Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[simplejeff]

41 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Now, you two and I will obviously disagree on the legitimacy of the examples I will use, but if you don't even know the claims of evolution well enough to avoid straw-man arguments, you should probably admit that your expertise in the area of paleontology is insufficient for legitimate arguments against experts in the field. I am not claiming expertise in this area, but will show you claims that experts make.

Since "experts"(what the world holds in high esteem) are wrong,  including all their education and direction,  so what ?

God's Word is right, always, as He Says, Always.

[JohnD]

11 hours ago, simplejeff said:

11 hours ago, JohnD said:

Now, you two and I will obviously disagree on the legitimacy of the examples I will use, but if you don't even know the claims of evolution well enough to avoid straw-man arguments, you should probably admit that your expertise in the area of paleontology is insufficient for legitimate arguments against experts in the field. I am not claiming expertise in this area, but will show you claims that experts make.

Since "experts"(what the world holds in high esteem) are wrong,  including all their education and direction,  so what ?

God's Word is right, always, as He Says, Always.

Actually you are quoting one.opinion.

I did include their statement in my response but these are not my words.

and I agree with your answer to the quote btw.

[one.opinion]

20 hours ago, simplejeff said:

God's Word is right, always, as He Says, Always.

 

8 hours ago, JohnD said:

I did include their statement in my response but these are not my words.

and I agree with your answer to the quote btw.

I completely agree that God's Word is always right! However, just as science is a human endeavor, so is theology, and it is entirely possible for our interpretations of scripture to be in error just as our interpretations of God's creation can be in error. In this case, I believe a literal interpretation of the account of God's creation is incorrect. Although I am not a trained Biblical scholar, there are many that agree with me. Denis Lamoureux is one such scholar and he can explain much more eloquently than I can. Here's a short link (https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-ancient-science-in-the-bible) and I've attached a longer PDF in case anyone would like to read more. I'd also be happy to discuss the issue in more detail.

Lamoureux.pdf

[JohnD]

On 1/9/2018 at 7:48 AM, one.opinion said:

 

I completely agree that God's Word is always right! However, just as science is a human endeavor, so is theology, and it is entirely possible for our interpretations of scripture to be in error just as our interpretations of God's creation can be in error. In this case, I believe a literal interpretation of the account of God's creation is incorrect. Although I am not a trained Biblical scholar, there are many that agree with me. Denis Lamoureux is one such scholar and he can explain much more eloquently than I can. Here's a short link (https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-ancient-science-in-the-bible) and I've attached a longer PDF in case anyone would like to read more. I'd also be happy to discuss the issue in more detail.

Lamoureux.pdf

That's the problem, too many believe theology is a human endeavor.

2 Peter 1:20–21 (NASB95)
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This takes it entirely out of human hands.

I presume, One.Opinion, that you are aware of the process the entire Judaeo-Christian Bible came into being (described in verse 21 above). So this is not only about a portion (prophecy) of scripture but rather inclusive of all scripture. And verse 21 also juxtaposes whose will and revelation the scriptures are from therefore indicating any interpretation of scripture by anyone other than the Holy Spirit is wrong. Individually or collectively (human will).

If we cannot get past this in agreement that this is what the text says, then there is no use in reading what else I have to say.

The process of insuring it actually is the Holy Spirit doing the interpreting is also out of human hands:

1 Thessalonians 5:21

1 John 4:1

Acts 17:11

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Proverbs 25:2

Deuteronomy 29:29

The fact that the Church Organization (not the Church Organism) has placed biblical interpretation in the hands of mere mortal men and created conflicting traditions based on the various interpretations has placed the Church in the quagmire it currently is in... and is extrabiblical proof that the process listed above has not been adhered to.

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, JohnD said:

That's the problem, too many believe theology is a human endeavor.

2 Peter 1:20–21 (NASB95)
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This takes it entirely out of human hands.

Certainly God's truth is the one and only truth. But theology is mankind's effort to discover and understand that truth. The indwelling Holy Spirit can guide the humble and contrite spirit, but in Paul's words, "we see through a glass darkly" and that ultimate truth will only be fully understood when we are "face to face". Until that time, our efforts at understanding God's truth (or what I call theology) will be subject to error.

[JohnD]

56 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Certainly God's truth is the one and only truth. But theology is mankind's effort to discover and understand that truth. The indwelling Holy Spirit can guide the humble and contrite spirit, but in Paul's words, "we see through a glass darkly" and that ultimate truth will only be fully understood when we are "face to face". Until that time, our efforts at understanding God's truth (or what I call theology) will be subject to error.

Call it what you will. Define it how you will. It's still unbiblical.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

Call it what you will. Define it how you will. It's still unbiblical.

Clearly, we are talking about two different things here. To me, theology is practiced by meditation on God's Word, prayer, and listening to others that have done/are doing the same.

[JohnD]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Clearly, we are talking about two different things here. To me, theology is practiced by meditation on God's Word, prayer, and listening to others that have done/are doing the same.

 

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

  9 hours ago, JohnD said:

Call it what you will. Define it how you will. It's still unbiblical.

Same answer. I'm done.

Be well.

[one.opinion]

42 minutes ago, JohnD said:

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Clearly, we are talking about two different things here. To me, theology is practiced by meditation on God's Word, prayer, and listening to others that have done/are doing the same.

 

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

  9 hours ago, JohnD said:

Call it what you will. Define it how you will. It's still unbiblical.

Same answer. I'm done.

Be well.

Meditating on God's Word, praying, and listening to others in the same pursuit is indeed Biblical. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that it is Biblical.

God bless.

[Guest shiloh357]

On 1/9/2018 at 7:48 AM, one.opinion said:

 

I completely agree that God's Word is always right! However, just as science is a human endeavor, so is theology, and it is entirely possible for our interpretations of scripture to be in error just as our interpretations of God's creation can be in error. In this case, I believe a literal interpretation of the account of God's creation is incorrect.

But when challenged on the text of Genesis and asked to produce the internal indicators of the text that show the author intended to understood in a non-literal manner, you can't do it. 

The author, not the reader decides how a text is understood.   What you're doing is rejecting what the Bible says and instead allowing science to hijack the interpretation of Scripture.   You are setting science up to the infallible standard against what the Bible says.

You're really not interpreting the Bible.   You are penciling in your unbelief of Genesis into the text and pretending it's "interpretation."  Truth is, you don't have a clue what interpretation is.

And since the New Testament takes a literal approach to Creation, you are calling the God who inspired the NT a liar.