Don’t quit your day job to become a comic. You might take a night class in logic though, speaking of.
as usual, no bible references…hence the bad theology and poor biblical understanding. If you would read the bible first and then choose the science that matches the bible, you would not muck this stuff up all the time.
Perhaps a simple question for you to answer…
Given that we know that the layers of rock found in the grand canyon are sedimentary, and well over a mile thick…how did all those sedimentary layers get there?
Do you disagree that these layers were deposited as a result of water?
Would you also agree that the same layering is found in other parts of the world such as the middle east and Australia etc?
Doesnt that seem rather unusual if there was no global flood?
I think it is more rational to say that the same body of water deposited those layers around the globe…and this makes sense when read from the biblical flood perspective…its very likely the same event that did all of this.
Creationist talents are wasted in Biologos. Why aren’t they swarming all over Gutsick Gibbon’s videos?
Thats like saying we shouldnt bother witnessing to atheists. Do you see the problem with your claim here?
Do you recall Christ saying in the Bible that Christians should “only speak the gospel to those who believe”? I dont. It doesnt matter if Biologos wants to change its theology or not, that is not the point. Even Biologos individuals would agree that as we grow, we change our views based on what we learn and experience. Even I have changed my views over the years…when i was young, I was convinced that dinosaurs were not created by God but were part of the corruption and reason why he destroyed the earth with a flood. Even AIG says that my view on this as a youngster was wrong!
I struggle a bit with the idea of God creating dinosaurs…its difficult to imagine how they might have looked at the time of Eden, when all animals were herbivores.
1 Like
Well precisely, Adam. Of course I don’t take those verses literally. Of course it would be poor theology to read them as if they were literally.
But I’m not claiming that you should read those verses literally. I am pointing out that you yourself recognise that there are verses of Scripture that we should not read literally. I am pointing out that you yourself recognise that there are such things as analogies, anthropomorphisms, figures of speech and all the rest of it in the Bible. I am pointing out that you yourself recognise that such a fact poses no threat whatsoever to the integrity of the Bible and its message. And I am pointing out that you yourself recognise that one of the reasons why we should treat them as figures of speech is that reading them literally would bring them into head-on collision with indisputable, objective reality.
Yet you stubbornly refuse to recognise the very same thing when you talk about the age of the earth. Not only that, but you also denounce anyone who does maintain this consistent approach to Scripture as “compromisers” or “bowing the knee to secular science” or whatever other childish insult you can come up with.
Because you have two completely different standards in how we should approach Scripture – one for the age of the earth, and one for everything else, the only person with really poor theology is yourself.
2 Likes
Absolutely, however, you are trying to claim allagory when the languarge you are reading is clearly not intended to be read that way. You are trying to force meaning into what the author/writer of the pages you are reading has not intended. Anyone with any literary experience and in particular formal training in literary techniques, will deny that the correct way to read the first 5 books of Moses is as an allegory!
You cannot take the principles of poetry and apply them to texts that are clearly not poetry!
As an exmple of the error of your claim…i will again post the link to all the verses in the bible that refer to the creation account (I urge you to actually take the time to read them):
'You deny creation, you turn more than 33 books of the bible into an allegory. You may as well give up of Christianity, the whole thing is a fairytale and that is the entire problem with TEism. It believes that the real harm is in the bible not agreeing with secular science…so we need to bend our religion in order to harmonize with secularism. That is absolutely false doctrine and the Bible warns us repeatedly about the foolishness of that model. It is not what God has said we should do, our ultimate source of all authority must be the bible…and that is because God (the author of the Bible) created us!
Anyway, enough of this…on the topic of the O.P, I have no problem that AIG hasnt got all the answers…secularism has more problems it cannot explain when it comes to humanistic interpretation of the science.
- No, as a matter of fact, I don’t.
- You’ve been plowing in sandboxes around here since, what?, December 2021. What do think your “return on invested time and words” has been? Do you see the problem with your message effectiveness?
- G.G. has about 63.7K subscribers. You’re not afraid of a girl, are ya?
- My personal favorite of her topics is: “Kinds”.
Quit boasting. You’re fooling yourself. I would not be surprised if I’ve read the Bible through more times than you.
1 Like
ah now this is a great question Terry and Im glad you asked it!
I am able to better understand the arguments for and against my theology and world view. I have spent many hours on these forums and others learning and practising…so in terms of your question, i have refined my own believe such that its stronger than ever when it comes to knowing there is a God.
I have also been able to use the absolutely terrible arguments presented to me on forums such as this, to show others outside of this space, how poor reading of scripture and poor theology leads to a complete mess of doctrine. It doesnt always refer to the YEC vs TE debate btw, often times generally.
So whilst to you it’s a waste of time, that is not the case for others.
What i find really unusual about the individuals on this forum who strongly support TEism, why on earth would you want to post information that advertises YECism? Why would you do anything to advertise a competing worldview that has far better Biblical theology? Wouldnt it be better to sort out the errors in your theology first? Then you might have a platform upon which you can compete with Christians who also follow that same Bible.
EDIT
Also, much of the information here that is contrary to my understanding i have used to go to others with more scientific knowledge than i and sought answers. I can assure you that I am just as dogmatic in demanding answers from the opposition to TEism (ie from YECers). I have driven others in the YEC camp bonkers probing and prying and arguing about scientific issues YECism faces. I do this with theological stuff that is contrary to SDA beliefs as well. I can be a real swinging voter…so it would be a mistake to take my dogmatic approach to this forum as meaning i do not bend or modify my beliefs. What one should take from this is that I am very eclectic in developing my world view.
Remember what I said about being a comic? Any reasonable person perusing your verbose slandering of good thinking is going to be repulsed. You are your own best argument for the antiquity of God’s creation.
1 Like
And by claiming that the passages of Scripture to which you refer are “clearly not intended to be read that way,” you are bringing them into head-on collision with indisputable, objective reality. This being the case, to insist that these verses are “clearly not intended to be read that way” is, in effect, to argue against the Bible, whether that is your intention or not.
And may I suggest that you read those verses yourself, Adam.
About half of them say nothing whatsoever about creation. Out of those that do, the overwhelming majority of them say nothing whatsoever about either the age of the earth, or who or what did or did not evolve from what, or what happened to the dinosaurs, or whether the Flood was global or local. Of the ones that remain, they can all be understood in exactly the same way that you yourself insisted we understand verses such as Isaiah 55:12 and Luke 19:40.
I’m sorry Adam, but that is a false and bad faith accusation. Recognising that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that the evidence that I acknowledge that God has created can shed light on how He created it, is NOT “denying creation” and it is NOT “turning more than 33 books of the bible (sic) into an allegory” and it is NOT “bending our religion in order to harmonize with secularism.” To make such an accusation is to ascribe views to myself and others that we do not hold – something that is a no-no round here.
1 Like
Only if they are not interested in reading biblical references. Anyone incapable of actually reading the Bible and searching widely within its pages for the correct understanding is going to be led up the garden path anyway…and good luck to them. If it turns out there is no God, then neither of us have lost out… but if there is a God, and his statements about those who do not follow His word are ignored, then I guess there is going to be one loser isn’t there and pascals wager just might be worth taking a keen interest in!
Revelation 14
9And a third angel followed them, calling out in a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives its mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10he too will drink the wine of God’s anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. Day and night there is no rest for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”
12Here is a call for the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
13And I heard a voice from heaven telling me to write, “Blessed are the dead—those who die in the Lord from this moment on.”
- That arm-wrestling and playing bumper-cars in Biologos has refined your belief and given you more confidence in what you believe is often touted as a “good thing”. But if you think the arguments that you’ve encountered around here are terrible, and those same “terrible” arguments have increased your faith, I wager you’ll be well-enlightened and even better informed by G.G.'s erudition.
- It’s not a waste of my time. I don’t spend much studying the details of the the conflict between YEC and TE, here in Biologos. But I do indeed admire G.G.'s skills, knowledge, and humor.
- The “you” whereof you speak, rarely includes me, … except when I disagree with one of them.
1 Like
That is just a defense mechanism. There is no equivalency of problems between science and YEC.
Distant starlight. Science - No problem. YEC - Twist the facts.
Red shift. Science - No problem. YEC - No idea.
Cosmic Microwave Background. Science - Confirms the Big Bang. YEC - Not the slightest idea.
Radiometric Dating. Science - Measurement fits the rest of the data. YEC - Nuke Noah.
Plate Tectonics. Science - Rate fits with island hot spots, erosion, and dating. YEC - Dodge the facts.
Fossil Record. Science - Beautiful fit with progression of life on Earth. YEC - No good response.
Tree Rings. Science - Perfect fit with dating and varves. YEC - False nonsense about extra rings.
Ice Core. Science - Hundreds of thousands of layers are no problem. YEC - Deny annual layers.
Chalk and Limestone. Science - Thick formations are no problem. YEC - Impossible algae blooms.
Number of Species - No Problem. YEC - Hyper evolution, but do not call it evolution.
Craters. Science - No Problem. YEC - Makes no Sense Physically or Theologically.
Human Chromosome 2 Fusion. Science - No Problem. YEC - Misrepresent the evidence.
Adam, whatever your theology, the real world is ancient. That is not some humanistic interpretation of the science - that is the science. Scientific evidence is coherent with a world that is billions of years old, and demonstrates YEC to be false. Your claim that science has more problems than YEC is nothing but rhetoric. YEC is an exercise in fabrication.
7 Likes
That’s a matter of opinion: if you view 1:2 as drastically different from 1:1, you call the waw disjunctive. If you view them as compatible you call the waw continuative.
In other words, you can’t get from the grammar to making 1:1 a title, and making 1:2 the actual opening, you have to decide that 1:2 is the actual opening and therefore declare the was a disjunctive.
I just recited the Hebrew to myself to think about this, and you’re wrong: the actual break is between 1:2 and 1:3. 1:1-2 is a description of initial conditions after God created the heavens and the Earth. Verse 3 begins with what will become a refrain: “וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים”, “And/now God said”, making 1:3 - 1:27 a single unit. Since each ‘day’ begins with an ‘and God said’, verses 1 - 2 are not part of a day.
No, you didn’t, except in your own mind. Not even the verses you actually quoted “eliminate” anything about Genesis because they are all treating the Creation accounts as the ancient literature they are, which you refuse to do.
I’m going to use a theological term I learned from Martin Luther: excrementum tauri, which being translated means (content removed by moderator).
Any approach that doesn’t start with Christ and then explain everything else is not Christian theology. That is why despite their efforts at reform, the SDA organization remains a cult: they make Christ secondary rather than primary.
“The patience of the saints” is what you are stretching!
The Holy Spirit reduced the entire Old Testament to four items – I won’t quote them because I’ve done that so often here everyone should know them; I’ll just remind everyone that it’s found in Acts 15. Since the Holy Spirit didn’t add any other items, then citing them is, as Paul says, another Gospel.
And it’s just stupid of anyone to make such a statement because no one is saying anything about allegories except you.
You repeat the same falsehoods, and the same false assumptions, and the same false accusations. That method is no more effective than was the Pharisees piling up prayer on prayer and thinking they were heard for their repetitious words.
Letting the Bible verses I read explain themselves…
- Isn’t possible unless you recognize that ancient literature has to be understood as ancient literature, and
- Is what I do with the Hebrew and the Greek.
You love to make the claim here that everyone is trying to force “secular science” on the Bible, which is false on several levels. It’s false in my case because I don’t care about any science, I care about the text – and you are misrepresenting the text in utterly dishonest ways that were taught to you by a cult.
It doesn’t seem unusual at all, since God sends weather across the world pretty indiscriminately.
That’s only rational if you ignore what the layers of stone are in all the different places, and if you ignore how layers are deposited by floods versus other natural processes, and if you ignore that there are deposits that were made on dry land in between many of you so-called flood layers, and that… well, you have to ignore a whole pile of evidence that comes from direct observations of all the different processes that make sedimentary layers – and I haven’t even gotten to the igneous and metamorphic processes!
No, it’s actually impossible that “the same event did all of this”, especially since
- The text says no such thing, and
- Many, many mountain ranges are at a minimum a hundred or more times as old as your alleged Creation date, and
- the Hebrew text doesn’t support a worldwide flood in the first place, and
- If just one event did all that, there wouldn’t be any layers to observe because the entire surface of the planet, including the crust, would have been vaporized from the heat.
2 Likes
I’m reading the Hebrew (and the Septuagint Greek; it’s a good commentary). So, please explain to me:
- the multiple literary genres of the first Genesis Creation account, and
- the multiple intents of that account, and why those differ from the number of literary genres, and
- the overriding structure of the first Genesis Creation account and how it serves the different genres and purposes, and
- why the above are all suitable assuming the text as we have it was penned by Moses.
A lie . . . again. And we know what the scripture says about a lying tongue! And it’s followed by more lies.
Actually, that’s very bad theology: our “ultimate source of authority” must be the Gospel, since that was the measure of what was included in the Bible in the first place (apostolicity was a criterion because the apostles were trusted to get the Gospel right).
2 Likes
Outstanding point!
1 Like
What about the universe around us? Just ignore it?
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.