Looking for answers…and not from Ken Ham

Faith & Science Conversation
42

Here are a couple of articles that describe the geologic history of Mars. Basically, based on what is known of earth’s features, Mars’s history has been divided into three time periods, in which the craters have been compared to those patterns found on the moon and verified by dating moon rocks.

https://www.msss.com/http/ps/age2.html

I’d also suggest this documentary:

Meanwhile, AiG says this:

In the case of Mars, we have no eyewitness record of events there other than the fact that God created it about 6,000 years ago along with everything else. Conclusions about the age of Mars rocks or the duration of water flow require assumptions about conditions and events long past and not amenable to controlled scientific testing. Such long age estimates should not be considered reliable.
…in this article- Running Water in Martian Past | Answers in Genesis

AiG hasn’t offered a better model of Mars’s geologic past that I know of.

I’m just an enthusiast, so if there are any geologists or astronomers here that specialize, I’d love to learn more too :slight_smile:

4 Likes
43

I am not an expert on Mars, but any claim along the lines of “descriptions of events in the geologic past cannot be replicated, therefore any scientific statements about them are unreliable” is completely untenable, as it invalidates all statements about events in the past.

4 Likes
44

To be fair, I think the AiG line of reasoning goes something like this:

  • Without eyewitness testimony we cannot know for sure what happened in the ancient past.
  • Therefore, examining rock layers and fossils can tell us about how those things appear now, but not how they appeared or came to be in the past.
  • Additionally, humans and, by extension our senses and minds, are fallible, fallen, and prone to error.
  • Genesis 1-2 provides an eye witness of how the universe came into existence
  • since God is perfect and does not lie or make mistakes, his account (Gen 1-2) is more trustworthy than the fallible human science.

I hope that is a fair thumbnail sketch. Certainly don’t want to strawman the beliefs of any AiG supporting brothers and sisters, so welcome and encourage corrections/clarifications.

1 Like
45

For a different perspective on creation and a young earth look here Gets more into earth history than biology.
The author delves into the possibility that water on Mars actually came from earth. The bottom third of this page deals with water on Mars.

46

Different describes it well. I can see a few obvious hurdles as far as basic physics. Regarding water on Mars, there are some good articles on the Natural Historian about erosion and such when Mars still had a lot of water.

47

Yes, I have seen reasoning along the lines of both what I described (e.g., [the Big Bang, abiogenesis, mass extinctions, star formation, etc.] can’t be replicated, therefore it can’t be real) and reasoning more toward what you describe. The latter still commits a proving-too-much fallacy by considering eyewitness testimony the only valid form of evidence for events in the past: that makes both non-textual archaeology, and claims about layers being deposited by the flood inherently impossible.

2 Likes
48

Let’s us go through the arguments shall we:

  1. The first is an argument from ignorance to try to say that Science can’t model something effectively from the past. However, when and how exactly could we base any Science on from this line of reasoning? Yesterday? It is from the past. Or maybe 10 years? 100 years? Obviously, if there is no other way to validate something from the past and it is a one off then we have a severe problem. However, this is not necessarily the case. We can study stellar evolution and see birth and evolution of stars and have a lot of knowledge of these things. It may be possible some day to travel to M-Class planets and see them undergoing abiogenesis to show that chemical evolution is not just a possible explanation but a reality. So in principle many things now not possible may be possible.
  2. Same reasoning as above. If in the future we can chart thousands or millions of planets undergoing similar fossilization as on earth we can be pretty certain that that is what happened here even not going back (and perhaps time travel is possible, which would be another way to validate or discredit the current understanding)
  3. This can be said of both the Scientist and Religionist. Religionist have been prone to error in the past within all religious groups. It is more likely that Science is correct because past understanding of Science has changed with new information and new experiments. The self-correcting nature of science helps to constantly improve and eliminate error. What has happened to religion? Most have gone extinct because their ideas have been shown to poorly fit the data. The majority of Scientists who have studied these types of things that this is the case with the Bible as well
  4. Eyewitness account from god has to be demonstrated otherwise it has no validity - since a piece of writing can make any claim but is it likely to be true or accurate?. The best current empirical Science disagrees with the Bible from many different areas relating to Genesis 1-2. The best Biblical scholarship today seems to view the passage as not being a scientific explanation but some type of National Hebrew Creation Myth or Creation Story probably adapted when in exile in Babylon from ancient Babylonian and Sumerian myths - as the stories are very similar. I’m not aware of any validated Hebrew writings predating the exile that would support an early writing of these stories. No information does not prove the Biblical writing didn’t exist early. However, when much of what is recorded does not show up in any form (Hebrew writing, archeology, the records of other nations etc.). Then doubt grows as to whether the writing actually records any ancient history of the Hebrews including early Genesis.
  5. Assumes existence of god which first needs to be shown. This seems impossible or at the least extremely difficult because there is not a generally acceptable definition of god that could ever be empirically tested for. World View (WV) framework arguments (using god as a framework) can just as easily be framed within Natural Science without involving metaphysical explanations such as god. Unless the religionist can establish the existence of god by specifying some type of set of tests, natural explanations seem much less problematic and preferable.

In conclusion, YEC must provide actual evidence and empirical data for their claims. It is fine to use the Bible to support claims as long as the Biblical material is generally accepted and shown to be valid. Since gods, early Genesis, and much of the early history of Israel is not generally accepted as historical, significant arguments and empirical evidence must be mounted to overcome these objections. Since this is not done, most Scientists rightly dismiss AIG and YEC type thinking.

1 Like
49

Yes indeed. It is also not borne out in daily human experience.

For example, earlier this evening I came into the dining room to find orange play-doh squashed into the carpet. Despite their denials I knew my boys were to blame and so they received a consequence for their actions.

However, under the logic of AiG I acted incorrectly, perhaps even unjustly. After all I did not see them squash the play-doh into the carpet and have neither an eyewitness nor a confession to explain which process caused the play-doh to move from the table to the floor.

A purposefully silly and purely illustrative example.

5 Likes
50

Abiogenesis and perhaps other of these items is in principle possible to observe (although not with current technology). If planets were charted and a significant number of earthlike planets were undergoing abiogenesis than we could make the inference that it is not just possible but highly probable that is what happened on earth. This could extend all the way up to intelligent beings like humans and beyond - if the same were observed evolving. The converse could also be true, if some other mechanism was seen operating or none were found after surveying a significant number of stars - some other explanation might be appropriate (intelligent designer? god? other?)

51

We have nothing that proves they were written then, but they fit with a much earlier writing.

I recommended On the reliability of the Old Testament by K. A. Kitchen. The author is a Near-East archaeologist, and is assessing how well the statements found within fit with archaeology. His conclusions include the following: early Genesis-like accounts are only known to have been composed before c. 1800 BC; the form of the law codes in the Pentateuch was only used in the 1300-1150 BC range; and other such results which put most of the Old Testament (and the traditional dates of writing) in the “equally plausible as most (if not more plausible than many) other historical writings from the ancient near-east” category.

2 Likes
52

I’m aware of this line of argument (“similar to” type arguments) and have studied books like Kitchen’s before. However, this writing all seems to be borrowed - adapted for their own purposes. If it were adapted from earlier Babylonian and Sumerian writings it would display all of the accurate references, structure and even wording. However, it would only be an adaptation. There seems to be no actual evidence the Hebrews existed early or wrote it. I studied an in-depth course on the Ancient Near East and the early cultures of the ANE say nothing of Hebrews. One would think that there would at least be some reference to David’s and Solomon’s empire and trade with (as with other groups throughout Egyptian history) if it existed by the Egyptians. Also, if this information and evidence were readily available, people would bring it up no matter how sparse. There is nothing.

53

On this point, I would point out that eye witness testimony is only relevant if one interprets early Genesis as literal history. One must consider the genre of the text in order to interpret it correctly, and it certainly does not real like history. Even in the later chapters and other books in the OT, they are not written for the purpose of history. I told someone that they are like a chicken sandwich. A sandwich has chicken in it, and the chicken may be real chicken (and often may be multiple chickens, ground and pressed into a patty) but a sandwich is not a chicken. And a theological story is not a historical document.

3 Likes
54

Re “And last, any good book recommendations for theistic evolution? I know literally nothing”, I can recommend any or all of the following books:
• “Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution” or “I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution” (the Reader’s Digest version) by Denis O. Lamoureux
• “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” edited by Keith B. Miller
• “Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory” by Gijsbert van den Brink
• “The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science” by Mark Harris
• “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis S. Collins
• “The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions” by Karl W. Giberson & Francis S. Collins
• “Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes!” by Denis O. Lamoureux
• “Embracing Evolution: How Understanding Science Can Strengthen Your Christian Life” by Matthew Nelson Hill
• “Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective” by Bishop, Funck, Lewis, Moshier, and Walton
• “Is There Purpose in Biology? The Cost of Existence and the God of Love" by Denis Alexander
• “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” by Kenneth R. Miller
• “Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos” edited by Kenneth Keathley et al
• “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution” by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma
• “Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution” by Karl W. Giberson
• “Theology After Darwin” edited by R. J. Berry
• “Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges” edited by R. J. Berry
• “Reading Genesis after Darwin” edited by Stephen C Barton
• “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose” by Denis Alexander

9 Likes
55

There are a few problems on

1: the number of surviving textual records from Egypt at that date that discuss other nations that are not “I [Pharaoh] smashed their army and raided their lands, etc., etc.” or “here is the tribute they sent us” is exactly zero, because the former categories are what they put on monumental buildings, and all papyrus records from lower Egypt prior to 300 BC are gone.

2: Shoshenk raiding extensively in Palestine (and his son Osorkon IV using huge amounts of precious metals on building projects) suggests there was something valuable to be grabbed from the area, and that would fit nicely with the record of Shishak hauling off much of Solomon’s wealth.

  1. Both Egypt and Mesopotamian kingdoms were weak, and not fighting people in Palestine from c. 1400-c. 950 BC, thus the lack of records is uninformative.

We can observe a massive influx of people (~30,000 people adding to the ~20,000 that already lived in Palestine) into the highlands of Israel c. 1200 BC. These new people had a distinctly different pottery and ate essentially no pork, whereas that was a staple meat of the former inhabitants. There is an Egyptian record of a people in the right area called (a phonetic equivalent to) Israel in 1209 BC.

The origins of Genesis are much harder to discern than the later historical books, though.

5 Likes
56

James and john, welcome to this forum. You are starting to think. First, the creation narrative of Genesis is not about cosmology or origins. Second, the Bible does not pretend to reveal science or evolution. Evolution, technically is a hypothesis since the process cannot be observed or be subjected to the scientific method. Evolution will remain as the scientific explanation of biological origins unless another hypothesis that answers the origin questions using a better naturalistic explanation. The essential issue of evolution for creationist is the hypothetical process; that being natural selection.

Back to the first point. What is Genesis about?

Traditional religious texts, like the Bible, were composed by ancient people with their perspective of an ancient worldview. The questions modern people asl about the creation narrative in Genesis never occurred to the ancients. Accordingly, ancient composers of religious texts when they address questions about origins or being are thinking within the context of their worldview – not a modern scientific one.

Well, yes, Genesis is framed as a creation narrative, but the purpose is not to describe the order or structure of creation. The divine purpose seems to be found in the differences in the Genesis account when compared to the old Sumerian Enuma Elish narrative. Because it would seem likely that an ancient people would accept an existing narrative of creation if they did not already have one for their culture, it could be assumed that the cultural of the general population of ancient Sumerian would have embraced the Sumerian Enuma Elish narrative.

The biblical Abraham was born about one hundred years after the demise of the Sumerian period and in the former territory of the Sumerian Empire. It might be assumed that the creation narrative of the Sumerians’, or one very much like it, was the popular creation myth that existed when and where Abraham was born. Furthermore, if I may be allowed to be even more speculative, it might be assumed that Abraham was the Hebrew who recapitulated the Enuma Elish narrative to change the narrative to include the differences found in the Genesis narrative. After all, Abraham entertained divine messengers more than any other Old Testament character. Only speculation and the recorded changes in Genesis as contrasted with known myths indicate what might be the unrecorded content of the possible conversations between Abraham and the divine messangers who appeared, delivered messages, and ate at his table. (Genesis 12:1-3,7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 18:1-33; 21:12-13; 22:1-18). Inspired scripture is not always through spiritual guidance, but many times have been the result of divine conversations or encounters.

The truth and divine revelation are both able to co-opt ideas and symbols from myth, literature, and history to explain itself in language that the hearer understands. A language Abraham would understand. A well know example is co-opted from the Canaanite god Baal. Baal, having rose to the top of the pagan religion, was said to be the cloud rider or he comes riding on a cloud. Some Bible texts co-opt the idea of the cloud rider and apply it to YHWH and in the New Testament Jesus uses this symbol for Himself. The successful co-opting of symbols formerly applied to one thing where that other thing’s use of the symbol is completely lost, is a measure of the new things power and influence. Such is pagan Easter having been totally co-opted by Christianity.

Biblical examples of the co-opting of the cloud rider:

Matthew 24:30 ESV

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the cloud s of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64ESV

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the cloud s of heaven.”

Mark 13:36 ESV

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in cloud s with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62 ESV

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the cloud s of heaven.”

Luke 21:27 ESV

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7 ESV

Behold, he is coming with the clouds , and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

Revelation 10:1 ESV

The Angel and the Little Scroll

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud , with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.

Revelation 14:14-16 ESV

The Harvest of the Earth

Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud , and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand.

And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.”

So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped.

And in Acts 1:9 has Jesus taken up by a cloud as He ascends.

For the Old Testament see:

Psalm 104:3 ESV

He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind;

Isaiah 19:1 ESV

An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Daniel 7:13 ESV

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Nahum 1:3 ESV

The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

The Sumerian Enuma Elish: The Other Creation Narrative

Myths, religions, sciences, and philosophies are concerned with explanations and mechanics. Each form adapts and changes with the changing human speculation or understanding. Probably, the Genesis account of creation, might have been from the ancient Hebrew perspective, an inspired prophetic recapitulation of the creation myth over against the Sumerian Enuma Elish.

When compared to the Genesis alternative there are these significant differences which have quite different projections as to a possible future.

Enuma Elish- Light results from combat between deities in chaos.

Genesis – Light begins with the command of the Creator. The light removes the darkness and orders chaos.

Enuma Elish- Cosmology formed from combat between deities.

Genesis - Cosmology resulted at the command of the Creator.

Enuma Elish- The worldly political powers are pawns of the celestial bodies (divinities).

Genesis – Authority for political power is imparted by celestial bodies identified as the elohim (divinities or sons of God/El).

Enuma Elish- Mankind’s purpose is to be slaves and servants of divinities.

Genesis – Mankind is made in the image of God.

Genesis Is All About Divine Inspiration

Conflicting interpretations of Genesis is about different views of the divine inspiration of the text. If Genesis is not divinely influenced, then, Genesis is just an ancient myth and has no theological, spiritual, scientific, social, political, or personal relevance. At the other extreme, if Genesis is the transcribed words received from God, then, an interpretation is necessary to determine the message. There is this verbal, plenary inspiration position which applies a literal interpretation from which the extreme belief in Genesis as an actual account of creation from which some creationists begin – as does Ken Ham. An objective; that is, an unimpaired by presuppositions thinker ought to consider alternative perspectives.

Is the creation narrative of Genesis:

science or is it religion?

factual or is it theological?

descriptive or is it prescriptive?

literal or allegorical?

Rather than staring with a literal understanding of the creation narrative in Genesis, what if the Hebrews are recapitulating the Sumerian Enuma Elish creation myth. Could the Hebrews be claiming the Sumerians understood the creation completely wrong when it comes to the origin of mankind and the world they live in? Examine again the four differences between the Enuma Elish and Genesis narratives. Each of these four differences become theological assumptions expressed in some of the other sixty-five biblical books.

  1. Creation is from nothing at the command of the creator – ex Nihilo

  2. God is sovereign. There is no competition or struggle for power. God alone, orders the creation out of chaos.

  3. The affairs of mankind are orchestrated by celestial deities operating under divine authority.

  4. Man is made to be a reflection of God so there may be communion between mankind and God.

One may find similarities between the Enuma Elish and Genesis narratives, but the significances in the theological differences set Genesis apart from all other origin narratives.

Pagan myths, unlike Genesis, repeat the same kind of conflicts between the deities with each new myth explaining why there is a particular trouble in the world. On the other hand, Genesis chapters 1-11 are the background of why there is the rest of the Bible which reveals how the trouble with mankind is redeemed from destruction.

Pagan myths are applied to the God of the Hebrews

Co-opting another culture’s myths and applying them to the Hebrew God occurs in the prophets and Psalms. YHWH as the cloud rider or coming on the clouds is borrowed from symbols about the Canaanite god Baal who was the cloud rider. Hebrew prophets declared the real cloud rider is YHWH. Other attributes of pagan deities are co-opted as attributes of YHWH.

The myth of scientific accuracies or knowledge

So that the ancients and the moderns may both hear, the Omniscient Creator speaks to us in divine baby talk rather than in a language defined by scientific truths. If He was to reveal Himself using a scientific truthful language, at what point during the growing knowledge of science should the deity choose? Should the choice of scientific truthful language be todays’ understanding which would be incomprehensible even five hundred years ago, or more recently four hundred years ago around 1611 when the King James Bible was published, or the scientific truthful language during the Dark Ages.

If the Omniscient Creator were to reveal Himself using an absolute truthful, scientific language, just so the creation account in Genesis would be scientifically verifiable, which era of scientific knowledge, soon to be outdated, should He have used? Whatever the choice, the language fails to meet the scientific demands during other ages.

If the creation accounts in Genesis were to record the language of absolute, scientific truths dictated by an Omniscient Creator how long in the future will it be before someone is knowledgeable enough to understand the scientific meaning of the words – if ever?

Each era lives with its own beliefs as representing accurate scientific knowledge. This is one of the myths of knowledge; that is, the current era has accurate scientific knowledge. In the current era, public science knowledge is largely unaware that knowledge has a time and date stamp as well as an expiration date – a date yet to be deciphered for most “truths.” Blind scientist cannot see the stamp and accordingly, lack humility.

What Is Genesis Chapters 1-11?

The divine purpose of Genesis is not science or even ancient cosmology. As already stated, Genesis 1-11 is background for understanding the rest of the message of the Bible correctly. The four things listed above abbreviates this background information. Maybe, some ancient Hebrew had these same four issues with the pagan cosmology of the Sumerian Enuma Elish or with some other similar mythology, and it wasn’t about the order of creation or the structure of the world. How this ancient Hebrew, maybe Abraham, corrected the differences is what we should acknowledge as divine inspiration because the rest of the ancient world got these differences wrong. Also, the writers of sixty-five subsequent books of the Bible found the same inspirational message.

The only three correct questions about the Genesis 1-11 narrative are:

Why did God create?

What went wrong?

How does God not aim to remedy the problem?

These first eleven chapters of Genesis also demonstrate what cannot fix the problem with mankind. The flood of Noah’s time and the destruction of Babel are fixes that don’t solve the problem. Accordingly, such divine actions are not the means God will use to fix the problem with mankind. What then? That is the question readers ought to be asking at Genesis 12:1. What will it take? Genesis 12 begins the narrative of how God remedies the problem.

Eventually, the reader gets to Exodus where another inadequate solution is revealed. However, this solution has symbols, rituals, rules, commandments, prophets, blood sacrifices and burnt offerings to say to the Hebrews, “This is what it takes! Can you, do it?”

They say, “Yes, we can.”

But after a thousand years, this is not the fix because they cannot keep the Mosaic Law or heed the warnings of the prophets.

Now, at last the fix . . .

“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2)

“He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you” (1Peter 1:20).

In these verses and in John 3:16 we find the fix and can answer why God created. To the astonishment of the deceased saints, they will be seeing those who are their fellow saints who didn’t have the chance of a snowball in hell in making it to heaven.

The Bible and modern science or even ancient science texts are catalogued so to be arranged on separate shelves of the library – especially the divine library. If you have a scientific question, go to the science shelf rather than the theological shelf.

2 Likes
57

40 posts were split to a new topic: Does Archaeology Confirm the Exodus and Conquest?

59

you have an interesting point of view. may I ask, are you a Christian or an atheist? thanks!

65

When scores of disagreeing interpreters (biologos or American Scientific Affililation) spew out their “scientific” hypotheses today, they make themselves the writers of the Holy Bible and lead the faithful astray if that is possible. Such “interpreters” bear no resemblance to godly men like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler whose observations did not conflict with or conflate the truth of Scripture with very limited human knowledge. Scripture does not advocate geocentrism as a scientific view, but simply presents appearances as they appear to earth boundhuman observers. Even today we talk about the sun setting and rising.
I agree there is no conflict between science and Scripture. But there is a conflict between science and “interpretations” of Scripture, many of which are presented by in the writings biologos and ASA members. As for Genesis and creation, Jesus Himself believed in the literal creation account and in the real persons Adam and Eve. Many “scientific interpretations” discount Jesus’ opinion in this matter. If you discount the opinion of God Himself, what do you have left? You have confusion and despair and loss of faith.
God is more complex than many are willing to accept. Yes, Paul tells us that the observations of the natural world testify to the presence and reality of a creator, but they do not give us warrant to reinterpret Scripture according to our fleshly perspectives and predispositions. We must dig deeper if we want to know God’s truth, not endlessly reinterpret what He has revealed according to our own very limited “scientific” perspectives, which strikes me as “scientific” sophistry.
I have offered a biblical resolution of the creation debate that does not require rewriting the Bible by “scientific interpreters,” who seem to me to be the reverse side of the coin of from “scientific creationists.” Here again is what I offer: [[Amazon.com]
If you read my offering, which is brief and to the point, I invite you to further conversation. Other than that I can think of nothing further to say. Grace and peace I have from God’s simple and unadulterated Holy Word, and I wish the same for you.
Ralph Rohr

67

“As for Genesis and creation, Jesus Himself believed in the literal creation account and in the real persons Adam and Eve.“

It doesn’t necessarily follow that just because Jesus mentions something in Genesis that it means he speaks it in the extreme literal sense. IF God meant Genesis to be allegory or something other that extreme literal history, then Jesus could very well have been speaking about it the same way. I think to presuppose Jesus believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis could close anyone’s mind to other possibilities.

6 Likes
69

I consider myself to be a devout Christian, albeit with all the frailties that accompany life on this mortal orb.

You, on the other hand, seem to consider me and thousands of Christian scientists as ungodly heathens because we do not agree with your hermeneutical approach to Genesis.

You have accused me and thousands of Christian scientists of the arrogance of making ourselves the writers of Scripture (rather than interpreters) and of leading the faithful astray.

Galileo was accused by the leadership of his church of being an arrogant writer of the Holy Bible who would not accept its plain teachings.

He was sentenced to home confinement. His books were officially banned from publication for over 2 centuries because of his arrogant heresy (according to his church).

Were you unaware of these facts? Or did you just lose sight of them?

Calvin stated unequivocally and forcefully that the Scripture teaches geocentrism as a scientific view. Do you consider yourself, Dr. Mohr, to be a more faithful and scholarly interpreter of Scripture than John Calvin?

And you accused thousands of Christian scientists of being arrogant.

Do you consider yourself, Dr. Mohr, to be a more faithful and scholarly interpreter of Scripture than John Calvin?

Yours,
Chris Falter

4 Likes