Maybe because Noah was saved from a flood?
Just not the version that you’re reading into it.
Sorry, but this would be accurate if not for the word “historical”. You’ve never faced the fact that I could say, “As it was when Harry Potter sought help from Hagrid” and it does not mean that I think Harry Potter was real.
You claim to take a “plain language” reading of the text, but you totally ignore the nature of human writing and speech!
You’ve never done one – to do that you have to read in the original language with an understanding of the original worldview and the literary choice of the inspired writer. Reading in a translation tells you absolutely nothing about the actual text, it only tells what presuppositions you bring to the text.
Yet you use science to judge the scriptures! You have the modern scientific notion that to be true then something has to be scientifically correct. That means that you set science as a standard by which to judge scripture.
Again I ask, where in the Bible do you find that idea that it has any intention of being historically or scientifically correct?
What is the point of the Bible when you insist that it must conform to the modern scientific worldview revealed in your question? You have the unbiblical notion that the Bible is not true if it isn’t scientifically correct, but you have never bothered to ask where that measure of what counts as truth comes from, you just assume that you are right because it is your belief.
Wow – right there is Satan’s original rebellion! You think that sin is only atoned for if we are like God!
Christ died for our sins whether we’re aware of them or not. The idea that we have to confess every single sin in order to be forgiven is bad Catholic doctrine, not scriptural. Only God knows our hearts, and only one who knows our hearts can know all our sin. Your statement requires that a Christian be self-omniscient in order to be forgiven!
Um, what? That makes no sense at all.
I’ve heard preachers reference that!
Obviously, in the first Creation story, since it’s an edited version of the Egyptian creation story.
Excellent point! The YEC version requires ignoring Hebrew grammar where it isn’t convenient, just as it ignores the history of the text. They all claim to follow the historical-grammatical method but in practice that’s just a smokescreen to keep people from seeing how inconsistent and/or sloppy they are about dealing with the text.
David,
I believe that i have written a response that already addresses this.
Let me explain what i mean…(i will put in my own words for brevity)
The text tells us that Christ said…
“AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH”
“PEOPLE WERE EATING AND DRINKING AND GIVING IN MARRIAGE”
“A FLOOD CAME AND SWEPT THEM ALL AWAY”
Christ is directly referencing the flood in Genesis Chapters 6-8.
If the statement of Christ isn’t a direct reference to Noahs flood in Genesis, how did Christ even know the relevance of such a claim in the first place? We often, as did ancient writers, use old historical references to explain things in our current times…even you do that with your own children or students I’m sure?
The provided bible texts in my previous response that you quote, specifically support my statements and those bible texts cross reference with each other to ensure the doctrine remains consistent with other bible writers statements. That’s how one does research right…we test our hypotheses to ensure adequacy in belief / conclusion?
So I have to question your answer is to ignore those texts instead offering a personal opinion as a rebuttal citing my apparent need to “check whether its a good argument”? HAve i not followed a standard academic approach with the use of appropriate referencing given those internal bible references directly address my conclusions? Isnt it also true that i am not making personalized opinions since those references actually speak for themselves in that they are self-interpreting?
David your statement above made without any referencing at all is one either an individual as dogmatic as Donald Trump, or an individual of genuinely low intelligence would present as a rebuttal. Since i believe that you are not unintelligent, as you clearly demonstrate you are much smarter than i am, surely an appropriate response would be to offer biblical support in your answer there that supports your own theology on this? Have you specific and consistent biblical referencing and exegesis in order to support your rebuttal there?
St Roymond, that’s a poor example…we know that the story of Harry Potter isn’t real because it is contained within the “fiction section” of the performing arts! Its based on the fictional novel by JK Rowling…she tells us as do her publishers!
that is very different from the following writings of Moses which clearly form the history of the Jewish nation of Israel…this is a real nation that we interact with today and that nation claims it to be their history…as do most Muslims btw (Abraham is the father of both nations):
If I have to explain that to you, id suggest the simplest way to do so is to have you read the next 22,864 verses , 306,757 Hebrew words, and 1,202,972 letters of the Hebrew bible!
If you cant make the connection after doing the above, then we have a significant problem with your ability to make reading and comprehension connections and its back to primary school for you so that my wife, who is a primary teacher, can teach you some basic literacy.
I know that is insulting, however, when an individual refuses to accept basic reading skills in the above manner, they seriously need to be re-taught the skill!
The real issue is,
you claim i place my own interpretation on the writings of the bible. I have to ask that you consider this…if my theology is only derived from the Bible, how can i add my own interpretation to it when there is no external writings from which i can make such an interpretation?
On the flip side, given i know for a fact that Theistic Evolution (which is exactly what Biologos believes) makes the judgement that a literal reading of the writings about creation and the flood must be wrong is because scientific hypotheses say so, how then can you deny my proof that in fact you are calling the “kettle black”? The answer “because science says so” isn’t an answer btw…i have perfectly valid scientific evidences that align with the bible…so your evidences, which do not align with the bible, prove that argument is seriously deficient (just as deficient as your Harry Potter illustration is).
What is key here is that the plainly obvious facts show that it is your theology and doctrine that require a naturalist/uniformatarian based foundation such that the bible theology and doctrine to which you hold are hinged upon those externally driven hypotheses. Mine does not use any external hinge…its all internal within the bible itself.
you are going to have a near impossible tasks of proving to me that my above 2 statements and conclusion are wrong mainly because you do not have evidences from the Bible that provide the consistency required to make that proof. I can say that because there are more “direct” biblical texts against your claim than the largely indirect (and even unrelated texts) that you use to support your claim! (and if you want to test that claim, I am more than willing to accept such a challenge)
It isn’t – it’s derived from the worldview you impose on the Bible. You assume that the text is what it looks like to you without any need for study. You say that the Harry Potter stories are fiction, but you can’t tell that from the way they’re written, you have to look outside them to where it is “contained”. But that is true of all literature: you have to look outside it to find what kind of literature it is! By the criteria you have – primarily that “it reads like history” – you violate the very approach you used above, looking to see what category something is in in order to interpret it. By the criteria you have stated, books by Tom Clancy and John Grisham and James Michener all qualify as historical writing, as do the works of John Steinbeck – do you consider them to be history? If you do, then at least you’re being consistent; if you don’t, then you have a problem because they actually read more like history than most of the Old Testament canon.
So what? I don’t care what science says about scripture, and I don’t judge scripture by science – those are what YEC and TE do, but what I care about is the text. Though TE is more honest; it at least says it is aiming to make the scriptures and science fit, but YEC judges the scriptures by science and pretends it doesn’t.
You know that’s a lie – “my theology” rejects science as a measure of scripture; that’s why I reject YEC: it sets up science as a measure of scripture’s truthfulness. That is just as flawed today as when scripture was judged by how it fit Aristotle, or how it fit the “four elements” medieval science. The truth of scripture has nothing to do with being scientifically accurate, so stop trying to force them to fit!
I have the text. Meanwhile you have no evidence from the Bible that it is what it appears to be to you – I’ve asked repeatedly but you cannot provide anything. So again: where does the scripture say that it intends to be historically and scientifically accurate? If you can’t show that, then you need to admit that all that you are doing is reading your own opinion into the text.
" 1. Christ is directly referencing the flood in Genesis Chapters 6-8."
Of course He is. But it is an example of sudden destruction for which people were unprepared, as is the associated reference. All of Noah’s heedless neighbors were swept away. As with Peter’s reference to the Flood, it gives no reason one way or another to assess the magnitude of the Flood. By reading what they want into these passages, rather than carefully attending to the content, the vendors of YEC claims show that they are not truly based on the Bible. Similarly, the claim that evolution or old-earth views are based on naturalism is untrue. Ironically, it does show that creation science is false; if a study of science actually pointed to a young earth, then naturalism would have some sort of young-earth model and claim it just happened atheistically. But evolutionary creationism reflects the thoroughly theistic assumption that God has given us the ability and responsibility to understand how His creation works in order to be better stewards.
I vaguely recall getting that same comment about the text from an English Lit professor; I think the book was Ivanhoe.
Superb point!
Reminds me of my atheist physics professor who commented that he’d love to see the hand of God in physics – because he had a few questions he wanted answers to and maybe seeing God’s hand would lead to God so he could ask.
I am a scientist and I would not take the Bible seriously if it was not compatible with scientific findings. I certainly didn’t have any difficulty with Romans. Romans is my favorite book of the Bible and one I have read most often.
I also had no problem with thinking these stories Noah and Isaac were about historical events as they are described with the only possible meaning of the words could have had when they were used – which means the word “earth” definitely was not referring to a planet. You might as well try to tell me they had Lazarus on an EKG machine to show that he was brain dead, or that they did a chemical analysis on the wine made from water.
I don’t see any such trend. I only see people bringing in whatever cultural baggage they had from before being Christian.
Indeed. We have no more reason to understand the word “earth” as referring to a planet from the words of Jesus than we have from the text of Genesis.
If I suppose Jesus had an accurate understanding of all things, I would have little reason think to my view of things would not be nearly as primitive and archaic to Him as those around Him. Might be like comparing the understanding of an ant to that of a flea (and maybe that is overestimating the difference by quite a bit).
Adam, you’ve completely missed the point of what St. Roymond was saying.
You say Harry Potter is a poor example because “we know that the story of Harry Potter isn’t real…” and proceed to give evidence to prove that point.
But of course Harry Potter is fictional. That’s precisely why he chose that example.
The argument is not: Harry Potter is fictional, therefore the flood is fictional.
The argument is: Harry Potter is fictional (and we all know it), but we can still draw on the storyline of Harry Potter to make comparisons with our real world experience.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that someone else who draws on the themes of another story is also claiming it to be historical.
Personally I have no problem with a person regarding the flood story as historical. But I do have problems with the argument that because Jesus referred to that story, he must also be making a judgment about how historical it is. That’s just bad logic.
Of.course you can tell harry potter is fiction…the book has plenty of evidences contained within its fabric that comprehensively give us that conclusion…not the least of which is that its published as fiction and secondly, because its author is recorded as telling us its fiction. One example of that is the statement below:
J. K. Rowling has repeatedly denied that her books lead children into witchcraft.[125] In an interview with CNN in 1999, she said,[126]
I absolutely did not start writing these books to encourage any child into witchcraft. I’m laughing slightly because to me, the idea is absurd. I have met thousands of children and not even one time has a child come up to me and said, “Ms Rowling, I’m so glad I’ve read these books because now I want to be a witch.”
If a child can tell the difference between reality and the content of her books and you cannot…what does that say about your criticism of interpreting the text according to the normal use of language???
It would be silly to not regard it as historical; it qualifies as mythologized history, specifically theological mythology. But that doesn’t make it global, and the text doesn’t say it was global.
Internal evidence? Like what? It’s written in the same fashion as what you insist is history in the Hebrew scriptures.
Ah – there’s the key: external evidence, which is the only way that you can tell that Tom Clancy’s books weren’t meant as history since they meet all your criteria for being history.
Yet you ignore that fact, you refuse to admit that none of your criteria are sufficient to support the claims you make about scripture – though you did admit, probably inadvertently, that external evidence is needed to determine what kind of writing much of the scriptures are. That inadvertent admission is correct: the only way to tell what kind of writing many portions of the Hebrew scriptures are is external evidence. That’s what the “historical” part of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is about, yet you reject it.
It says that the child is more astute than you because she recognizes that external evidence is needed to know what kind of writing the Harry Potter stories are. That’s the case with a great deal of literature. There is no way to tell by your “normal use of language” that John Steinbeck’s and Jams Michener’s books aren’t history because they read like history. To b consistent, you have to accept those books as history along with Genesis.
Hi All,
having a little spare time, this thread caught my attention from its title, “Evolution, Critical studies and the Canon”. A thoroughly critical study of evolution is available for a short time.
It has recently come to my attention that a free streaming download of the film “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” from CMI is presently available for a period of seven days.
This is a powerful documentary film, where 15 Ph.D. scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws—in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths!
The documentary film, “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” can be accessed through this link:
This film presents very powerful present day scientific evidence that is totally consistent with the Bibles trustworthy historical account of the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood of Noah.
May our gracious Lord and Saviour bless you all,
jon
It is a tour de force of repeated logical fallacies, bad to deceptive arguments, and slander. Whether or not it is consistent with the first few chapters of Genesis, it is not consistent with Proverbs 12:12 or
Dear Tim,
I am sorry that it does appear you are hostile to the absolute truth of the matter in relation to the powerful documentary film, “Evolution’s Achilles Heels”.
You can deny/mock/ridicule all you want, but the truth is clear to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
The scientists speaking in the documentary film, “Evolution’s Achilles Heels”are fine upstanding Christian men who above all are honest and diligent in their research work.
You have made baseless claims of “logical fallacies, bad to deceptive arguments, and slander.” yet you do not list what you believe they are.
I can understand that, from the worldview I guess you would hold to, you believe evolution to be true.
However, if that is so, then where are the trillions upon trillions of TRANSITIONAL FORMS that must exist if microbes to man evolution were real, in the billions upon billions of fossils now held in universities, museums and private collections around the world?
We don’t have any because there aren’t any, it really is that simple!
If evolution were real, there would be trillions upon trillions of different forms between the imagined ascension of life from the mythical single cell life form in the imagined primordial soup to mankind and the enormous diversity of life on Earth that we see today and in the rocks from the past.
Yet there are NONE of the mere tiny handful proposed by devout evolution believers that pass rigorous scientific examination and scrutiny, no not one.
The rigorously made documentary film, “Evolution’s Achilles Heels" was funded by many, many thousands of faithful Christians from around the globe and is a testament to the Truth.
You quote two Holy Scriptures, I can only assume to accuse me, they are: Proverbs 12:12 and Deuteronomy 25:13-16.
The Lord my God knows my heart and that I do not speak lies nor do I desire the plunder of evil, nor do I use unfair weights and measures, it is to Him that I listen, and I am comforted by the Holy Scriptures:
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they followed My word, they will follow yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. . . . John 15:18-21
You are promoting this latest creationist movie, but you do not state any claims that it makes, so you are in no position to complain about not listing arguments.
For my part, if they have something to say, they can put it in a paper. Jurassic Park has more credibility than creationist movies.
It’s because we are not hostile to such truth that this web site even exists. And in regard to that…
Again, it’s probably fair to say that a great many threads in this forum have dealt with such claims as such work puts forward, repeatedly and often at great and technical depth. If you discover some issue there that hasn’t been soundly debunked, refuted, or revealed to be the falsehood or half truth that it may be - then please bring it forward for us to see. It is our committment to truth and handling God’s word properly as workmen approved that keeps truth-lovers here animated to cull away falsehoods and false teachings that people and organizations have fallen prey to. Truth is real.
Your comment is out of context; in fact didn’t Tim state,
Now I may be missing something here, but that certainly sounds a tad hostile to me at least.
Now that may be well and good for some who have the time to read through thousands of posts on this website, but I do not have that luxury and so I deal with arguments, reasoning and statements as they are directly made in the present.
Thus Tim (Paraleptopecten) has clearly made the above accusation, yet has not made any effort whatsoever in his post to list what they are.
That leaves the unenviable situation of having to guess what on Earth he is talking about. You may well know from your evolution believing worldview philosophy perspective, but I am but a brief visitor here and find myself wondering what Tim is talking about.
I know the PhD researchers at CMI are extremely honest, God fearing men and women who love the Truth and abhor deception, (despite the many contrary claims published on this site), and I know they would never do anything that is untrue or against Scriptural honesty in all areas of their work.
I know the teams doing research at CMI pray regularly, they are committed Christians who come from all walks of the Church, i.e., they are Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Christian Brethren, Church of Christ, Congregationalist’s, Lutherans, Messianic Jews, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Salvation Army, Uniting Church, and many, many others, thus I do not understand why so many on this site, brothers and sisters in Christ are so vehemently hostile to those of us that believe the Bible as it is plainly written to mean what it so plainly states.
NO MENTAL GYMNASTICS NECESSARY!
I have observed that it appears some on this site have a propensity to accuse individuals and organisations that support a straightforward reading of Genesis in faith and trust in God, by claiming those creationist individuals and organisation are making repeated logical fallacies, bad to deceptive arguments, and slander and worse, and then claiming their origins belief position is correct because they know better and science backs them up.
The problem with that is real science DOESN’T back them up.
I do not know of any observation anywhere that adequately demonstrates how the enormous quantities of complex specified information is written on the genomes of all life without a sentient intelligent author.
Believers in evolution appear to believe that mutations and Natural Selection can account for the origin of the necessary complex specified information written on genomes as they allegedly ascended from a single celled microbe to mankind and the diversity of life on Earth over alleged billions of years.
But that belief is demonstrably nonsense, simply because Natural Selection can only ever select from Existing Information! Therefore, how did evolution occur from the first single cell onwards to today???
That is the question that believers in evolution honestly need to, no MUST ask themselves.
I don’t doubt that any number of rescue theories, beliefs and stories are held with religious fervour and conviction by believers in evolution, but none that I have seen stand up to the pub test let alone rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Yes, Truth is REAL, and the Bible is God’s Word, God is Truth, thus the Bible can be trusted to mean precisely what it states ever so carefully and ever so clearly.
God is NOT a God of confusion, He is the Living God Who made Heaven and Earth, Who wrote all the genetic codes with limited adaptability within a Biblical kind, from which the broad diversity of life has arisen. Thus the Creation is orderly, thus Modern Science is possible!
But life remains fixed to ALWAYS remain within its Biblical kind as ordained by God, and not a single example has ever been produced by anyone that demonstrates evolution in the microbes to man sense.
All we ever hear about from evolutionists, basically amounts to change within a Biblical kind, that is precisely what creationists have been saying is the reality for a really long time now.
Our Loving God, did not use pain, suffering and death to create as theistic evolutionists would have us believe.
That belief is anathema to Truth!
It causes irreconcilable violence to the Gospel message by putting death before Adam’s sin, thus more mental gymnastics and rescuing stories ensure to cover that GLARING inconvenient Truth, but never is evolution ever questioned, it is always assumed as fact by the faithful believers of the prime paradigm of this present darkness.
I am hostile to deceptive claims and bad logic being promoted as evidence of Christianity.
Making assertions of logical fallacies, bad arguments, and slander are not mocking or ridicule; they are accusations.
Now that I have found the notes from watching it, here are some examples of each:
There are a number of false dichotomies (like atheistic usage of a caricature of evolution as a philosophy being the only alternative to YEC) and hasty generalizations (like using atheists with bad philosophy to argue against evolution), some circular reasoning (“we’re right because our position is the correct one”), usage of propaganda techniques (like preferentially citing people whose philosophy is bad as examples of those who affirm evolution), and at least half a dozen other types that I’m not remembering.
As to bad or deceptive claims, the claims that mutations don’t produce new information, that all mutations are harmful, that random processes do not make information, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fudge factors, and that redshift differences among angularly associated objects are a problem; and the denial of cracks in bent rock formations that have them are all lies.
As to slander, they implicitly accuse all honest biologists, geologists, paleontologists, and cosmologists of being incompetent; and accuse all Christians who disagree with them of caving to the world.
Exactly where they have been since the last time you asked that question–filling deposits, private collections, and backroom museum drawers across the globe.
Your credibility would be helped if you would stop telling me that the transitional fossils that I have found do not exist. The only way to make them not be transitional is to redefine “transitional” or “species.” They are intermediate in stratigraphic position and in morphology between other forms; I can show complete intergradations between Busycon maximum, Busycon auroraense, and Busycon carica over time.
Transitional forms exist. I have found or seen specimens of dozens of them. Asserting once again that they do not does not change that. Anyone who claims that they do not and claims to be an authority about paleontology is lying about one of the two.
What do you want me to do, start spamming this text with examples?
I have examined the ones that I have found rigorously enoguh to conclude that the most parsimonius explanations are that they are intermediates.I have had no one in the field tell me that they don’t look likely for intermediates.
I do not think that you do. But there are enough demonstrable lies in the “documentary” in question to raise serious questions about the honesty of those in it and producing it. Most of those (so far as I can tell, including you) who promote these claims are simply honestly misled, rather than lying.
Yes, I wholeheartedly concur with the passage. However, all of us (very much myself included) must be very careful that the reason for being hated or ridiculed is for Christ, and not for being overbearing, obnoxious, or making confident wrong assertions that display profound ignorance.
See above. I quickly become suspicious of the honesty of someone who repeatedly promotes demonstrable falsehoods and does not retract them when their falseness is pointed out.
