Especially when backed by make-believe theology.
1 Like
Yes, the truth God gives us from spiritual reality cannot ultimately conflict with God’s truth from physical reality.
Unless you elevate Lucifer to such power that your theology verges in Manichaean dualism.
1 Like
It’s not a surprise that those who don’t think well in one area don’t think well in others.
I honestly struggle–I really wish God were clearer, and wrote in my American idiom–and not with ancient Near East motifs.
It’s not easy. Boiling it down, God knows what we can do, and can’t. He, of all people, is a better Father, and more just than any of us.
Thank God he can figure it out–and I’m not the one who has to worry about it!
Thanks
2 Likes
I think the Psalms are important. They’re mostly about hearts, his and ours. But there are choice bits elsewhere – Isaiah 30:15, for example.
1 Like
The subdefinition of the word used for “mother” is literally “of humans”. But aside from that, I should clarify: When I say I read the text literally, I mean as actual historical events, read clearly and simply, not trying to take every idiom, simile, and literary device out of context. Given that Genesis continues on to show Eve as mother of all humans through extensive geneaologies in the very next chapters, I expect you’ll find no issues there with the text on this issue.
I believe both–the text indicates that it was indeed a literal serpent (nahas), and Revelation indicates that the serpent was indeed the Devil. There are numerous examples of demons possessing creatures in the Bible–perhaps this was at work, though the text does not give us more detail.
Ah, the great deception. The Hebrew text read muwth muwth (die die) which means “dying you shall die” indicating the beginning of a process. If it was mean to be read as died “right there and then”, the text would’ve used muwth once. The snake simply lies, confusing God’s word, as he often does.
Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. You critique my points for then fail to provide any counterpoint of your own. In short, you have attempted to disprove what i’ve written in favor of some unnamed philosophy or view. Is your point meant solely to be an impugning of my character here? I’m a filthy YEC and even I don’t do that!
To start, I haven’t based any givens upon the term NS yet. Understanding of a term changes year by year, person by person, discovery by discovery. As people have pointed out, the word “science” is no longer taken popularly to mean “knowledge”. So, really, I can just pick a new meaning, write a paper or a book about it, and maybe my meaning will become popular. English is a living language. Hence why I defined it. It’s irrelevant if you accept my defining of a term as true to the term’s meaning in your eyes or even in the eyes of the world. For example, the world does not define the term “Christ” in the same way I do. Should I then redefine Christ to fit the ideas of unsaved men who hate God? No, of course not. Why then should I accept definitions arbitrarily?
I define my terms to make myself clear, so that everyone knows what I mean when I use a term. If I simply used a term while holding a view not consistent with my audience without defining my terms, then your point would be valid.
Establishing givens that people accept means that I must accept ideas contrary to my own beliefs in order to even have a conversation with people? That’s the equivalent of losing an argument before it even starts. As I said previously, should we as Christians accept the world’s definition of Christ or the Gospel? We would have no basis for anything we say.
Conclusions can be right or wrong. People can accept truth or lies as equally correct. It doesn’t mean I have to speak in terms of lies in order to communicate truth. For example, if I gave the given “murder is wonderful” and then wouldn’t listen to anyone that would not first accept that murder is wonderful. It’s completely arbitrary, equivalent to saying, "Agree with me first, and then we can discuss!”
My prooftext reads that the wrath of God is revealed against all godliness and unrighteousness of people that suppress the truth, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
You seem to say the exact opposite of the proof text. “You don’t know God just by observing creation and inferring things about God," Vs. “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” His attributes are clearly perceived so that they are without excuse.
Education is irrelevant in the presentation of assertions. Until actual evidence is presented to counter my points, you’re saying I’m wrong because I’m wrong, which is a baseless accusation. I’ll also point out that one can be educated extremely well in false ideas, and being a professional does not make one right. I don’t know you well, so I make no assumptions about the quality or the content of your education and body of work–I’m merely making the point that these things are irrelevant to the point at hand. You certainly do know some things–many things more than I do, I’m positive–but that doesn’t make either of us wrong or right.
I actually believed in evolution along with an old earth growing up. I have since been convinced otherwise, as I’m sure you can tell.
I was merely joking with that statement, hence the winky face. I try not to use emojis unless I’m distinguishing a joke from a serious statement.
I defined the Law in a different post–the Law is a law for life, originally intended to condemn humanity and later fulfilled by Christ. However, the moral portions of that Law are still applicable today, and Jesus reinforced that. The Bible is not a rule book, in that the rules are not the point of the book, but it is a rule and standard for life, and the presence of those moral standards given by God is a separation from other religious books, fairytales, and doctrines.
Perhaps I should’ve added a comma to clarify my statement: “The God who created everything, using fairytales to back up a demonstration of moral truth seems inconsistent.” I never said or applied, “God created everything using fairytales,” to anyone.
Origin Story is not a definitive genre–There is fact, and there is fiction. Within those, there are the two warring genres of history and fantasy, upon which one may be based upon the other but they may never mix. Genesis must then be one or the other; fact, or fiction.
In my brief search, I found that Macquarie University defined this supposed genre thus: “Modern origin stories are thoroughly interdisciplinary narratives that combine elements of mythology, philosophy, science and literature.” Now, clearly, a piece of literature may contain elements both fanciful and truthful in the same paragraph or phrase. However, Genesis is not broad speculative fiction, but an account of past events. All great lies (myths) are based upon and contain truth, but the inverse is not true: there is no falsehood in God’s truth.
“nothing in the theory explains how humanity became separated from God” Correct. However, evolution and its “proofs” in the fossil record contain evidence of thorns, cancer, disease, and death, all things that did not exist prior to the curse, which did not exist prior to man. The Bible records that man was created on the same day as all other land animals. The Fall happened after that, and then the Curse was pronounced by God as a consequence of sin.
So, if evolution has nothing to do with sin, why are the results of sin evident in evolution, and in fact required by it? Evolution makes an implicit statement about the origin of sin, about the origin of a creation that is not good and right and pleasant to behold. This origin must either deny the accuracy of the account in Gen. 3 or redefine the Fall and Curse. That is why evolution has everything to do with sin. If cancer and death and thorns and thistles and pain and suffering all existed before the Fall, then the Fall means nothing. There was no separation from God, because if the proofs of separation existed in a very good creation, then separation from God either already existed… or is very good.
That was a rhetorical question. The point was to illustrate the absurdity of a position holding death, cancer, and suffering as very good. By very definition, he makes a new heaven and earth, not uniting the two. I never said it was a restoration of Eden nor implied it was.
I’ll put it straight: Are cancer and death and suffering very good? Are those things good in His sight?
If death is not very good, why is it present in His very good original creation, along with thorns and cancer? (In the evolutionary worldview)
If biological death is just part of the natural cycle, then what is the significance of Christ’s physical resurrection?
-
1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”
-
1 Corinthians 15:21: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.”
Throughout the Bible, death is the result of sin, both physical and spiritual. This is why Christ had to die for us. When men, having willingly separated themselves from God came into contact with items, symbols, and places of God’s holiness, their physical death was the only sure response.
If physical death is merely a natural process present in God’s original good creation, then no physical death is ever spiritually significant.
Why would death be needed to sustain new life? And why would the nitrogen cycle require animal/human death and decay?
“So here’s a question. Jesus cooked fish on the beach for his disciples, post-resurrection. Maybe he had some too. I hope eating is part of the New Creation. We are promised a wedding supper, though maybe that’s all just figurative. In any case, cooking fish for food is predation and that’s perfect risen Jesus doing it.”
That’s not a question. That’s a statement of fact with some speculation thrown in. Jesus eating fish during the Current Creation is irrelevant to the New Creation.
Gen. 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.”
What two genres? Examples? Three different messages? Why are they weakened? How do we know the Egyptian story is older? Why is the order of events relevant? Your post does not refute my statement, it makes unsubstantiated claims. Explanations to back the statements or even links to resources you consider indicative of your position would be appreciated.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but you fail to identify why the opinions of some fallible sinful men are more credible than others, or the problem of how much may be inferred and thrust upon the text. I.e. a trained theologian may still be a fool and promote a false view of Scripture, and an uneducated plowman man read it correctly–and there is a correct answer. You also make another unsubstantiated claim about YEC as a whole, which is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Comparing everyone who believes the earth is young to everyone else will no doubt yield a variety of views, aside from simply stating that YEC are wrong…
Which laws would those be? Would you be comfortable applying the same treatment to the theories and ideas of evolution? Maybe the law of biogenesis?
So I’m wrong because I’m… wrong? Sin is separation from God. It’s simply the absence of God, not something to exist or not exist. The earthly creation was simply untainted by it before Gen. 3.
Notice what I said:
I did not claim it affected the Gospel itself in any way, I claimed it makes the Gospel intellectually unstable. If there was no first Adam the work of the Last Adam becomes unfounded and leaves Paul making no sense. 1 Cor. 15:20-45 Just because the Gospel is impugned does not lessen its power.
Did you read my whole post? I’ve bolded the relevant portion.
These are unsubstantiated claims. I can’t respond to claims with no substantiation.
That’s just about a third of a quote taken completely out of context. The key word here is “seems”, which defines the meaning of the sentence. If you’re going to critique my point, you should critique my actual point and not a third of a sentence.
But, in all seriousness, what are the four genres? Why do they matter? Above, you claim there are two genres, which claim do you believe?
Moving on:
I’m sure I’m missing your point… but yeah, actually. I say thank you, hug them, and then I get on the train.
Thank you for the kind words, Adam. I love sharing what I believe in an intellectual way–it’s like running a 10K for my brain. 
Christy has been referencing a few Scriptures here and there in paraphrase (1 Cor. 15, for ex.), but yeah, I believe that referencing everything back to Scripture is the best way to provide a clear and consistent argument. If I can’t base it on Scripture, I shouldn’t be believing it.
My definitions were intended, for the sake of time, to be broad-stroke. Let me be more specific about where I disagree with you:
First off, from your definition, which fails to define “population”, a single mutation could be described as evolution regardless of the outcome of that mutation. For example, children with Down’s syndrome are experiencing the process of evolution. The same with genetic disorders that cause extremely early death. Therefore, when the statement is made that “humanity is evolving”, it may be taken to mean “people are experiencing life-threatening genetic diseases”. It’s an irrelevant statement of fact.
I defined the supposed process of evolution as not just a change in genetic information, but according to the original and popular uses of the word: creatures that are “evolving” are getting better overall, not simply in a sense of being better adapted to their environment (NS, certain traits are more likely to survive than others, which is synonymous with "Variation within the expressed genes of a certain pool, driven primarily by environmental circumstances)
Some bacteria, like E. coli, can transfer genetic information, but most creatures do not…
That’s a confusion of cause and effect; mutations cause natural selection to occur, but natural selection does not cause mutations to occur. Your statement is not logical.
In summary, I was speaking simply about macro-evolution (the process) as illustrated by the supposed change between archosaurs to birds, the evolution of whales, the evolution of lungs, eyes, fingerprints, or any gain of traits and features not previously included in an organism’s genetic code. This does not include speciation, such as what we observe in Darwin’s Tanagers (misclassified as finches), but an actual gain of new genetic information. And also about the theory in general, which requires millions of years to work, requires abiogenesis, etc, etc.
Why does Scripture have authority? Because God says it does, and Scripture is consistent with the character of God. God is the only perfect, infallible, always-truthful, eternal witness. Therefore, he is the only one capable of authenticating himself.
Ah, Ron! Thank you for the references. That makes sense, I agree with you.
I do not reject science. I would define science differently (science can be applied to God’s work even beyond what “mainstream science” considers natural, since God defines the laws of His creation and not us), but I understand what you’re saying. I don’t feel a need to make everything fit with results obtained by observational science: there are things that God does that cannot be described by our limited understanding (most people use this as their definition for the word “supernatural”), but oftentimes God chooses to work within the boundaries of what we understand. The choice is His, but I sure would like to understand God’s work if it’s available to me! What true admirer of the original scientist wouldn’t?
For example, I believe that the evidence we see in the world is consistent with a global flood. I have no perfect method for how God brought the flood waters upon the earth or things like the rapid movement of tectonic plates, within the framework of science today. I could simply conclude that God did it supernaturally, but I want to learn about the work of God, and that includes a desire to understand it.
In summary, I believe science and theology are two inseparable areas of knowledge, separated by the secular world in the same way that they propose to separate church and state (though in reality, they’re merely separating humanism and other religions). Though I class knowledge of the Creation and the Creator in the same category, my theories and ideas that aren’t directly spoken of in the Bible are subject to change and development.
edit I apologize for the extremely long post, I’m doing my best to properly and cogently answer everything directed towards me, but y’all can write new posts faster than I can respond! Depending on my schedule, I may have to be selective about what I discuss, but I’ll try to hit the important points.
There is no such thing as secular science. All of the reality of God’s creation is there for anyone and everyone to study and find the physical truths about. When Christians lose sight of the fact that the Bible is about spiritual truths and not science is when the false dichotomy takes over.
Whether or not there are miracles is not the issue. Many miracles in the Bible do not even violate natural ‘scientific’ laws – many are about the timing and placing and the extremity of natural events in God’s providence. But we don’t get to make up fantasy miracles to force physical reality into our misinterpretations of the Bible.
2 Likes
I may be misunderstanding; are you equating “science” with “creation”? They’re not the same kind of thing. One is a concept, a body of knowledge, and a method for acquiring knowledge. The other is a world full of created items where evidence may be drawn from by using methods such as observational science. (I’m sure you know that and we’re just having a confusion of understanding here, clarification would be excellent!)
I never said there was such a thing as “secular science”. We all have the same evidence available, the only differences are the assumptions we start with and the conclusions we come to. There are secular assumptions aplenty, and there are conclusions formed by secular bias, but there is no secular science since the world is available for people of all beliefs, biases, and worldviews to look at.
Now, science as a term could be redefined yet again to mean anything people want it to, and then my points would, of course, become irrelevant or absurd.
Of course not. Making up fantasy miracles implies adding things to the Bible that were never written about… which would make them false.
Brown’s hydroplate nonsense is a fantasy miracle extracted from the Bible without connection to reality.
1 Like
Christians who are scientists make the same assumptions based on physical reality, aka God’s creation. They are not ‘secular’.
1 Like
I actually agreed with @rsewell 's discussion of the hydroplate theory at the bottom of post 40.
So, if someone assumed God didn’t exist, must the assumption be Christian? So then, must Christians assume that God does not exist because “mainstream scientists” make that assumption?
That is, by definition, a secular assumption.
Please learn the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. You are conflating them. Good scientists – including Christians and whatever their beliefs about the metaphysical, do the former.
1 Like
You shouldn’t, but you are attempting to engage in argumentation. That’s the whole point of “defining one’s terms.” If you say, words can mean what I say they mean, sure. But people still have to agree your definitions lead to true assertions when you use your terms (like you did) as part of your premises.
This analogy between God and natural selection is a false equivalence because God and Christ are not technical terms like natural selection. God doesn’t have a definition in the same sense, God has a description, and people can disagree on what that description is because God isn’t something we can analyze and study scientifically. Our description of God is an abstract construct. But if you are going to define natural selection, you are describing an observable process about which we can say scientifically supportable or falsifiable things. So, no, you can’t just use the word “natural selection” to mean anything you like and have people understand you because you “defined your terms.” That’s not how language works.
If you are trying to convince people you are right with logic, then you have to use givens people accept as true for your conclusions to follow. This is just how logic works. People convince people their premises are true, and then they have to accept the conclusions that follow. If you can’t convince people your premises are true, then you lose the debate. If you just want to tell people what you believe just to inform us of your thinking, go nuts. But that would just be sharing, not debate. If that’s what you are here for, fine, but it sounds like you think you are debating.
In most debates, the argument is over the premises or whether conclusions acutally follow from the premises people agree on. People don’t expect you to only use premises people already accept, but they do expect you to defend your premises when they are challenged. That’s what a debate is, defending your premises. Demonstrating that you don’t understand the meaning of concepts that are part of your premises is something people are going to immediately challenge.
In general, sure, but the point of debate is to present your conclusions in a way that people have to concede they are true. Conclusions can be true or false based on rules of logic, but you can’t get a true conclusion without true premises. That is how logic works.
Yes, God reveals himself to people. They can’t see God in nature unless God reveals himself. This is a basic tenet of natural theology. The text is not saying that people with no revelation from God and no concept of God and no experience with God can look at nature and deduce who God is. If that’s what you think it says, that’s an interpretation that is not in line with historic Christian teaching on general revelation.
You are wrong. And no, I’m not going to teach you Hebrew or reproduce a commentary for Genesis 1-11 on this forum. But the scholarship is out there and I’m familiar with it and you aren’t. And yes, education doesn’t make you right, but it does help you recognize people who are wrong.
Jesus wasn’t using Adam and Eve to back up a moral truth. He was using it to access a concept upon which he wanted to build. That’s how good teachers teach.
I agree. But accounts of past events can be figurative and follow the conventions of literary genres we are not familar with.
Says you. You can’t do science by starting with a conclusion and fitting the fossil record to it. And it’s possible to approach Bible interpretation with the idea that good interpretations fit with what is true about the world. If it’s true about the world that death and disease have existed for millions of years before humans even existed, then a good Bible interpretation isn’t going to insist reality is different because the Bible says so. I don’t believe all physical death is the result of sin. I don’t think the Bible ever claims this. Spiritual death and eternal separation from God is the result of sin. I don’t beleive or think the Bible teaches that creation was fundamentally altered by human sin. Creation is affected by humanity’s sinfulness in certain ways, but I don’t think predation or tectonic plates or genetic mutations exist because humans disobeyed God. I think they are part of the natural order and a world with these things is the best possible world.
They are all part of God’s good world. Creation did not become not “very good” because humans sinned. Creation is still very good. Do you think God recreated the world to have evil in it as punishment for sin? Thorns and cancer and earthquakes don’t just “happen,” they have to be a product of how God made the world. How does it solve the problem of evil that God intentionally added them to creation as punishment instead of building in their possibility in his original good design? If nature didn’t have to have death and disease and natural diasters as a by-product of how it is, (how it is being the best possible very good world), but God intentionally put those things there to punish people, God is mean and vindictive and you haven’t addressed the “God is love” part of the problem of evil paradox.
I don’t understand why you are insisting that God could not look at creation and think “this is very good” unless every single individual aspect of creation also fits that description. It was the total picture that got the designation very good, not death, not disease, not natural disasters. I can look at my marriage and say “this is very good” and it would be dumb for someone to say, “oh, well your husband has to travel for work and leave you and the kids at home, so you’re saying that’s very good? You like it when your husband is gone? How could liking it when your husband is gone be part of a good marriage? If you are going to call your marriage very good, every single individual aspect that could possibly fall under the umbrella “your marriage” has to fit the description very good.”
Christ is the first fruit of the New Creation, and the seal on the hope that we will all be raised to new life. His resurrection is part of the Eschaton breaking into our world. It’s also the ultimate dignification of humanity as God’s image becaue Christ’s human body is what is recreated imperishable (see 1 Cor 15) and raised to eternal life. The hope of the resurrection is not that our current phyical bodies won’t experience biological death. They definitely will. They are perishable. The hope is we will get new physical bodies of a different order intended for a different creation.
Your then doesn’t follow from your if at all. Physical death is a natural process. Animals and plants don’t experience a spiritual reality, as far as we know, so their deaths are natural and not bad. What distinguishes us from plants and animals is our ability to spiritually relate to God, not physical immortality.
In the world we actually live in, death is needed to sustain new life. I’m not really interested in a hypothetical world you can make up in your imagination to fit your Bible interpretation, because it doesn’t follow any of the natural laws and natural processes God has made us able to understand.
5 Likes
Among philosophers of religion, “methodological naturalism” is sometimes understood differently, as a thesis about natural scientific method itself, not about philosophical method. In this sense, “methodological naturalism” is the view that religious commitments have no relevance within science: natural science itself requires no specific attitude to religion, and can be practised just as well by adherents of religious faiths as by atheists or agnostics (Draper 2005).
I found this quote from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is this accurate to your beliefs? If so, I’ve discussed this before. Methodological naturalism assumes that God’s work in creating everything has no bearing upon the creation itself in any way shape or form. Therefore, it assumes that a God who is infinite in wisdom and power exhibited no design in the creation of the universe. This is self-refuting from a Christian view. Creation clearly exhibits not only design, but the invisible attributes of God, and has done so from the beginning of creation, as Romans 1:20 says (Romans 1). There are also numerous verses stating that God continues to do work in creation, upholding its existence.
So, if God’s work is visible through creation, for the express purpose of removing the ability to be excused by ignorance, and God continues to work “behind the scenes” of creation, then how can we assume that religious commitments have no relevance within science?
Therefore, methodological naturalism is by definition a secular (false) assumption, because it assumes the nonexistence and irrelevance of God.
Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
By any chance have you converted to the John MacArthur/Doug Wilson/Denny Burk/Owen Strachan version of Neo-Puritan Calvinism?
1 Like
It may have been some nontheists that agreed on that definition, just maybe, and not theologians? No, your interpretation of it is not accurate. Maybe you could glance at what is after my user name and get a clue.
Methodological naturalism looks at what can be demonstrated from nature. It doesn’t willy-nilly invoke ridiculous miracles to make nature correspond to bad exegesis.
(In my younger years I was a YEC and then I was an OEC for over three decades. Actually kidney cancer was a factor in my acceptance of the legitimacy of biological evolution, that God is sovereign in his providence, even, duh, over the mutations in DNA.)
1 Like
(In the future, sparing us a 4.7k word reply would be helpful too. 
)
If Satan is not very good, why is he present in God’s good creation? According to a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 28, God cast Lucifer down to earth, so God put Satan in creation on purpose.
4 Likes
It’s the one-liners we don’t appreciate, Dale. Leo can invest all the time he wants into thoughtful 4.7k word replies that make appropriate use of the quote feature to engage multiple people. I give him an A for forum use.
4 Likes