HumbleThinker

The Holy Spirit is certainly important in us gaining any sort of knowledge, particularly about spiritual matters. But people have always claimed different and sometimes conflicting revelations from the Holy Spirit, so it does not appear to be particularly useful when discussing topics. There is simply no way of confirming for certain that someone claiming to be taught by the Holy Spirit is not lying or deluding themselves, though some are easier to spot than others. This is why I do not use the revelations the Holy Spirit has given to me in discussion; they simply do not affect anyone but myself but then I guess that is the nature of personal revelations. Thanks for the reply.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical. As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves with our fallible means, is what I've been saying. You cannot study language without interpreting it, and there is no method known to man that will give any statement's intended meaning with 100% certainty. When we study Scripture, either God reveals the meaning directly to us without any natural method (ie. hermeneutics) as an intermediary or He grants us knowledge through the use of fallible methods where we have to decide for ourselves through these methods what Scripture says. Yet people "receive" different or even contradictory conclusions. And how do most people decide that person X didn't actually received a revelation from God and they did? By assuming that they did receive a revelation from God and using their own position as the measure by which all other people are judged as having been granted revelation or not. So we're back to fallible humans using fallible means to make fallible judgments. Ok, but you keep going off on these tangents that don't actually answer my questions when I'm questioning your use of Scripture. What you believe or don't believed compared to what I believe or don't believe doesn't change what's written in Scripture. If you have a position, fine. But don't inaccurately represent which Scriptures support your position and don't just throw Scriptures out there and then move to a different subject when your use of Scripture is questioned. The rightness or wrongness of your position is independent of whether your use of Scripture is right or wrong. Again, going on tangents instead of answering some very direct and easily answerable questions makes me think you are just reading what you want into Scripture. If you feel your position is strong and feel that I need to accept it as well, I'd suggest answering questions when they are asked. Not answering them is just giving me the impression that you have made your doctrine and then read it into Scripture irrespective of whether I also accept these doctrines or not.

You are asking us to refute some “statically significant” pattern in the genome that you claim disproves the existence of an intelligent designer. Neither what I'm claiming or asking actually. What I'm asking is for people to be accurate about the evidence for evolution whether they accept it or not. There are Christians who both accept Genesis as a literal historical account, and are thus creationists, that still correctly point out the strong scientific validity of and evidence for evolution. What I am claiming in my specific example is that the nested hierarchical pattern of mutations in the broken GULOP genes strongly support the idea of common descent. If you wish to take that to the next step and compare how well this phenomenon supports common descent vs. common design, common descent is the more evidenced and parsimonious of the two and is the only of the two that is a natural claim. Intelligent design (we all know who the Intelligent Designer is) is a supernatural claim that falls outside the bounds of science and thus science cannot comment on it one way or the other. That phenomenon X can be explained entirely through natural processes does not rule out a supernatural being whose non-miraculous actions are indistinguishable from a natural process by human senses, which is all science can actually address. Junk DNA actually is not necessary in this discussion. We know what a functional GULOP gene looks like; we know that our GULOP gene and the GULOP gene in other species is non-functional; we can see mutations in large parts of the GULOP gene compared to rats and can narrow down which mutations likely caused the break; we can see a pattern of similarities and differences in the mutations in our GULOP gene and that of other species with broken GULOP genes that, and this is the important part, aligns with predictions made by the ToE about our genetic relatedness to the various species. The patterns exist and thus must be explained, and evolution not only explains but predicts these patterns whereas intelligent design does neither. Or if you wish to think it explains these with a vague notions of common design principles or whatever, evolution explains it more parsimoniously and actually predicts it whereas intelligent design makes no specific predictions whatsoever. This is what is under discussion, so addressing these aspects is how to move the discussion forward.

From my perspective, you are simply speaking from the viewpoint of theory. Yes, perhaps in theory there is no metaphorical interpretation, but in practice there certainly is. You cannot tell me that those I have interacted with who have explicitly juxtaposed literal interpretations with metaphorical one are not speaking of metaphorical interpretations. Even if they are falsely speaking of metaphorical interpretations, it doesn't change the fact that they are talking about them. Thus to focus solely on the theoretical here is not addressing the issue at hand but another topic entirely. It is also reinforcing the view that our issues are more semantic than structural. So whether we agree with our usage of terms or not, the main issue as I see it as it relates to Genesis 1 specifically is whether recognizing it as written predominantly in the style of an historic narrative means that we need to interpret it historically, making definitive historical claims, or whether it is written predominantly in the style of an historical narrative for another reason. I find the former, what in my experience is termed literal by others, as presumptuous and needlessly putting Scripture in conflict with Creation, whereas you see it as correct. I find the latter, what in my experience is termed metaphorical or non-literal by others, is more sensible as it is less dogmatic than the former and does not needlessly put Scripture in conflict with Creation. I'm glad you agree. Our difference is that you force an interpretation of the Bible, a spiritual work, to dictate how we should interpret Creation on natural matters, whereas I force Creation, a natural work, to dictate how we interpret the Bible on natural matters. And you can throw out interpretations of Creation by labeling them as "lenses," but unless you can deal with the evidence presented by those who hold views about Creation, then you will rightly be seen as one who is forcing his interpretation of the Bible onto Creation needlessly, but that is another thread. It would be as meaningless as just labeling others' interpretations of the Bible as lenses without interacting with the reasons others hold their positions. And you determined Jesus was using hyperbole how? And I assume you meant "wasn't" teaching a course in biology. If so, you are using my exact reasoning for not taking other parts of the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: it's not trying to give science or history courses but make a point, and that point is spiritual. But one need not know much of anything about the natural world to understand and benefit from the Bible's spiritual purposes, so in this way they are divorced. The natural world can be used metaphorically to make a spiritual point, sure, but this does not always work, is highly subjective, and is mainly just taking something concrete to make the abstract, spiritual point more easily understandable. Additionally, what spiritual points we can draw out of natural phenomena has no impact on how these natural phenomena should be understood scientifically, nor do these natural phenomena have any intrinsic spiritual meaning to them. You seem to want your cake and eat it too by claiming on the one hand that the Bible is not a science text or giving science courses, but then on the other hand claiming that it is authoritative on spiritual matters such that it should supersede all interpretations of Creation. To me, this reads as hypocritical.

Ok let's get the party started. Since I am assuming you will disagree with this, I would first like to know what, if any, part of the presentation you do not understand. Then, if you understand it all, I would like to know why you think it is not evidence for evolution. Note that I am not asking you accept common descent, but simply interact with what the scientific community puts forward as evidence of common descent. Whether you accept it or not, it is your responsibility as a Christian to accurately represent all things at all times. So if you think the broken GULOP psuedogene is not evidence for common descent, then it is up to you to demonstrate why. If you accept that it is evidence (even if not convincing evidence), or if you cannot demonstrate that it is not evidence for common descent, then you are obligated to state that common descent has evidence for itself even if you do not accept the idea of common descent ala a Todd Wood. So here is the repost: It would help if you were more specific about what doesn't make sense like you are below. Just declaring that the whole thing doesn't make sense without being able to point out what lends one to think that you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter and/or it not making sense is an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. I will give a brief explanation below, but would very much appreciate it if you watched at least a few minutes of this video starting at 3:20, for it gives a much better answer to your second question than I will below. <<< removed youtube link please submit all videos for approval in the appropriate forum. Videos >>> Essentially, scientists have compared many sections, base for base, of the broken gene between many primate species, including human, and a species of rat that has a fully functional GULOP gene, which most species of rat do have. When compared, the shared and unique mutations perfectly create a nested hierarchy that is consistent with evolutionary predictions. In other words, the closest related species (ie. humans and chimps) have the most shared mutations and the least unique mutations, while the more distant species (ie. humans and macaque) share fewer mutations and have more unique mutations between them. And the entire primate lineage shares 19 individual mutations. That each primate would independently get these 19 mutations when given the myriad number of unique mutations that could have occurred is statistically impossible (aka astronomically unlikely). Hopefully between this and the video, some of your confusion will be cleared up. Please keep seeking understanding.

All of the Bible should be taken literally. Just like when I read a fictional novel, I interpret it literally. When I read a poem, I interpret it literally. When I read a nusery rhyme I intepret it literally. The point behind interpretation of ANY text is the literal meaning. It appears that you are confusing literal with "face value." I don't interpret the Bible at face-value. To interpret a passage literally means that I interpret it as literature. Within the body of hermeneutics, there are subsets of rules that exist for different individual generes. The rules I apply when reading Hebrew poetry are not the same rules that I use when interpreting prophecy or Hebrew proverbs. I intepret them each in a literal fashion according to the rules that apply to each one. The same goes for an historical narrative. There are rules that apply to an historical narrative that I cannot use when I am looking at poetry. So part of the confusion The text of the Bible is spiritual, in that it is divine in origin. But the mistake you are making is assuming that the Bible as a spiritual text has no authority where the issue of origins is concerned. Stephen J. Gould made the same argument many times. He was not opposed to Christians using the Bible as a spiritual text, as a source of peace and comfort, but he rejected the Bible as authoritative where the issue of origins was concerned and believed that the question of origins to be the domain of science and science alone. The Bible isn't merely a spiritual text. It is an inspired text. That means that the information it contains finds its origin with an all-knowing God who is incapable of error and who doesnt lie. This information was superintended as it was transmitted to the human writers and done so without any mixture of error. The view that the Bible is inerrant is embedded in the fact of its inspiration. But it is also an immutable text. It hasn't changed in thousands of years. That has been proven historically. The reliabiltiy of the Bible is a fact of history. What I have seen in this thread is that you are trying to define interpretation on your terms and you are demanding that YOUR definition of "interpretation" be the working definition used in this threads and other threads in which you are involved. Textual criticism is a process and a body of rules that are universal to all forms of literature including the Bible because it is among other things, literature. There is no warrant for an customized approach to the rules of interpretation or the authority of the Bible hinged on the whims of your evolutionary agenda in the Bible. You must be reading some pretty dry poems and novels if they are supposed to be interpreted literally. Or you are just stretching the meaning of literal farther than its current accepted usage as stated by modern-day literalists. If my usage of the word literal is not speaking of your usage of it, then my topic is not aimed at you. Yet in our exchanges, I see no meaningful difference between your usage of literal and the literalists usage of literal, which is predominantly juxtaposed against metaphorical. For example, the literalists this post is addressing are those who claim that places that clearly speak of a flat and immobile earth are poetic, and thus should be interpreted metaphorically instead of literally, whereas Genesis should be interpreted literally, or understood by its "plain reading." But I agree that part of our issue here is symantics; even the subtle nuances of our usage of some terms are getting in the way. And the Bible has no authority on NATURAL origins because it conflicts with God's Creation when literally interpreted beyond the fact that it has no intention of being an authority on natural origins, which is a much better measuring stick for such matters. When it is equally a presumption to presume that the Bible IS a science/history text as it is to presume that it ISN'T, then the logical course of action is to take the Bible as scientifically/historically accurate only where there is evidence in God's Creation, and recognize that whether it is or isn't has no bearing on its spiritual purpose, which is to bring men back into communion and right living with God. A classic example is Jesus's statement that a mustard seed is the least or smallest of all. How do some come to the conclusion that He was only speaking about the mustard seed in relation to regional seeds? Because they see the mustard seed is in fact not the smallest seed in God's Creation, and then utilize the multiplicity of meanings in language to say that Jesus MUST have meant that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds that his audience would know of or that He wasn't even calling the mustard seed the smallest at all. At least that has been the tenor of all the expositions of that text in relation to its scientific veracity that I've read.

That doesn't change anything, though. It's simply a restatement of your point. Unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure out for ourselves what "God Says about His Word." Words on a page are just words on a page. We can decode them to pronounce what they say, but until we interpret them, they only have potential meaning. Words do not have inherent meaning, since all languages are arbitrarily created by humans. And what context of Ephesians 5:26 tells you that "the word" is speaking of Scripture? I personally see none. To me, it seems like with the other verses that you are starting with your conclusion that just about any mention of "God's words" or "the word" or "Word of God" is speaking about Scripture, then reading that into these verses, which is of course unnecessary and hasty hermeneutics. Ok, but does the Torah cause ice to melt? I'm trying to understand your justification for reading just about every mention of word or words as referring to Scripture instead of that which was with God and is God since the beginning or the words God Himself spoke or other such things. What part of Scripture says He did this? You seem to be, from my perspective, reading your own understanding into verses that are saying saying it at plain reading, something you claim to deplore. Just because you think it is a foundational belief does not justify reading it into Scripture. All the verses you have supplied so far have been talking about the contents of Scripture, the words God Himself spoke directly or through His prophets or that supernatural element that has been with God and is God since the beginning.

I agree with you that these are true, though I may disagree with your statement that "In a perfect world every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination." On its surface, this makes it seem like, for example, that we would be not using hermeneutics at all to interpret the Bible but simply reading and waiting for direct revelation. If so, I don't agree with this ideal, for I think it falsely sets up a mutually exclusive relationship between God's illumination and hermeneutics. God surely can do this is He please, but I do not believe He wishes us to rely on direct revelation absent any human effort at all times. This would be like the hyper-Calvinists who suppose that we as believers do nothing in terms of proselytizing since God will save and damn people on His own accord absent any human actions. But your use of the word "study" and your addition of "poor hermeneutics" in your list makes me think that you accept that hermeneutics at least is a method ordained by God to lead us to correct interpretation of the Bible despite it being a fallible processes developed and used by fallible humans. If this is the case, I would add that studying God's Creation in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit's illumination is only marginally less important than studying Scripture. As for your list, I would also add: 1. Overzealousness 2. Inappropriately attaching one's self to the teachings of one's teacher 3. Dogmatically holding to one style of interpretation 4. Ignorance of all of God's modes of revelation, including Creation 5. False humility that is simply covering up selfishness and pride 6. False maturity masking a failure to mature 7. Undue ignoring of tradition. IOW there must be a balance, which I'm sure we can agree on.

Closer, but this is still making the same category error of equivocating. To make your statement accurate, it should read "if I am using science as my method of determining how we got here [by interpreting Creation], I might come to one conclusion, and if I am using [hermeneutics] to determine how we got here [by interpreting Scripture], I might come to another conclusion." This properly pairs science with hermeneutics and Creation with Scripture. Also, emphasis should be placed on the two mights in your question, for the majority of Christians come up with non-conflicting interpretations of both by choosing to interpret Genesis differently than others choose to interpret it. The limits of language prevent it from speaking about anything "in absolute terms" in the vast majority of cases. This issue is only increased, not decreased, with religious texts. Just because we have a favorite religious text, I'm sure both of us would say the Bible, doesn't mean we should treat it differently than any other text. There are some parts that almost certainly should be taken literally and other parts that almost certainly should not. I'm sure we both agree on this despite disagreeing on which verses to apply this to. However, a huge chunk of Scripture, arguably a majority of it, doesn't present us with such certainty. And given that we can be almost certain that Creation can only be taken literally by its very nature, we thus can rightly conclude that Creation gives us more certain conclusions about natural phenomenon than Scripture does, which isn't a problem since Scripture isn't a science text but a spiritual text. Where we come from, with all its spiritual implications, is better answered in Scripture; Creation can tell us nothing about such matters. But Creation can and does tell us where are physical bodies come from and how they got to be the way they are and our physical relation to other life.

Do you understand what I mean when i say you are equivocating the two? I ask because i get the impression that ee are not understanding each other. We have to reach a common language if our discussion is to be profitable. I am not sure I do understand what you are saying. I just know that you posted something that seemed to be saying that if science proves something in scripture to be untrue, I can still hold to scripture by modifying my interpretation of scripture. It seems you are saying that we can be saved and not believe the whole Bible is true, like I don't realize that already. I am just saying that by your own admission, science doesn't set out to prove anything. They just present evidence, meaning they can't disprove scripture, so I don't see the point you are making. Are you lowering the bar from Constantine from proof to a lot of evidence? If you are, I can't go along with that. Evidence can appear overwhelming and still be wrong. We have seen that in court cases where an innocent person was found guilty of a crime. And I don't believe there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Ok ill try to explain a bit better. When i say you are equivocating I mean you are creating a false comparison like a false analogy. It would be like comparing a noun and an adjective. So when I say you are making a false equivalence between science and the bible, I am saying you are comparing two different categories of things. The bible and creation both fall under works of God, while hermeneutics and science both fall under methods of interpreting the corresponding work of God. Then there are our interpretations that we derive from both methods. So saying science agrees or disagrees w ith the bible is a meaningless statement. Either one of the works disagree with each other or interpretations derived from the two methods disagree. The former of course is false., while the latter is quite possible and a source of discussion. Does that make more sense now?

Im glad this approach has brought you such understanding. For me however, I have not found such a correlation in my practice. Whether taking a verse literally brings me greater understanding differs from verse to verse. I need to go so I will discuss the rest later. Thanks for the reply.

Do you understand what I mean when i say you are equivocating the two? I ask because i get the impression that ee are not understanding each other. We have to reach a common language if our discussion is to be profitable.

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that. Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation? It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems. I want to deal with one of your comments, "Science doesn't deal in proof." In another thread, you are speaking of a hypothetical situation where science proves something in scripture false. You have just admitted that cannot happen because "science doesn't deal in proof." It is a belief system, nothing more, and nothing less. Some scientists look at the things that exist and see evolution. Others look at the things that exist and see creation. When a person dies, we bury that person, and return them to the ground they were created from. I have had pets that died, and have likewise buried them, and returned them to the ground they were created from. It is not like I had to put a lot of thought into this. I knew both man and animal came from the ground. I just knew a divine creator fashioned us from the earth. Scientists want to claim similarities in DNA shows evidence of evolution, and I say it shows no such thing. The question is, what do I have more faith in? Science books or the Bible? I have more faith in the Bible, and you appear to put more faith in science books. We are both acting in faith, seeing as though you have admitted "science doesn't deal in proof." What more is there to say? If I used proof or prove then I was in error and apologize, but I suspect you may have mistook strongly supporting or similarbphrase with proof. The aquinas quote may also have made youthink this but Aquinas was not speaking as a scientist. Another false equivocation that we should come to common ground on is between the bible and science texts. The Bible and creation are two great works of God while science books are works of men containing information derived from one of Gods works. Creation and the Bible are the proper equivocation. The false question but correct equivocation would be do you believe God's Creation or the Bible? The correct question and correct equivocation is do you believe your and others interpretations of the Bible or yours and others interpretation of Creation?

You said, "It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars. I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture." From how you're addressing my position, I cannot see how this would not apply to me or Augustine or Aquinas when I or they would abandon [a particular explanation] if it be proved with certainty to be false." I note you have still not addressed the difference I've brought up at least three times now between an interpretation, or explanation in Aquinas' terms, and Scripture itself. Rejecting the former is not rejecting the latter, yet you still insist otherwise. Why? In what way is rejecting an explanation held by one reader of Scripture equivalent to rejecting Scripture? The only way I see this as being logically coherent is if one presumes from the start that their explanation is the absolute correct one that cannot have any possibility of being overturned. If this is the case, this is clearly not supported by Scripture or reason; I have never heard a good reason to hold such a position. And perhaps evolution does butt heads with doctrinal questions, but we will never know to what extent nor the appropriate response (ie. if these doctrines are based more on our own fallible reasoning than on Scripture or our understanding of Creation is wrong) if all we do is dogmatically hold to own positions without question. Such a false sense of certainty is unpragmatic, for an unquestioning nature leads to folly. What if we unquestionably accepted a spirit as God that was actually from Satan? Then we would have failed to heed the words of 1 John 4:1. And since 100% certainty is not required by the Bible, nor is a literal interpretation, then there is no upside that would counteract the unpragmatic nature of this attitude. What you are saying is that if science proves something in scripture to be false, we should find a way to make scripture appear correct and in line with science. Science becomes the standard. I would say just the opposite. If the Bible shows something being taught in science is false, we must make science match up with scripture. The thing is, science hasn't proven the Bible false. People claim that there is this overwhelming evidence for evolution, but that isn't true, and as I said earlier, evidence isn't proof. Evidence is nothing more than something you present to try to build a case. Scientists haven't come close to presenting enough evidence to make evolution true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone conclusively. I don't need for God or the Bible to force me to believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I don't need it to be a requirement of salvation to believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. I know that is not a requirement to be saved. Yet I still believe. I would have a hard time believing in Christ if I didn't trust the Bible more than that, because it is the Bible that gives us the knowledge of the Lord. God reveals him to us, but the Bible gives the written account of why he came, and the plan of salvation. Again you seem to be equivocating a thing with the process by which it is understood. Neither scripture nor creation can or will be changed. Nor will they conflict. Our interpretations of both derived from science and hermeneutics are what can and should change and what will conflict. We will continue to talk past each other if we cannot agree on this common ground. Despite disagreeing with your interpretation of both svripture and creation, I still think you accept them unwaveringly as true. This common ground, while not being necessary, would also assist in our discussion.

No, but it is up to us to decide what it means. Just because we want God's Word to be authoritative, inerrant, or whatever does not mean that we should build arguments around this want. Neither God nor the Bible has any need for such things to support them. The Bible says what it says, and unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure it out for ourselves. 19 He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. 20 He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise the Lord! NKJV 18 He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow and the waters to flow. 19 He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. 20 He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His ordinances, they have not known them. [k]Praise [l]the Lord! NASB Does the Torah cause ice to melt? And the Torah consists a lot of what God said and those things that He has passed down to the present generations from the patriarchs. These things are indeed contained within the Bible as can be seen in the many places where it reads "Thus says the Lord." And for as long as I can tell, the Jews have been interpreting what these words mean. It's why they have an Oral Torah, which many, particularly Orthodox Jews, see as being necessary to understanding the Written Torah. So I'm not sure if this is the best choice for your position. He's referring to Jeremiah 20:10: "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place." Again, these are words of God, which as I said are contained in Scripture. Much of the same. "Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Oracles of course can also be translated as words. And to add, these words spoken by God to specific people at specific times are not the Word that is with God and is God since the beginning. Neither is the Bible. In the effort of man God's Word will not be found but it will be found where God Says it is and that is in Scripture! A man must be born again to receive God The Holy Spirit within Him-> Who Teaches us The Written Word = Scripture... 2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV John 16:13 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. NKJV Love, Steven These last few seem to be straying farther from the point. What do any of these say about whether Scripture is the Word of God or contains the Word of God, and whether any or all parts of it should be taken literally. You seem to be equivocating God's words with God's Word. These are two distinct concepts.

And if He has led me to the conclusion that, for instance, Genesis 1 is to be taken as more mythical than historical? God speaks to us in picture form, cities, sons, mountains, fields, wilderness, serpent, brass, tree, cross, river, garden, sealed, enclosed, bread, meat, heaven, earth, etc. and how these things relate to the person, or persons that these things surround, all of which speak to the process of the son being revealed in us both individual and collectively, which is a coming out of one thing by coming into another, if it could be put into such feeble words. We are living in the time where God is turning to us a pure language, a language he alone defines, and which is in the confines of every son, or as a tree whose seed or life is in itself. As our Father ... we do not labor by thought to be, knowledge not being something separate from self. Neither do we prove that we are, which is the same temptation in a different form to eat of our own reasoning based on our five senses of an image that is without us which becomes the husband that is not our own (speaking from the feminine revealing, which equates to our soul, and finds its definition in the pictures found in the three's such as, Abraham's three men, Daniels three friends, Noah's three sons, Job's three friends, Nebuchadnezzar's three Hebrew children, or in the words of Leah when she bore Levi (priesthood), the third son, saying now will my husband be joined unto me ... the pictures of these things are endless, and come in exhaustive forms, both in the truth and the anti forms due to the perception given to us by the tree of knowledge). The language of God is summed up in one word, which is God, and every son is a word of this language, as our thoughts equate to us. With that somewhat said ... The wilderness, depending on where one is viewing it in the moment, links itself with the second feast (all seven equating itself with the creative week of which the threefold manifestation of this is found in the book of Revelation), one is called up to Jerusalem to keep (first the natural) which brings confusion or a wandering around between two (dialectic) mountains, sons, or fruits of a tree, etc. which the true feast the wilderness represents (and the nakedness that is revealed in this as it was in the first garden, being a picture of the same thing in a different form) is found in the acceptable year as a place where we eat that which grows of itself, being the 50th year (Pentecost/knowledge) and equates itself with the liberty of a son, which is the perception given to us of our Father, as a feast that is internal and an unending fellowship. The interesting thing about the knowledge of God is we must continually keep the feast of Passover which is seen in the words thou shalt not eat as it is in picking up our cross (being that there is a serpent in the path of every son), and the tree yields it's fruit to us without ever having touched it (a facet of Paul's touch not the unclean thing). I have found to build a city out of any one truth cause our journey in to end, until we sacrifice that truth that became filled with worms by keeping it over a day. Sorry its so long, but I didn't want to beat around the bush. No problem at all. As you might have seen, my posts can be rather long as well. I find your approach interesting. It seems very much founded in the style of typology, which you don't see very much of these days. I'm also seeing shades of mysticism as well, which I border on at times depending where the conversation is going. Very interesting read.

That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? "Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one. Please try to remain accurate. In nowhere did I say "Science imagined it so it has to be true," nor did what you emphasize even imply this. I also note that you repeated the word proof. In my experience, before one can understand the reasoning and evidence behind any scientific topic, a prerequisite is understanding that science does not deal with proof but what the most probable conclusion is. Consilience, or the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence on a single position, is a huge indicator that a position has a high probability of being correct. Evolution has spades of consilience. Your mistake is understandable because proof and theory and other such words are used very loosely in the public sphere, but they cause many problems when people begin to talk about science in any kind of serious manner.

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that. Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation? It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions. Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

If you wish to discuss the evidence, pick some detail about one of those things or give me the cue to pick something and we can begin. I'm glad you have evidence that God is God. That's a blessing. God has graced me with such evidence myself. But "God is God" doesn't mean anything by itself, so when you use it, it is appearing to me that you are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever position you hold that conflicts with evolution, and that by cloaking it with God you make anyone who disagrees with you disagreeing with God. If that's what you're doing, that doesn't affect me one way or the other. I also God's Creation is God's Creation, but that doesn't tell you anything other than implying that I think you are disagreeing with God's Creation that evolution happened and happens. Better, though, would be to go into detail and actually have a discussion about it. Please link me to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates humans come from one man because I can assure you that genetics makes that impossible. That would be a genetic bottleneck that would be impossible to overcome without massive interbreeding with other compatible populations of organisms.

Because what's there isn't proof of anything. The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls. Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. I'm curious: what training do you have in comparative morphology to say that "The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls?" If you have none, this would be like telling a 30 year veteran of Biblical language studies that he is mistranslating a Koine Greek phrase when you have absolutely no experience with Koine Greek. Do you see how this behavior is both wrong and should be corrected through humility?

And what would this "defined element of hermeneutics" be that I have supposedly refused to acquiesce to? Every instance of the phrase "word of God" that is in Scripture, save for perhaps one, does not refer to the Bible. They can only be construed to refer to the Bible if we accept a priori that the Bible is correctly called the Word of God instead of containing the Word of God. The Word of God became flesh, Christ. The Word of God did not become ink and paper, book. There's nothing in Scripture that says that. Now Scripture arguably does CONTAIN the Word of God just as consecrated wine and bread contains or symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, depending on your belief. But there is no transubstantiation of the Word literally being Scripture. At the very least, we can agree that the Bible does contain the words of God, those words God spoke to others such as Moses. a) His "words" not "Word" b) This is no way connects the Bible to these words, though they certainly contain the words He spoke to others that were written down. c) Creation is required to interpret any scientific claims one things Genesis is making (ie. the age of the Earth or how it was actually created). If one claims that Genesis 1 must be taken literally, therefore the Earth was created in six days, then we see what the Earth says about that. It was created by God just as the Bible was written by authors inspired by God, so neither will contradict. The difference is Creation is physical, a natural things, and thus better able to tell us about itself than words are, particularly words who are more concerned with our soul than our intellect. Thanks for the reply BTW.

And if He has led me to the conclusion that, for instance, Genesis 1 is to be taken as more mythical than historical?

You said, "It is possible people will claim things in scripture have been shown to be false, but they are liars. I am not concerned with how unbelievers look at things, and if they ridicule the inerrancy of scripture." From how you're addressing my position, I cannot see how this would not apply to me or Augustine or Aquinas when I or they would abandon [a particular explanation] if it be proved with certainty to be false." I note you have still not addressed the difference I've brought up at least three times now between an interpretation, or explanation in Aquinas' terms, and Scripture itself. Rejecting the former is not rejecting the latter, yet you still insist otherwise. Why? In what way is rejecting an explanation held by one reader of Scripture equivalent to rejecting Scripture? The only way I see this as being logically coherent is if one presumes from the start that their explanation is the absolute correct one that cannot have any possibility of being overturned. If this is the case, this is clearly not supported by Scripture or reason; I have never heard a good reason to hold such a position. And perhaps evolution does butt heads with doctrinal questions, but we will never know to what extent nor the appropriate response (ie. if these doctrines are based more on our own fallible reasoning than on Scripture or our understanding of Creation is wrong) if all we do is dogmatically hold to own positions without question. Such a false sense of certainty is unpragmatic, for an unquestioning nature leads to folly. What if we unquestionably accepted a spirit as God that was actually from Satan? Then we would have failed to heed the words of 1 John 4:1. And since 100% certainty is not required by the Bible, nor is a literal interpretation, then there is no upside that would counteract the unpragmatic nature of this attitude.

If you are going to claim that we must take Scripture literally, then yes it does. It doesn't help that your argument creates a false equivalence between taking it literally and "believing the content to be true" Unless Scripture comes out and literally says that Genesis has to be taken literally, much less has to be taken literally to be a true follower of God if you believe such a thing as some do, then there is no reason to accept such a thing with 100% certainty, for that is just a musing of men, a man-made condition between men and God's inspired Scripture."Anyone can see that" is neither hermeneutics nor a logical argument, but a fallacy that presumes the conclusion. So Augustine and Aquinas were unbelievers now? Is anyone, great Christian or otherwise, a unbeliever because they don't 100% agree with your interpretive style? Who are you to build artificial conditions to who is and isn't an unbeliever that is not explicitly found in Scripture? When you claim that "nothing in Scripture will be proven false," you are stating exactly what Augustine believed; the two of you simply went about it different ways. If anything were unquestionably demonstrated by the "science" of his day (as opposed to merely philosophy/other religions), then by definition it could not contradict Scripture. But instead of forcing the demonstrable findings of what could be plainly seen by anyone putting their mind and time into it to fit his interpretation of Scripture, he forced his interpretation of Scripture to meet these findings. This is a slight simplification for the sake of brevity (nothing Augustine said was ever brief), but the notion is the same: one can accept the truth of Scripture without becoming dogmatic about how to interpret it. That literalism as we know it today is a comparatively modern invention compared to the age of Judaism and Christianity should tell us something about the source of literalism: the human mind.