How does one read photographs?
Do you see that your position is based on avoiding evidence?
2 Likes
[quote=âgrog, post:91, topic:35076â]
As far as theology is concerned, I believe that evolution paves the way for liberalism long term.[/quote]
I donât want to derail this conversation, but could everyone look at this quote from Greg, please? This is my underlying point about BioLogosâ approach and about why it will have a hard time getting anywhere with conservatives like me and Greg. Conservatives are concerned less about science than we are about theology. As long as it doesnât contradict the Bible, we donât much care what science says. We are concerned about the slippery slope towards liberalism. With this in mind, the BioLogosâ approach of using liberal hermeneutics in their theology articles is hurting their cause. It sends up red flags of liberalism and only proves Gregâs point above. It turns us off, unnecessarily.
Greg, let me say that after many years of struggling with this, a light has come on for me. I have seen how evolution is POSSIBLE Biblically without changing a single shred of conservative Bible doctrine or hermeneutics. In other words, there is no slippery slope. I had to give up no theological ground. I stand in the exact same place doctrinally that I did before I accepted the possibility of evolution.
Notice I didnât say I accepted evolution. To bring this back to the original question in this thread, YES, I think it would be dangerous to teach students that evolution is in the Bible or is some kind of Bible doctrine. If (when?) the theory changes or is adjusted, weâd have to tell our students we were wrong and it would erode their faith. The better stance is that the Bible is not clear on the mechanics on creation. God created everything but the Bible leaves several possibilities as to HOW he did it.
This is not just hypothetical discussion for me. I have a daughter I just dropped off at middle school today, who is learning about the big bang theory in science class. I have taught the teen Sunday school class at my church for 15 years. I have personally seen kids - who I loved and prayed for like my own children - leave the church when they went to college. They still love me and theyâre in contact with me but they donât have faith in God anymore and they look at me now with pity, like I am simply ignorant.
This question - is it dangerous to teach evolution to children - is personal and real to me. As I drove my daughter to school, I asked her if she was wondering about how the big bang fit with the Bible. She hung her head and sheepishly said âyes sir.â I said⌠âLook at that tree. Did God create it?â âYes,â she replied. âDid he do it instantly?â âNo,â she said, âhe did it over time with an acorn.â âDoes that take away from the fact that God created it? Or does it make it more amazing to see how complex and awesome a creator he is?â Her eyes lit up. I told her, âThe Bible tells us that God created you and me and everything, but it doesnât give us the mechanics. Just like it tells us that weâre going to live in heaven forever and it tells us weâre going to have glorified bodies but it doesnât give us the details on how exactly God will do that. Go to class, study nature, study science, be amazed by how great a mechanic and a creator God is. Scientific understanding will change as we discover more things about the creation, but the Bible remains the same. God is the creator.â
I think thatâs a safe stance. We lose no ground to liberalism. We lose no kids to scientific discovery. And, might I add, I can get back to teaching about the blood of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy of scripture and all of the other rich Biblical doctrines that the Bible clearly lays out, and stop spending class time trying to present some convoluted theory of origins that is not even spelled out in the Bible.
9 Likes
Greg, @AMWolfe did not think he offended you. As he said earlier, you offended him by saying he was not teaching his kids to trust in God. I realize the thread has gotten long but Iâm sure he would appreciate it if you would be willing to go back and address this with a spirit of genuine love.
2 Likes
As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, âFollow Me.â So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, âWhy does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?â When Jesus heard that, He said to them, âThose who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: âI desire mercy and not sacrifice.â For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.â
2 Likes
Greg, Iâm still unclear. Do you have any plans to sit down and at least to attempt a systematic reading of an evolutionary biology textbook? It is certainly OK to say âNo.â, because we all have busy lives and have to make choices based on priorities. But I just want to hear you say whether or not you have any plans to go beyond National Geograhics videos and what you find in popular-level sources.
I do see you going to non-scientist sources like Ravi Zacharias and ICR, despite their poor reputations for misrepresenting science. (And, by the way, Iâm a big fan of Ravi Zachariasâ sermons. I appreciate his spiritual gifts. But just as I donât look to Richard Dawkins for theological insights or history and philosophy scholarship, I donât look to Ravi for help with relativity and the physics of time. Do you?)
As to the whale hip press release from USC, I immediately noticed this groaner that tells me that the P.R. people (and a deliberate skewing to a lay-audience) crafted the language and that the wording didnât come from the best of peer-reviewed science:
New research turns a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head â finding that far from being just vestigial, whale pelvic bones play a key role in reproduction
The words âjust vestigialâ is a big red flag. It perpetuates the popular myth that âvestigialâ means âwithout function or purposeâ. No, vestigial can sometimes be associated with little or no function but the definition refers to a former function being lost. Vestigial structures can have all sorts of functions, even key functions. And while Iâm no expert on whale anatomy, I do know that the ball-socket leg remnants associated with that whale pelvis point to functions in the whaleâs ancestor which no longer apply today. That is why their vestigial label still stands.
I could also mention that I didnât spend a lot of time digging in depth into the USC discovery in part because I found it rather underwhelming. Iâve been hearing of the role of the whale pelvis and vestigial leg bones in reproduction for many yearsâeven on Young Earth Creationist websitesâso Iâm not clear what was new about the discovery in 2014. The goal of the USC publicity department (with such press releases) is to convince taxpayers and donors that exciting new discoveries are being made at the university. Sometimes that means making important but not always exciting science seem dazzling and surprising, even when it isnât as exciting as some other discoveries which lead to new technological marvels. Hype is quite common, as well as amping up the volume a bit. But, frankly, the general topic (of yet another vestigial structure which has a function) isnât important to me because every time Iâve waste my time on âvestigial organâ arguments, I always find them misrepresented by the anti-evolution organizations. (After a while, itâs my own fault for wasting my time on a goose-chase.)
Anyway, I think it is fair to say that you are likely to discover what I discovered during the many years when I was an adamant Young Earth Creationist: As long as I kept getting my information from non-scientists and anti-science advocates, my own viewpoint was reinforced. It wasnât until I started a systematic review of the evidence, and reading rebuttals to my favorite anti-evolution sources like The Genesis Flood, did I start seeing the errors in my thinking. For years I confided myself to anti-science sources, andâsurpriseâthey kept assuring me that the traditions I had known for years in my church were the right ones. Not only that, but none of the evidence and arguments I was reading did anything to challenge my thinking. My views were safe and secure.
Another term for that tactic is The Argument from Negative Consequences fallacy. You will find it in every Logic 101 textbook. Whether or not a scientific theory genuinely tends to lead to a particular philosophical position is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the theory is the best explanation for the data. I too am concerned about liberal theology in the Church. But it is a logical fallacy to let my fears skew my following the evidence where it leads.
The Argument from Negative Consequences can produce all sorts of nonsense. I am convinced that Newtonâs Laws of Motion and his Law of Universal Gravitation led to bombs and ballistic missiles which have killed and maimed millions of people and have caused terrible suffering for centuries. But those negative consequences are irrelevant to the science! Gravity operates as God meant for it to operate whether I happen to like the results or not. I canât let my fear of gravity lead me to declare gravity nonexistent.
As to your arguments about design, I too used to think that design required the volition and intervention of an intelligence. (And in an ultimate causation sense, I still do.) But my work with evolutionary algorithms blew my mind and led me to realize that simplicity and ârandomnessâ without the intervention of an intelligence can produce amazing complexity and the appearance of intelligent solutions by an intelligent agent. Hereâs a simulation Iâd like you to try:
http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/
Notice that a very simple algorithm uses nothing but a random number generator and ânatural selectionâ produces better and better designs without any intelligent intervention. It was algorithms like this applied to solving complex problems which finally convinced me that God created natural processes which can operate âon auto-pilotâ to adapt life to changing environments and to diversify life on earth. Praise God! Our Creator doesnât need to continually intervene and tweak what he didnât get right the first time. Instead, he made a universe where the laws of physics and mathematics (to put it in human terms, even though such talk of âlawsâ is an imperfect analogy) can do what youâve told us they canât do: produce tremendous âdesignsâ and solutions which appear to be âintelligentâ.
Yes, I used to believe that God carried out his will for the universe by a lot of initial âpoofingâ and thereafter by continual intervention and tweaking. But I eventually concluded that Godâs ways are far more amazing than that. There is nothing less wondrous or befitting our Creator in accepting that his ways are not always like we think they should be. Ultimately, they are all his designs, even when he uses natural processes to accomplish his will. My God is so powerful and wise that he could create a universe which would use natural processes to function exactly as he intended for his glory. And the Bible tells us that God is sovereign over ârandom chanceâ, such as in the roll of every pair of dice! There is no reason why Christ-followers should fear the idea of God using ârandomnessâ and natural processes for his glory. I am entirely sincere when I say âHallelujah!â to the evolutionary processes God created.
Greg, I do hope that you gain an appreciation for the evolutionary processes God created by a much shorter route than I took. I was extremely slow about getting around to a systematic study of the evidence. Frankly, if not for some colleagues being rather hard on me, I donât know if I would ever have allowed myself to get outside of my own neatly constructed boundaries. Fortunately, there are far more and better resources for Christians today who decide to tackle these topics. In the 1960âs, there just wasnât all that much available without spending a lot of time at a university library where the peer-reviewed journal articles could be tracked down. And there was very little that was written on a non-technical level which could help me to sort out what Drs. Gish, Morris, and Whitcomb were telling me about âcreation science.â Indeed, when I would ask scientists about their arguments, nobody had heard of them. (A few even thought that somebody was pulling my leg, as I described the arguments in The Genesis Flood. Looking back, I am very embarrassed how poorly I examined the evidence. I basically swallowed hook-line-sinker everything the âcreation scientistsâ told me because I assumed it impossible for true born-again Christian brethren to misrepresent the scientific evidence and the citations. In those days, Iâd never even heard the term âquote-mineâ and that is probably because it didnât exist yet. It pains me to think that my own actions helped lead to that term being coined.)
I should add that I have great respect for those who care about potential damage to the Church when worldly philosophy is allowed to creep in. Iâm glad that many are so vigilant about examining ânew winds of doctrineâ. Although I have grave concerns about the sincerity and integrity of some of the entrepreneurs who have made their fortunes in the anti-evolution industry, I am certain that the vast majority of my friends and associates who deny the Theory of Evolution have sincere motivations for doing so. Iâm glad they care about right and wrong and about what is correct and incorrect. It would be far worse if everyone was apathetic.
6 Likes
Yes they are. Can you tell us why you are implying that that is some sort of a problem?
I read the press release but couldnât find anything which denied evolution and favored âdesignâ.
Perhaps it would be useful if you explain how believe evolution and design differ. Can you explain what a âdesignâ theory would predict that the Theory of Evolution would not predict? How would you go about subjecting each to falsification testing?
A great many fields of science would benefit from a testing scheme for determining whether or not some object or process X was âdesignedâ. For example, sometimes a geologist or an anthropologist will find an object for which the first question is âWas this object X produced by natural processes or an intelligent agent, such as an ancient tribe?â It sounds like you believe that âdesignâ can be detected based on some set of characteristics. Can you tell us what they are?
As to a whale pelvis, how can we determine whether it was âdesignedâ (perhaps even by a âdesignerâ) or was âundesignedâ (by natural processes)? And do you think it could be possible that BOTH could be true? Can natural processes âdesignâ structures? After all, you surely agree that natural processes âdesignâ beautifully intricate âdesignsâ like those in snowflakes and mineral crystals.
Indeed, I like that example. So I ask you: Does God design snowflakes by means of natural processes? If yes, why couldnât God design living organisms by means of natural processes? In part Iâm asking you if your evolution versus design stance is a false dichotomy.
3 Likes
Perhaps this will be another helpful example. We believe by faith that God created each one of us, individually, in the womb (Ps. 139). At the same time, we understand the physical, natural causes that led to the same conception and birth. By faith we affirm God as our Creator, without denying the role our parents and their chromosomes played in bringing it about. In the same way that God can create you and me, as individuals, through natural means, he can create all of humanity, including the first, through natural means. It is by faith we affirm God as creator (Heb. 11:3), not by scientific proofs.
5 Likes
Greg, I havenât seen any evidence to suggest that youâve been reading any studies by naturalists. All youâve cited so far are a video and a press release.
Do you not know the difference?
1 Like
I think this is key. What does the Bible mean when it says Eve is the mother of all life? Does it mean spiritual life or physical life? The Bible does clearly refer to both those concepts, at different times, and we have to examine the context to figure out which is meant, rather than just assuming one or the other.
In this case, if Eve were the mother of all physical life, it would mean she was the mother of creatures, land animals and sea animals and birds, and even of plants and trees. If, on the other hand, it means she was the mother of spiritual life, then it can clearly refer to the humans who came after her.
In either case, we should be cautious of taking the word all literally, unless we choose to argue that Eve was the mother of Adam as well.
I actually really like the statement that God created kinds. It seems like a really good description of evolution to me. Every kind of creature is covered by this description; there are no creatures not created by God. And each creature is created after its kind; this means it is created from other creatures similar to it. This is exactly what evolution claims! The whole animal kingdom, and every creature in it, all life and every kind of organism, is related, kin, family!
Even though you accuse those here of âfeverish intensityâ to prove the Bible wrong, that is not the case. It is only certain unnecessary interpretations which are being thrown out. You use the words of the Bible as though your interpretation is the only meaning they could have, but when you assume your own rectitude in this way, you cast thoughtless aspersions on the faith and intelligence of your fellow Christians on this site.
3 Likes
And those are good things, right?
Iâm not exactly sure what a âcuteâ chart would beâand but you are clearly denigrating them. I sense a twist of the knife coming.
Now you are back to accusing people of various evils. What âmessy stuffâ are you talking about? And are you saying that this kind of alleged deception in the science academy is typical? What is your evidence? All I hear is nebulous innuendo. Are your Christian brethren in the science academy equally guilty of this alleged deception? Or are you simply repeating the misrepresentations of the published papers appearing at AIG and ICR websites? Did you track down the published papers to make sure the scientists were quoted accurately? Iâve done that and have been very troubled by the poor track records of AIG and ICR in terms of misrepresentation.
You didnât give any examples to support your allegations. Iâd like to look up your most blatant examples. Please post what you consider one of the most glaring examples of this type of deceit. (Iâll make you a deal: If you post some valid examples of what you are describing that you have verified in a peer-reviewed journal, Iâll post examples of deceptive gossip against scientists at anti-evolution websites.)
In my experience, scientists LOVE to report anomalous finds! It makes oneâs paper more likely to be published, PRECISELY because something was found that was unexpected. Why would they want to cover it up? That makes no sense. (Or did you read all of this at some anti-evolution website? Did you track down the original paper to verify the information? One of my frustrations when I was still trying to sort out my position about evolution after years as a Young Earth Creationist was that once I finally found the citation in a university library, the peer-reviewed article was NOTHING like the anti-evolution author had claimed. Frankly, I kept finding lies and/or cherry-picked half-truths.)
I will agree that new finds appear in unexpected strata. But Iâve yet to find one of those which somehow created a problem for the Theory of Evolution.
I donât understand that. Letâs see an example where this a problem. Why would they need to report âhow these animals would be found in other parts of the earth, etc.â?
Do understand that if some scientists found a modern day dinosaur that looked much like a T-rex on some remote island in the tropics, it would do nothing in and of itself to debunk the Theory of Evolution? Do you understand it would also do nothing to destroy the geologic column or what we know about the age of the earth? Every now and then scientists find that some taxonomic group managed to survive and evolve far longer than once believed. Surely you know of some examples.
Perhaps the Coelacanth is the most often cited. Before the 1930âs, Coelacanths were known only from fossil remains. The discovery of living specimens in the Indian Ocean was big news, and they were dubbed âliving fossilsâ, an often misunderstood phrase that the media loves. But what anti-evolution story-spinners rarely mention is that Coelacanths are an entire order of fish, not just one species. Indeed, the ancient species did die out. The two modern species are not the same species found in the ancient strata from many millions of years ago. So rather than âdebunkingâ the Theory of Evolution, such finds illustrate how evolutionary processes allowed an order of fishes to survive and adapt. Even so, I once heard Ravi Zacharias say that modern coelacanths are âno differentâ from the ancient fossil coelacanthsâand so he mocked the scientists saying, âIf evolution is true, why didnât these coelacanths evolve? I guess evolution stood still!â Needless to say, Ravi has no experience with comparative anatomy, but he presumes to conclude that the ancient and modern coelacanths âlooked essentially the same.â (Does the opinion of a non-scientist even matter? Is âThey look the same to me!â good science?) Ravi went on to mock the paleontologists by saying that âeverybody knowsâ that crocodiles are living fossils, and therefore, âdisproveâ evolution. Roger, do you find that to be poor scholarship?
Greg, I get the impression that one of the reasons you are confused is that you donât understand the methodological naturalism of science and the philosophical natural of many types of atheism. Methodological naturalism is the very foundation of the scientific method and was one of the great contributions of Christian philosophers to the modern world. It wasnât atheists who brought us methodological naturalism. It was Bible-affirming Christians such as William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, and so many others!
Science is naturalistic by definition and therein lies its power! And science makes no claims about theology because it lacks the tools and procedures to do so. It sounds like you want science to be conducted as if it were still an early form of natural philosophy. The moment you demand that science be treated like theology, you throw out falsification testing.
Roger, I keep seeing in your posts a strong denial of science and the value of evidence. There is nothing wrong with making philosophical argumentsâbut donât confuse them with science.
5 Likes
As @Lynn_Munter pointed out, you misread what I wrote. But thatâs okay, actually. Iâm glad you did, because I really didnât want to make this about me, and was regretting the appearance of having done that. Itâs actually about two things: this forum, and your own personal discipleship. As far as this forum is concerned, Iâll temporarily retract my request for the moderators to censor you because, you know, even if you never come around, this thread has produced some really beautiful dialogue from folks trying to convince you, and even if it fails to convince you, maybe someone else lurking on the thread will benefit. I donât consider it a loss! As far as Iâm concerned, yes, I was offended and you did indeed sin against me (not personally, of course, but as one of many members of the class of evolutionary creationists whom you have been repeatedly slandering) but hey, Iâve got my big boy pants on and this is an impersonal online forum so I canât expect you to repent of this. Lastly, as far as your personal walk with Christ is concerned, well, thatâs between you and the Lord. So Iâll trust Him to open your eyes in due time. Goodness knows Iâm undeserving of Godâs grace so Iâm in no position to continue to hold this against you.
That said, if I see you at this slandering business again, I will absolutely flag it for the moderators and personally pester them until they ban you [EDIT: or at least until they delete the offending post(s)]. 
Have a good day!
1 Like
P.S. I really am praising God about how things turned out with that customer. No matter how seriously one disagrees with someone, nobody wants a brother to lose thousands of dollars for no good reason. I was mourning with you as you mourned and am gratefully rejoicing as you rejoice! Praise God!
[Edit to tag you since I inadvertently replied to myself: @grog]
2 Likes
Lynn_Munter quoted Grog:
I find it fascinating how Grog/Greg usually puts an extra âspinâ whenever he refers to those who disagree with him. Greg says that they donât just have an âinclination to proveâ something. They have a FEVERISH inclination. That sure sounds sinister to me!
I canât help but be amused by itâbut I really shouldnât. It is another effort to denigrate our Christian brethren. In contrast, Greg has made clear that when his anti-evolution Christian brethren make claims, it is always a noble effort and one loaded with virtue and the good of the kingdom. Iâm fine with Greg picking a side that he favors, but wouldnât the argument be stronger if based on evidence and the merits of the analysis to where it wouldnât need these types of petty âspinsâ on the ball.
As others have already observed, Iâm delighted that the moderators allow some leeway in permitting such posts here. It helps visitors compare and contrast how the various âsidesâ of these issues present their ideas.
When I was a Young Earth Creationist years ago, it was actually this kind of âspinâ which two of the big name âcreation scienceâ authorities used to use in their books, lectures, and debates which troubled me about my Young Earth Creationist position. I got frustrated and I often asked my friends and my pastor, âIf we represent Godâs view of the matter and we are right and Biblical, why should we have to resort to these kinds of petty and even childish tactics and choice of language?â It just didnât seem Christ-like and befitting of a truly scriptural position.
I guess it goes to show that even though our ultimate conclusions will be made on the basis of scriptural evidence and scientific evidence, the emotional motivation which actually got me energized to reconsider my position on origins began with the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sins and the sins of my associates in how we were treating our Christian brethren. I felt very ashamed and troubled. (In fact, I got extremely frustrated with one of the most famous YEC speakers of that era when a seminary professor in the audience asked him a question from the floor microphone during the Q&A. The rude and dismissive reply crushed my spirit because I realized that I had been guilty of the very same carnal attitude as my âheroâ had just demonstrated. From that point on, I became more and more obsessed with investigating whether my position was God honoring and furthering the Great Commission. That incident motivated me far more than any collection of scientific evidence.)
Yes. And it frustrates me that it can be very hard to get anti-evolution Christians to define the KIND. It used to be common to say KIND=species. But as the years went by, the evidence for evolution became overwhelming, so they started the micro/macro mambo. Ken Ham says that the KIND represents various taxonomic groups but USUALLY a FAMILY. Yet, in the Torah, different colors of ravens/raptors are considered to be different KINDS, quite the opposite of Hamâs claim. In fact, what Iâve noticed is that they keep the definition of KIND as flexible possible so that when evidence is presented against it, they modify the definition to fit.
Of course, as is often noted, all organism produce offspring after their own kindâand if they ever failed to do so, that would be powerful evidence against the Theory of Evolution.
5 Likes
Since it cannot be proven that we evolved from a common decent, this is necessarily philosophical. God asks Job sarcastically "where were you when I created the behemoth? Apparently evolutionary scientists today were there when God created to be so confident about their evolutionary claims.
Naturalistic science that deal with present day medicine development and other sciences is perfectly fine and a gift from God. To apply this to how life came to be in existence billions of years ago is ludicrous. The fact that something just does not come from nothing should indicate to them that when it comes to how we got here, a miracle worker must be considered and for this, naturalism fails as a vehicle for discovery.
In fact, if I am a theistic evolutionist who believes that God intervenes in nature as life develops, this make science confusing because it never knows when to let on and let off. But If God created kinds with the ability to adapt and placed these in the natural world, then science is a gift from God that can be trusted for discoveries on how toâŚ
The one other bit of science that I believe is ignored by the science community is that of statistics. One cannot even assign the probability of 20 blocks of wood to be thrown into the air to fall into the fashion of, say a simple square foundation with staggered joints without intelligence guiding it because probability can only be assigned to that which is possible. It will never happen. Not in a billion tries and not in a 100 trillion tries. And we are talking 20 blocks of wood! Some will suggest to me that evolution is small steps that mount on top of one another. I say, okay then throw each block up in the air one at a time then and see what type of structure you get. And some believe that chance mutations over time by the power of the sun develops things like eyes and dna? And Iâm called a fool for my suggestions here.
This is a philosophical issue. The complexity and brilliance and beauty of life today demands philosophy and mine is that God indeed did create the kinds with the ability to adapt. So hate me.
You might want to learn a little statistics and probability theory before you start throwing numbers around.
Proverbs 16:33 says that every time you roll dice the outcome is determined by God. Do you believe that? Do you really believe that God is incapable of determining the outcome of evolution? Can you show me in scripture where it says this? Why would you place such a limit on God?
The complexity and brilliance and beauty of life today is a testament to our great Creator. Nothing requires that it be done in your particular way.
We donât. But I donât know if I can say the same thing about you.
2 Likes
If all Christians were to choose like I and many others do to simply state that we tend towards believing the plain reading of the precepts found in the Bible and tend towards a healthy distrust of manâs ability to truly come to grips with how life came to this earth, then there would not have to be such division and strife. Ken Hamm has his thoughts and attempts to bring science to prove his. Some evolutionary theists do the same. I simply state that I was not there when God created. I believe that the earth looks old, but how old is a question that I donât think is truly answerable this side of heaven. God exists outside of time. And I just donât see logic with chance mutations by energy producing dna and a lot of logic with the idea that God created kinds of animals. I wonât be able to set up a nice website based on this thinking nor will I reap the benefits of a great book deal. I just was not there when God created. There is mystery in what occurred when God brought life and this mystery is the grounds I have for believing the Bible because it tells me that man most likely did not concoct it. And this mystery also causes me to fall on my face in worship before a God so outstanding, transcendent and beyond what human kind can know completely in their finite minds. And this God chose to save me from my pitiful little self who will tend to think too much of himself from time to time. if this pitiful self of mine showed up with slander towards some, I apologize. I will not apologize for challenging the vast majority here who think differently than I do in these things on this site. I have truly benefited from this discourse. I am growing in my love for God and growing as a person.
2 Likes
There is plenty in Godâs vast creation to cause all of us believers to fall on our faces before him regardless of how much of it we think we do or donât understand. Some of us may understand more of particular things than others (according to our skills, time and investment). But I think itâs pretty safe to say weâre all in the same hopelessly dependent state when we come before our Maker. That is indeed the great leveler.
1 Like
Yes, if everyone would only adopt YOUR OPINION, there would be no disagreement on these matters. That would indeed be a simple solution!
Of course, a âplain readingâ of the Bible is code for âmy reading of the Bibleâ. Isnât it interesting that you are best qualified to determine the âplainâ reading and meaning of an ancient Hebrew text from a very different culture of several thousand years ago? I work with various Bible translators and they would smile widely if I told them that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible involve âplainâ meanings.
Have you ever considered that there is nothing plain and simple about the Biblical texts UNTIL skilled translators labor to resolve the complexities, difficulties, and disagreements about the meaning of a text by publishing a particular English Bible edition?
Have you noticed that no two Bible translations resolve those not-so-plain readings of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts in exactly the same way?
I suppose there would also be a lot fewer conflicts and disagreements between Christian denominations if we banned all but one. Should we choose yours? Of course, there would still be disagreements about the âplain meaningâ of various Bible passages, but we could resolve them by checking with you.
As in many areas of life, conforming to a single international standard would have many advantages.
4 Likes
Greg, I trust God and trust the Bible when in Psalms19 it says:
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.â
and when in Romans 1:20 " For since the creation of the world Godâs invisible qualitiesâhis eternal power and divine natureâhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.â
This tells be that what you see in creation is reliable and trustworthy, because it reflects the nature of God. Science is the formal way of studying that creation.
In case you have not realized it, the thing that tends to cause those in science the most grief and anger, is the twisting of truth and misrepresentation of findings by those who claim Godâs calling. We studied last night in 1 Timothy 6:3 "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. "
We all need to be aware of those dangers, as we all tend to fall into sin, but as Paul told Timothy, we should guard against it in ourselves and others. I would encourage you to read outside of some of the narrow sites you quote, if for no other reason than to better understand where evolutionary creationists are coming from. And as Paul ended his letter,
Grace be with you all.
7 Likes
Greg, Iâve spent a lifetime laboring over the Hebrew and Greek texts of the scriptures trying to figure out their âplain meaningââor, at least, some kind of meaning. But I admit that Iâm stumped on a great many issues. If I sent you a list of the Bible passages for which the âplain meaningâ has eluded me, would you be able to tell me the âplain meaningâ that God intended for each passage? (As youâve implied or even stated outright in some of your comments, some people have direct access to Godâs insights and some of us apparently do not.)
These passages include some of the classics like the women being saved in childbearing, the correct meaning of the foreknowledge and election passages, the dividing of the earth at the time of Peleg, and the plain meaning of several eschatological passages.
I spent many thousands of dollars on my seminary and graduate school degrees and now it appears that I could have avoided all that expense and effort if I only had consulted those who already know âthe plain meaning.â
8 Likes