rsc2a said:
Nah that's not it, but good try. Why? Because with Petey the uncharitableness is obvious, not so with Ken. But hey if you repeat...
Nah that's not it, but good try. Why? Because with Petey the uncharitableness is obvious, not so with Ken. But hey if you repeat...
From "Millions of Years-Are Souls at Stake?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v9/n1/souls-at-stake)
When creationists take a strong stand that God created the earth six thousand years ago, they’re often accused of making this a salvation issue. Well, it isn’t a salvation issue—but it is!
So the summary makes it sound like they're going to be charitable to those who disagree, but then they add "not really"
nowhere does the Bible even imply salvation in Christ is conditioned upon one’s belief concerning the days of creation or the age of the earth or universe.
So far so, good . . . .
Salvation is conditional upon faith in Christ—not belief about the six days of creation or the earth’s age. So these are not salvation issues per se. But it is a salvation issue in an indirect sense. Let me explain.
Wait for it . . .
One cannot get the idea of millions of years from the Bible. This idea comes from outside of Scripture. When a Christian adds millions of years to the Bible and reinterprets the days of creation or tries to fit this extra time into the first verse in Genesis or a supposed gap between the first and second verses, he is allowing fallible man to be in authority over God’s Word.
Just like Christians who believe in the water cycle are adding to Scripture. After all "in Matthew 5:45, Jesus said, 'God sends the rain,' not 'Undirected physical processes like evaporation and condensation send the rain.'" (Tyler Francke)
So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.
So subllibrm, ALAYMAN, and Matthew Ward, is it charitable to say that someone who disagrees with your interpretation of a verse is impugning the character of Christ?
And that's just one of many, many articles on AIG that "impugn" those of us who are committed Christians who accept mainstream science.
When creationists take a strong stand that God created the earth six thousand years ago, they’re often accused of making this a salvation issue. Well, it isn’t a salvation issue—but it is!
So the summary makes it sound like they're going to be charitable to those who disagree, but then they add "not really"
nowhere does the Bible even imply salvation in Christ is conditioned upon one’s belief concerning the days of creation or the age of the earth or universe.
So far so, good . . . .
Salvation is conditional upon faith in Christ—not belief about the six days of creation or the earth’s age. So these are not salvation issues per se. But it is a salvation issue in an indirect sense. Let me explain.
Wait for it . . .
One cannot get the idea of millions of years from the Bible. This idea comes from outside of Scripture. When a Christian adds millions of years to the Bible and reinterprets the days of creation or tries to fit this extra time into the first verse in Genesis or a supposed gap between the first and second verses, he is allowing fallible man to be in authority over God’s Word.
Just like Christians who believe in the water cycle are adding to Scripture. After all "in Matthew 5:45, Jesus said, 'God sends the rain,' not 'Undirected physical processes like evaporation and condensation send the rain.'" (Tyler Francke)
So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.
So subllibrm, ALAYMAN, and Matthew Ward, is it charitable to say that someone who disagrees with your interpretation of a verse is impugning the character of Christ?
And that's just one of many, many articles on AIG that "impugn" those of us who are committed Christians who accept mainstream science.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,012
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 113
ddgently said:
Really good article, thanks for linking to it, and hope many read it and believe the truth in it.
The best part, which you failed to cite, was his summation at the conclusion of the article...
ddently said:
I'm a radiochemist (scientist) with a Masters of Science from an accredited university, but thanks for the attempt to marginalize those who disagree with the majority. That's PRECISELY the main ploy that Nye attempted in the debate too.
And as far as the "impugning" or "uncharitable" nature of Ham pointing out what he believes to be compromise of the authority of the Bible and ultimately a slippery slope to undermining the gospel, it is no different whatsoever than, oh, say, Charles Spurgeon declaring that "Calvinism is the gospel". I think he is wrong, but I don't get my undies bent out of shape merely because he boldly declares his convictions. It is an in-house debate, not unlike many others, and mere disagreement, even sharp disagreement, is not a reason to say things like "he was less of a Chrisitan than the pagan".
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,092
- Reaction score
- 762
- Points
- 113
ddgently said:
When my kids were little we didn't "do" santa claus. Not because I believe him to be satanic. Not because I wanted to save a little cash at Christmas time. We didn't because I wanted any and all focus of the season on Christ. Also I wanted any and all reports of omniscient behavior to be credited to God and God alone.
How does this fit the question at hand? When I open my bible to learn, study, meditate, teach, worship I find that those all require faith, trust and surrender. Surrender to the idea that this book (of books) holds the truth that God Himself wants me to know. To live by. To build my worldview upon. The truth the He took the time to provide through the authors of His choosing. When it says that Jesus brought Lazarus out of the grave, I believe it. When it says Mary conceived as a virgin, I believe it. When it say Jesus died and arose the third day, I believe it. You can no more prove that Jesus walked on water than I can prove Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish. But Jesus confirms both and I believe both. I do not see where I can then take my own brilliant mind and "reason" that other parts aren't true.
Jesus had no problem quoting from Genesis as fact. Was He one of those less understanding "ancients" that didn't have the information we have today? Was He unable to straighten out all those misled people on their ideas of origins? Was He not able to tell the difference between history and allegory? When He Himself appeals to Genesis to make His case (for marriage as an example) He does it as a fact of history.
Someone here recently made the statement that the first 11 books of Genesis are not to be taken literally. Really? By what special revelation did they discern that "truth"?
So upon what authority can anyone make the claim that they are smart enough to tell the real miracles from the allegorical (allegedly) ones? What ever that authority is, they are making a claim to be smarter than Jesus because He thought He did it the way He said He did it but really didn't.
So yes, to say that He misunderstood the truth of how He created His world/universe and/or didn't find it important enough to correct any errors in the understanding of the people would, at the very minimum, put doubt into the validity of His teaching. To get there you have to believe the Creator didn't know how He did His Creating. Impugn His character? I don't know but it certainly doesn't make Him look very good as a teacher of truth.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=subllibrm]When my kids were little we didn't "do" santa claus. Not because I believe him to be satanic. Not because I wanted to save a little cash at Christmas time. We didn't because I wanted any and all focus of the season on Christ. Also I wanted any and all reports of omniscient behavior to be credited to God and God alone.
How does this fit the question at hand? When I open my bible to learn, study, meditate, teach, worship I find that those all require faith, trust and surrender. Surrender to the idea that this book (of books) holds the truth that God Himself wants me to know. To live by. To build my worldview upon. The truth the He took the time to provide through the authors of His choosing. When it says that Jesus brought Lazarus out of the grave, I believe it. When it says Mary conceived as a virgin, I believe it. When it say Jesus died and arose the third day, I believe it. You can no more prove that Jesus walked on water than I can prove Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish. But Jesus confirms both and I believe both. I do not see where I can then take my own brilliant mind and "reason" that other parts aren't true.
Jesus had no problem quoting from Genesis as fact. Was He one of those less understanding "ancients" that didn't have the information we have today? Was He unable to straighten out all those misled people on their ideas of origins? Was He not able to tell the difference between history and allegory? When He Himself appeals to Genesis to make His case (for marriage as an example) He does it as a fact of history.
Someone here recently made the statement that the first 11 books of Genesis are not to be taken literally. Really? By what special revelation did they discern that "truth"?
So upon what authority can anyone make the claim that they are smart enough to tell the real miracles from the allegorical (allegedly) ones? What ever that authority is, they are making a claim to be smarter than Jesus because He thought He did it the way He said He did it but really didn't.[/quote]
Jesus also said people have to eat of His flesh or drink of His blood to receive eternal life....
[quote author=subllibrm]So yes, to say that He misunderstood the truth of how He created His world/universe and/or didn't find it important enough to correct any errors in the understanding of the people would, at the very minimum, put doubt into the validity of His teaching. To get there you have to believe the Creator didn't know how He did His Creating. Impugn His character? I don't know but it certainly doesn't make Him look very good as a teacher of truth.[/quote]
And, simply put, no.
How does this fit the question at hand? When I open my bible to learn, study, meditate, teach, worship I find that those all require faith, trust and surrender. Surrender to the idea that this book (of books) holds the truth that God Himself wants me to know. To live by. To build my worldview upon. The truth the He took the time to provide through the authors of His choosing. When it says that Jesus brought Lazarus out of the grave, I believe it. When it says Mary conceived as a virgin, I believe it. When it say Jesus died and arose the third day, I believe it. You can no more prove that Jesus walked on water than I can prove Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish. But Jesus confirms both and I believe both. I do not see where I can then take my own brilliant mind and "reason" that other parts aren't true.
Jesus had no problem quoting from Genesis as fact. Was He one of those less understanding "ancients" that didn't have the information we have today? Was He unable to straighten out all those misled people on their ideas of origins? Was He not able to tell the difference between history and allegory? When He Himself appeals to Genesis to make His case (for marriage as an example) He does it as a fact of history.
Someone here recently made the statement that the first 11 books of Genesis are not to be taken literally. Really? By what special revelation did they discern that "truth"?
So upon what authority can anyone make the claim that they are smart enough to tell the real miracles from the allegorical (allegedly) ones? What ever that authority is, they are making a claim to be smarter than Jesus because He thought He did it the way He said He did it but really didn't.[/quote]
Jesus also said people have to eat of His flesh or drink of His blood to receive eternal life....
[quote author=subllibrm]So yes, to say that He misunderstood the truth of how He created His world/universe and/or didn't find it important enough to correct any errors in the understanding of the people would, at the very minimum, put doubt into the validity of His teaching. To get there you have to believe the Creator didn't know how He did His Creating. Impugn His character? I don't know but it certainly doesn't make Him look very good as a teacher of truth.[/quote]
And, simply put, no.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,092
- Reaction score
- 762
- Points
- 113
rsc2a said:
Jesus also said people have to eat of His flesh or drink of His blood to receive eternal life....
[quote author=subllibrm]So yes, to say that He misunderstood the truth of how He created His world/universe and/or didn't find it important enough to correct any errors in the understanding of the people would, at the very minimum, put doubt into the validity of His teaching. To get there you have to believe the Creator didn't know how He did His Creating. Impugn His character? I don't know but it certainly doesn't make Him look very good as a teacher of truth.[/quote]
And, simply put, no.
[/quote]
Since you are one of the ones who has the special glasses of discernment, would you be so kind as to help us understand when a miracle is a miracle and when it is just a story? We can start after Genesis 11 since "everyone knows" those things didn't really happen and aren't "scientific".
Destruction of Sodom?
Isaac's conception/birth?
Jacob's ladder?
10 plagues?
Death angel obeys the mark of the Passover Lamb?
Burning Bush?
Red Sea parted?
Pillar of fire and smoke?
Manna from heaven (throw the hail of quail in here if you want)?
Water from a rock?
Jordan River?
Jericho?
Fiery Furnace?
Lions losing their appetite?
Bottomless oil jar?
and so on ....
Can't see any point in trying to prove them scientifically when their express purpose was to show God's power and might. Not sure why origins would need to be treated any differently.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=subllibrm]Since you are one of the ones who has the special glasses of discernment, would you be so kind as to help us understand when a miracle is a miracle and when it is just a story? We can start after Genesis 11 since "everyone knows" those things didn't really happen and aren't "scientific".[/quote]
I haven't said anything of the sort, but I'm amused at how often people who make the arguments you are making retreat from their position when discussing John 6.
I haven't said anything of the sort, but I'm amused at how often people who make the arguments you are making retreat from their position when discussing John 6.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,092
- Reaction score
- 762
- Points
- 113
rsc2a said:
I haven't said anything of the sort, but I'm amused at how often people who make the arguments you are making retreat from their position when discussing John 6.
[/quote]
Were you not the one who said that the first 11 books of Genesis are not historical? If so upon what authority do you make this claim? If not my apologies.
As to your John 6 allusion
The feeding of the thousands or the offer of Himself as the Bread of Life?
If the former, are you saying that this too is just allegorical?
If the latter can you show where He carved off a little slice-o-thumb for a sandwich? ???
ALAYMAN said:
I can see room for disagreement on whether Ham, Spurgeon, or anyone else who "boldly declares his convictions" is being charitable or not.
FWIW, I have a master's degree in physics, and I'm not trying to marginalize you personally. However (work with me here) should we take seriously every dissenting view in science? Do we have to make room at the table for flat-earthers, or geocentrists? Proponents of phlogiston or the luminiferous ether? At what point does a theory become well-established enough that dissenters aren't so much marginalized, but just ignored for their refusal to accept the evidence?
subllibrm said:
Plenty of Christians do not believe Jesus was omniscient while he was a man among us. Even if he was, why are you not equally surprised that he did not correct their geo-centrism, or invent computers for them, or teach them to wash their hands after touching a contaminant (the Jews presumably knew about this, but Christian Europe could have been spared a lot of black death had they been commanded by Jesus)?
If I appeal to the story of Hansel and Gretel to warn children about trusting strangers, does that mean I'm affirming the literal, historical truth of that story?
subllibrm said:
We could start with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Genesis)
subllibrm said:
Here we disagree, as rsc2a said.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
subllibrm said:
Were you not the one who said that the first 11 books of Genesis are not historical? If so upon what authority do you make this claim? If not my apologies.[/quote]
Wasn't me, and my agreeance would probably depend on how you define "historical".
[quote author=subllibrm]As to your John 6 allusion
The feeding of the thousands or the offer of Himself as the Bread of Life?
If the former, are you saying that this too is just allegorical?
If the latter can you show where He carved off a little slice-o-thumb for a sandwich? ???[/quote]
*wiggle, wiggle*
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=ddgently]Plenty of Christians do not believe Jesus was omniscient while he was a man among us. Even if he was, why are you not equally surprised that he did not correct their geo-centrism, or invent computers for them, or teach them to wash their hands after touching a contaminant (the Jews presumably knew about this, but Christian Europe could have been spared a lot of black death had they been commanded by Jesus)?
If I appeal to the story of Hansel and Gretel to warn children about trusting strangers, does that mean I'm affirming the literal, historical truth of that story?[/quote]
[quote author=ddgently]Here we disagree, as rsc2a said.[/quote]
It's like some folks have never heard of divine accommodation.
If I appeal to the story of Hansel and Gretel to warn children about trusting strangers, does that mean I'm affirming the literal, historical truth of that story?[/quote]
[quote author=ddgently]Here we disagree, as rsc2a said.[/quote]
It's like some folks have never heard of divine accommodation.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,092
- Reaction score
- 762
- Points
- 113
rsc2a said:
I guess I don't see the need for the Devine to accommodate your "science".
Jesus spoke a dead man back to life. Not allegorical but historical. Now explain that scientifically.
Why must scripture conform to "science" regarding creation but not for resurrection?
subllibrm said:rsc2a said:
I guess I don't see the need for the Devine to accommodate your "science".
Jesus spoke a dead man back to life. Not allegorical but historical. Now explain that scientifically.
Why must scripture conform to "science" regarding creation but not for resurrection?
The idea is not that God accommodates "our science." It's that He tailored his written revelation to the people living at the time to communicate the message he sought to bring them.
There's a difference between one-off events, like Christ miraculously raising a dead person to life (for which the only evidence we would expect to find is a written recording of it -- which we have) and the earth being only 6,000 years old. If the earth were that young there would be physical evidence for it (or conversely, a lack of evidence against it). That is not the case.
So what to do? Yes, we must look to extrabiblical sources to understand the biblical text. This seems at best a little scary, and at worst like we don't trust God to reveal himself in a way we understand.
But then consider that to understand any of the bible, we have to bring our intellects and experiences to bear (extrabiblical sources) in order to make any sense of it. And if our understanding of the Bible contradicts something we plainly observe with our God-given senses we have a second job of discernment: Is God trying to communicate something that happened miraculously, that contradicts my everyday experience? or is God communicating using stories and ideas the original audience would have understood, but that he did not expect them (a) to take literally, or (b) for us to take literally?
Take, for example, God's monologue to Job. He talks about "storehouses of snow" and "the abode of darkness." Now, we observe in the present that snow isn't stored anywhere, but forms in the atmosphere and then falls to earth. So we then ask, is God communicating something that happens miraculously, but contradicts our experience, or is he using language Job would understand to communicate something else?
The same is true of the creation story. If you do some research on other ancient near eastern creation myths, you'll find striking parallels. The difference being that God is exalted as the creator who brings order to chaos for a purpose and establishes a loving relationship with his creation. So then we ask, should we expect the claims to be accurate according to our modern science, or was God communicating something using language and stories the ancient Hebrews would understand?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
subllibrm said:
You didn't ask whether I believed any of them or not. You asked how you would determine if something was meant to be understood as "literal". Here's the answer: context.
Or one could state that...
what authority can anyone make the claim that they are smart enough to tell the real miracles from the allegorical (allegedly) ones? What ever that authority is, they are making a claim to be smarter than Jesus because He thought He did it the way He said He did it but really didn't.
...and then try to wiggle out of their statement when it crashes into their doctrinal presuppositions.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,012
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 113
ddgently said:
I'm glad you can, but apparently others like rsc2a can't, and what's worse about his opening remarks in this thread is that they were based on lies that he has yet to admit were lies. It is one thing to be ignorant, and another totally to be willfully ignorant.
ddently said:
<hat tip>
Are you using your degree in your current vocation?
ddently said:
No, I don't subscribe to the "all opinions are equal", but I do vehemently oppose the notion that consensus determines truth. As Ham pointed out, there are a whole lot of assumptions that must be accepted for the theory of evolution to be true. I'm a scientist at heart, a maverick in spirit that don't go along to get along, from the proverbial state of Missouri (you've got to show me, not merely attempt to force me to accept it because Stephen Hawking said it).
ALAYMAN said:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dgue/basic-assumptions-of-evolution
These form his list. Are there others? (I don't want to re-watch the whole debate.)
I would argue that these are assumptions of philosophical naturalism, which as a theist I oppose, and NOT scientific naturalism, which is I suppose just another way of saying "science" which I support.
To put a finer point on it, science, even as Ham likes to define it, deals in what is observable and falsifiable. This clearly excludes the supernatural.
Not to say for a moment that a scientist cannot affirm belief in the supernatural. Only that, as science is an endeavor to understand nature, anything outside of nature is outside science's purview.
ALAYMAN said:
I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.
Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=ddgently]I would argue that these are assumptions of philosophical naturalism, which as a theist I oppose, and scientific naturalism, which is I suppose just another way of saying "science."
To put a finer point on it, science, even as Ham likes to define it, deals in what is observable and falsifiable. This clearly excludes the supernatural.
Not to say for a moment that a scientist cannot affirm belief in the supernatural. Only that, as science is an endeavor to understand nature, anything outside of nature is outside science's purview.[/quote]
*nods*
To put a finer point on it, science, even as Ham likes to define it, deals in what is observable and falsifiable. This clearly excludes the supernatural.
Not to say for a moment that a scientist cannot affirm belief in the supernatural. Only that, as science is an endeavor to understand nature, anything outside of nature is outside science's purview.[/quote]
*nods*
C
christundivided
Guest
rsc2a said:
*nods*
[/quote]
You know what's laughable about both you guys????
Science has not defined the entirety of "natural law". They do not know its beginning nor do they know its end. YET, you both have the arrogance to claim it excludes the "super natural". While you might can use such a definition.... you have no practical way to apply it. NONE. Since you do not know the beginning or end to "natural law"..... You may very well determine a "natural law" as being "supernal". Thus..... EXCLUDING such from "true science".
You boys are pitiful. You think you know so much and you really don't know much of anything.