That is only true if you can “throw out the Darwinian model and take on the Biblical narrative” without fudging measurements, quote mining, misrepresenting or cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating or downplaying errors, subverting peer review, or cutting corners.
Remember, “taking on the Biblical narrative” means first and foremost obeying Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and the Ninth Commandment. Biblical interpretation must be honest and must get its facts straight.
Yep. Truth comes from reality, but I have difficulty getting that across to YECs. The classic example that I’ve mentioned before is when a YEC asked me for the chapter and verse where the Bible said that. XD
beaglelady, as long as you make comments like this, i will not respond to them. if you wish to exercise your talents in insulting ones intelligence, please go to your local pub during happy hour and talk with the drunks!
almost certainly that YEC must have been influenced adversely by Jehovahs Witnesses. That denomination is corrupting even sensible people here on these forums…help us!
You are insulted by a question? I thought we were discussing the Bible. We should be having a wonderful conversation.
Stop mentioning JWs in a derogatory way that is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
From our guidelines:
- Be willing to learn from the perspectives and expertise of others and respect the diversity of your conversation partners. This includes being sensitive to differences in educational backgrounds, faith traditions, cultural contexts, and levels of English language fluency.
We don’t appreciate it when entire groups are used as an example of what is wrong with the world. That’s just prejudice.
I don’t see how there’s even a connection to what I said, either, not to mention that @adamjedgar did not address my question.
If JWs are so terrible and corrupting, why do you use the Bible translation they produced?
Ironically, it is the young-earthers and ID advocates who are actually putting science ahead of the Bible. They accept the modernist claim that science is the ultimate authority and try to find science to support their theological claims, rather than rightly seeing science as merely the application of certain theological or philosophical principles to the physical world. Likewise, the valuing of “this supports my position” over “is it true?” puts their scientific claims over the plain ethical teaching of the Bible. Jesus did not approve of letting human traditions trump God’s commandments.
Note that there is a certain validity to Adam’s comment that some of the whale transitional forms suggest a crocodile, or other young-earth claims that they’re otters. The implied slander that paleontologists who are experts on whales are incompetent and dishonest enough to claim that a crocodile or otter is a whale is, of course, not true. I work on mollusks, not vertebrates, but I know enough about teeth and bones to easily see that there is only a rough general resemblance of shape between the whale ancestors and a crocodile or otter. But what is the life habit of crocodiles [ignoring all sorts of fossil types not found today] and otters? They are semiaquatic predators, living a life transitional between land-dwelling and fully aquatic. Both have more fully aquatic relatives. In other words, “it looks kind of like a crocodile or otter” is exactly what a transitional form on the way to being a whale should look like.
You hit the nail square on the head. To the YEC, ironically, everything outside the casual mundane experience is a farce. This is why evolution cannot be true because “After all the generations of dogs we’ve bred, we never got a cat”, where humans couldn’t have shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees because “We don’t see monkey people around today”, where solid rock can’t warp no matter the heat and pressure because “when I try to bend a rock it just breaks”, and where foxes are in the dog kind (whatever that means) because “Even a child could see how dog-like they are”.
The Earth is blue but there is no God, am I right folks?
It’s a bit like going to a classic muscle car show and telling the car show judges that a Chevy Camaro looks just like a Ford Mustang. Perhaps to the non-expert there are not a lot of differences between the two, but if you wade into the midst of experts you might want to be aware of the difference in experience and knowledge.
im sorry what? 
I really struggle to follow your thinking processes when statements like this get made…is that an understanding of SDA doctrine or are you just making a claim out of a vacume?
No that is complete nonsense…statements made based on the secular scientific model that disagree with bible theology are a farce! That is what YEC’s believe!
Look here is the bottom line…
if so,
If my understanding of the statements of the founder of this movement here are correct, then the reason for the existence of biologos was to find a compromise between the two so that people who were supposedly struggling with their theology and allowing secular science to overwhelm a poor philosophical position, could still remain Christian. That is exactly the place where this theology makes a grave mistake. Jesus said quite directly “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to give up his wealth”…that statement applies to our spirituality directly. Earthly possessions, such as the concept of the inerrancy of science, cannot explain or replace God and they certainly are not first and foremost over and above God! To take this position is to take the identical position to those who laughed at Noah’s preaching for many many years prior to the flood. It is generally accepted that they simply discounted his warnings citing that no evidence existed concerning the idea of rain and flood prior to this time. That was proven a foolish position in the end, as the fossil record now shows quite clearly, and the same will happen again!
This is what you wrote in December:
Here is a list of some the published scriptures that i use:
Vulgate (translated into English because i cannot read latin)
Codex Sinaiticus (found here Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |)
King James
New King James
NIV
ESV
NASB
NLT (although i dont see this as authoritative so where it disagrees with above texts i use them)
*Greek interlinear ( Nestle 1904 〈NE **〉*Eberhard Nestle, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Text with Critical Apparatus . (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904))
Strongs concordance
I will even use NWT published by JW’s at times, although not authoritatively as this production has a lot of conflicts with practically every other translation that i regularly use…it is very clear that is writers have changed the original text to suit doctrines as it disagrees in many many places with their own published interlinear…and they just so happen to always be in the very places where there are very significant doctrinal issues.
btw, the word is vacuum not vacume
only when your autocorrect says so!
So, let me get this straight, a person says to you, they read from a wide range of bibles, point out that even one that is grossly inadequate (ie NWT) is also used, you then take that it to mean that i read only the NWT?
I would have thought that my going to great lengths to add the following beside the NWT translation…
I will even use NWT published by JW’s at times, although not authoritatively as this production has a lot of conflicts with practically every other translation that i regularly use…it is very clear that is writers have changed the original text to suit doctrines as it disagrees in many many places with their own published interlinear…and they just so happen to always be in the very places where there are very significant doctrinal issues.
…should at least have you consider there may be a reason why i might read that translation?
You probably are not aware of JW theology, however, Watchtower do not tend to look favourably upon members who read other publications other than those produced by them…they will even run re-education sessions to members who are caught doing this who then go on to question JW fundamentals as a result!
Yes i do knock JW theology…it is truly a cult and the practices of that movement, such as the one outlined above, are extremely worrying. It gets far worse than that, however, as the Australian Government Royal Commission into the willful and intentional covering up of child sexual abuse by that church, exposed! It was the strict requirement for the adherence of leaders in that denomination to a ridiculous interpretation of scripture even though obviously contrary to criminal law and significant other bible passages proving the theological error, that lead to the covering up of as many as 1000 cases of sexual abuse and assault just within Australia alone and the destruction of court evidence in a further attempt to hide this evil practise from scrutiny. If it was found that my own denomination did this, i would leave, period!
Anyway, so the reason for also reading the NWT is so that one may converse with them in a manner that they are allowed to interact and see as authoritative when considering passages of scripture. (rant about JW’s over)
Right. I was a part of this camp once.
Yeah.
You’re gonna bring up The Nicene Creed and agree to disagree, right?
Nope, too good to be true.
Right. I am trying to live as Christus did. No disagreements there.
I know. He that does not believe God to be merciful and just and pays Him lip-service are people He does not know. I think we’re both off the fence.
The Bible doesn’t support any scientific theories because it is not a book of science. Though I am certainly not Calvinist, I think he said it best that God lisps in our language; after all, He did become a man of 1st century Palestine. And by “not including God”, remember that Christus Himself says that God clothes the lilies of the field and that He provides for the birds of the air, and yet they are still going about their business? And recall how, in contradiction of Sola Scriptura, God has spoken through The Prophets and The Church who made The Bible as it is now, human beings? And recall how a great wind had blown apart the Sea of Reeds in accordance with computer tests on now dried bodies of water in Egypt; it is true that The Lord works in mysterious ways, often with people where they were/are.
Perhaps they need to understand that an ancient collection of Holy Texts with an ancient context cannot simply be read at “face value”.
Supposedly? Mind-reading is an unfortunate hobby to take up. Well you’re right about one thing: science was overwhelming a poor philosophical position that required God to fashion countless species with the biological equivalent of loaded firearms in kindergarten and with the will (but not the resources) to reproduce endlessly, while only having death apply to plants and cells because reasons.
If you’re upset by the fact that animals died before The Fall of Man and that The Flood wasn’t necessarily Global, it’s in The Text.
He did, and I absolutely agree, which is why I worship Him and not evolution. I’m simply trying to understand His Word in the world He made and wrote it in.
Yikes man, I never said you were going to Hell. At first I too regrettably condemned everyone who disagreed with me. Then there was a brief and embarrassing episode where I tried to fool myself into thinking everyone was going to be saved, which also became untenable. Now I hope all will see God, yet keep myself in check by remembering that there will be some who say “Lord, Lord,” yet He will not know them. My father reminded me that this could very well be us. Keep that in mind.
I don’t hold ill will against you, nor do I think you are damned for not being correct about matters of science. I’m just worried that your faith might be built on a weak foundation.
may i ask, can you elaborate on this please? I havent yet seen evidence suggesting that the area where it is likely that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea is now dry land.
How does one come to that conclusion from a scientific point of view exactly? A person extensively provides very strong theological arguments supported by the bible and you make the claim of a weak foundation? It seems to me that the weak foundation comes from the scientific side of things and not the theological one.
All of the arugments i have illustrated that are very damning of TEism highlight to significant issues that the view has.
Let me ask you a series of questions:
and, that the ultimate price Jesus paid must be both spiritual and physical death
What was the purpose of all of the trials and tribulations of the Israelites over the generations of the O/T…were these all just imaginary stories or were they real events? (consider Israelite history from judges right through to Jesus birth). Woud you not agree that God gave us these historical events as a means of understanding the plan of salvation and what happens when we obey/disobey…they are a guide for us?
Would you not agree that the accounts in the bible from the judges through until the birth of the Messiah are all literal historical events?
Do you believe that the earthly tabernacle is also a fairytale and that the structure never existed or is it in fact as i say a real structure and real events surrounded this narrative?
finally, if all of the above you essentially agree with, why then would you suddenly decide that the books written before the above are fairytales where those books refer to the origins of life on earth? Wouldnt you agree that from a literary and indeed even a logical sense, this is inconsistent with the rest of the biblical narrative? For example, when we consider prophetic books in the bible, it is very plainly obvious those passages are indeed prophetic…quite often because the writer tells us it is (ie Daniel 2 and Matthew 24 etc). This is never the case when Moses talks of creation or the flood. Can you honestly and theologically explain this problem that you face?
What i am hearing from TE’s is that science says the interpretation of the Bible must be wrong. I say to you, no Creation Science does not disagree with the bible narrative…you ignore that and keep saying “science disagrees” (what you are in fact saying is, creation science is a lie no matter what it finds that very clearly highlights error in the secular science model)
Sure thing! So apparently what we often read as Red Sea, is Yam Suph, which should be translated as Sea of Reeds, which doesn’t necessarily denote an ocean. This has lead to the theory that God used a wind setdown in the Nile Delta to allow His people to flee from Egypt.
Okay.
Christ died so He could save us from sin and death as Christus Victor. His ministry on Earth was to teach His children to be His representatives to the world and make it “on Earth as it is in heaven”. One can find Jesus all over the Old Testament, and He shall one day return to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
Oh they were real all right. There was an Exodus, there was definitely some kind of a Conquest, there were certainly Holy Prophets, a United Kingdom and then 2, a Temple; all of that must surely be. Perhaps the stories about them were not compiled at the time they occurred and perhaps a bit hyperbolic in an Ancient Near Eastern way, but I see no reason to disregard them. God definitely allowed The Authors to recall those events in such a way that they become useful to our spiritual instruction and salvation, aka Dei Verbum. This includes the hairier bits of Scripture, which Saint Gregory of Nyssa believed still served us well if understood allegorically (Life of Moses).
Yeah. I’ve been given no reason to doubt.
No, I’ve been given no reason to doubt that either.
Well I wouldn’t call them fairytales; they still discuss the nature of God and humanity, so I wouldn’t read these stories to my naughty 19th century German kinders to make them afraid of thumb-sucking and wasting porridge. The reason why I think the earliest bits of Genesis are myth and mythic history, is because I’ve looked critically at the stories and the world God has made and studied the essentials of The Faith and came to the conclusion that a plain reading is just untenable. It won’t inhibit faithfulness to Christ if one still believes Genesis 1-11 to be literal though; both Father Seraphim Rose and Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky were deeply spiritual Christians that had differing views on evolution. Regarding the Moses comment, we can’t be so sure that he wrote it. Source criticism aside, he never claimed to have written the first five books.
I’m not sure we’re saying that. I think science says that one specific interpretation of The Bible is wrong. I will reconsider my position if creation science can find me a wooly mammoth in the Ediacaran strata, which hasn’t been produced. Not yet.
can i ask, what is your background theologically, how did you come to be a christian and what denomination?
I aks this because some of your statements almost seem catholic, however others indicate the influence of …hmm…i am not actually sure how to decide…but it almost appears like a bit of a crossover between catholicism and an ancient theology related to something like modern Mormonism (i mean no disrepect by that I am genuinely interested)
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.