The reason for this is very simple. Those who have a deep theological understanding of the Bible recognize that you can not twist the meanings of scriptural passages to suit secular scientific interpretations.
It is also wrong to make the claim that all AIG and Creation Ministries science interpretations are errant…that is almost always based on the idea that there are more secular science interpretations that disagree with a minority of YEC ones. It is also rubbish tto make the claim that science is universal. I do not agree that measurements are proof that YEC is wrong. YEC are using measurements too.
At the end of the day, I would suggest that one frist decides what they are going to believe…the Bible or secularism and its interpretations. It is at that point one makes their bed and to be honest, if it turns out that secular science is wrong in its interpretations, then all those who claim to be Christians and yet follow the secular view of it are going to be left out of the kingdom (of that there is no doubt) .
I would suggest that anyone who is unsure study the Old Testament Sanctuary. If you truly understand the Sanctuary, you would have zero problems with YEC. Cain and Abel for example, both gave sacrifices to God. If the Sanctuary is simply a Mosaic tradition, why were Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God?
Also, Christ told the Apostles to take the Gospel to the World…even to Gentiles…modern Christians are all known biblically as “Spiritual Israel”. The point is, the term refers to Gods people as outlined in Revelation 14:12 "te patience of the saints are those who:
Keep the commandments of God (google search prooves this is all of the 10 commandments)
Good point. Most of the time, these forum discussions are not about changing someone’s mind if they are committed to YEC, as their motivation in coming here is not to learn more about EC in consideration of changing their views, but rather it is seen more as an obligation be light in a dark world. We do have some who are genuinely seeking clarity, but those conversations are often different. Perhaps the first thing we need to do is determine the purpose of the conversation, and questions to that end may be in order.
The other conversations between those committed to their position, is more to help both sides of the argument understand the strengths and weaknesses of their relative positions, and to better understand the other’s points so as to not misrepresent them so that fairness and truth might prevail.
I think there is a real difference in how people view the world.
The outlook of scientists (believers and non-believers alike):
No scientist is trying to “suit secular scientific interpretations”. For example, a doctor doesn’t conclude you have a bacterial infection because he is trying to suit the secular scientific interpretations of Germ theory. NASA isn’t planning paths of spaceships through space to suit Newton’s laws of gravity. The universe around us are facts, not ideologies that we have pledged to uphold.
There are millions and millions of Christians who believe both.
Now that is certainly a matter of “just an alternate opinion!” It helps if we all try to have an attitude of humility in our interactions, and it is even a biblical mandate.
Very true. But that does not mean we should overlook those that are wrong.
Perhaps in religion that is true, but it is the very opposite of what science teaches.
That gets into a can of worms. My personal opinion for many reasons is that it is because it was written in the Exilic period and has anachronistic features.
When a discussion with a young earthist starts going round and round in circles, it is a good idea to see if you can figure out why, and whether continued discussion is a good use of your time.
One particular red flag is when they keep repeating the same falsehood over and over and over and over again, despite the fact that you’ve repeatedly corrected them on the matter. For example, I have repeatedly made the point that deep geological time is established on the basis of rules and principles that have nothing whatsoever to do with secularism, but that apply to Christians and atheists alike, and that apply whether you acknowledge miracles as a legitimate explanation for scientific observations or not. Yet when I see individuals to whom I have repeatedly made this point continuing to denounce deep geological time as “secular scientific interpretations,” without even showing a shred of concern as to what the rules I am referring to actually are, it becomes abundantly clear that they are not listening, they are only interested in shouting, and in all likelihood they are approaching the discussions in bad faith.
At such a point, it is no longer fruitful to continue the discussion with them, and so the best course of action is to just ignore them. Some such people act like this because they are trolling and get a kick out of seeing knee-jerk reactions to bad arguments, so the best course of action here is to deny them that particular satisfaction.
Internet forums present a bit of a challenge here however, because you aren’t responding just for their benefit but for the benefit of everyone else following the discussion. Nevertheless, there does come a point at which “don’t feed the trolls” becomes advice that we should all seriously consider following. Besides, it is often the case in such situations that the badness of their arguments speaks for itself.
“What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.” Stephen Hawking 14 Mar 2018
How would you determine such things? How do you know a teacher knows more than you do about education?
It isnt rocket science really, you listen to the theology that individual is presenting, go to the bible texts they quote, consider the interpretations given and see if they indeed line up with the overall themes of the Bible. If it all checks out, then yes, that individual most likely has a deep theological understanding of the Bible. Obviously, that is not stating the person is a Bible scholar…these are not the same thing in my opinion, there are many scholars with terrible theology.
To relate this back to the O.P, the way to talk with committed YEC is to seek biblical understanding before scientific understanding. It is pointless to attempt to claim that the Bible interpretation must fit the science…that is foolishness, no world view works that way. The philosophical comes first.
Actually come to think of it, does anyone have examples where an ancient culture has changed its beliefs because of modern science? (ie Aussie Aborigines,American Indians etc?)
Well, the ancient Jewish culture believed that center of ones emotions was the kidneys, and reason was the heart. I think they now think the brain has something to do with it. And good Catholics in ages past held that the sun went around the earth, and now think the opposite.
In the science-faith discussion, it is not a matter of which trumps the other, but rather of how they can be integrated into an understanding which contains the truths of both. That was successfully done when heliocentrism became common knowledge, and also when medicine advanced to determine how organs functioned. Verses previously taken as literal were then accepted as either symbolic or as part of God’s divine accommodation. The YEC approach is to deny and distort to force the truth we see in nature to fit their preconceived ideas based on their narrow literalist interpretive approach. I
This is why I generally avoid contesting with committed YEC’s at all. More often, they are not seeking scientific understanding and are not really interested in the natural world, which they expect is all going to burn soon anyways. They are, however, very keen on practicing their apologetics, and will parrot back whatever they were told by AiG et al no matter how ridiculous the spiel. You would have better success with the proselytizer who rang your doorbell.
There are also those who are so persuaded of the YEC approach to Biblical interpretation that their entire world would come crashing down if they allowed the Earth was old. This is unfortunately retrograde, because a few decades back there was much more evangelical acceptance of day age and gap interpretations which at least did not conflict with the established age of the Earth. To me, it is not worth straining a friendship, being divisive, or precipitating a crisis of faith just because someone is wrong. It is different if the discussion is sincere, and usually isn’t hard to tell.
Exactly. Sometimes I encounter comments to the effect that you cannot reason people out of beliefs they did not reason themselves into, but I have read countless comments from ex-YEC’s that left after investigating and learning more about the science. There are people seeking answers anyways, and arrive on forums such as Biologos on their own initiative.
I believe the bible when it says that looking at the universe that God created says something about God (paraphrased, but I stand by this interpretation of the intent of the passages). The major point of the disagreement between different readers of the bible is in how the bible should be interpreted.
For anyone who accepts that God created the universe in which we live, it seems to me to be quite reasonable to expect that the bible should be interpreted in a manner that is not in direct conflict with what direct observations of God’s universe show to be true.
An important aspect of interpretations is that there are always several levels of interpretation necessary in order to come to any conclusion about what the English translation of the bible that I read means for me today. First is the interpretation that the original writing of the particular verses being interpreted was actually inspired by God (I do accept the standard main-line protestant Christian identification of the bible). Next is the interpretation of what that original writing meant to the original audience; this is often quite different from what modern Americans think those words mean. And then the translation into English; this always involves interpretation. And, finally, is it God’s intent that today’s people interpret what was written in exactly the same way as the original audience interpreted those writings?
T_aquaticus’ quote from Cardinal Bellarmine shows that the interpretation of scripture passages at different times by Christian theologians has been very different. And the bottom line of my claim here is that the major differences that I argue with YECs is interpretation of scripture, and it is absoutely true (by demonstration) that these different interpretations show that the words as written are not simple to understand; that especially, it is not simple to determine what God is trying to tell people today to do, or not to do.
This is a really difficult position, but an important one. One argument I hear frequently in my church is that God would make things simple–and the first apparent meaning is the most likely to be right. I can see the hope that God would always make it easy–but it just doesn’t work in reality. If one realizes that the majority of the world doesn’t even have the Bible, let alone the right interpretation; but God presumably loves those who don’t, just as much as He loves us–it becomes apparent (I think) that we can’t expect the Bible to necessarily be immediately apparent to those of us with Western cultural expectations. However, it’s not an easy thing.
Just last week, my pastor (who I like) quoted Henry Morris as saying he was convinced that there was no scientific objection to the Flood. His quote of Morris then went on to accuse all those who don’t believe in it, to deny it only because they don’t want to believe in God’s justice.
It’s rather difficult to respond. I’m unfortunately feeling a bit bruised by the apparent judgmentalism of Morris, but realize it’s almost a conspiracy mindset–if someone doesn’t believe the way we do, it must be because of ill intent.
It’s out of fear, too–fear of the unknown. It doesn’t come in a neat, tidy package, like we remember thinking we were taught in Sunday School.
I can’t approach Morris’ work (and those who quote him) with indignation, but understanding and listening.
Thanks for your thoughts.
that statement is not relvant to the issue…you are completely ignoring the philosophy of an atheist when making such a statement. You are trying to make the point that an atheist has no philosophical position…dont you find it rather interesting that a large number of atheists also claim they are agnostic?
All good points Jerry. I have quoted your entire post because its important that you know that ive read all of it (we must admit we do not read everything everyone writes).
Of most interest and the focus of my resonse is your last section
And, finally, is it God’s intent that today’s people interpret what was written in exactly the same way as the original audience interpreted those writings? T_aquaticus’ quote from Cardinal Bellarmine shows that the interpretation of scripture passages at different times by Christian theologians has been very different. And the bottom line of my claim here is that the major differences that I argue with YECs is interpretation of scripture, and it is absoutely true (by demonstration) that these different interpretations show that the words as written are not simple to understand; that especially, it is not simple to determine what God is trying to tell people today to do, or not to do.
Firstly, and this may sound like sour grapes but i promise it is not…I do not agree with Catholic theology.
(Edited by moderator)
Secondly, (perhaps i should have put this first) Cardinal Bellamine was a Jesuit…im not sure if you are familiar with early Jesuits, however that order we not nice people…refer back to the last sentence of above paragraph!).
> Thomas Hobbes saw Bellarmine in Rome at a service on All Saints Day (1 November) 1614 and, exempting him alone from a general castigation of cardinals, described him as “a little lean old man” who lived “more retired”
I dont think I need to also add this man practically forced Gallilleo to abandon his ideas concerning the “movement of planets”
Third, I agree that it is difficult to determine where the spriritual nature of biblical writings differs from that of reality.
Bellamy wrote… I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
When we read stories in the Old Testament it appears that the writers are narrating events where individuals truly believed that the sun orbited the earth. A good one is found in Joshua 10 “The Day the Sun Stood Still”
12On the day that the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
14There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man, because the LORD fought for Israel.
Now science says that the above is impossible. I would be interested in quotes from modern scientists who agree scientifically with the reading of that text of scripture. So you state it must be an allagory right?
Well, how then do you explain the following biblical references to that day in Joshua 10?
Isaiah 28:21 “For the Lord will rise up as that day as at Mount Perazim”
Isiah 38:8 “I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.”
Clearly, all of these references link back to a narrative that describes a real-life event. You cannot honestly read them any other way (citing English translational issues actually only makes these kinds of arguments far worse …i know this because my father holds a degree in theology and can read the original manuscript languages and we have had many discussions about the “original language vs modern English” claim).
Modern scientists may not like the scientific impossibility in such “stories” (as Biologos calls them), however, can modern science agree with the incarnation of God as a human baby, his resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into the clouds? No it cannot and therein lieth the entire problem with the claim made that we must explain the bible using science. Science cannot explain what is physically impossible…it cannot explain the birth, resurrection, and ascension of God, so it denies they are anything but mythical stories and yet here we are with Christians who are not well versed in scripture naively being told to follow science first and do this by agreeing with very very poor theology!
The point is, the narrative of the “Day the Sun Stood Still” was a universal scale miracle. If God can create the entire universe from nothing ie simply “speak it” into existence, why would you question the authenticity of the YEC parts of the narrative because it isnt possible scientifically?
Does that help makes sense of why committed YECs are not easy to sway in their seemingly “rock solid” views when it comes to the Bible vs Science debate?
That is very true Randy, even i am guilty of that kind of stuff. However, one thing that i note that is extremely interesting in your statement is the links that a lot of denominations make between that denomination’s views and the “wages of sin” for anyone who disagrees with the denominational line.
I think that as time goes by, modern Christian churches are trying to rephrase the “wages of sin is death” response so it doesn’t appear so barbaric. I mean let’s face it, when one reads Joshua Ch 10 (The Day the Sun Stood Still), one cannot but think, my goodness what a barbaric day of bloodshed at the hands of a man supported by God in this endeavor!
The problem however is this…
There are certain fundamental beliefs within the pages of scripture that are based on overall biblical themes. If one refuses to agree with those themes, then how can one call themselves a follower/believer of that text? The Bible very specifically went into detail about luke warm Christians…they are neither hot nor cold and the Lord will spew them out of His mouth. Some seem to ignore this text, however, i think it is a universal statement and not one that simply applies to only one aspect of Christianity. Its a little hard to leave out the gloom and doom…and i find it rather interesting that the same “luke warm” approach to the genesis account just so happens to also do the same with the flood account. So what happens to the statement found in the Bible “just as it was in the days of Noah” (Luke 17:26)
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all”
So I did not read that entire thing. But wanted to point out…. I think it’s just fringe movements of Protestantism that views the Catholic Church as related to the beast lol.