Leo notice how few bible texts are referenced in the responses to you on this thread?
Christy for someone who is apparently well versed in textual translation, your undersupply of bible references is enlightening. I wonder, is that because of a limited bible knowledge or, is it because you are well versed enough to recognise that an appropriate reading and referencing of scripture is at odds with your public views here?
With biblical theology, I enjoy reading how redemption is variously painted as a return to the garden. Chilton had a book about this years ago called Paradise Restored.
One fairy tale about another fairy tale of where we are headed 
The problem with your definitions wasn’t primarily that they were idiosyncratic – that would merely hinder communication and annoy people. The primary problem is that you’re using your definitions to make statements about how real natural processes work. That’s what I was objecting to, and my response was an attempt to explain to you how the processes of evolution actually work.
Stop using this “allegory” strawman – it’s been explained repeatedly that you’re the only one applying that to the opening of Genesis . . . in fact repeatedly enough that it makes you look pretty lame when you keep repeating it.
Yes, it can, as has been explained to you multiple times. That makes this another straw man argument.
Your use of it also shows that your theology is backwards: you’re acting as though Genesis is the foundation, but in actuality Christ is the foundation. Why don’t you put Christ at the center? That is, after all, where the scriptures out Him!
This is also false: that sanctuary service could be totally missing from the Old Testament and we would still know how Jesus saved us from our sins – try reading this little bit of literature called Exodus.
So you disagree with the Holy Spirit – the point made in Acts 15 is perfectly clear that the entire Old Testament was reduced to four simple items. And don’t bother repeating your arguments; they mangle the words of the scriptures to weasel away from the message there.
That’s idolatry! It’s also rather blasphemous because it sets Christ to the side as though He were some tinkering repairman called in to fix a small glitch in an appliance.
Christy is probably waiting for you to understand the basics well enough that citing scripture is useful. The YEC position refuses to actually read the scriptures by denying that grammar, genre, worldview, and the rest are important.
You tend to use scripture quotes as a shield against having to grapple with basic issues, which fits with your pattern of using straw man arguments because those in essence are a tool to avoid actually engaging in serious thought.
The question that was avoided quite thoroughly by the OP is glaring: Why does scripture have authority?
The OP resorts to a rationalist argument that the authority of scripture comes from internal logical consistency with an unstated premise as well, namely that the scriptures as translated into modern English and read according to a modern scientific worldview are essential to that authority.
But that has never been an argument for the authority of scripture. The issue actually comes clear in the words of a popular Sunday School song:
“Jesus loves me, this I know
for the Bible tells me so…”
But that has the relationship completely backwards: For starters, it provides no reason that we should believe the Bible, and it then bases belief in Jesus’ love on this lack of a foundation. A simple change to these words puts things in the right order:
“Jesus loves me, this I know
for the Gospel tells me so…”
It is the Gospel that tells us that Jesus loves us; Martin Luther put it rather starkly when he wrote:
“I … cannot believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to Him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel.”
It is only once we have bowed to the call of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel that the scriptures are seen to have authority: they have authority because they tell us of Jesus and in them we find that Jesus regarded them as having authority. We understand that the scriptures have authority only once we have come to love Jesus Who sent the Holy Spirit to call us through the Gospel; only then do the words “all scripture is God-breathed” have any meaning at all.
And that is authority in plenty!
No geological formation can float on SCW. There would be immediate collapse.
You have extensively laid out your particular theological basis. What I wonder is why, when you reject science, that you feel it necessary then to come up with a scientifically consistent history of the world? Why not just say you have your theology and you are done?
Right on.
They just need to try harder and take a hint from Feynman
We have to find a new view of the world that has to agree with everything that is known, but disagree in its prediction somewhere, otherwise it is not interesting
Well, I have some sympathy–it’s as though we are following a theory that the Bible and world are to be interpreted in a way; it should show up in science, and we’re trying to find what fits.
Make-believe science doesn’t fit, however.
Right, which is where @jammycakes does really well with explaining. In my college, I remember talking with my prof–about absolute truth (what I thought was the Bible) and man’s truth. He very carefully said, “Then, how do we decide anything?” He was right. I was dismissing everything, and not using wise or honest weights and balances.
It was a tough one! It took me about 20 years, really, to get more comfortable (and I still am not comfortable. I have a lot of questions to ask God–but then, that’s ok. )
Especially when backed by make-believe theology.
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.
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
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.
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.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.