You tend to get very angry when anybody disagrees with you.
We have very good evidence that the observable universe had a beginning. Gravity, and the other fundamental forces, acting on a slightly clumpy gas seems to be enough to produce stars, galaxies, and planets, based on computer simulations.
Mutations are observable, natural, and all but inevitable. Whether they are guided in a specified direction beyond “What survives?” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
We see plenty of transitional forms. Claiming that they cannot exist, and then drawing arbitrary lines on phylograms, or making horribly inaccurate claims about relationships, to separate them doesn’t make them go away. A few examples include: myllokunmingiids; stem-tetrapods that have lateral lines and labyrinthodont dentition, like certain fish, but no modern amphibians; Pakicetus, which has clearly amphibious features, and Basilosaurus-like dentition; and the numerous mollusks in the Waccamaw Formation (as an example familiar to me), whose appearance is halfway between their Yorktown-Formation predecessors, and their recent equivalents. Really, nearly every fossil in any deposit is transitional, we just have so few really good deposits that we don’t have a complete transition in most cases.
Scientifically, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of anything non-physical. One can produce scientific evidence that can say “this claim about the physical actions of this spiritual entity is possible, given our knowledge about the physical world” or “this claim about the physical actions of this spiritual entity is does not accord with our knowledge of the physical world”, but those are not proof-statements.
2 Likes
How is it philosophical?
I knew you weren’t done.
The best tool for the literal interpretation, as in literal explanation, of reality is science. The best tool for the literary interpretation of reality is literary criticism. If God is the ground of being, science hears Him clearly.
The problem with YEC interpretations is that they are directly contradicted by facts from the universe around us. What happens when you adopt an interpretation of the Bible that is so easily disproven by facts everyone can see? Why adhere to an interpretation that falsifies the Bible?
7 Likes
This really needs to happen and it certainly has not begun:
1 Like
It authorizes me to teach Hebrew and ancient texts. Other qualifications (e.g., calling, education, ordination, successful experience in teaching and preaching) authorize me to teach God’s word.
Sure, but how is that relevant…unless you’re giving a passive-aggressive implication that I’m a false teacher? There’s also plenty in Scripture of people speaking out of ignorance, being divisive, holding to traditions of men over the word of God, etc. But I didn’t bring these up b/c they are not directly relevant to the OP, nor do I know you enough to accuse you of anything but bad thinking or poor argumentation on the points you have raised.
6 Likes
Well yes, absolutely, there are a lot of false teachers who have infiltrated the church these days. But @Kelli is not the only one who can quote Scripture to make that point. Take this one for starters:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey these verses of Scripture. This is totally non-negotiable because not having accurate and honest weights and measures is lying. Anyone who teaches a creation model, or claims about evidence for a creation model, that do not obey these Scripture verses, is teaching demonstrable lies, and is therefore a false teacher.
7 Likes
The problem with YEC interpretations is that they are directly contradicted by facts from the universe around us. What happens when you adopt an interpretation of the Bible that is so easily disproven by facts everyone can see? Why adhere to an interpretation that falsifies the Bible?
What happens when you adopt an interpretation of the Bible that is so easily disproven by facts EVERYONE can see?
Really? You think the Word of God is understandable by EVERYONE? It is hidden from the natural man.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
1 Like
I think the universe is understandable by everyone, and it isn’t hidden from anyone. Therefore, when there is perceived conflict between a biblical interpretation and the facts from the universe around us it would cast serious doubt on the biblical interpretation if we are also assuming that the Bible is true.
5 Likes
The “Word” is not the Bible, but the Logos, Jesus Christ. See John 1:1 (NIV2011)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jesis said that that God did not rest on the seventh day. John 5:17
An exegetical study of these verses will show that these verses are not about biblical exegesis.
3 Likes
Indeed, Jesus Christ IS the Logos, which translated to English is “Word”. Jesus Christ is the Word.
Also, of note in John 1:1, the word “the” has been inserted by the translators. The verse is actually:
“In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
1 Like
Well yes, but what we can see and observe in creation is most definitely not hidden from the natural man.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
Yes, there are spiritual things that are hidden from the natural man. But that doesn’t give the spiritual man the right to make things up, misrepresent evidence, or teach demonstrable falsehoods about things that are visible to everyone. Acknowledging things that cannot be discerned naturally is faith. But misrepresenting things that can be discerned naturally is lying.
8 Likes
Greetings, @Shannon, and welcome. The problem I have with using that passage in that situation is that I am a Christian; and you are. Which of us would you say is the natural one? Do you see the problem?
There are actually many Christians on this site, and they don’t all have the same impression. Maybe that means it isn’t one of the areas that God thinks is too important, if it’s not clear enough; or else that it doesn’t relate to the issue at hand, as @KJTurner notes. . Thanks; and welcome.
5 Likes
James,
Are you saying that YEC is lying according to your interpretation? We are not the only ones believing in a YEC. We walk by faith and not by sight. We do not need to see with our physical eyes.
2 Corinthians 5:6,7 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) So he says we have confidence even though we are away from the Lord and we are in this physical body, and we walk by faith not by sight. One of the major verses in the Bible. Paul says again that connecting this with what he had said at the end of the other chapter, that we don’t go by what we see, we go by what you don’t see. We go by the spirit realm not the physical realm.
What is a Christian according to your interpretation?
1 Like
This debate is in two parts. One is interpretation, which is human and fallible and therefore can’t be said to be a lie. The other is the view of God’s creation. This is an area in which some YEC aren’t always being completely honest. As an example, arguing that all of the animals in a fossil bed must have been alive at the same time without mentioning that the resulting population density would have the animals living shoulder to shoulder which is obviously impossible.
Very true when talking about the spiritual. But we have to be willing to accept what God’s creation says when we view it with our physical eyes. We shouldn’t be using the Bible to justify changing what we actually see.
1 Like
Are you calling into question his faith? What is a Christian according to your interpretation?
Shannon asked James a perfectly valid question, which he can answer if he chooses. Let’s not be so abrasive or defensive, please. James can take care of himself.
[I have thoughts of my own to share, later perhaps, after James gets a chance to respond.]
2 Likes
Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
It’s all about Jesus, Shannon. The age of the earth, or who did or didn’t evolve from what, have nothing to do with it.
Yes, Shannon, you’ve made that point already. And it is a valid point. But, as I’ve already said, going by what we cannot see is not a licence to make untrue claims about what we can see.
It’s nothing to do with “my interpretation,” Shannon. It’s about sticking to the rules. Honesty has rules. Rules that are the same for everyone, whether you are a Christian or not, whether you walk by faith or by sight. If someone knows what the rules are but doesn’t stick to them, then I’m sorry, but they are lying.
So is YEC lying? It depends on who is espousing it. If you finished compulsory science education at the first possible opportunity at age sixteen and haven’t set foot in a laboratory since, then no, you’re not necessarily lying, because you don’t know what the rules are. But YECs with PhDs in science do not have the luxury of that excuse. They know fine what the rules are, but do not stick to them.
5 Likes