YEC Limits God?

[gray wolf]

Why subject a seeker to this? Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?

If I had written an article about OEC or Theistic Evolution and why I thought either one was biblically sound, I doubt you would be questioning the need to write such an article. These are not nonessential details. One's worldview is shaped by how you view the origin of man and humanity.

YEC I think is for the firm Christian.

It is for everyone regardless of what stage they are at in their walk.

If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC. No one rejects God on an intellectual basis, but on a spiritual one.

I am not predicating acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC. That is a common false accusation that gets thrown around here in the absence of intelligent rebuttals. I am not saying that you have believe in the YEC model to be saved. I have never said or even implied it. Perhaps you could actually read what I have said instead misrepresenting my comments and framing them to mean something I never intended. Or am I asking too much of you?

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit. I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired, but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

Very well....

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked. We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them. In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity. But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

clb

Actually Bart Ehrman stumbled over the Problem of Evil. And he's not really anti Christian, just agnostic.

[Enoch2021]

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

Very well....

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture.  If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them.  In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

clb

 

 

Sir,

 

Do you believe that there was DEATH and DISEASE (Fossils) in the dateless past before Adam Sinned?

[a-seeker]

 

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

But that  assumes that the only factor involved was being taught that the earth is older than Genesis seems to indicate.  If you were dig a little deeper into the life of Bart Ehrman you would discover that there were some other things in play in his life that led him down the wrong path.  No one turns from being a Christian into somone like Bart Ehrman overnight.  There is a downward moral spiral that is in play as well.

 

Raising a child to love and trust the Bible has never, on its own, EVER led a person to reject the Lord and shipwreck their faith.  Even the Bible tells us to raise a child up in the way they should go, and when they are hold they will not depart from it.   It is never a belief in the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible that causes a person walk away from the Lord.

 

The root of the problem lies in the fact that many Christians are not taught critical thinking skills. This is especially true of younger, impressionable minds of youth who have just gradated highschool and have entered college.   They are not taught how to respond to the challenges leveled at their faith by atheistic professors.  They are not equipped with why they should believe the Bible is inspired.  They were simply given a set of propositional claims to believe without the apologetic foundation needed to defend the claims of Scripture to be wholly inspired.

 

It's the saem reason that Christians can get sucked into the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sevent Day Adventists or other cults.  They are not grounded in the truth of Scripture and are not prepared to answer the charges and false claims made against the Bible or the Christian faith.

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. 

 

 That is absurd.  Who is talking about going out and converting people on the basis of believing in YEC??   I don't go up to unbelievers and unload on them about YEC or whatever.  That has absolutely nothing to do with leading someone to the Lord.  If asked, I will tell the truth about what I believe, but my opening salvo in evangelism is not YEC. 

 

When I am witnessing to someone I take them straight to the resurrection of Jesus and why it is important to them.  I avoid, in witnessing opportunities, attempts to be led off into other arguments because I place the focus squarely on the resurrection of Jesus.  I have discovered that it is an amazing means of keeping the focus Jesus because the resurrection is the lynch pin of the Christian faith.   Everything stands and falls on the resurrection.   The ressurection of Jesus is the source of our hope and faith in our own future resurrection.  

 

I am not running around and calling on people to believe in the YEC model or burn in hell.   Again, I realize that in the absence of being able to mount a serious intellectually credible argument you have to erect a strawman that paints me as claiming that YEC is necessary for salvation just so you can have something to knock down.  It's easier to do that than to take the time to frame my arguments correctly and then provide a response that is intellectually credible, substantive, meaningful or important.

 

 

If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them. 

 

I have never made that claim.  I have noted that the potential is there.  I have also noted that 75% of churched young people leave the Christian faith within two years of high school graduation.   Three out of four Christian youth statistically will leave their faith and one of the main reasons is that they lose their faith while attending universities in the United States and are taught by atheistic professors that the Bible they were raised on is not trustworthy.  http://www.gotquestions.org/falling-away.html

 

Most of the time, these kids go into college with only rudimentary knowledge of the Bible.  They were never really that spiritually mature to start with.  They were heavily involved in church activities, parties and even went on mission trips but they were never taught the Bible to any significant degree.  

 

In essence, they were raised in Church, but they were never raised in Christ.  They were never given the survival skills they needed to navigate a world that is hostile to the Christian faith.

 

 

In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

The problem is that we alter our beliefs to accomodate nonbelievers all of the time.  That is the problem.   We are willing to discard parts of the Bible, to sacrifice its integrity any time we feel the need to, espcially when it comes to avoiding ridicule.   Many Christians go along with the world in many areas:  Christians are shacking up together outside of marriage, Christian youth seen nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, they watch the same movies, listen to the same music, they look, smell, talk and walk like world, live hand-in-hand with the world, and then we wonder why they fall away from the faith.  

 

Christians in our day, have given up so much ground to the world's system in order to be respected in the misguided thinking that if we accomodate their beliefs, they will view Christianity has more reasonable and attractive and it simply isn't the case. 

 

God intended Genesis to be interpreted literally, just as much as you expect me to read and interpret your own words literally.  What is the point of writing something down, what is the point of expressing yourself in words if you didn't expect people to understand you as you intended.  To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view.  NonChristians are far more honest about the text of Genesis 1 than Christians are, it seems.  But then nonChristians do not have a need to re-write the Bible to suit an agenda.  The irony is that it is Christians who are workting the hardest at  trying to erode the integrity of God's word.

 

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

When I am witnessing to someone I am not preaching to them about their view of creationism.  Honestly, you have a very skewed way approaching this issue and you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that have no basis in reality or any post I have made, but again, when you don't have intelligent argument, i guess that is the kind  of low-browed tactics you are forced to resort to.

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. 

 

 That is absurd.  Who is talking about going out and converting people on the basis of believing in YEC??   I don't go up to unbelievers and unload on them about YEC or whatever.  That has absolutely nothing to do with leading someone to the Lord.  If asked, I will tell the truth about what I believe, but my opening salvo in evangelism is not YEC.

 

 

Shiloh, I am only reading what you've said.  Someone above asked, "why subject seekers to this?"  So, immediately, the subject is "seekers".  You answered by pointing out that evolution shipwrecks people's faith. Juxtapose those two things and what else am I to do other than suppose you think that OE and Evolution poses a threat to evangelism?  I was merely bringing you back to the subject of "seekers" and away from believers.

 

clb 

[LookingForAnswers]

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.

 

 

I have never seen this claim made by those who view the earth as older than 6000 years.  Seems you have created a strawman so that you would have something to attack. 

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

But that  assumes that the only factor involved was being taught that the earth is older than Genesis seems to indicate.  If you were dig a little deeper into the life of Bart Ehrman you would discover that there were some other things in play in his life that led him down the wrong path.  No one turns from being a Christian into somone like Bart Ehrman overnight.  There is a downward moral spiral that is in play as well.

 

Raising a child to love and trust the Bible has never, on its own, EVER led a person to reject the Lord and shipwreck their faith.  Even the Bible tells us to raise a child up in the way they should go, and when they are hold they will not depart from it.   It is never a belief in the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible that causes a person walk away from the Lord.

 

The root of the problem lies in the fact that many Christians are not taught critical thinking skills. This is especially true of younger, impressionable minds of youth who have just gradated highschool and have entered college.   They are not taught how to respond to the challenges leveled at their faith by atheistic professors.  They are not equipped with why they should believe the Bible is inspired.  They were simply given a set of propositional claims to believe without the apologetic foundation needed to defend the claims of Scripture to be wholly inspired.

 

It's the saem reason that Christians can get sucked into the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sevent Day Adventists or other cults.  They are not grounded in the truth of Scripture and are not prepared to answer the charges and false claims made against the Bible or the Christian faith.

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. 

 

 That is absurd.  Who is talking about going out and converting people on the basis of believing in YEC??   I don't go up to unbelievers and unload on them about YEC or whatever.  That has absolutely nothing to do with leading someone to the Lord.  If asked, I will tell the truth about what I believe, but my opening salvo in evangelism is not YEC. 

 

When I am witnessing to someone I take them straight to the resurrection of Jesus and why it is important to them.  I avoid, in witnessing opportunities, attempts to be led off into other arguments because I place the focus squarely on the resurrection of Jesus.  I have discovered that it is an amazing means of keeping the focus Jesus because the resurrection is the lynch pin of the Christian faith.   Everything stands and falls on the resurrection.   The ressurection of Jesus is the source of our hope and faith in our own future resurrection.  

 

I am not running around and calling on people to believe in the YEC model or burn in hell.   Again, I realize that in the absence of being able to mount a serious intellectually credible argument you have to erect a strawman that paints me as claiming that YEC is necessary for salvation just so you can have something to knock down.  It's easier to do that than to take the time to frame my arguments correctly and then provide a response that is intellectually credible, substantive, meaningful or important.

 

 

If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them. 

 

I have never made that claim.  I have noted that the potential is there.  I have also noted that 75% of churched young people leave the Christian faith within two years of high school graduation.   Three out of four Christian youth statistically will leave their faith and one of the main reasons is that they lose their faith while attending universities in the United States and are taught by atheistic professors that the Bible they were raised on is not trustworthy.  http://www.gotquestions.org/falling-away.html

 

Most of the time, these kids go into college with only rudimentary knowledge of the Bible.  They were never really that spiritually mature to start with.  They were heavily involved in church activities, parties and even went on mission trips but they were never taught the Bible to any significant degree.  

 

In essence, they were raised in Church, but they were never raised in Christ.  They were never given the survival skills they needed to navigate a world that is hostile to the Christian faith.

 

 

In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

The problem is that we alter our beliefs to accomodate nonbelievers all of the time.  That is the problem.   We are willing to discard parts of the Bible, to sacrifice its integrity any time we feel the need to, espcially when it comes to avoiding ridicule.   Many Christians go along with the world in many areas:  Christians are shacking up together outside of marriage, Christian youth seen nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, they watch the same movies, listen to the same music, they look, smell, talk and walk like world, live hand-in-hand with the world, and then we wonder why they fall away from the faith.  

 

Christians in our day, have given up so much ground to the world's system in order to be respected in the misguided thinking that if we accomodate their beliefs, they will view Christianity has more reasonable and attractive and it simply isn't the case. 

 

God intended Genesis to be interpreted literally, just as much as you expect me to read and interpret your own words literally.  What is the point of writing something down, what is the point of expressing yourself in words if you didn't expect people to understand you as you intended.  To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view.  NonChristians are far more honest about the text of Genesis 1 than Christians are, it seems.  But then nonChristians do not have a need to re-write the Bible to suit an agenda.  The irony is that it is Christians who are workting the hardest at  trying to erode the integrity of God's word.

 

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

When I am witnessing to someone I am not preaching to them about their view of creationism.  Honestly, you have a very skewed way approaching this issue and you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that have no basis in reality or any post I have made, but again, when you don't have intelligent argument, i guess that is the kind  of low-browed tactics you are forced to resort to.

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. 

 

 That is absurd.  Who is talking about going out and converting people on the basis of believing in YEC??   I don't go up to unbelievers and unload on them about YEC or whatever.  That has absolutely nothing to do with leading someone to the Lord.  If asked, I will tell the truth about what I believe, but my opening salvo in evangelism is not YEC.

 

 

Shiloh, I am only reading what you've said.  Someone above asked, "why subject seekers to this?"  So, immediately, the subject is "seekers".  You answered by pointing out that evolution shipwrecks people's faith. Juxtapose those two things and what else am I to do other than suppose you think that OE and Evolution poses a threat to evangelism?  I was merely bringing you back to the subject of "seekers" and away from believers.

 

clb 

 

God intended Genesis to be interpreted literally, just as much as you expect me to read and interpret your own words literally.  What is the point of writing something down, what is the point of expressing yourself in words if you didn't expect people to understand you as you intended.  To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view.  NonChristians are far more honest about the text of Genesis 1 than Christians are, it seems.  But then nonChristians do not have a need to re-write the Bible to suit an agenda.  The irony is that it is Christians who are workting the hardest at  trying to erode the integrity of God's word.

 

 

Behind the boldface lies an assumption which i do not hold.  You (seem) to imply that God can only say something if all generations of readers can come to it on equal footing, i.e. it will make perfect sense to all parties involved.

 

I do not believe that.  I believe that when God wrote Genesis through Moses the message was perfectly clear to Moses and his own audience.  THEY would've gotten it; and IT was not a debate between Scripture and science.  THAT is OUR problem, and we foist it on Scripture, i.e. we subordinate Scripture to our own fears and prejudices.

 

Often times, we must do a good amount of research to get to that original meaning.  You believe this too; otherwise you wouldn't get into the Hebrew and would never have gone to school.

 

Science (for me) is simply one tool of exegesis and not the most important.  For instance (again, following Augustine) if something in Scripture seems completely absurd with what my own experience and the experience of others (including observations made by the sciences) teaches, then I ask, "hmm...maybe I am misreading this text".  So, when the psalmists talk of the world as square and having pillars, well, not one explorer has corroborated this.  So I ask, "hmm, maybe the psalmist wasn't being literal."  So, I do some research....lo and behold I see how important the temple was for ancient Israelites!  Lo and behold, the psalmist is describing the earth as God's temple. He isn't interested in geography or topography. Wow, that makes sense.  And that is SOOOO much more significant (and interesting and nourishing!!) than holding out against the claims of every sea navigator since who knows when.

 

Ah, but sometimes we Christians buckle when we shouldn't.  I am told that the resurrection is impossible because it is miraculous and the sciences have refuted the possibility of miracles.  Thus some Christians now talk of the resurrection as "an existential experience available to all".  Okay, I get to work.  I discover that the question of miracles is a philosopical, not scientific, question. Over much pondering and many books I realize that there is no way to prove against miracles......etc. etc. 

 

Or take a moral issue: promiscuity or cohabitation.  I am told that the Biblical injunctions against these are taboo and have served their purpose.  "Hmm," I ask, "What purpose and how have they served it?"  I set to thinking; I set to reading Scripture.  I realize the only reason I would have sex before marriage is out of selfishness (it's fun and I want to do it).  I see in Scripture that sex is a physical covenant between husband and wife.  I see how much hurt is done by having premarital sex. etc. etc.

 

you get the point?  The sciences (for me) simply prod me to do a little more research.  They whisper, "are you sure of that interpretation?"  I respond: "Let me check". Then I set about to see whether I am sure of my original reading.  Sometimes I am, sometimes not. 

 

Note; the importance of critical thinking is not what divides us.

 

clb

 

Oh, on a different level, you seem to have mastered the art of quoting individual lines and then responding to each one.  It makes it all very orderly; I would like to know how you do that...?

Edited February 9, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Enoch2021]

 

 

The Point, as I see it is....

 

"But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation."

 

It's Juxtaposing, Biblical Authority vs "science" or mans authority and highlighting the concept of filtering ones hermeneutics through science rather than the WORD.

 

It places the reader in that all to familiar position of................................ MAKING A CHOICE!!

 

 

It's a Poignant and very Illuminating Piece, IMHO.

 

I suppose I must be resolved to never tire of saying this:  NO!!! It is juxtaposing man's interpretation of Biblical authority with man's interpretation of nature.  It is the exegesis of one of God's books compared with the exegesis of the other of God's books.  Two books.....both by God....in discussion with each other.  Augustine.

 

clb

 

 

"man's interpretation of Biblical authority"

 

??  So it depends on what man thinks of Biblical Authority?  So the question and only question......is GOD'S WORD Authoritative?  It's a Yes or No answer, no GREY AREA.

 

"with man's interpretation of nature."

 

Or "science", right?

 

(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

Anything CREATED is the CREATURE........nature is one of the CREATURES because it was CREATED.

 

 

"with the exegesis of the other of God's books"

 

I just have ONE BOOK....The Holy Bible (AKJV)

 

 

"Augustine."

 

You've pin-pointed the issue

[nebula]

Oh, on a different level, you seem to have mastered the art of quoting individual lines and then responding to each one.  It makes it all very orderly; I would like to know how you do that...?

 

On the top left of the icons bar, you should see a button that looks like a light switch. Click that. It's the Toggle button. It will turn all the graphics into code. You can then type in [ /quote] - without the space, I had to add that so it wouldn't mess the screen here - where you want to end a piece of quote and then type [ quote] - again without the space - at the beginning of the next section of quote.

 

Make sure you click the Toggle button again before posting to make sure you got it right. An additional or missing "quote" or "/quote" in the lot will mess things up.

[Spock]

Oh, on a different level, you seem to have mastered the art of quoting individual lines and then responding to each one.  It makes it all very orderly; I would like to know how you do that...?

 

On the top left of the icons bar, you should see a button that looks like a light switch. Click that. It's the Toggle button. It will turn all the graphics into code. You can then type in [ /quote] - without the space, I had to add that so it wouldn't mess the screen here - where you want to end a piece of quote and then type [ quote] - again without the space - at the beginning of the next section of quote.

 

Make sure you click the Toggle button again before posting to make sure you got it right. An additional or missing "quote" or "/quote" in the lot will mess things up.

Now where is the top left of the icons bar? Button like light switch?

Any chance you could print screen and show us where?

[nebula]

 

 

Oh, on a different level, you seem to have mastered the art of quoting individual lines and then responding to each one.  It makes it all very orderly; I would like to know how you do that...?

 

On the top left of the icons bar, you should see a button that looks like a light switch. Click that. It's the Toggle button. It will turn all the graphics into code. You can then type in [ /quote] - without the space, I had to add that so it wouldn't mess the screen here - where you want to end a piece of quote and then type [ quote] - again without the space - at the beginning of the next section of quote.

 

Make sure you click the Toggle button again before posting to make sure you got it right. An additional or missing "quote" or "/quote" in the lot will mess things up.

Now where is the top left of the icons bar? Button like light switch?

Any chance you could print screen and show us where?

 

Sorry, I don't know how to do that.

 

When you are typing in the Reply box, notice above where you type a bunch of control buttons? You should have "B" to bold the letter so a highlighted text, "I" for italics", etc.

Above that is the "Lightswitch", the "eraser", some square image, The "Font" box, etc.

 

Do you see this?

[Enoch2021]

 

God intended Genesis to be interpreted literally, just as much as you expect me to read and interpret your own words literally.  What is the point of writing something down, what is the point of expressing yourself in words if you didn't expect people to understand you as you intended.  To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view.  NonChristians are far more honest about the text of Genesis 1 than Christians are, it seems.  But then nonChristians do not have a need to re-write the Bible to suit an agenda.  The irony is that it is Christians who are workting the hardest at  trying to erode the integrity of God's word.

 

 

Behind the boldface lies an assumption which i do not hold.  You (seem) to imply that God can only say something if all generations of readers can come to it on equal footing, i.e. it will make perfect sense to all parties involved.

 

I do not believe that.  I believe that when God wrote Genesis through Moses the message was perfectly clear to Moses and his own audience.  THEY would've gotten it; and IT was not a debate between Scripture and science.  THAT is OUR problem, and we foist it on Scripture, i.e. we subordinate Scripture to our own fears and prejudices.

 

Often times, we must do a good amount of research to get to that original meaning.  You believe this too; otherwise you wouldn't get into the Hebrew and would never have gone to school.

 

Science (for me) is simply one tool of exegesis and not the most important.  For instance (again, following Augustine) if something in Scripture seems completely absurd with what my own experience and the experience of others (including observations made by the sciences) teaches, then I ask, "hmm...maybe I am misreading this text".  So, when the psalmists talk of the world as square and having pillars, well, not one explorer has corroborated this.  So I ask, "hmm, maybe the psalmist wasn't being literal."  So, I do some research....lo and behold I see how important the temple was for ancient Israelites!  Lo and behold, the psalmist is describing the earth as God's temple. He isn't interested in geography or topography. Wow, that makes sense.  And that is SOOOO much more significant (and interesting and nourishing!!) than holding out against the claims of every sea navigator since who knows when.

 

Ah, but sometimes we Christians buckle when we shouldn't.  I am told that the resurrection is impossible because it is miraculous and the sciences have refuted the possibility of miracles.  Thus some Christians now talk of the resurrection as "an existential experience available to all".  Okay, I get to work.  I discover that the question of miracles is a philosopical, not scientific, question. Over much pondering and many books I realize that there is no way to prove against miracles......etc. etc. 

 

Or take a moral issue: promiscuity or cohabitation.  I am told that the Biblical injunctions against these are taboo and have served their purpose.  "Hmm," I ask, "What purpose and how have they served it?"  I set to thinking; I set to reading Scripture.  I realize the only reason I would have sex before marriage is out of selfishness (it's fun and I want to do it).  I see in Scripture that sex is a physical covenant between husband and wife.  I see how much hurt is done by having premarital sex. etc. etc.

 

you get the point?  The sciences (for me) simply prod me to do a little more research.  They whisper, "are you sure of that interpretation?"  I respond: "Let me check". Then I set about to see whether I am sure of my original reading.  Sometimes I am, sometimes not. 

 

Note; the importance of critical thinking is not what divides us.

 

clb

 

Oh, on a different level, you seem to have mastered the art of quoting individual lines and then responding to each one.  It makes it all very orderly; I would like to know how you do that...?

 

 

"To interpret the Bible literally, is to read it with an understanding of the object the author has in view."

 

Yes, it was ME HE had in view.

 

Got a question......

 

(2 Timothy 3:16)  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Did he say it was PROFITABLE for just the Ancient Hebrews?  Or more like Everyone or Anyone?

 

 

"I believe that when God wrote Genesis through Moses the message was perfectly clear to Moses and his own audience."

 

If you are implying that's who it was for and only who it was for, then...............PREPOSTEROUS!!  is all I have to say.

 

 

"Science (for me) is simply one tool of exegesis"

 

Exegesis: an explanation or critical interpretation of a text. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exegesis

 

How in the World are you doing an EXEGESIS of "science" for SCRIPTURE?  What Science Book did GOD write???

 

 

"For instance (again, following Augustine)"

 

Ahhh yes, You've Pinpointed The Problem Again

 

 

"if something in Scripture seems completely absurd with what my own experience and the experience of others (including observations made by the sciences) teaches, then I ask, "hmm...maybe I am misreading this text"."

 

How about....The "science" is Wrong!!

 

 

"They whisper, "are you sure of that interpretation?"

 

I assure it's not "science" that's Whispering, it may be the vehicle but not the source; Case in Point........

 

(Genesis 3:1-4) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  {2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  {3} But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  {4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

 

 

And again I ask....Do you believe there was Death and Disease (Fossils) before Adam Sinned?