the Tower of Babel… Could they clearly reach Heaven, or was God just disappointed at their desire to do so. Because if they could have reached Heaven, then it made me wonder how close it was to the earth and all sorts of things my imagination would wonder. Elementary to some, but yet fascinating to me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
OB–
That’s also interesting, the two perspectives that God was involved in the initial aspect of Creation and the other things just a product of that, versus God being involved and very active even to this current day. It’s kinda like the view that God created all that he did and ceased to do anymore (a dead god) (I cannot think of the technical name–too lazy to google). But also, it could fit into the theory that there is no new matter. That all there ever was was created at creation and matter just transforms into different forms, but nothing new exists.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR:“What surprises me more about the infinite universes and the singularity of ours in type is even our location within the Milky Way. That particular “arm” of the galaxy being the perfect spot for life to exist on earth. I also appreciated the work that has been done to modify the theorems and appropriate physics to see what the results are if we were to change by the most miniscule amounts like a one followed by a billion or so zeros, and so forth. I mean, that is precise! One thing is for sure, considering what we know about the planets in our own galaxy, as well as distant but close galaxies, it appears that this is the only place that would support life as we know it. The science, algorithms and applied physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc… behind it all blows my mind. The numbers are just unreal.”
Hi NLR. We have to be a little careful in terms of looking at ‘specialness’ arguments. In one sense, we basically have to find ourselves in a spot that supports life, we can’t exist anywhere else. So when something ‘special’ also points to something unique about our planet or galaxy or universe is when we find something truly unique or unlikely over the entire breadth of the cosmos.
Our position in the galaxy is not one of those things, because many galaxies will have a ‘habitable zone’, just like many stars will also have a habitable zone. We also can’t yet put much stock in not finding planets like Earth, because we don’t really yet have the equipment to find lots of Earth’s – if they are out there. We are finding a lot of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, but not so many in nice stable orbits where they can perform the special kinds of protective functions Jupiter and Saturn perform in our solar system.
Where we do find a great deal to wonder about in terms of our universe is how precisely fine tuned various fundamental constants have to be to support a universe where life (as we know it). Why even the number of spatial dimensions is critical – anything other than 3 and stable planetary orbits are impossible, or at least very improbable.
Many scientists look to a multiverse (an infinite number of universes out there, allowing infinite variation in all the possible universe parameters). The thinking is that with an infinite number of them, our special parameters should have a probability of 1 of showing up. The problem is, probability does not work like that when we talk about infinite sets. For example, consider a dartboard and a dart with an infinitely small tip. Theoretically there is 0 probability the tip will hit any specific point (1/oo = 0), yet if I throw the dart at the dartboard, it has to hit one of those points. So we have events of probability 0 that can happen. Likewise, just because we have an infinite number of universes out there doesn’t mean every possible set of parameters will be tried. Indeed, between any two numbers there is an infinite number of real numbers. We can get an infinite number of universes out of parameters that all vary only between .25 and .26. And if we need .33 for life, it will never happen.
So anyway – its fun to speculate. I don’t think any of this proves God or disproves Him. But as a person who believes in God, I do marvel an the awesomeness of what He has created, its infinitude in so many different directions and concepts. It does, truly, speak to me, to us, of His Greatness and Majesty.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee on Tue, Sep 06 2011 at 11:46 pm
Junkster
I do not want to do the YE thing with any of the four who are upset with me. No rebuke, no correction. That sounds way too SGM/anointed pastor weird to me. I am not mad at you. I just don’t want you guys to be irritated with me personally because of my opinions on this subject. It’s not worth it to me. I like you all too much.
I take it from thus that, for some reason, I am one of 4 that you say are upset with you. I’m not sure why you’d think that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am not and have not been upset with, angry at, annoyed by, or irritated with you in any way.
You know I am fascinated by different opinions. It is the spice of life for me. I would be desperately bored if everyone thought as I did. I even get bored with myself. I love an intense and thoughtful debate.
Like you, I enjoy a good debate and sharing of opinions. I’m not threatened by anyone else’s views, not do I expect them to share mine. But I don’t mind making the case for mine, nor do I mind letting someone else know when I don’t think they have made the case for theirs.
The only thing I can think of that might have you feeling like I’m irritated with you is my expression that I’d prefer a different approach to responding to Mohler’s arguments, and my characterization of your approach. I can see how you might feel I was too harsh on your chosen style for this post. I know it can sting when we feel that others don’t appreciate something we wrote, especially if we are pleased with it. So if that hurt your feelings, I am truly sorry. But I don’t want you to think I’m upset with you over your views or how you express them, because I am not.
But not when people end up being hurt and then have to discuss whether I am going “liberal” or whatever. I don’t even know what I am. Different kind of fits, I think.
Again, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think that you are “going liberal”, nor do I consider the OE/TE position a “liberal” viewpoint. I guess one could call it “liberal” as opposed to the common traditional viewpoints held by many theological “conservatives”, but not in the sense that a theologically “liberal” position is equated with a denial of the authority or reliability of Scripture. I have no doubt of your commitment to the Bible – you no doubt would not even have this blog if you didn’t believe the Bible was true and ought to be obeyed (since a big reason for the blog is to point out where church leaders aren’t behaving according to biblical standards).
I also have no doubt of your commitment to the essentials of the faith, nor do I think that your views are in “danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement.” When Ham says something like that, or when Mohler makes a statement that ties a literal interpretation of Genesis to the gospel, I understand where they are coming from. But I don’t agree with their premises or their conclusions. Nonetheless, I do think that, in light of their premises, their conclusions are not illogical or unintelligent, and their concerns ought to be given due consideration and dealt with as the serious issues that they are. Zeta does a superb job of grappling with these kinds of issues. I do not mean to say that you do not, or have not, examined the issues, nor that you or others have not done a good job of harmonizing your views of science and the Bible.
If, by stating that I felt this particular post did not directly address the issues Mohler directly raised, I have mistakenly left you, or anyone, with the impression that I think they cannot be addressed or that you cannot address them, I again apologize. I thought in my mind that I was expressing appreciation for what you wrote in meeting your intended purposes. Perhaps I should have left it at that rather than focusing on what wasn’t said.
I just want to avoid this subject with you guys for a bit. I’ll discuss anything else.
Fair enough, and you need not respond any further on this topic. I just wanted to make very plain that I am not and was not unhappy with you, that I do not consider you to have any less of a commitment to Scripture than you should, and that I respect and care about you.
But, for the rest, the game is afoot!
Everyone else — carry on.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
I was not trying to put you down. But just to answer the question the spirit in which it seemed to be asked. You very much mis-read my answer. And I apparently mis-read the implications of your question.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
We should have hit 400 already, after you have to count Zeta’s posts as at least 4-5 because of their length!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
You’ve never hit 400 comments before?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn–
I disagree with you. It would be interesting how you think I misread your question. I simply asked how old are we as OE believers are saying the earth is. You implied by your question (which I think you need to read again) was that if I’m going to say I believe in an OE, shouldn’t I have a basis for that belief. You Impkird that by my lack of knowledge of the age, that I had no basis by which I believe in OE and therefore, am espousing a belief with no real understanding or basis, to use your words, as to how I can support that belief.
I think I read you clearly the first time. Its really a pet peeve of mine when someone writes something that is clear and then they tell the reader that you read what I said wrongly. And you also missed the “spirit” in which my question was asked. There was no “spirit”, it was just a simple question. Sorry, but I hate Christianese and tend to have a revolting response to it. I apologize.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta–
I appreciate the caution but please don’t assume caution is not implied. Any arguments or beliefs we have must be considered with caution and great thought. I think it’s understood and doesn’t need mentioning. I’ve read a lot on the subject and that’s just the argument that I believe the most. It’s okay though if you might not find it convincing or the “specialness” argument concrete enough to make such determinations. I see where you are coming from. It makes sense. But it’s just not where I am personally convinced. I’m sure you’re okay with that.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
Congratulations on your 400+ comments on a single post!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Deb
With a little help from our friends.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Ellie
I am not sure. Maybe one other. we are a wee blog.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Bounded Reality:
We should have hit 400 already, after you have to count Zeta’s posts as at least 4-5 because of their length!
Now that is twice you’ve fussed about the length of my posts – what in the world is that all about? You’ve got some lengthy ones out there too you know. 😉
plus, I more than compensated for my longer posts with posts 393 to 401.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR
As I said. I misunderstood your question. Which led to my answer. And my answer was worded based on my interpretation of your comment. But whatever.
But if that makes you mad. Well sorry. As to Christianese, I’m not sure of all the symptoms, but I’m fairly sure I’ve never caught it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
NLR: I’m sure you’re okay with that.
Yep – no worries.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution”
http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html
These evolutionists keep changing their story with each new fossil they find.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Fred Bob,
Science is never afraid of revision based upon newly uncovered data. Dogma on the other hand abhors any shape or form of revision.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Muff Patter,
Revision is always a nice choice of words. How come they just don’t come out and say – “We were wrong” concerning their earlier theories of evolutionary history. They seem rather arrogant in that regard. Truth does not need to be revised. That is my problem with evolution. Where are the facts? Why all the guess work, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, etc?
I do not trust evolution theory one iota.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FB
If you’re going to take the popular media as your source for science then you need to take their reports on religion as a guide to how to be a Christian. Hagee, Robertson, Oral Roberts, Schuller, Depac Chopra etc… Which one of their headline stories do we use as the basis for what we believe?
The money quote from the article is “These new findings could rewrite long-standing theories”
COULD is the key word.
After many others have studied the findings then maybe they will agree with the person who discovered this. Or maybe not. And then maybe we’ll modify our understanding. Or not.
Many of the electronic concepts in a current day smart phone were totally unknown in the 60s. 3/4 axis accelerometers on a chip, lithium ion batteries (in their current form), fractal antennas, methods of making integrated circuits, etc. As discoveries were made, old theories and limits were discarded or revised.
But according to your logic I should not trust current electronic devices as the electronic and physics theories they depend on are open to revision.
And if you don’t use a cell phone with a hidden antenna or drive a car made in the last 10 years or use a current model TV or use wireless networking for your computer and a lot of other things then maybe you have a point. Oh, wait, you are using a computer to post here. Does yours work by magic?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn
Well stated. I am memorizing your answer.
It sounds like you know something about technology. Any idea when the new IPhone will be released, assuming that you do trust technology?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn, you asked, “Hagee, Robertson, Oral Roberts, Schuller, Depac Chopra etc… Which one of their headline stories do we use as the basis for what we believe?”
None of them. I do not need anyone to tell me what God’s word says. I can figure it out all by myself.
Making revisions to electronics and inventions is far different than making revisions to history! History does not change. But according to the evolutionists it sure does! They are constantly changing THEIR understanding of the history of man.
Brainwashing comes in many forms. Just because some “scientist” or even the majority of scientists says it is so, does not make it so. If it was true the first time, them there is no need to change it!
So when these so called “scientists” get it all figured out, let me know. My computer is useful and it works. Right now, evolution theory is not useful and it does not work. (I am speaking of macro evolution – not micro evolution). Macro evolution has done nothing to enhance my life. Neither has Big Foot or space aliens. Give me something I can use, that has benefits. Macro evolution has no benefits, because it does not exist. Micro – yes, macro – no.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“But according to the evolutionists it sure does! ”
No. But whatever you believe you believe.
Facts don’t change. New facts emerge (are discovered) and understanding is revised.
And the same science that leads to understanding evolution and OE also gives you all those electronic gadgets. So you trust the science when it suits your beliefs but not when it contradicts them. Same physics and chemistry. But we shouldn’t trust it unless it conforms to our beliefs or at least doesn’t contradict them?
But as you’ve got it all decided keep your beliefs. But continually treating the media as a science journal will definitely lead to some odd beliefs. Or at least some odd conclusions. Ditto the media coverage of religion. Truth isn’t their goal. Eyeballs is. Because their revenue depends on advertising and that depends on eyeballs.
I’ll retire from this now. I’m not going to convince you and honestly am not trying to. I’m really commenting for others who are just reading and might want to give these issues a fresh look.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Some here may find this interesting, as I did:
Making matter come alive
A chemist explores the concept of the evolution of inorganic life.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn, we both agree that facts do not change. But some people go too far in their interpretation of those facts. The discovery of a new fossil is a fact. But then contending that same fossil is some sort of a missing link, is not a fact. I LOVE facts and new discoveries. But I do not like it when some people jump to conclusions about how to interpret those facts.
The Casey Anthony trial was filled with facts. The defense saw those facts one way, and the prosecution saw them another way. Caylee was dead. That was a fact. How did she die? Was she suffocated with duct tape? Too much chloroform? Did she drown in the pool? If so, then why did they dispose of her in a garbage bag?
Lots of questions with no real answers. That is what evolution is. I see a lot of forced puzzle pieces and square pegs going into round holes.
Could be, might be, looks like, similar to, etc etc. is nothing but speculation, assumption, and conjecture. The gaps in the current fossil record are enormous. There is no way to connect the dots to prove anything.
Again, my computer works and gives me benefits. Macro evolution does not work and provides no benefit to me whatsoever. It is not the same science. Macro evolution right now is a broken science that has yet to be fixed. Until it gets fixed(if it can be), it is of no value. Having a bunch of facts(or computer parts) are of little use until they are put together to function in a working order. Or try reading a book with half of the pages missing.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
You are making an assumption. How do you know that macro evolution does not provide benefit to you? Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is not valuable. Hmm, too many negatives.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Thanks for the video.Interesting.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee, macro evolution itself is an assumption. How can an assumption help anyone? What good would it do to assume there is life on other planets? Should we assume there are space aliens because of all the UFO sightings?
Assumptions are not science. Science is knowledge.
Also, I believe I do understand the CONCEPT of macro evolution. That is why I reject it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The metaphoric pieces to the puzzle are in flux and how Biologists understand the relatedness of taxonomically is in flux because genetic similarities are replacing morphology as the basis for how close species are to one another.
I am doing a lot of background research that includes the evolution of the central nervous system.
Until a few years ago, the dominant theory was that a centralized nervous system evolved several times giving rise to diverse types of nervous systems but, after comparing genes that control the development of the CNS, the genes are extremely highly conserved across species. Apparently, the central nervious sysstem only evolved once. This is cool because it makes sense to understand the simple versions and that may eventually hold true for more complex systems.
I’ll stop boring you now but misfitting puzzle pieces are expected when the puzzle is old and constantly changing form.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Excuse the typos and gramos the system didn’t let me preview the above post.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
@Fred: At the moment, it is certainly true that our knowledge of human evolution is incomplete and there are a number of different views about some of the more minor details. But we have a much better record of other groups, such as the fascinating (and, in my mind, probably delicious) trilobite. They emerged in layers which are about 500 million years old with a certain basic form. As we go up in the layers we see more and more different kinds of trilobites emerge, diverging further and further from the basic trilobite template until we hit an extinction event, where some of the new forms disappear. We see more development from the surviving forms, and then another extinction event. Rinse, lather and repeat until the end of the Permian, where they (sadly) disappear altogether. Is the fossil record incomplete? Yes, of course it is. But it shows enough for me to see the emergence of a species, diversification into many species and, finally, their extinction. We can see similar trends in other groups like the ammonoids, which developed some truly amazing (and hilarious) forms before they went extinct.
As a geology fan (and, God willing, future geologist) I have seen the evidence for an old earth with my own eyes. Similarly, I’ve seen and read enough about the evidence in the fossil record and the general underpinnings of evolution overall to be convinced it is true. And it’s not that I came at it with the assumption that it was true; I was a young earth creationist for a while, and it was the weight of evidence that led me to change my beliefs. All truth is God’s truth, and I have found great peace in accepting that. It does nothing to lessen my view of God, or my belief that nature reflects His glory and creativity. Indeed, in seeing a hint the beauty, magnitude and scope of His creative process, and how careful and intimate His involvement must have been, I am humbled.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob said: ““Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution”
http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html
These evolutionists keep changing their story with each new fossil they find.”
and
“Hi Muff Patter,
Revision is always a nice choice of words. How come they just don’t come out and say – “We were wrong” concerning their earlier theories of evolutionary history. They seem rather arrogant in that regard. Truth does not need to be revised. That is my problem with evolution. Where are the facts? Why all the guess work, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, etc?
I do not trust evolution theory one iota.”
Hi FredBob, what you have posted is a classic misunderstanding of both science and the theory of evolution.
First the misunderstanding of evolution: The evidence strongly shows that there has been a very long history of life on the Earth and that life has changed form over time, with a general pattern of diversification over time, a pattern that when graphed looks a good bit like a tree. But the specific and detailed progression over shorter time frames is only known with very limited precision.
Fossilization is a somewhat rare process, and further, the actual path of evolution has many dead ends, many species that form leafs on this tree. So while we can and do find many samples of this progression sufficient to identify the general path these changes have taken over longer periods of time, precisely defining the path is made very difficult by the sparsity of fossil specimens relative to the number of varying species that have lived on the Earth over that more detailed, limited timeframe. So while we know the first life was in the sea, moved to land, eventually becoming reptiles, diversifying into cold and warm blooded forms which became the dinosaurs, mammals and birds, the more specific one gets trying to tie down specific lineages, the more likely new evidence will come along that will change the picture of the precise path for that lineage.
What you are seeing in your first post is simply a refinement of one of those more detailed lineage maps. This is nothing significant as regards the overall theory. It just helps us know a little more precisely how (in this case) hominid evolution progressed.
The second issue is that science is a process of continued refinement. Theories do change. Sometimes the changes can represent massive changes in our understanding of the inner workings of the universe. But here is a critical point that often is not understood by those basic major decisions on the ‘unreliability’ of modern science: No new theory EVER is less powerful at explaining the currently available set of observations than the theory it replaces.
For example, while the theory of relativity supplants the Newtonian classic, the actual orbits of the planets predicted by Newton’s and Kepler’s work vary only in the very smallest part from what Newton’s laws predict. Indeed, what happens is that for every prediction Newton’s math would make, Relativity would only give a sligthly MORE PRECISE prediction, excepting the case of mercury, were the Einstenian theory offers a more significant improvement due to relativistic effects caused by the sun’s intense gravity and Mercury’s proximity to it.
So, any new theory will ALWAYS be better at explaining the data and predicting the behavior of a system than what it replaces.
So I’d suggest instead of a shoot from the hip approach, take the time to try to understand the theory and the evidence for it. That may be a scary a proposition (the scary part is if you discover it has a leg to stand on, THEN what do you do ;), I get that. But it is always better to be well informed on a topic, especially if you are going to be critical of it.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob: “dee, macro evolution itself is an assumption. How can an assumption help anyone? What good would it do to assume there is life on other planets? Should we assume there are space aliens because of all the UFO sightings?
Assumptions are not science. Science is knowledge.
Also, I believe I do understand the CONCEPT of macro evolution. That is why I reject it.
”
You’ve been listening to too many people that don’t know what they are talking about Fred. The millions of years of history found in the Earth is not an assumption. It’s as much a scientific fact as the orbit of the Moon. As an aside – do you realize how hard it is to actually prove the Earth orbits the sun? It’s kind of obvious if you assume that larger masses attract smaller ones, like an apple falling to the ground. But what if the universe is really some massive plank density solid that holds itself together and whirls about the Earth and there are special wobbles here and there than have unknown causes and special properties we don’t know about and …
Well, this is where ‘scientific geocentrism’ builds its case. But I doubt your distrust of science would take you down THAT road 😉
But the truth is, every piece of evidence we have tells us radiometric clocks do not vary much at all in their progression over time (though cosmogenic isotopes like c14 need calibrations to be precise).
And those clocks give us multiple cross correlating dates for the rock layers in the Earth. Keeping in mind that there are other relative indicators of age in the Earth that also point to millions of years of time that are consistent with what the radiometric clocks tell us. Nevertheless, using these ‘clocks’, we know that rocks that date less than 65 million years old don’t have dinosaurs in them. And rocks that date older than around 210 million years in them don’t have dinosaur fossils in them either. Rocks that date much older than 300 million years don’t have ANY land animals in them – only sea creatures. And the kinds of life we find across all these many dates and time flow like water from one form to another. Indeed, There is no known consistent correlation between the kinds of fossils found in the rocks EXCEPT the time frame the rocks formed (which is why the YEC arguments the flood somehow produced this fossil sorting are absolutely absurd)
So life’s history on the Earth is a fact. Just as much a fact as gravity or fusion. And further, that life’s changes follow a pattern over time that arranges itself into a branching tree when mapped to morphological traits and time is also a fact. This implies the history of life has flowed from one form to another, with older forms typically forming a root from which many subsequent variations or branches form over time. This pattern is also a fact, not an assumption. Incidentally, as we study the DNA of existing creatures, similarities in that DNA also closely parallels morphological traits, forming much the same tree as is implied by the fossil morphologies.
Take the time to study what you don’t understand Fred. I’ll not waste your time any further in this post (after all, Bounded Reality is out there counting my words, and I’m sure this post is on his ‘long winded’ list ;), but if you wish, feel free to discuss this further in any fashion you wish (debate, questions, preaching – whatever). I’ll continue to check in on the thread until there is no further activity in it.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Just to simplify this. I am not concerned at all with the age of the Earth. Right now, I am concerned with one thing, and one thing only. That is that monkeys, gorillas, and humans all coming from a common ancestor. I have been debating this single topic on YouTube for years. I have heard all of the DNA arguments, retrovirus insertions, etc and listened to numerous debates on the subject.
The assumptions of the specific macro evolution are enormous and far reaching. I see a tremendous amount of brainwashing in this particular “science”. Am I an expert on this subject – no I am not. But I have heard numerous debates by experts on both sides. After listening to these debates, I am convinced that we humans did not descend from any common ancestor. The evidence for that is all based on speculation and assumption. The dots have to be very forcibly connected by artificial means. In reality, there is right now, no connection of those dots. Not even close.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here is a short article on ERV’s from Creation Ministries International:
http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The reason I am posting articles on ERV’s is that is used as one of the “proofs” of common ancestry. Most evolutionists I have talked to, love to talk about ERV’s. Here is another article with more detail from “Who is your Creator”.
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Once again posting late at night left me a tad fuzzy on facts. The timeframe the fossils imply the migration to land for vertabrates occurred is around the time of TikTaalik, a recently discover fossil that fits morphologically between older sea vertabrates and younger quadrapeds. This is around 375 million years. Further, the oldest know footprints from a quadraped date to aruond 397 million years ago. So my boundary for land animals was a little off, its more like 400 million years, not 300 million.
The fact there is a boundary was of course the point, I’m sure the precise time frame for that boundary will shift a bit, even using 400 million years. And again, this is because fossilization is sparse and based on the current frequency of new fossil finds, the likelyhood we’ve yet found the oldest fossil for a land vertabrate is low.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Where are my posts????
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Am I being kept in moderation because I do not believe in macro evolution????
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There they are! Thank You!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Today, in the first hour of Science Friday on NPR, there was a report of an apparent transitional fossil skeleton or major parts thereof.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Arce, why are look alike fossils said to be “transitional”? If they found a fossilized dwarf, would call that transitional as well. I am not trying to be difficult here, I just really want to know why we should accept a fossil as being transitional. I don’t buy it.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob: “Just to simplify this. I am not concerned at all with the age of the Earth. Right now, I am concerned with one thing, and one thing only. That is that monkeys, gorillas, and humans all coming from a common ancestor. I have been debating this single topic on YouTube for years. I have heard all of the DNA arguments, retrovirus insertions, etc and listened to numerous debates on the subject.”
Ok – so that we can establish what is and is not an issue, could you answer just a couple of basic questions so we don’t talk past each other.
A) you are not concerned about the age of the Earth issue. So does that mean you would accept that the Earth is billions of years old?
B) does that mean you do not contest that life has an over 600 million years history on the Earth
C) does that mean you accept that different life forms existed at various times on the Earth, with some separated from others by millions of years?
D) do you accept that we can trace a history of life over that time, disregarding the issue of why that history exists or what, if any, historical connections exist between the various life forms we find fossils for.
Thanks,
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Zeta,
A. I do not have a clue how old the Earth is, and I do not want to speculate on that.
B. I do not know how long life has been on the Earth and I do not wish to speculate on that either.
C. Yes there are and were many differing life forms. I will not speculate on any time frame of these forms.
D. I do not agree that there are any transitional fossils from one life form to another.
Am I the only Christian on this blog who does not agree with macro evolution? Just curious.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
We’ve never taken a poll. And there are a lot more “just readers” than readers who comment.
We get really good aggregate stats on who visits here. Computer type. OS. Time on pages. Etc. Just no details about who exactly they are.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
I understand. So then, let me rephrase my question. Are they any regular posters on here (that you know of) that do not agree with macro evolution?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
There have been people who have commented in the past who were very much against OE/evolution. I don’t remember the details of their objections as to how they sliced their objections.
You can search for the word evolution and then look through all 68 posts that have a hit to see what everyone says. I’m betting you’ll only need to read about 3000 to 5000 comments. 🙂
As to the term macro evolution. That’s not a term in general use in biology circles. In biology the feeling is you agree with change over time via DNA changes or you don’t.
And even if you believe there is a difference it also gets hard to define what is macro vs. micro. Basically because most definitions involve the word species and that word is also hard to define in a specific manner.
But I need to drop out of this debate and go back behind the curtain.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Biologists define an apparent transitional entity as one that shows features which are very similar to earlier forms and other features that are very similar to later forms. This can be morphological (e.g., skeletal) or DNA. The item in question, of which I heard only a part because of other things occurring during the time it was on my radio, was reported as having heel or ankle bones akin to earlier hominids and hands and perhaps other bones more akin to later hominids, and perhaps identical or more nearly so to human hands.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
The program and related links can be found at:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201109092
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
Google the word transitional forms. That is what caused me to begin to move towards TE. There are many, many transitional forms.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
Yes, there are quite a few. I know because they email me.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
Fascinating presentations by Lamoureux & Miller!! (on you tube)
Here’s my critique:
We are products of Western Hellenism, we can’t help ourselves. Everything must be neatly boxed up with no cracks, nothing left to chance, and the metaphysical banished from the table altogether.
At best, the special (supernatural) creation of living things (amongst TE & EC evangelicals) is given only a niggardly currency, and at worst, it is ruled out altogether as simply irrelevant based on current science (although Dee at one point does make it clear that God has the power to do anything he wishes).
Things appeal to all of us based on internal resonance. Spin is everything. Gerald Schroeder’s spin finds more resonance with me than does Lamoureux & Miller. I have always gravitated toward a Jewish view of things rather than the musings of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Maimonides & Nahmanides have exerted a much stronger pull on me than the Christian thinkers. This DOES NOT imply lockstep with everything the Jewish sages said, nor does it imply a rejection of all Christian thought, only that I am a borrower of ideas from all traditions.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff
I used to exercise at Curves with the wife of the rabbi at the Lubavitch here in Raleigh. True Hasidic Lubavitchers. They believe that time was not an issue until God created the sun and the moon. So, they believe in eons prior to the sun and the moon and literal days thereafter.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Any idea when the new IPhone will be released”
As best I can tell, at some point in the not too distant future. Define “not too distant” as you prefer.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi dee,
Here are some articles I pulled up on transitional fossils:
Transitional fossils—what are they?
“Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.”
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-
fossils
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
Keep reading others here:
http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html
http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_form
http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
You are looking at some interesting sites. Creation.com? How about some real info? Was this meant as a joke?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee,
What is wrong with creation.com? Why is that not real info?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
From a quick scan of creation.com
“CMI currently believes that both Dr Russell Humphreys’ and Dr John Hartnett’s cosmologies (both involving relativistic time dilation) provide viable solutions for the distant starlight problem. It’s a healthy situation to have multiple working hypotheses at the moment because there are so many unknowns in astronomy and cosmology. However, neither we, Dr Humphreys nor Dr Hartnett claim that either of these models are infallible.”
Everyone I know who’s read Humphrey’s book think his is just flat out wrong. He proposes a scientific model of creation that includes 3 miracles. This is a contradiction in terms.
They also have a list of arguments that they believe are wrong. One is: “‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.” This seems to go against what you’ve said earlier.
Baumgardner proposes that the continents drifted apart in months, not millions of years. I haven’t read everything they have there now but when some of us looked at it a few years back he left out one little detail. The heat generated would have the planet still a molten blob if this happened only 6000 to 10000 years ago. But on this I’m open if they’ve found a solution to this issue.
In general this site looks like it is very similar to the AIG site. And the science on AIG isn’t really science. And from my quick perusal of the science here isn’t really science either.
If you read their statement of faith:
http://creation.com/what-we-believe
Basically they are saying we interpret the Bible “this way”. Anything that contradicts our interpretation is wrong. It just might take us a while to come up with an explanation we like. No mater how bogus the science appears to 99.999% of the people involved in science.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn,
Macro evolution is not real science. It is nothing but pure speculation based on presuppositions. I said that I believed in micro evolution, like bacterial resistance. But the bacteria always remains bacteria. It never changes into anything other than bacteria.
I do not frequent any of those sites. Nor did I say that I agree with their statement of faith or other positions. I simply posted some articles that refute transitional fossils.
Lynn, you said: “No mater how bogus the science appears to 99.999% of the people involved in science.” Truth is not determined by how many people believe it. In 1st century Jerusalem and the surrounding communities, how many people believed that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh? I would say that 99.999% did not.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Here’s my take. You can make an argument using science in this area. If so then you need to use science. Macro vs. micro evolution is about science. So are many of your comments.
But if you are going to end your arguments with statements of faith that you say trump science then what’s the point?
I have no problem with people who say they just don’t think man evolved from anything because their faith will not let them and they don’t know how to explain what science says. But people who give arguments with science tossed in then end them by saying your can’t trust science, with these arguments I have a problem.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee on Fri, Sep 09 2011 at 05:39 pm
FredBob
Yes, there are quite a few. I know because they email me.
Oooo, meeee-ow! Kitty has claws! 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Oh, wait, Dee — I might have got that wrong. I thought you were telling FredBob that you knew there were many transition forms because they email you. But I looked back and realize you might have meant there were many regular posters who don’t agree with macro-evolution who email you. The former would have been funnier. 🙂
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
If you could see some of the emails and moderated comments you might just think they are from transition forms. 😉
I think I better go back behind the curtain now.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn,
Real science is testable, observable, and repeatable. Humans give birth to humans – ALWAYS with no exceptions. Monkeys give birth to monkeys – ALWAYS with no exceptions. That is testable, observable, and repeatable. Macro evolution fails every single criteria for real science. It is based on assumption, speculation, conjecture, and presuppositions.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee said: True Hasidic Lubavitchers. They believe that time was not an issue until God created the sun and the moon. So, they believe in eons prior to the sun and the moon and literal days thereafter.
That’s very interesting. I know a Hebrew professor at a Baptist seminary who believes that. But I thought he was the only one; I’d never heard that others believe it.
But the concept of time dilation for all 6 creation days intrigues me. Could God have created all things, with the full processes and time needed for the universe to actually be (not just appear) ~14 billion years old, and the Earth be 4.5 billion years old, with all of the life forms distibuted in the geologic strata accordingly — and still have done so in the 6 days recorded in Genesis? I don’t know enough science to know if that is possible, but I know enough science fiction to wonder about stuff like that.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
How about lions, tigers, horses, zebras, camels, llamas, leopards, dolphins, false killer whales, donkeys, bison, cattle, sheep, goats, and more.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Yes, GBTC, I’m sure that’s true. Glad I don’t have your job!
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn,
Let me ask you a simple question: What gave birth to the very first human? A non human?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Depends on how you define human. And if you feel Adam was the first human then most Christians don’t believe he was born. Anyway.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. (ESV) 🙂
What is meant by image and likeness? 10 fingers, 10 toes, etc… or his soul? I and others I know feel the later. This makes me a heretic in the minds of many. But I don’t care who gave birth to Adam.
What about my question?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
What defines us as human? Two arms and legs and a brain? Monkeys have that.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
I was referring to my emails. But, there was this one from a whale that had a couple of arms…
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Lynn
I like the part in Genesis in which it says that God breathed life into the man. It does not say that God breathed life into the animals. So, was that a special thing? How about the soul?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“What defines us as human?”
I answered. Our soul.
What about mixed species breeding. Are you saying it cannot occur? We really don’t define species very well? Or something else.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
dee said: I was referring to my emails. But, there was this one from a whale that had a couple of arms…
I have emailed you — are you calling me fat??
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
“Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience, are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a “person”.”
Simple answer – a human is a person. So what gave birth to the very first person – a non person? I am asking an honest question and I would like an honest answer.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob: “Hi Zeta,
A. I do not have a clue how old the Earth is, and I do not want to speculate on that.”
hmm, it’s a rather important part of the evidence that supports evolution. How can you possibly have any kind of legitimate critique of the theory of evolution if you have no clue or understanding of the actual timeframe of the Universe and the Earth and the evidence that supports that?
FredBob “B. I do not know how long life has been on the Earth and I do not wish to speculate on that either.”
OK …… this is puzzling. You are SURE evolution is wrong and stupid, yet you have no idea how long life has been on the earth, nor do you want to discuss that issue either? FredBob, again, how can you be expected to be taken seriously as a critiquer of evolution when you have no idea what the history of life is on the Earth or the evidence that supports it? So far, you appear to be arguing from a position of complete ignorance.
FredBob: “C. Yes there are and were many differing life forms. I will not speculate on any time frame of these forms.”
Indeed! And yet …. you are competent to critique the theory of evolution and can proclaim it is NOT science and totally messed up?!?! This is getting …. interesting.
FredBob: “D. I do not agree that there are any transitional fossils from one life form to another.”
How would you know? You don’t know anything about the age of the Earth. Or the time frame over which it has existed or over which life itself has existed, or their order or relative duration.
Think about it fredBob, you know nothing of the age of the Earth or the history of life, yet you here proclaim transitionals, which form bridges between earlier life forms (which you admit you know nothing about) and later life forms (which you admit you know nothing about.
So – you know nothing about the history of the earth or life on it or the associated evidence and yet you proclaim there are ‘no transitionals.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not impressed Fred. It sounds like you just pretty much arbitrarily decided what you want to think and now you are here to proclaim that in very bold ignorance.
Do you suppose that makes any sense?
FredBob: “Am I the only Christian on this blog who does not agree with macro evolution? Just curious.”
Probably not. But you are the only one proclaiming you know nothing about it yet can conclude it is false.
Interesting.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Muff Potter: “Zeta,
Fascinating presentations by Lamoureux & Miller!! (on you tube)
Here’s my critique:
We are products of Western Hellenism, we can’t help ourselves. Everything must be neatly boxed up with no cracks, nothing left to chance, and the metaphysical banished from the table altogether.
At best, the special (supernatural) creation of living things (amongst TE & EC evangelicals) is given only a niggardly currency, and at worst, it is ruled out altogether as simply irrelevant based on current science (although Dee at one point does make it clear that God has the power to do anything he wishes).
Things appeal to all of us based on internal resonance. Spin is everything. Gerald Schroeder’s spin finds more resonance with me than does Lamoureux & Miller. I have always gravitated toward a Jewish view of things rather than the musings of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Maimonides & Nahmanides have exerted a much stronger pull on me than the Christian thinkers. This DOES NOT imply lockstep with everything the Jewish sages said, nor does it imply a rejection of all Christian thought, only that I am a borrower of ideas from all traditions.
“
Hi Muff, I too have been impressed by the wisdom in the great Jewish writings. We can gain a lot by understanding the Jewish traditions, they feed strongly into and can significantly illuminate our understanding of Jesus’ teachings. And they tend to think very deeply about things, and in ways that are sometimes refreshingly different.
And I’m glad you enjoyed Lamoureux & Miller. If you get a chance get Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”. It is an extremely good read and has a lot of information on this topic as well us some rather deep insights into why God would work through a process like evolution in the creation of life.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob “Real science is testable, observable, and repeatable. Humans give birth to humans – ALWAYS with no exceptions. Monkeys give birth to monkeys – ALWAYS with no exceptions. That is testable, observable, and repeatable. Macro evolution fails every single criteria for real science. It is based on assumption, speculation, conjecture, and presuppositions.”
Fred, you are just repeating things you’ve heard, sound bites designed to appeal to the ignorant, sound bites that are essentially false.
There are on average in all of us 60 new mutations that are the result of DNA copy errors or cosmogenic damage etc. changes in our DNA that we received from neither of our parents nor any of our ancestors. Each birth produces a new kind of human that is very, very slightly different from any human that came before, not merely a mix of old genetic material but containing entirely NEW material.
This is also true for horses and cats and dogs and so forth. These changes are so imperceptable that in any one generation to the next no-one would claim the ‘new’ human was really any different from the ‘old’ ones that made them. But over time if these changes become fixed into a population, they can (and do) add up.
Your claim is based on the absurd proposition that one can expect to see a single generation change that would allow us to classify some new species – and that is just yet another example of how little you know about evolution.
So again, I ask you, how in the world do you suppose you can legitimately claim Evolution is not science when you literally have no clue what the theory is, how it works, or what the evidence is for it?
Fred, I’m not trying to be rude, but do you not remember what Jesus said about the teachers that cause the young ones to stumble? How dare you propose to teach on a subject you know nothing about? Do you not realize that if you feed the ignorant false information that causes them to stumble YOU are guilty of their souls?
And I would guess you, like many YE folks, think you are helping these young ones by keeping them from being dragged away from the faith by evolution. But let me caution you. When the young ones fall away from the faith over evolution, it is because
1) They have been taught evolution and faith in Christ are incompatable
2) They find out the evidence FOR evolution is almost irrefutable.
What you are doing by ignorantly proclaiming things that you have absolutely no personal knowledge to back up (like ‘evolution is not science’), you add another nail in their coffin. Because, you add step 3
3) they were taught the opposite of 2 in absolute ignorance.
Go learn about these things you don’t want to know anything about so at least you have some clue what you are talking about, or STOP teaching on the subject lest you find yourself deserving a millstone around you neck due to reckless negligence!
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee: ”
I like the part in Genesis in which it says that God breathed life into the man. It does not say that God breathed life into the animals. So, was that a special thing? How about the soul?”
I really do think this is telling us God did something unique and special with the creation of man. He formed man from the dust of the Earth seems to me to say our physical form is created in much the same way as the rest of the animals (from the Earth), but that He took special care with us. And then when our form was correct, or finished, He gave us something more, something special. Now clearly ‘breathed’ is a metaphor, like God ‘walking’ in the garden, or ‘walking’ on the firmament. So I don’t wouldn’t think it makes sense to try come derive a ‘mechanism’ for how this worked, but I would still trust this is what God did. He made our physical form, but at some point he ‘woke us’/gave us a soul, something more than the animals – and that is what distinguishes us from the animals.
And given the nature of a breath, balanced with Gods activity in forming us, it would not surprise me if this were not some gentle, gradual process over time of God bringing us to the place were we were ‘mankind’. Keeping in mind that Adam in hebrew means both the man Adam and mankind – all of us. Remember also that the same word that is in the second creation narrative (ch 2) that refers to the single man Adam, is used in the creation of mankind – in the plural i.e. mankind – in Genesis Chapter 1:26. Such double meaning is OFTEN not by mistake in scripture.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Hi Zeta,
You said: “I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not impressed Fred.”
I am not trying to impress anyone. I do not want to speculate and guess at answers. Neither do I want to parrot what someone has said.
Right now, I am looking for one simple question to be answered: What gave birth to the very first human person? No one has even attempted to answer that question yet. Why is that?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta, you said: “There are on average in all of us 60 new mutations that are the result of DNA copy errors or cosmogenic damage etc. changes in our DNA that we received from neither of our parents nor any of our ancestors. Each birth produces a new kind of human that is very, very slightly different from any human that came before, not merely a mix of old genetic material but containing entirely NEW material.”
That is micro evolution. I already said that I agree with micro evolution. I disagree with macro evolution.
And I am NOT a YEC. I already told you that I do not know the age of the Earth. So please quit accusing me of things that are not true.
You said:
1: “They have been taught evolution and faith in Christ are incompatable.” Not by me they have not.
2)”They find out the evidence FOR evolution is almost irrefutable.”
Micro evolution – yes. Macro evolution – not even close.
The Bible says that “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”
What good is all of this so called science knowledge if it is used to beat up on YEC’s (which I am not).
“If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” 1 Cor 13:2
We are taught to shepherd the flock of God, not slaughter them. Nobody cares how much we know if they do not know how much we care. This lack of love and compassion will cause the little ones to sin and go astray much faster that any misinformation about evolution. There was no debate concerning evolution when Jesus was speaking those words, so I doubt seriously that was what He had in mind.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta,
What about my sci-fi scenario of a genuinely 14 billion year old earth created in 6 days? You know, like a person orbiting a black hole close to the event horizon experiencing time at a different rate than someone further away. I know, I’m an ignoramus who’s watched too much Star Trek and Stargate, but is there any merit in the concept?
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
I would ask that you be a bit more careful in how you respond. It can appear insulting and confusing, especially when people, such as Zeta, takes time and effort to answer you in a thoughtful manner. You seem to be descending into the same sort of hole that our dearly departed NBTT disappeared into. Saying the knowledge puffs up is derogatory.
When the Scripture talks about knowledge that “puffs up” it means knowledge that causes us to believe that we know more than God or knowledge that causes us to stop believing in God.
God gave us marvelous brains and wants us to use our intellect in His service. Many of my friends, Zeta is one, have been gifted with minds that understand science and complex math. They use this in the service of their Creator.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster
I happen to know that Zeta is not home this evening. Bet he will answer you in the AM.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Junkster: “Zeta,
What about my sci-fi scenario of a genuinely 14 billion year old earth created in 6 days? You know, like a person orbiting a black hole close to the event horizon experiencing time at a different rate than someone further away. I know, I’m an ignoramus who’s watched too much Star Trek and Stargate, but is there any merit in the concept?”
There is no doubt that there is some inertial frame from which the 13.7 billion years of the Universe’s history would be perceived as 6 days. It would be a frame that would look a lot to us like it was moving at almost the speed of light. But it is clearly a possibility. The biggest problem I see is that a direct mapping of the 6 days doesn’t really match the known order of creation.
However, as a strong counter to my opinion, there is a Jewish physicist who has worked on this idea. Muff Potter mentioned him Earlier. He wrote a book called Genesis and the Big Bang in 1990. His name is Gerald Schroeder. So you, as a matter of fact, are in some pretty good company.
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
FredBob
People have answered. You are not getting the answer. Please be a bit kinder and less demanding.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
I just got through saying you were out. But then i realized it is past 12. I need to go to bed.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Dee,
The concert went well, but I don’t leave town till tomorrow. So I’m going to try to catch up before I go …
Zeta
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Zeta
Bill was on call so we couldn’t come. I hate that I missed it. By my adding of this comment, we are 3 comments away from 500!!!! Looks like this is a hot topic, in more ways than one.
Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127
Fred Bob: “I am not trying to impress anyone. I do not want to speculate and guess at answers. Neither do I want to parrot what someone has said.”
The problem is most of what you have said about evolution so far is simply a parrot of the one or two sentence sound bytes found on various (mostly YE) anti-evolution sites. So I am not sure why you find it comfortable to parrot their decidedly unscientific conclusions yet are afraid to parrot the conclusions of some of the most brilliant scientific minds in history?
”
Right now, I am looking for one simple question to be answered: What gave birth to the very first human person? No one has even attempted to ans