Jesus believed in special Creation, so why don't you?

[The Laughing Man]

[I made this point in another thread, but felt it deserved it's own.]

How do Christians who believe in evolution explain Christ's position on special Creation?

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus is the Son of God, a person of the Trinity, and was there at the beginning. Here he is confirming that and confirming that mankind was created exactly as Genesis records. According to evolutionary origins, there was no such thing as male or female at the beginning.

So is Jesus lying or telling the truth?

ADDENDUM: I just want to make it clear that I am not (and I don't want anyone else) condemning Christians who believe in evolution. I don't believe that belief in evolution is not grounds for losing one's salvation. I do believe, however, that it is a dangerous position to take, as it involves bending parts of God's Word to fit the worldly beliefs of men. I truly fear that once someone does that with one set of passages about one issiue, it just becomes all the more likely to do so with other passages about other issues.

[wienerdog]

I'd make a few points: first, Jesus said he made them male and female at the beginning. My question is the beginning of what? It seems obvious to me that he's saying at the beginning of the human race (since that's what he's talking about) and at the beginning of the institution of marriage (because that's the larger context) God created human beings male and female.

I appreciate your addendum, and agree that trying to reconcile evolution with Scripture does violence to the text (I'm a firm believer in special creation), although I think virtually every theological position does some violence to some passages. I think it's an act of humility to recognize that we have a great capacity to misunderstand Scripture, and thus we should be tolerant of other theologies. Obviously, there's still the question of when an interpretation puts one outside the pale, and we have the history of the Church to instruct us on this. I, for example, don't have nearly the issue with evolution as I do with openness theology. But now I'm just babbling. I'll shut up now.

[QED]

Moderators,

May I post in reply to this? If not, please feel free to delete this, but perhaps suggest Jinx72 could ask in one of the open forums, since the only theistic evolutionists allowed to respond here are those with ID leanings, but I think his question goes to the broader group.

QED, the rules for this area are made obvious before anyone posts here

... if you accept those rules, feel free to respond

... if not, it would be more appropriate to PM this to Jinx directly

... or you could start a thread of your own (& link to this one as a source :smile:).

I'll leave this up here for now, though, as a judgment call.

Thanks! ~Sher~

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124224#post124224)
wienerdog:

I'd make a few points: first, Jesus said he made them male and female at the beginning. My question is the beginning of what?

As Jinx cited, from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). See also Jesus and the age of the world (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp#jesus_age).

It seems obvious to me that he's saying at the beginning of the human race (since that's what he's talking about) ...

It seems obvious to me that he's saying at the beginning of the creation (since that's what He actually said) ...

... and at the beginning of the institution of marriage (because that's the larger context) God created human beings male and female.

Of course they were male and female from the beginning of the human race. What else would they have been¯hermaphrodites?

I appreciate your addendum, and agree that trying to reconcile evolution with Scripture does violence to the text (I'm a firm believer in special creation), although I think virtually every theological position does some violence to some passages.

YEC doesn't, which is why it was universally accepted in the Church for 1800 years, and even within Judaism (discounting the lunatic fringe of Kabbalism that Jezz loves so much).

I think it's an act of humility to recognize that we have a great capacity to misunderstand Scripture, and thus we should be tolerant of other theologies.

I think it's an act of humility to recognize that we have a great capacity to misunderstand the data from nature, especially since the interpretation is dependent on presupposition, and instead to be willing sumbit to God's written Word regardless of majority opinion.

Obviously, there's still the question of when an interpretation puts one outside the pale, and we have the history of the Church to instruct us on this.

And this history affirms YEC! Not as essential for salvation, but essential to place the Gospel on a firm historical footing as the answer to the problem of sin and death revealed in Genesis 3 (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45).

I, for example, don't have nearly the issue with evolution as I do with openness theology.

They are both aberrant, and I'm glad you agree about OVT. :thumb:

[Zeus]

Yesterday @ 04:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124084#post124084)
Jinx72:
How do Christians who believe in evolution explain Christ's position on special Creation?

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus is the Son of God, a person of the Trinity, and was there at the beginning. Here he is confirming that and confirming that mankind was created exactly as Genesis records. According to evolutionary origins, there was no such thing as male or female at the beginning.

So is Jesus lying or telling the truth?


Jesus is telling the truth. Jesus was answering a question on divorce, and answered it the same way I would if asked the same question, and I am a theistic evolutionist. For one thing, there is really no difference between an evolutionary interpretation of that quote and a YEC interpretation, since man was not created at the true beginning of creation. Man was created on the last day, not the beginning. Both interpretations assume that "beginning" is not really the beginning of all creation but rather the beginning of creation of humans. In fact, if Christ meant a YEC view He would have said "from the end of Creation" -- humans were the very last thing made according to the Genesis account.

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125135#post125135)
Zeus:

Jesus is telling the truth. Jesus was answering a question on divorce, and answered it the same way I would if asked the same question, and I am a theistic evolutionist. For one thing, there is really no difference between an evolutionary interpretation of that quote and a YEC interpretation, since man was not created at the true beginning of creation. Man was created on the last day, not the beginning. Both interpretations assume that "beginning" is not really the beginning of all creation but rather the beginning of creation of humans. In fact, if Christ meant a YEC view He would have said "from the end of Creation" -- humans were the very last thing made according to the Genesis account.

Z


/me jumps up and down, :rant: ranting in disagreement ... and decides to reserve the right to come back later with a cooler head ...

[Undomiel]

Today @ 05:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125135#post125135)
Zeus:



Jesus is telling the truth. Jesus was answering a question on divorce, and answered it the same way I would if asked the same question, and I am a theistic evolutionist. For one thing, there is really no difference between an evolutionary interpretation of that quote and a YEC interpretation, since man was not created at the true beginning of creation. Man was created on the last day, not the beginning. Both interpretations assume that "beginning" is not really the beginning of all creation but rather the beginning of creation of humans. In fact, if Christ meant a YEC view He would have said "from the end of Creation" -- humans were the very last thing made according to the Genesis account.

Z


Whoa, that is some fairly confusing mental Olympics. Face it. If we can clone, God can create. Let's stop using the excuse that such things are not possible since it's pretty much a given that even we are capable of some measure of creation these days - misguided as it may be.

[Zeus]

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125146#post125146)
Undomiel:

Face it. If we can clone, God can create. Let's stop using the excuse that such things are not possible since it's pretty much a given that even we are capable of some measure of creation these days - misguided as it may be.

Huh?

Nobody in this thread is questioning whether God can create ....

[Undomiel]

Today @ 05:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125149#post125149)
Zeus:



Huh?

Nobody in this thread is questioning whether God can create ....


Instantaneously or over the course of millenia?

[Zeus]

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125165#post125165)
Undomiel:

Instantaneously or over the course of millenia?

Nobody's questioning either one, AFAICT.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125135#post125135)
Zeus:

Jesus is telling the truth. Jesus was answering a question on divorce, and answered it the same way I would if asked the same question, and I am a theistic evolutionist. For one thing, there is really no difference between an evolutionary interpretation of that quote and a YEC interpretation, since man was not created at the true beginning of creation. Man was created on the last day, not the beginning. Both interpretations assume that "beginning" is not really the beginning of all creation but rather the beginning of creation of humans. In fact, if Christ meant a YEC view He would have said "from the end of Creation" -- humans were the very last thing made according to the Genesis account.

Oh, come off it! This is yet more proof of the grievous bodily harm that must be inflicted on Scripture to kowtow to a theory that is really a deduction from a materialistic (in effect) view of Earth history.

Jesus said "beginning of creation", not the beginning of Creation Week. Compare these two passages with the same Greek phrase ap archès ktiseòs (no essential difference in grammar from apo de archès ktiseòs:

Mark 13:19 ‘For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.’
2 Peter 3:4 ‘[Scoffers say] “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”’

In a YEC framework, the earth was created about 4,000 years before He spoke those words, and Adam and Eve created on Day 6. On the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning. It's only 0.0004% away on a time line, which is right at the beginning, especially as the Bible normally uses nearest-whole-number precision at the most.

But if evolution or billions of years are right, then the creation of man would be billions of years after the beginning—almost at the end if the timeline.

See the diagram below.

Jesus's statement is directly quoting Genesis 1:24 and 2:27 about the TWO original humans who would become one flesh. This in turn shows a matter-of-fact acceptance of the historicity of the account of their creation.

[Zeus]

Today @ 06:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125177#post125177)
Socrates:

In a YEC framework, the earth was created about 4,000 years before He spoke those words, and Adam and Eve created on Day 6. On the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning. It's only 0.0004% away on a time line, which is right at the beginning, especially as the Bible normally uses nearest-whole-number precision at the most.

But if evolution or billions of years are right, then the creation of man would be billions of years after the beginning—almost at the end if the timeline.


Your argument would make some sense if Jesus had said "from the beginning of time". Then the relative lengths you diagrammed would (perhaps) apply. But that is NOT what Jesus said. He said "beginning of Creation", referring specifically to the Genesis account. Thus the ONLY relevant timeline is the length of the Genesis Creation. Man was created at the end of the Creation of the world, not at the beginning, whether you think the earth is 4000 years old or 4 billion.

Come on Soc, it's undeniable you've lost this one.

Z

[wienerdog]

Of course they were male and female from the beginning of the human race. What else would they have been¯hermaphrodites?
Don't be silly Socrates. They were single-celled organisms. :wink: Wait, I guess then they were hermaphrodites.

I think I see Zeus' point. Human beings were created at the end of creation week, so we have to ask what being created at the beginning of creation would mean when referring to this event. I would argue that Jesus is referring to creation week as a whole as the beginning of creation (i.e. its existence). But that simply doesn't address how long creation week was.

I also misspoke (or miswrote, actually). Jesus said that he created them male and female at the beginning of creation. I meant to ask the beginning of the creation of what? Are we sure he's referring to creation as a whole with this phrase? Since he's talking about human beings and the institution of marriage upon their creation, I wouldn't be surprised if he's saying that he created them male and female at the beginning of the creation of human beings.

[Zeus]

Today @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125256#post125256)
wienerdog:


Don't be silly Socrates. They were single-celled organisms. :wink: Wait, I guess then they were hermaphrodites.


Not so fast -- common baker's yeast (or beer yeast) is probably the most well-characterized organism genetically in all of biology. It is single-celled, and has two clear sexes (called a and alpha, for some reason). There are many other examples. Yes, even protists have sex.

Z

[Zeus]

Today @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125256#post125256)
wienerdog:

I would argue that Jesus is referring to creation week as a whole as the beginning of creation (i.e. its existence). But that simply doesn't address how long creation week was.

Yes -- that encompasses the two only valid interpretations I see.

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125135#post125135)
Zeus:

Jesus is telling the truth. Jesus was answering a question on divorce, and answered it the same way I would if asked the same question, and I am a theistic evolutionist. For one thing, there is really no difference between an evolutionary interpretation of that quote and a YEC interpretation, since man was not created at the true beginning of creation. Man was created on the last day, not the beginning. Both interpretations assume that "beginning" is not really the beginning of all creation but rather the beginning of creation of humans. In fact, if Christ meant a YEC view He would have said "from the end of Creation" -- humans were the very last thing made according to the Genesis account.

Sher earlier with little sleep and less patience:
/me jumps up and down, :rant: ranting in disagreement ... and decides to reserve the right to come back later with a cooler head ...

Zeus following up on Socrates' post
Your argument would make some sense if Jesus had said "from the beginning of time". Then the relative lengths you diagrammed would (perhaps) apply. But that is NOT what Jesus said. He said "beginning of Creation", referring specifically to the Genesis account. Thus the ONLY relevant timeline is the length of the Genesis Creation. Man was created at the end of the Creation of the world, not at the beginning, whether you think the earth is 4000 years old or 4 billion.

Come on Soc, it's undeniable you've lost this one.

It is my understanding that the phrasing is such that the full meaning is lost in English, but that "In the Beginning" is the beginning of all time ... and as such, your rebuttal here ... and your earlier point ... do not match up against the diagram/explanation that Soc gave ... nor does the picking of nits in this more recent one ... where you argue from English.

In the evolutionary timescale, there would have been populations of mankind evolving ... not a primary pair as Genesis tells us. AFAIK, evolutionists still dispute that mEve was the first female ... the only first female ... disputing any nod to Creation. Compared to what you said you believe (which is special Creation of humans ... the first ones, at least) here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=125224#post125224), I don't know where your ideas of evolution fit. How do you reconcile believing in both?

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125507#post125507)
Sher:

It is my understanding that the phrasing is such that the full meaning is lost in English, but that "In the Beginning" is the beginning of all time ...


So ... the phrase "beginning of Creation" does not really mean that but means something else that Jesus does not say, since in English we cannot translate Jesus words correctly? No, the greek is "archen ktision", and the "beginning" refers to "creation." It is actually a pretty straightforward passage. Remaining fair to the text, you can either interpret "creation" as "all creation, the creation week" or as the creation of humans, which is the specific thing Christ is talking about. The second option seems clear to me.


In the evolutionary timescale, there would have been populations of mankind evolving ...


When do you mean? Of course -- there are populations of mankind evolving now.


not a primary pair as Genesis tells us.


As I've said before, there had to be a first human, and a single male ancestor of all living humans. At some point in the evolution of our ancestors, who were not humans (but close), a critical mutation happened that made one (or two) of them into what we would recognize as fully human.


AFAIK, evolutionists still dispute that mEve was the first female ... the only first female ... disputing any nod to Creation.

mEve is not necessarily the first female (she could be). She is the female from whom we all inherited our mitochondria. She could have lived much later than (but not before) the single female ancestor of all humans. Most people get this confused.

Now the Creation story clearly indicates there were many other non-human females around so I don't get your problem with that.


Compared to what you said you believe (which is special Creation of humans ... the first ones, at least)


I never said special creation -- I don't think God creates that way most of the time. The Bible indicates to me (including what Jesus has said about it) that miracles are performed solely to make points to humans who witness them. All I'm saying is that God usually doesn't break His laws, He usually works His will by them, directing them. This is the Polkinghorne view of Divine control, if you are familiar with that.

Z

[wienerdog]

Today @ 05:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125141#post125141)
Sher:

* Sher jumps up and down, :rant: ranting in disagreement ... and decides to reserve the right to come back later with a cooler head ...
I am totally baffled by this, Sher. All Zeus wrote was that he thought a passage meant something other than what somebody else said. What is there to get mad about? You don't get mad when this is done everywhere else, I know. There is nothing in what Zeus wrote that I can perceive as provoking such a reaction. I disagree with him pretty strongly too.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125543#post125543)
Zeus:

So ... the phrase "beginning of Creation" does not really mean that but means something else that Jesus does not say, since in English we cannot translate Jesus words correctly? No, the greek is "archen ktision", and the "beginning" refers to "creation." It is actually a pretty straightforward passage. Remaining fair to the text, you can either interpret "creation" as "all creation, the creation week" or as the creation of humans, which is the specific thing Christ is talking about. The second option seems clear to me.

No, what I am saying is that ... if I am correct on this thought (which I am not sure I am, so it would need to be confirmed) ... the phrasing "in the beginning" has a broader coverage then the way we would use it in English ... that it is the absolute beginning. Let me get back to you on that when I can find my notes from when we studied this in a class I took. I am almost postive I am right ... but I'm flying by the seat of my pants here without my papers.

If I am remembering correctly though, the bearing is that the beginning is used in a form that is carried over to the later usage ... and that the meaning is deeper than presupposed by the limits of English ... that it is the absolute beginning of time and as such, does not allow for a hugh period of evolution to fit in there.

When do you mean? Of course -- there are populations of mankind evolving now.

Yes, I realize that you think that ... but equivocal use of evolution ... and split in the middle of my sentence ... aside ... I go on to finish the thought in which you reply:

As I've said before, there had to be a first human, and a single male ancestor of all living humans. At some point in the evolution of our ancestors, who were not humans (but close), a critical mutation happened that made one (or two) of them into what we would recognize as fully human.

I'm sorry ... but is this as confusing to anyone else as it is to me? ... I linked to that other bit where you talk as if you are supporting Special Creation ... and you repeat it here as "first human" but then go off in the other direction as if they are evolved, not created.

In the "what I believe" section, you bounce from special creation I believe God created mankind. I do believe that Adam was literally the first man and was literally created from from dust by God. I do believe that Eve was literally the first woman.

To evolution of manI know that all known species have originated evolutionarily. I know that mankind decended from animals who in turn descended from earlier animals who in turn ultimately descended from "pond scum." I know that God used evolution to create mankind.

Which I'm sorry is amazingly contradictory.

mEve is not necessarily the first female (she could be). She is the female from whom we all inherited our mitochondria. She could have lived much later than (but not before) the single female ancestor of all humans. Most people get this confused.

Actually, my point here wasn't specific to mEve ... but that even with the "discovery" of her ... evolutionists do not, AFAIK, refer back to a single female/male beginning ... as is necessary for the correct reading of Genesis ... the Special Creation that even Jesus refers back to.

Now the Creation story clearly indicates there were many other non-human females around so I don't get your problem with that.

Wha..? Where does it "clearly state" this?? Unless you are speaking of cows or goats, which have no bearing on this conversation ...

I never said special creation -- I don't think God creates that way most of the time. The Bible indicates to me (including what Jesus has said about it) that miracles are performed solely to make points to humans who witness them. All I'm saying is that God usually doesn't break His laws, He usually works His will by them, directing them. This is the Polkinghorne view of Divine control, if you are familiar with that.

No ... but if it is half as confusing as I outlined above, I'm not sure I want to hear it. :lol:


Today @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125690#post125690)
wienerdog:

I am totally baffled by this, Sher. All Zeus wrote was that he thought a passage meant something other than what somebody else said. What is there to get mad about? You don't get mad when this is done everywhere else, I know. There is nothing in what Zeus wrote that I can perceive as provoking such a reaction. I disagree with him pretty strongly too.

WD, I did go on in the next post to say that I was tired ... and I probably had too strong of a reaction ... but re-read your last two sentences here ... :rofl: (why the strong reaction ... I disagree strongly too ???)


My guys just walked back in the door with dinner ... so I'll come back and clear up anything that doesn't make sense later.

[Zeus]

Yesterday @ 11:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125827#post125827)
Sher:

No, what I am saying is that ... if I am correct on this thought (which I am not sure I am, so it would need to be confirmed) ... the phrasing "in the beginning" has a broader coverage then the way we would use it in English ... that it is the absolute beginning. Let me get back to you on that when I can find my notes from when we studied this in a class I took. I am almost postive I am right ... but I'm flying by the seat of my pants here without my papers.

If I am remembering correctly though, the bearing is that the beginning is used in a form that is carried over to the later usage ... and that the meaning is deeper than presupposed by the limits of English ... that it is the absolute beginning of time and as such, does not allow for a hugh period of evolution to fit in there.


Well, I'd certainly be interested in any evidence that were the case.

Yes, I realize that you think that ... but equivocal use of evolution ...


"Equivocal"?


and split in the middle of my sentence ... aside ... I go on to finish the thought in which you reply:


Zeus:
As I've said before, there had to be a first human, and a single male ancestor of all living humans. At some point in the evolution of our ancestors, who were not humans (but close), a critical mutation happened that made one (or two) of them into what we would recognize as fully human.


I'm sorry ... but is this as confusing to anyone else as it is to me? ... I linked to that other bit where you talk as if you are supporting Special Creation ... and you repeat it here as "first human" but then go off in the other direction as if they are evolved, not created.

In the "what I believe" section, you bounce from special creation

I believe God created mankind. I do believe that Adam was literally the first man and was literally created from from dust by God. I do believe that Eve was literally the first woman.


To evolution of man

I know that all known species have originated evolutionarily. I know that mankind decended from animals who in turn descended from earlier animals who in turn ultimately descended from "pond scum." I know that God used evolution to create mankind.


Which I'm sorry is amazingly contradictory.


The first statement says nothing about special creation. It only affirms that God created, that Adam was literally the first human, and that He was made of dust. This is only "contradictory" if you think that the only way God can create is some sort of "rabbit-out-of-the-hat ... POOF!" thing. Maybe this restatement will help:

I believe that Adam was literally created from dirt (inanimate matter found on the earth) by God using evolution.

In human terms, there was a long time between dust and Adam, but God exists outside of time and is capable of anything He chooses.


Actually, my point here wasn't specific to mEve ... but that even with the "discovery" of her ... evolutionists do not, AFAIK, refer back to a single female/male beginning ... as is necessary for the correct reading of Genesis ... the Special Creation that even Jesus refers back to.

Jesus did not literally refer to a special creation. Jesus says nothing more than affirming that Adam and Eve were indeed created and that it was God that created them. He says nothing at all about how they were created. You can only conclude that Jesus meant a special creation if you interpret Genesis as specifically refering to a special creation event (which in fact is not even stated literally).

But anyway, I'd like to hear where some evolutionary biologist disputes that there must have been a single male and a single female from whom we are all descendents. That would just be absurd genetics. This genetic fact must be true whether evolution is true or not.

AFAIK, evolutionists still dispute that mEve was the first female ... the only first female ... disputing any nod to Creation.

mEve is not necessarily the first female (she could be). She is the female from whom we all inherited our mitochondria. She could have lived much later than (but not before) the single female ancestor of all humans. Most people get this confused.

Now the Creation story clearly indicates there were many other non-human females around so I don't get your problem with that.


Wha..? Where does it "clearly state" this?? Unless you are speaking of cows or goats, which have no bearing on this conversation ...


"Male and female he created them." And yes, I'm talking about cows, goats, fish, birds, insects, and archaic non-Homo sapien primates and hominids, the last of which have everything to do with evolution of humans. Are you telling me that you don't believe God created apes and all the hominids found in the fossil record?

If not, surely you think they (the females too) were created before Adam and Eve, not after, correct?

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125897#post125897)
Zeus:

Well, I'd certainly be interested in any evidence that were the case.

Okey-dokey ... give me some time this week to dig through some boxes and I'll get back to you on this point (unless someone else has it and responds first). Forgive my poor memory :frown: (I do remember, though, that it is also what shows that John 1:1 is speaking about Christ being eternal ... I'll just have to get my notes and books out for the remainder ... with references)

"Equivocal"?

Yes, because before the revised version that you post later (in the post I am now responding to) ... your usage was equivocal in that you used evolution as in the *goo to you via the zoo* sense in one aspect ... and as *adaptation of species* in another.

The first statement says nothing about special creation. It only affirms that God created, that Adam was literally the first human, and that He was made of dust. This is only "contradictory" if you think that the only way God can create is some sort of "rabbit-out-of-the-hat ... POOF!" thing.

You said, "I do believe that Adam was literally the first man and was literally created from from dust by God." ... notice you said here "by God" ... not by using some God inspired evolution. What you described the first time was special Creation ... whether you meant that or not.

Maybe this restatement will help:

I believe that Adam was literally created from dirt (inanimate matter found on the earth) by God using evolution.

In human terms, there was a long time between dust and Adam, but God exists outside of time and is capable of anything He chooses.

See? This change to "by God using evolution" is different than "by God" (and describing special Creation). This clarifies your postition ... I still disagree with it ... but it is no longer a point contradictory to your other points. :smile:

Jesus did not literally refer to a special creation. Jesus says nothing more than affirming that Adam and Eve were indeed created and that it was God that created them. He says nothing at all about how they were created. You can only conclude that Jesus meant a special creation if you interpret Genesis as specifically refering to a special creation event (which in fact is not even stated literally).

Are you of the mindset that God creates everything ... even now? If not, why not (by your reasoning)?

Genesis does exactly refer to a literal special creation event ... with God physically making Adam and breathing the breath of life into him .... and God physically taking the rib from him to create Eve. Jesus, who IS God ... and was THERE as the Christophany ... so He would know ... did exactly refer to them being made male and female by God's creation. (Matt 19:4 & Mark 10:6) ... and the word for made means "formed" ... not allowed it to happen via evolution.

But anyway, I'd like to hear where some evolutionary biologist disputes that there must have been a single male and a single female from whom we are all descendents. That would just be absurd genetics. This genetic fact must be true whether evolution is true or not.

:cheers: We agree on this at least.

"Male and female he created them." And yes, I'm talking about cows, goats, fish, birds, insects, and archaic non-Homo sapien primates and hominids, the last of which have everything to do with evolution of humans. Are you telling me that you don't believe God created apes and all the hominids found in the fossil record? If not, surely you think they (the females too) were created before Adam and Eve, not after, correct?

Okay ... you just weren't very clear on that point ... not enough to respond to. I believe exactly what Genesis outlines ... that animals were created ... then Adam was created ... Not that some half-humans needing to evolve into a real humans were created that later became Adam and Eve.

[Zeus]

Today @ 01:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125941#post125941)
Sher:

"Equivocal"?

Yes, because before the revised version that you post later (in the post I am now responding to) ... your usage was equivocal in that you used evolution as in the *goo to you via the zoo* sense in one aspect ... and as *adaptation of species* in another.


Actually, I never said anything about adaptation at all. Now, if you mean I consider evolution above the species level to simply be an extension of evolution below the species level (microevolution leads to macroevolution, if you will), then yes, of course I meant that. That is not equivocating, that is evolutionary biology. It could be considered equivocating if I claimed proof of one was proof of the other, but I don't and I didn't.


You said, "I do believe that Adam was literally the first man and was literally created from from dust by God." ... notice you said here "by God" ... not by using some God inspired evolution. What you described the first time was special Creation ... whether you meant that or not.

When God creates He has to use some method, whether you state it or not. When I say I beleive God created I mean what I say -- that statement does not depend upon how He created. You are assuming that if God uses indirect means to create then that is not really creation, which is absurd and un-Biblical to boot.

See? This change to "by God using evolution" is different than "by God" (and describing special Creation).

No, saying "by God" does not mean nor imply special creation. It is a simple statement that God is directly responsible for the product. God can create using supernatural, miraculous means or He can create by telling the earth to make something and the earth obeys. Both are examples of God creating. You shouldn't assume one or the other. Do you really believe that the wind today is the result of separate special creation events?


Are you of the mindset that God creates everything ... even now?


In some ways, of course. That is what the Bible teaches, is it not? (for example, Amos 4:13) If you believe that God literally created for only six days (or whatever) and then completely gave it all up for the rest of history then you are adhering to Deism, a theology I assume you disagree with.


Genesis does exactly refer to a literal special creation event ... with God physically making Adam and breathing the breath of life into him ....


It never says anything about how He created Adam. It just says He did. If we take the example of the previous verses (specifically Gen 1:11, 12, 24,25) , then Genesis indicates God did not create Adam via a special creation event. In fact, the language of Genesis does not distinguish between special creation and creation using secondary ("natural") means (see the previous verses). God tells the earth to do stuff, or tells the water to create. He embues those elements with creative power, and they create for God. And Genesis then restates the same event as "God created" (Gen 1:24-25). According to the OT, there is no difference.


Jesus, who IS God ... and was THERE as the Christophany ... so He would know ... did exactly refer to them being made male and female by God's creation. (Matt 19:4 & Mark 10:6) ...


Yes, that is not in question. The question is "how did God create them?" It never says.


and the word for made means "formed" ... not allowed it to happen via evolution.


Sorry, but nothing in the Hebrew says anything about "not happening by evolution." You are really engaging in some hilarious revisionist translation right there!

God formed them. Genesis does not say how he formed them.

Tell me something Sher -- do you believe God is responsible for gravity? Do you think He is in control of the weather? Do you think the earth could rotate on its axis if God did not want it to? Do you think matter, electrons, atoms, etc. could exist independently of God's will? Or time? Could time exist without God's continuous approval of each second, past, present, and future?

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 09:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125976#post125976)
Zeus:

Actually, I never said anything about adaptation at all.

:doh: I purposely removed the quotation marks before I posted it and replaced them with asterisks so that you would realize that I wasn't directly quoting you. You implied (micro-)evolution/(macro-) evolution in those examples ... that was the equivocation.

Now, if you mean I consider evolution above the species level to simply be an extension of evolution below the species level (microevolution leads to macroevolution, if you will), then yes, of course I meant that. That is not equivocating, that is evolutionary biology. It could be considered equivocating if I claimed proof of one was proof of the other, but I don't and I didn't.

Well, that is how the evolutionist NOW define it ... to cover it all in a blanket-statement. It is equivocation because there is no proof that one follows the other.

When God creates He has to use some method, whether you state it or not. When I say I beleive God created I mean what I say -- that statement does not depend upon how He created. You are assuming that if God uses indirect means to create then that is not really creation, which is absurd and un-Biblical to boot.

No, I am stating that not only is evolution wrong ... it hatchet-jobs Scripture to make your claims. Of course God used a "method" ... His "method" was that He walked on Earth as a Christophany and physically created them in accordance with Scripture.

No, saying "by God" does not mean nor imply special creation. It is a simple statement that God is directly responsible for the product. God can create using supernatural, miraculous means or He can create by telling the earth to make something and the earth obeys. Both are examples of God creating.

Thank you! Now ... go back to the final authority ... Scripture ... and see which He uses to create Adam and Eve.

You shouldn't assume one or the other. Do you really believe that the wind today is the result of separate special creation events?

Nope ... hence the word "special" in the sentence.

Sher: Are you of the mindset that God creates everything ... even now?
In some ways, of course. That is what the Bible teaches, is it not? (for example, Amos 4:13) If you believe that God literally created for only six days (or whatever) and then completely gave it all up for the rest of history then you are adhering to Deism, a theology I assume you disagree with.

Um ... nice try. I asked "creates everything ... even now" ... not purported that He's removed Himself from interaction.

It never says anything about how He created Adam. It just says He did.

Actually, you are wrong. That is one of the issues I have with theistic evolution ... the mangling of Scripture. (Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
The usage of formed and breathed are NOT anthropomorphization ... they are indicators of physical things that happened ... and this is supported, to my understanding, by the Hebrew. (Perhaps someone can jump in on that and give the correct words/meanings :help:)

If we take the example of the previous verses (specifically Gen 1:11, 12, 24,25) , then Genesis indicates God did not create Adam via a special creation event. In fact, the language of Genesis does not distinguish between special creation and creation using secondary ("natural") means (see the previous verses). God tells the earth to do stuff, or tells the water to create. He embues those elements with creative power, and they create for God. And Genesis then restates the same event as "God created" (Gen 1:24-25). According to the OT, there is no difference.

Ah ... but you are talking about the difference of when God said for the Earth to do certain things ... and when the Christophany actually (physically) did certain things ... There is a BIG difference in the way it is written. Go back to the Hebrew and look at the usage of God's name ... and the way that it is phrased.

Yes, that is not in question. The question is "how did God create them?" It never says.

Refuted

Sorry, but nothing in the Hebrew says anything about "not happening by evolution." You are really engaging in some hilarious revisionist translation right there! God formed them. Genesis does not say how he formed them.

IBTD, the words are "Let" this or that happen, in one context ... and actually, physically, performing the tasks in the other context.

Tell me something Sher -- do you believe God is responsible for gravity? Do you think He is in control of the weather? Do you think the earth could rotate on its axis if God did not want it to? Do you think matter, electrons, atoms, etc. could exist independently of God's will? Or time? Could time exist with God's continuous approval of each second, past, present, and future?

I think that God is responsible for all the laws of physics ... and He has the ability to suspend them, also, if He wishes.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125976#post125976)
Zeus:

Tell me something Sher -- do you believe God is responsible for gravity? Do you think He is in control of the weather? Do you think the earth could rotate on its axis if God did not want it to? Do you think matter, electrons, atoms, etc. could exist independently of God's will? Or time? Could time exist with God's continuous approval of each second, past, present, and future?

How boring -- these are all examples of operational (observational) science, involving God's repeatable sustaining actions in a creation that was finished. This is totally different from the one-off miraculous creative acts He said he did, as well as a judgment by a global Flood.

I wonder if Zeus explains some of Jesus's miracles naturalistically, e.g. His walking on water was really due to a sandbar underneath, and the feeding of the 5000 was really the people being inspired to share their lunch.

[wienerdog]

Sher,

I should have PMed my response to you instead of broadcasting it. Sorry. And sorry if I read into it.

[Zeus]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126019#post126019)
Socrates:

How boring -- these are all examples of operational (observational) science, involving God's repeatable sustaining actions in a creation that was finished. This is totally different from the one-off miraculous creative acts He said he did, as well as a judgment by a global Flood.


Soc, I am keenly aware of the the modern Western idea of a difference between sustaining actions (secondary actions) and miracles (primary actions). First, this idea is not well-defined, to say the least, in Hebrew theology -- it is a modern intellectual philosophical concept. Second, even given that such a difference even exists, you assume that the Creation was not of the sustaining kind. That assumption is not textually supported, as evidenced by the many obviouis sustaining actions performed by God throughout the Bible (read Amos 4:13 and related Scriptures, it uses the exact same terminology as the Genesis creation). The Bible tells us that God is constantly creating (using the same words used for "to form", "to make", and "to create" as used in Genesis).


I wonder if Zeus explains some of Jesus's miracles naturalistically, e.g. His walking on water was really due to a sandbar underneath, and the feeding of the 5000 was really the people being inspired to share their lunch.


As I said before, the Bible indicates miracles were performed solely for the benefit of humans who could observed them, in order to make specific points.


John 4:
48_Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe . 49_The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. 50_Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.


All throught the NT, miracles are performed in order that men may believe, as signs of proof of God. It is interesting, Soc, that the greek word for miracle is 'semeion', which literally means a "sign." Nowhere in the Bible does it say that miracles somehow "broke" natural laws. Though I have no problem with that interpretation, since God can certainly break his own "laws" at will, that interpretation is purely a modern view, and has absolutely no Biblical basis. The ancient Hebrews and the Greeks really had no concept of "natural laws" as we do today. Miracles were simply signs, unusual occurences that signified the presence of the Divinity. I would never argue that there was a sand bar under Jesus as some sort of magician's trick that any skilled human could pull off. But did walking on water actually violate the physical regularities that God has given His creation? I don't know -- I'm not going to be surprised if God tells me in the end that no "natural laws" were broken, that Jesus simply knew that the currents would be just right in that region of the water at that very instant. Quantum mechanics of course rules out nothing -- everything has a probability, no matter how small. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, there is a finite probability that all the atoms of gas in the room will suddenly move into the corner at any moment. Perhaps that was the one time in the history of the universe that some water molecules were, by chance, all moving in the same upward direction, enough to keep Jesus afloat, and He knew about it, since He is omniscient. Or maybe He just made it happen via His Divine power, yet sum total over all time, over all space, that occurence still fell within the quantum mechanical probability of what could happen once and only once. God works in mysterious ways, nothing will surprise me. I won't be surprised if He tells me something stranger than that (like maybe there is no such thing as "natural laws"). In fact, that is closer to how I believe -- everthing is a miracle. The fact that matter exists at all and me with it is completely miraculous. A single drop of water on the table is a miracle. I suggest not to confine God and His actions to your modern, non-biblical assumptions. However it happened, it was still a Divine sign that no mortal human can do.

Read me sig. It's about this very point.

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 01:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126115#post126115)
wienerdog:

Sher,

I should have PMed my response to you instead of broadcasting it. Sorry. And sorry if I read into it.

No biggie WD ... I still love ya Brother ... Squishies and all :joy:

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126130#post126130)
Zeus:

Soc, I am keenly aware of the the modern Western idea of a difference between sustaining actions (secondary actions) and miracles (primary actions). First, this idea is not well-defined, to say the least, in Hebrew theology -- it is a modern intellectual philosophical concept.

You mean like the idea that the Bible is authoritative only for faith and morals, not for history or geography? In Hebrew theology, no distinction was made.

Zeus is the one who presupposes that God used processes operating today to create all kinds of living things. He ignores the clear statements that God created things by different processes and different timescales, and that He cursed the creation and later judged the Earth by a global Flood. These violate his presupposition of materialism, which he euphemizes as methodological naturalism, then tries to dress it up in scriptural-sounding verbiage.

Second, even given that such a difference even exists, you assume that the Creation was not of the sustaining kind. That assumption is not textually supported, as evidenced by the many obvious sustaining actions performed by God throughout the Bible.

And Zeus has to ignore the plain statement that God FINISHED the creative work on the 7th day and rested (Genesis 2:3), the basis for the Israelite Sabbath. This provides a basis for making a practical distinction between operational and origins science, as explained further at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism and in TheFiveSolas' thread about observational v inferential science.

(read Amos 4:13 and related Scriptures, it uses the exact same terminology as the Genesis creation).

Zeus quoting Scripture as authoritative? Nah. Materialistic evolution is his real authority, and Scripture must bow to this.

The Bible tells us that God is constantly creating (using the same words used for "to form", "to make", and "to create" as used in Genesis).

Different usage. This is just like those who point out that "day" has a number of different meanings and use this to claim that "day" in the specific context of Genesis 1 need not mean an ordinary day.

As I said before, the Bible indicates miracles were performed solely for the benefit of humans who could observed them, in order to make specific points.

And the Creation doesn't? The Sabbath command was directly based on Creation Week.

All throught the NT, miracles are performed in order that men may believe, as signs of proof of God. It is interesting, Soc, that the greek word for miracle is 'semeion', which literally means a "sign."

Another word that is translated "miracle" is dunamis, which is a mighty act of power.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that miracles somehow "broke" natural laws.

No where have I said they did. In fact, at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19011#post19011 I defend the idea that they are additions to natural law.

Though I have no problem with that interpretation, since God can certainly break his own "laws" at will, that interpretation is purely a modern view, and has absolutely no Biblical basis. The ancient Hebrews and the Greeks really had no concept of "natural laws" as we do today.

And I've said that natural laws are our descriptions of God's sustaining power -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=50775#post50775 Rather, it is those like Zeus who appeal to evolutionary "science" over Scripture who impute ontological reality to them. But science has no logical foundation without an orderly universe, but it cannot prove that there is order in the world without begging the question of this very order. But the Christian conception of a God of order provides a logical basis.

Miracles were simply signs, unusual occurences that signified the presence of the Divinity. I would never argue that there was a sand bar under Jesus as some sort of magician's trick that any skilled human could pull off. But did walking on water actually violate the physical regularities that God has given His creation?

No--as I argued, His walking on water was an addition to the physical regularities.

I don't know -- I'm not going to be surprised if God tells me in the end that no "natural laws" were broken, that Jesus simply knew that the currents would be just right in that region of the water at that very instant. Quantum mechanics of course rules out nothing -- everything has a probability, no matter how small. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, there is a finite probability that all the atoms of gas in the room will suddenly move into the corner at any moment. Perhaps that was the one time in the history of the universe that some water molecules were, by chance, all moving in the same upward direction, enough to keep Jesus afloat, and He knew about it, since He is omniscient. Or maybe He just made it happen via His Divine power, yet sum total over all time, over all space, that occurence still fell within the quantum mechanical probability of what could happen once and only once. God works in mysterious ways, nothing will surprise me. I won't be surprised if He tells me something stranger than that (like maybe there is no such thing as "natural laws"). In fact, that is closer to how I believe -- everthing is a miracle. The fact that matter exists at all and me with it is completely miraculous. A single drop of water on the table is a miracle.

Like a good liberal, Zeus defines "miracle" hyperpiously but so widely that he butchers the concept.

I suggest not to confine God and His actions to your modern, non-biblical assumptions.

What a hypocrite, considering his entire eisegetical system is based on "modern, non-biblical assumptions" such as evolution, billions of years, and a non-physical Resurrection.

However it happened, it was still a Divine sign that no mortal human can do.

Read me sig. It's about this very point.

Tell me something I don't know. I've pointed out that people have no excuse to deny God because of what has been made (Romans 1:18 ff.), and quoted Jesus' citation of Abraham to the rich man in Luke 16:31:

If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

And Zeus who denies what Moses says about creation (although he euphemizes this as "reinterpretation") also denies the physical Resurrection.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125198#post125198)
Zeus, replying to:

Socrates:

In a YEC framework, the earth was created about 4,000 years before He spoke those words, and Adam and Eve created on Day 6. On the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning. It's only 0.0004% away on a time line, which is right at the beginning, especially as the Bible normally uses nearest-whole-number precision at the most.

But if evolution or billions of years are right, then the creation of man would be billions of years after the beginning—almost at the end if the timeline.

Your argument would make some sense if Jesus had said "from the beginning of time".

It makes perfect sense now. This world is His creation. He said that Adam and Eve were there from the beginning of creation.

Then the relative lengths you diagrammed would (perhaps) apply. But that is NOT what Jesus said. He said "beginning of Creation", referring specifically to the Genesis account.

Yes, the Genesis account of how this World was created, and which is hard to imagine could be more diametrically opposed to your faith in goo-to-you evolution.

Thus the ONLY relevant timeline is the length of the Genesis Creation. Man was created at the end of the Creation of the world, not at the beginning, whether you think the earth is 4000 years old or 4 billion.

Once more, since the creation was the world, humans were there from the beginning (0.0004% away).

Come on Soc, it's undeniable you've lost this one.

Come on Zeus, it's undeniable you've lost this one, if you have to resort to this sort of bluff and bluster.

If goo-to-you evolution said something was black and the Bible said it was white, Zeus would find a way of claiming that it really meant black.

Soc,

Please give Zeus an opportunity to reply before you post a second lengthy response in a row. Your text has been preserved (and PM'd to you), if you want to use it later.

Sher

[Zeus]

Today @ 11:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126219#post126219)
Socrates:

And Zeus has to ignore the plain statement that God FINISHED the creative work on the 7th day and rested (Genesis 2:3), the basis for the Israelite Sabbath. This provides a basis for making a practical distinction between operational and origins science,

And our Sabbath is always followed by another workweek, as God intended. There are plenty of other Scriptures clearly stating that God keeps creating continuously. THe Amos passage I quoted, and which you ignored by slandering me, is one example.


In fact, at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19011#post19011 I defend the idea that they are additions to natural law.

....

And I've said that natural laws are our descriptions of God's sustaining power -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=50775#post50775


I like both of those views Soc, but this does undermine your distinction between creative miracles and "sustaining" actions.


But science has no logical foundation without an orderly universe, but it cannot prove that there is order in the world without begging the question of this very order. But the Christian conception of a God of order provides a logical basis.


I agree completely.


Like a good liberal, Zeus defines "miracle" hyperpiously but so widely that he butchers the concept.


Funny you say that, since your view of miracles is so close to the one I proferred. Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?


And Zeus .... denies the physical Resurrection.

Anyone who has followed our discussion of the bodily resurrection, which I believe in fully, will understand just how disengenuous this intentional distortion of my position is. Shame on you Soc. Is your purpose always just to "win", honest debate secondary??

For my real beliefs on the rez, which Soc is aware of, see:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=124602#post124602

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=124582#post124582

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=123835#post123835


Am I the only one here who is troubled by the fact that when Soc is losing an argument he always resorts to poisoning the well and epithet slinging (like calling me a "materialist", "compromiser", "hyperpious", "a good liberal," absurdly claiming Hume is my "hero", etc. etc. etc.). It's a good debating tactic if all you want to do is win. Repeat falsehoods long enough and people will believe them.

Z

[Zeus]

Sher, I'm getting pretty darn busy and probably won't be able to respond in detail to anything you post to this, but I'll try. I wanted to get this off at least before it all cuts loose ....

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126009#post126009)
Sher:

I purposely removed the quotation marks before I posted it and replaced them with asterisks so that you would realize that I wasn't directly quoting you. You implied (micro-)evolution/(macro-) evolution in those examples ... that was the equivocation.


That is the scientific theory, it is not an equivocation. I understand you don't believe it, but it is no different scientifically than stating that gravity here on earth, using projectiles and billiard balls and such, is the same phenomenon of gravity that holds Mars in its orbit around the Sun. That is the theory of univerisal gravitation -- it is of course an extrapolation from direct experimentation, and you can claim that one is not evidence for the other, but that is the theory. You don't have to believe it. You can't criticize a scientist for using scientific terms as theory are meant to be used, even if you think the theory is wrong. For instance, I don't tell quantum mechanicists that they equivocate when using the Schroedinger equation to explain thermodynamics.

It is equivocation because there is no proof that one follows the other.

In fact, Sher, there is so much "proof" that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists and geologists from throughout the world, from all religions, from all cultures, from all countries, from all political backgrounds, from over the past 140 years, have discovered that it is scientific fact. That statement also includes the majority of scientists who are Christians.

Of course God used a "method" ...

Great - I'm glad we agree on this now.


No, saying "by God" does not mean nor imply special creation. It is a simple statement that God is directly responsible for the product. God can create using supernatural, miraculous means or He can create by telling the earth to make something and the earth obeys. Both are examples of God creating.


Thank you! Now ... go back to the final authority ... Scripture ... and see which He uses to create Adam and Eve.


OK -- [here the english word is followed by (Masoretic Hebrew; Septuagint Greek)]:


And God said, Let us make (asah; poieo) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created (bara; poieo) man in his own image, in the image of God created (bara; poieo) he him; male and female created (bara; poieo) he them.

And the LORD God formed (yatsar; plasso) man of the dust of the ground, and breathed (naphach; emphusao) into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


I don't see anything there about how He did it. It just flat out states that he did.


You shouldn't assume one or the other. Do you really believe that the wind today is the result of separate special creation events?


Nope ... hence the word "special" in the sentence.


But Amos 4:13 says:


For, lo, he that formeth (yatsar; steroo) the mountains, and createth (bara; ktizo) the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh (asah; poieo) the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The LORD, The God of hosts, is his name.


In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the language here is the same language used in the creation story of Genesis. God creates (bara) the wind continuously, as you agree, not using special, miraculous creation. You assume, in contradiction to other places in the Bible where God creates, that in Genesis the creation was miraculous. That is never stated in Genesis, and the language is the same as other places where God creates in an obviously non-miraculous fashion.

Sher : Are you of the mindset that God creates everything ... even now?

In some ways, of course. That is what the Bible teaches, is it not? (for example, Amos 4:13) If you believe that God literally created for only six days (or whatever) and then completely gave it all up for the rest of history then you are adhering to Deism, a theology I assume you disagree with.


Um ... nice try. I asked "creates everything ... even now" ... not purported that He's removed Himself from interaction.

What is the difference? According to the Hebrew, there is none. That was my point. God is continually creating, and every second of existence requires his constant, active creative power. Genesis 2:2-3 simply states that God rested on the 7th day -- it does not say he finished for all time. Our seven day work week ends with the Sabbath, and the next day we work again. Amos states that God creates (bara) the wind now -- the very language used in the creation events in the first chapter of Genesis. He still forms (yatsar) the mountains now -- the same language used to describe the creation of man. He continuously makes (asah) the morning now -- the same word used where God says "Let us make man in our image ...". Similar passages, using Genesis creation language, are Numbers 16:30, Psalms 51:10, 89:47, 102:18, 104:30, Isaiah 4:5, 41:15-20, 43:7, 45:7, 54:16, 57:19, 65:18, Jeremiah 31:32, Ezekial 21:30, 28:13, Amos 4:13, . Look them up, please, to see what I'm talking about. God creates each new generation, he creates glad hearts, etc. etc. Each of these passages uses the Divine "bara'", the Hebrew verb for "create" used in Genesis 1:1 and throught the rest of the first two chapters.

For example:

Isaiah 48
5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say , Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. 6_Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 7_They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.


It never says anything about how He created Adam. It just says He did.

Actually, you are wrong. That is one of the issues I have with theistic evolution ... the mangling of Scripture.

This cuts both ways. This is the main issue I have with YECism, is the manglining of Scripture. You put your idea of God in a tiny thimble-sized box -- you can't see the forest for all the trees in the way. Genesis was not written to be a history book or a scientific textbook -- it couldn't be more obvious! It has a much more noble purpose, and carries a greater truth than either literal history or any mundane description of nature can.



([b]Gen 2:7)
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


The usage of formed and breathed are NOT anthropomorphization ... they are indicators of physical things that happened ... and this is supported, to my understanding, by the Hebrew.


They are the same words used in lots of other places in the Bible, which involve things that we would not even come close to considering miracles. "Formed" there is 'yatsar' in Hebrew, 'plasso' in Greek. You are correct, however, that 'yatsar' can have connotations of making pottery, which is lovely, and tells us that God indeed has formed us with care. But it can certainly be taken metaphorically, or can represent a non-miraculous, natural event like development of an embryo:


Psalms 33
From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. 15_He fashioneth [yatsar] their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.



Isaiah 44
2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed [yatsar] thee from the womb, which will help thee.

24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.

46:11
Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it [yatsar], I will also do it.



Jer 1:5
BeforeI formed thee in the bellyI knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the wombI sanctified thee, andI ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


Does God literally form everyone with His own physical hands in the womb? No, this is metaphorical here, as it is in Genesis. God forms us, but He uses secondary, natural causes. Science and biology can figure out evey detail of embryonic development, but we know from Scripture that it is God who is actively forming us.

Also:


Jer 18:11
Thus saith the LORD; Behold,I frame [yatsar] evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his


In Amos God "forms" a plague of locusts.


Amos 7:1
Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed [yatsar] grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.




(Gen 2:7)
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


The usage of formed and breathed are NOT anthropomorphization ... they are indicators of physical things that happened ... and this is supported, to my understanding, by the Hebrew.


Not necessarily. "Breathed" here is one of my faves: 'naphach' in Hebrew, 'emphusao' in Greek. In Hebrew the word 'naphach' is not necessarily breath from the lungs. Furthermore, God can even "blow" a house down (does He literally do it with His breath?):


Job 20:26
All darkness shall be hid in his secret places: a fire not blown [naphach] shall consume him; it shall go ill with him that is left in his tabernacle.

Job 41:20
Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething [naphach] pot or caldron.

Isa 54:16
Behold,I have created the smith that bloweth [naphach] the coals in the fire.

Haggai 1
7 Thus says the Lord of hosts: "Consider your ways! 8_Go up to the mountains and bring wood and build the temple, that I may take pleasure in it and be glorified," says the Lord. 9_"You looked for much, but indeed it came to little; and when you brought it home, I blew [naphach] it away. Why?" says the Lord of hosts. "Because of My house that is in ruins, while every one of you runs to his own house.


It is also used in the sense of "giving up the ghost" -- losing your life. Literally, "blowing" out your soul:

Job 31:39
If I have eaten its fruit without money, Or have caused its owners to lose [naphach] their lives [nephesh = psuche in Greek].


'Emphusao' is used only three times in the entire Bible, once here, once in John 20:22 where Jesus "breathes on" the disciples, transfering the Holy Spirit to them. In the Septuagint, "emphusao" is found in Ezekial 37:9 in the famous "valley of bones" scene:


And He saith unto me: `Prophesy unto the Spirit, prophesy, son of man, and thou hast said unto the Spirit: Thus said the Lord Jehovah: From the four winds come in, O Spirit, and breathe on these slain, and they do live.' 10_And I have prophesied as He commanded me, and the Spirit cometh into them, and they live, and stand on their feet -- a very very great force.


This is also 'naphach' in Hebrew. Here you see that God breathed life into something via a very indirect way, the wind came and breathed life. It did not come directectly from God. Genesis 2:7 of course could be interpreted the same as John 20:22, but it could also be like in Ezekiel. Genesis does not say "breathed out of His mouth" or anything like that.


Ah ... but you are talking about the difference of when God said for the Earth to do certain things ... and when the Christophany actually (physically) did certain things ... There is a BIG difference in the way it is written. Go back to the Hebrew and look at the usage of God's name ... and the way that it is phrased.


Yes, God was more directly involved in our creation, as He made us in His image. But that doesn't mean it was a special creation, it could have been a creation event like all the natural examples I've given above where the Hebrew language is the same.

Yes, that is not in question. The question is "how did God create them?" It never says.

Refuted

Do you still think that?


... nothing in the Hebrew says anything about "not happening by evolution." You are really engaging in some hilarious revisionist translation right there! God formed them. Genesis does not say how he formed them.


IBTD, the words are "Let" this or that happen, in one context ... and actually, physically, performing the tasks in the other context.

According to Hebrew usage, as evidence by the examples given above, there is no difference. Read all those verses I listed up top, none of which include "let".


Tell me something Sher -- do you believe God is responsible for gravity? Do you think He is in control of the weather? Do you think the earth could rotate on its axis if God did not want it to? Do you think matter, electrons, atoms, etc. could exist independently of God's will? Or time? Could time exist without God's continuous approval of each second, past, present, and future?

I think that God is responsible for all the laws of physics ... and He has the ability to suspend them, also, if He wishes.

Great - so do I. Now I hope you see that the question is not whether God is in complete control or not -- He is. The question is how God created, and in Genesis we are never told. Since you answered that question, it should be clear that God could have used evolution, and that if He did it would not just be "letting things happen." He would be in complete control of the creation.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125198#post125198)
Zeus, replying to:

Socrates:

In a YEC framework, the earth was created about 4,000 years before He spoke those words, and Adam and Eve created on Day 6. On the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning. It's only 0.0004% away on a time line, which is right at the beginning, especially as the Bible normally uses nearest-whole-number precision at the most.

But if evolution or billions of years are right, then the creation of man would be billions of years after the beginning—almost at the end if the timeline.

Your argument would make some sense if Jesus had said "from the beginning of time".

It makes perfect sense now. This world is His creation. He said that Adam and Eve were there from the beginning of creation.

Then the relative lengths you diagrammed would (perhaps) apply. But that is NOT what Jesus said. He said "beginning of Creation", referring specifically to the Genesis account.

Yes, the Genesis account of how this World was created, and which is hard to imagine could be more diametrically opposed to your faith in goo-to-you evolution.

Thus the ONLY relevant timeline is the length of the Genesis Creation. Man was created at the end of the Creation of the world, not at the beginning, whether you think the earth is 4000 years old or 4 billion.

Once more, since the creation was the world, humans were there from the beginning (0.0004% away).

Come on Soc, it's undeniable you've lost this one.

Come on Zeus, it's undeniable you've lost this one, if you have to resort to this sort of bluff and bluster.

If goo-to-you evolution said something was black and the Bible said it was white, Zeus would find a way of claiming that it really meant black.

[wienerdog]

Zeus,

You don't think the biblical description of God forming Eve out of Adam's side is ambiguous about whether it refers to a supernatural event, do you?

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126568#post126568)
Zeus:

And our Sabbath is always followed by another workweek, as God intended.

Exactly. And each week is patterned on Creation Week.

I like both of those views Soc, but this does undermine your distinction between creative miracles and "sustaining" actions.

Thanx, but it does nothing of the kind. It does say that both miracles and sustaining activity are equally the work of God, but it doesn't say that they are the same. Theistic evolutionist limit God to sustaining activity in creating the world, although He revealed differently.

Funny you say that, since your view of miracles is so close to the one I proferred.

That's good to know.

Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?

No. First, it was important for you to know what I actually believed rather than attack something I denied. And it's because I still distinguish between periods of miraculous activity where God has ADDED to His normal sustaining activity; and periods with little such activity. The Bible reveals periods of exceptional miraculous activity during Creation (foundation of the world), the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus (the foundation of Israel), Elijah and Elisha (the foundation of the ministry of the Prophets), and during the time of Christ (when God Himself walked the earth).

Anyone who has followed our discussion of the bodily resurrection, which I believe in fully, will understand just how disengenuous this intentional distortion of my position is. Shame on you Soc. Is your purpose always just to "win", honest debate secondary??

No, to teach the truth. You denied the physical side of the resurrection just as you denied the physical side of the curse of death upon Adam. Other people gained the same impression about you.

Am I the only one here who is troubled by the fact that when Soc is losing an argument ...

Dream on --- go back to Olympus :poke: The infidels wouldn't bleat so bitter unless my arguments were a threat to them.

... he always resorts to poisoning the well and epithet slinging ...

I seek to label accurately so othe Christians are not taken in by the likes of you, e.g. what appeared to be heretical views on the Resurrection followed by evasions.

(like calling me a "materialist",

You are. Evolution is a deduction from materialism. Many people here have claimed that scientific explanations involving origins must be naturalistic, disregarding what God has revealed.

"compromiser",

You are. No Christian ever thought that billions of years were in the Bible before deists like Hutton and Lyell claimed that they were proven by science? No Christian ever thought of evolution before anti-Christians like Darwin and Huxley claimed to have proven it.

"hyperpious",

It is. You claim that your aberrant beliefs are oh-so-biblical. I'm familiar with enough liberals to see how they operate. E.g. you claim to believe in the Biblical account of creation, although this explicitly says that Adam was made from dust and BECAME a nephesh chayyah only after God breathed upon him, NOT that he evolved from what was already a nephesh chayyah. And Eve was Adam's wife made from his rib, again not a descendant of apes.

As I said above, you would provide arguments that white really means black if it were necessary to fit the Bible in with your evolutionary faith.

"a good liberal," absurdly claiming Hume is my "hero", etc. etc. etc.).

Well you cited this Endarkenment fool as allegedly disproving the design argument, although Paley wrote 30 years after him.

It's a good debating tactic if all you want to do is win. Repeat falsehoods long enough and people will believe them.

Naturally, like most theistic evolutionists, Zeus doesn't show any evidence of giving a hoot about all the falsehoods by atheistic evolutionists and doesn't lift a finger when they attack Christianity. Instead, he trumps up charges of falsehood against Christians who interpret Genesis in the same way as most Church Fathers and Reformers.

And like most anti-creationists, he is happy to fling out absurd attacks like "cult" (which he doesn't understand a bit), then squeal when creationists counter-attack.

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127286#post127286)
wienerdog:

Zeus,

You don't think the biblical description of God forming Eve out of Adam's side is ambiguous about whether it refers to a supernatural event, do you?

Probably not, if read literally -- which I don't. Never since I was a little kid, growing up in a YEC family, did I think of that as literal. It always seemed so obvious to me that it was metaphorical. Otherwise it is just senseless. I realize most here disagree, though.

But as I hope I've shown, the language of Genesis (particularly the first two chapters) is used throughout the Bible in situations that nobody would claim is literal, like the "I formed you in your mother's womb" stuff. To me that's a dead giveaway that Genesis is not meant as literal, especially when combined with its clear poetic construction.

Z

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127295#post127295)
Socrates:

No, to teach the truth. You denied the physical side of the resurrection just as you denied the physical side of the curse of death upon Adam. Other people gained the same impression about you.


And since you have followed the discussion, you know that your statements depend upon what you mean by "physical". Paul did not use "physical", he said 'psuchikos' and 'pneumatikos' (spiritual), with the latter describing the resurrection body, not the former. 'Psuchikos' and "physical" have common etymology, so in my view calling the resurrection "physical" is contradicting Paul. You explicitly deny that the resurrection was/is spiritual, which is unquestionably wrong if you believe Paul. You already know all this since you followed the discussion, so you are still being disingenuous.


Dream on --- go back to Olympus :poke: The infidels wouldn't bleat so bitter unless my arguments were a threat to them.


Of course your arguments are a threat to them, since your arguments are theistic (this is obvious) -- but your arguments are also a threat to Christianity. Just because your arguments "threaten" atheists does not mean they are correct. I'm absolutely sure they also "bleat" about Mormon and Hare-Krishna arguments, but I'm also sure you won't thus conclude those arguments are sound.


Evolution is a deduction from materialism. Many people here have claimed that scientific explanations involving origins must be naturalistic, disregarding what God has revealed.


There are two works of God: revealed and natural. Both should tell the same story. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Both require interpretation, a point you seem incapable of grasping as you arrogantly believe your interpretation is the only possible one. You assume that when these two independent interpretations differ the error necesarily lies in the natural interpretation. The proper view is that the error could lay in either one. I assume neither.


No Christian ever thought that billions of years were in the Bible before deists like Hutton and Lyell claimed that they were proven by science? No Christian ever thought of evolution before anti-Christians like Darwin and Huxley claimed to have proven it.


So what? Why would they? It took a long time to figure out the Sun was the center of the universe and it took a long time to figure out Newton's laws of physics. It also took a while to figure out that the earth is pretty old. Are you claiming that all scientific theories discovered by non-Christians are necesarily wrong? If so, let's throw out quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical thermodynamics.


As I said above, you would provide arguments that white really means black if it were necessary to fit the Bible in with your evolutionary faith.


As I've explained to you before (though you deny it without argument), the scientific method is used to establish the very validity of the texts we base our faith on. As humans, God gave us our senses (like other animals) and also gave us reason. We must use these first. If the Bible said the sky was green, and I know from experience that it is blue, I would not deny that the sky is blue. I would seek to understand the "apparent" contradiction. Luckily, the Bible presents no such extreme contradiction, but does present more minor ones that must be reconciled. As a biologist, I know that evolution is factual, both micro- and macro-evolution -- I have seen way to much of the evidence first hand, and that evidence is overwhelming scientifically (even though this may be hard for the layperson to understand). I cannot deny that evidence, regardless of the protestations of non-specialists. To do so would be to undermine my basis for a belief in objective reality, directly leading to nihilism and relativism. I refuse to take that path.


Naturally, like most theistic evolutionists, Zeus doesn't show any evidence of giving a hoot about all the falsehoods by atheistic evolutionists and doesn't lift a finger when they attack Christianity.


You have absolutely no basis for that statement. This is a theology board, I don't even know who are the atheists and who the Christians are except for the few I've directly debated, and I've yet to read an attack on Christianity. Of course, I've stayed exclusively in the biology forum except for the foray into the rez discussion.

Anyway, I have no qualms hanging around with atheists, and neither did Christ. You, Soc, are simply preaching to the crowd, and are a stumbling block to the salvation of atheists and fence-sitting scientists (who you keenly feel are somehow a danger to your faith). I know from first-hand experience that my arguments have had positive impacts on these people, and have led some to reconsider Christianity. I can do no better than that.

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127205#post127205)
Zeus:

Sher, I'm getting pretty darn busy and probably won't be able to respond in detail to anything you post to this, but I'll try. I wanted to get this off at least before it all cuts loose ....

That's fine Zeus ... I understand time constraints. If I wasn't on vacation, I'd have less time too. In fact, I’ve got to head to bed shortly so this is going to be rather quick.

That is the scientific theory, it is not an equivocation.

Oh, come on Zeus ... you know exactly what I meant here. It was used equivocally because the while the term "evolution" is a often used by evolutionists as a blanket statement over what is observable and what is not, it is really in error to use it for both, pretending both are proven fact.

In fact, Sher, there is so much "proof" that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists and geologists from throughout the world, from all religions, from all cultures, from all countries, from all political backgrounds, from over the past 140 years, have discovered that it is scientific fact. That statement also includes the majority of scientists who are Christians.

That's simply an argumentum ad populum (with a bit of Appeal to Common Practice and a touch of Appeal to Belief thrown in) ... Nice evenly rounded fallacy :whack:

Sher: Of course God used a "method" ...
Great - I'm glad we agree on this now.

No, I don't believe we do. You asked a vague, leading question that necessitated a positive answer. It still doesn't mean that a hatchet job of Scripture is appropriate.

I don't see anything there about how He did it. It just flat out states that he did.

I'm sorry ... but it is my understanding that those words indicate direct action ... not a process set in place. Scripture tells us that Adam was made from dust and Eve from his rib, not evolved from a pre-existing animal. No matter how you try to slice and dice the words, this cannot be overcome ... evolution simply isn't Biblical.

But Amos 4:13 says:

Yup ... and in Genesis 1, you can read how He did just that.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the language here is the same language used in the creation story of Genesis. God creates (bara) the wind continuously, as you agree,

Excuse me for interrupting you ... but “as [ I ] agree”? I said, "Nope ... hence the word "special" in the sentence." Nope is not an agreement.

not using special, miraculous creation. You assume, in contradiction to other places in the Bible where God creates, that in Genesis the creation was miraculous. That is never stated in Genesis, and the language is the same as other places where God creates in an obviously non-miraculous fashion.

No ... you simply miss that this is special interaction of God with Israel ... it is no less obviously miraculous than the Creation. Amos 4 is very clear that God is bringing judgment ... not allowing evolution via natural selection to judge ... which is what your viewpoint necessitates. See how it is removing God from the equation?

<snipped next bit because it is redundant and much of it is taken out of context ... see the whole of Isaiah 48 to see where you mangle understanding there>

This cuts both ways. This is the main issue I have with YECism, is the manglining of Scripture. You put your idea of God in a tiny thimble-sized box -- you can't see the forest for all the trees in the way. Genesis was not written to be a history book or a scientific textbook -- it couldn't be more obvious! It has a much more noble purpose, and carries a greater truth than either literal history or any mundane description of nature can.

I'm sorry ... I highly disagree with you. With Scripture as the final authority, it takes severe twisting to come up with the answers you are bringing to the table ... (and that God in the box is so old and lame, BTW :poke:). The Scriptures are history, science, and many other things necessary to man.

They are the same words used in lots of other places in the Bible, which involve things that we would not even come close to considering miracles. "Formed" there is 'yatsar' in Hebrew, 'plasso' in Greek. You are correct, however, that 'yatsar' can have connotations of making pottery, which is lovely, and tells us that God indeed has formed us with care. But it can certainly be taken metaphorically, or can represent a non-miraculous, natural event like development of an embryo:

And again, that type of mental pretzel maneuver can make anything metaphoric ... even when it is not meant to be. Meaning is from context … and there is no evolution in the context.

Not necessarily. "Breathed" here is one of my faves: 'naphach' in Hebrew, 'emphusao' in Greek

Oh, please … Again, “context is king” here. I can: (1) breathe in air, (2) blow out air, … and even on rare occasions (3) “blow wind” (:eek:) … but in the context of a sentence, it would be perfectly clear what I am speaking about. Do you take * any * of the Bible literally? The context of how God gave the breath of life to Adam is hardly a Popeye version of “well, blow me down”.

Great - so do I. Now I hope you see that the question is not whether God is in complete control or not -- He is. The question is how God created, and in Genesis we are never told. Since you answered that question, it should be clear that God could have used evolution, and that if He did it would not just be "letting things happen." He would be in complete control of the creation.

Don’t put words into my mouth. There is a vast difference where God setting the planet in motion .. per scripture … and it continuing to move. Or establishing/suspending laws of physics and them continuing .. then there is twisting scripture to mean something that it doesn’t say … and trying to make is conform to theories that man has come up with.

[Zeus]

Zeus:
But Amos 4:13 says:


For, lo, he that formeth (yatsar; steroo) the mountains, and createth (bara; ktizo) the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh (asah; poieo) the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The LORD, The God of hosts, is his name.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the language here is the same language used in the creation story of Genesis. God creates (bara) the wind continuously, as you agree,


Sher:
Excuse me for interrupting you ... but "as [ I ] agree"? I said, "Nope ... hence the word "special" in the sentence." Nope is not an agreement.


OK Sher, this may explain alot. Am I then correct in interpreting your above objection to mean that you believe God creates the wind and the morning miraculously, as a special creation, bypassing natural causation?

Remember, the that the verse is a doxology anouncing who God is and what He does in a very general way, it is not describing judgment being performed on Israel.

[Warcraft3]

Sher:
Hey there. I just wanted to make a quick comment.........

And again, that type of mental pretzel maneuver can make anything metaphoric ... even when it is not meant to be. Meaning is from context … and there is no evolution in the context.
While my YEC friends may find this to be a "mental pretzel" (a lightly salted one) I find some of Glenn Mortons views on the text to be interesting. The phrase ....."let the land produce....." is an interesting one to be sure and may imply an indirect method for creation.

So there is my own personal "pretzel", soft and lightly salted.


Russ

[trueseeker]

I agree with the original premise, that we should consider Jesus the final authority on the subject of Genesis being literal, since He was there and everything was created through Him. Besides Adam and Eve, He also referred to Noah and the flood as being literal. And of course there are many other scriptures that refer to the people and events in Genesis as being literal. For evolution to be true, many of the stories in Genesis have to be considered myth and disregarded as real events.

[Sher]

I'll get back to you guys when I'm feeling better ... remind me if I forget ...

.... but I wanted to say "welcome back Russ" :smile:

[wienerdog]

Welcome back Russ! The military sucks, don't it!

[Socrates]

Wienerdog: You don't think the biblical description of God forming Eve out of Adam's side is ambiguous about whether it refers to a supernatural event, do you?

Zeus: Probably not, if read literally -- which I don't. Never since I was a little kid, growing up in a YEC family, did I think of that as literal. It always seemed so obvious to me that it was metaphorical. Otherwise it is just senseless. I realize most here disagree, though.

Of course, since Zeus dogmatically accepts materialistic evolution by faith, illogically conflating "change in gene frequency over time" with goo to you via the zoo. Like the heretic Teilhard de Chardin (aka Father Piltdown), Zeus evidently believes that evolution is "a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow...". So never mind what Scripture says, if it contradicts evolution, it is wrong or must be "reinterpreted". As for me, Jesus is the one to whom I will bow, and as shown, He treated the Creation and Flood narratives as straightforward history without the slightest hint that they were metaphorical.

But there is not the slightest evidence that the text was metaphorical, because the point was to contrast the formation of our first parents with the way the rest of us come about. If it is metaphorical, then metaphorical of what?

And Paul's writings make no sense unless Genesis 2 was decribing real history, e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13-14:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Nor does it make sense for the NT to refer to Cain, Abel and Seth as real people unless their parents Adam and Eve were real invididuals.

Z: And since you have followed the discussion, you know that your statements depend upon what you mean by "physical". Paul did not use "physical", he said 'psuchikos' and 'pneumatikos' (spiritual), with the latter describing the resurrection body, not the former. 'Psuchikos' and "physical" have common etymology, so in my view calling the resurrection "physical" is contradicting Paul.

Only linguistic ignoramus would argue like that, because meaning is decided by usage, not derivation.

You explicitly deny that the resurrection was/is spiritual, which is unquestionably wrong if you believe Paul.

No, deny only your misunderstanding of what spiritual (pneumatikos) means. I.e. the Greek doesn't exclude the concept that the body had flesh and bones and could eat fish.

Soc: Dream on --- go back to Olympus The infidels wouldn't bleat so bitter unless my arguments were a threat to them.

Z: Of course your arguments are a threat to them, since your arguments are theistic (this is obvious)

:dufus: my point is that they are NOT threatened by theistic compromisers like Morton and Zeus, precisely because they provide no challenge to the atheistic world view.

-- but your arguments are also a threat to Christianity.

Then the arguments of Calvin and Basil must also have been a threat since they affirm creation in six ordinary days, as did the vast majority of pre-uniformitarian commentators.

And if what you say is true, why has the church hemorrhaged ever since it compromised with Darwin? It's hard to think of any denomination that has compromised with Darwin and remained biblically sound in other areas, such as inerrancy (which I doubt Zeus affirms), the virginal conception, and the evils of abortion and homosexual acts.

Soc: Evolution is a deduction from materialism. Many people here have claimed that scientific explanations involving origins must be naturalistic, disregarding what God has revealed.

There are two works of God: revealed and natural.

The difference is that Scripture is propositional revelation, while nature is not. Therefore we can understand Scripture directly by the rules of hermeneutics. Also, Scripture is perfect while nature is cursed.

Both should tell the same story. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Both require interpretation, a point you seem incapable of grasping as you arrogantly believe your interpretation is the only possible one.

Rather, you arrogantly believe that you can use an essentially materialistic theory of nature to over-ride the grammatical/historical hermeneutic of God's Word.

You assume that when these two independent interpretations differ the error necesarily lies in the natural interpretation. The proper view is that the error could lay in either one. I assume neither.

I assume that if there is any error, it is in the way sinful man interpret the data of nature, which we know from the Bible to be cursed, in a materialistic paradigm about the past. It makes far more sense than assuming an error in the tried and true historical grammatical hermeneutic practised for 1800 years, and only uncovered when deists and atheists attacked the biblical timescale.

No Christian ever thought that billions of years were in the Bible before deists like Hutton and Lyell claimed that they were proven by science? No Christian ever thought of evolution before anti-Christians like Darwin and Huxley claimed to have proven it.

So what? Why would they?

Because if the likes of you and Ross are right, then they should have been able to work it out from Scripture alone.

Z: It took a long time to figure out the Sun was the center of the universe.

:duh: I didn't think the sun was at the center, but was at the co-rotation radius of the Milky Way, which judging by quantized redshift IS at or near the center of the universe -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=127530#post127530

And don't bore us all with Galileo, because that has been thoroughly answered by pointing out the simple concept of reference frames, e.g. at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=127543#post127543

Z: ... and it took a long time to figure out Newton's laws of physics. It also took a while to figure out that the earth is pretty old.

The point was, no one saw great age in SCRIPTURE, which strongly suggests that it is not there.

Soc: As I said above, you would provide arguments that white really means black if it were necessary to fit the Bible in with your evolutionary faith.

Z: As I've explained to you before (though you deny it without argument), the scientific method is used to establish the very validity of the texts we base our faith on. As humans, God gave us our senses (like other animals) and also gave us reason. We must use these first.

But how can you even know that your senses and reason are even reliable? Evolution can select only for surivival advantage. TheFiveSolas cogently argues that only Christianity can provide a rational basis for trust in our reason, senses and the order in the universe -- www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105258#post105258

Also, theistic evolutionists like Zeus and Morpheus are just like Eve. God had clearly stated that they must not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on pain of death. But Satan got Eve to question God's word (Genesis 3:4-5). Then in v. 6, Eve uses empirical reasoning -- the observation that it was a delight to the eyes and the deduction that it was good for food, and desirable for wisdom. Then she interprets these observations under a faulty framework that ignored God's Word, and sinned.

That's just what theistic evolutionist do -- "Did God really say that He created in six days and rested on the seventh? Did God really say that He made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib?" Then they interpret certain observations of nature under a framework that ignores His written propositional revelation.

As a biologist, I know that evolution is factual, both micro- and macro-evolution -- I have seen way to much of the evidence first hand, and that evidence is overwhelming scientifically (even though this may be hard for the layperson to understand). I cannot deny that evidence, regardless of the protestations of non-specialists.

The AiG Ph.D. biologists are just as qualified as you are and disagree, so your pathetic appeals to your own authority don't impress me in the slightest. Especially as you don't define your terms properly, e.g. defining "evolution" as merely "change in gene frequency over time" to insinuate that creationists deny this. But A.G. Fisher said in the 2003 edition of the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (fossil section) admitted, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown."

Soc: Naturally, like most theistic evolutionists, Zeus doesn't show any evidence of giving a hoot about all the falsehoods by atheistic evolutionists and doesn't lift a finger when they attack Christianity.

Z: You have absolutely no basis for that statement.

Then prove me wrong! I go by what I see from you and your ilk.

This is a theology board, I don't even know who are the atheists and who the Christians are except for the few I've directly debated, and I've yet to read an attack on Christianity. Of course, I've stayed exclusively in the biology forum except for the foray into the rez discussion.

You evidently haven't read much :dunce: Nearly all the active evolutionists here are infidels who have attacked biblical inerrancy, or people like Meert who claim to be Christian but also attack inerrancy and refuse to affirm any doctrine of Christianity.

Z: Anyway, I have no qualms hanging around with atheists, and neither did Christ.

And neither do I. But He recommended shaking the dust of your feet at those who were incorrigbly opposed to the truth. And He would never have joined them in attacking the Bible as Zeus and his buddy Morton do :whack:

Z: You, Soc, are simply preaching to the crowd,

I am preaching to help strengthen the faith of my brethren who might be intimidated by the bluff and bluster of the infidels, aided and abetted by compromising churchians. A number of people on TWeb have thanked and/or pearled me for my stand here, and I was even voted "Member of the Month" for April.

... and are a stumbling block to the salvation of atheists and fence-sitting scientists (who you keenly feel are somehow a danger to your faith).

No, the atheists evidently feel that by challenging their pseudo-intellectual justification for their faith (that you reinforce), I am more likely to steal from their flock.

And I know that the infidels actually love to see compromisers like you, which indicates that they see your input as a help to their cause (as do I).

I know from first-hand experience that my arguments have had positive impacts on these people, and have led some to reconsider Christianity. I can do no better than that.

People have reconsidered Christianity precisely because of my non-compromise. I also know heaps of people who left their professed faith precisely because they were told that the Bible cannot be trusted on earth history.

[Zeus]

Socrates:
A number of people on TWeb have thanked and/or pearled me for my stand here, and I was even voted "Member of the Month" for April.

Well, La-Ti-Dah. I would never have guessed. I guess everything you say really is true!

[TheFiveSolas]

Zeus,

You seemed to have missed the point that Soc was countering. He was not simply patting himself on the back, as your one-liner seemed to imply. Rather, he was showing you that quite a few people on TWeb think it is a dangerous compromise to discount what Scripture says in favor of the "flavor of the month" scientific epistemology.

Science does not stand above Scripture. Scripture is the foundation for science, as I've proven in my post that Soc linked to.

I would ask you to be a little more critical of your underlying presuppositions, especially those that make up your epistemological foundation. If they are built on the foundation of human autonomy you can be sure that they are akin to "building your house on the sand."

[Zeus]

TheFiveSolas:
Zeus,

You seemed to have missed the point that Soc was countering. He was not simply patting himself on the back, as your one-liner seemed to imply. Rather, he was showing you that quite a few people on TWeb think it is a dangerous compromise to discount what Scripture says in favor of the "flavor of the month" scientific epistemology.


Hi TFS -- actually, if you reread the thread, Soc was countering this statement of mine:

Z: You, Soc, are simply preaching to the crowd,

Soc's counter only proves my very point.


Science does not stand above Scripture. Scripture is the foundation for science, as I've proven in my post that Soc linked to.


And, as a Christian, I agree wholly in principle. Your post summarizes rather well my justification for belief in objectivity. In practice, however, your argument is incomplete. Paul disagrees with the contention that no objectivity exists outside of Christianity, since he wrote concerning un-Christians -- "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead". IOW, Scripture itself supports the view that there is objective reality obvious to humans even in the absence of a Christian epistimological foundation.

For instance, we know Scripture only through the scientific method. Why do you believe the NT was written originally in Koine Greek (and not Latin or English)? That belief has nothing to do with Scripture itself, since Scripture never says "This was written in Greek originally." We know that through scientific investigation, and only via scientific investigation. In the absence of scientific investigation, Scripture is nothing more than cheap paper with words. Those words could have been written by me, for all you know, in the absence of any scientific backing. How do we know about the early Church? Why do we trust that the letters we ascribe to Ignatius and Augustine and Jerome are actually their letters? How do we know that several of the pieces of paper we have, called epistles, were actually written by Paul the apostle and not a medieval monk? How do we know that the early Church believed that? Pieces of paper in and of themselves are essentially meaningless -- they could have be written by anybody, claiming to be whoever, anywhere at any time in history. Science is what allows us to give them historical validity.


I would ask you to be a little more critical of your underlying presuppositions, especially those that make up your epistemological foundation. If they are built on the foundation of human autonomy you can be sure that they are akin to "building your house on the sand."


I believe God gave me my senses and my rationality for a reason. As I explained before, if the Bible said that the sky was green, and I know from experience that it is blue, I would not deny that the sky is blue. Sorry, but I believe my senses first -- I have to. If I don't, then all is nihilism. I refuse to be a nihilist. You can choose otherwise if you wish.

z

[TheFiveSolas]

Zeus:
I believe God gave me my senses and my rationality for a reason.

Herein lies the problem with your view, or more correctly, its inconsistency.

You could only know that God gave you reliable senses because God has revealed it in Scripture.

In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.

Science cannot be posited as the standard by which you come to know that your senses are reliable since scientific investigation needs to presuppose sense reliability (and human rationality) from the outset. IOW, the reliablity of your senses, and the ability of your mind to think rationally is a necessary precondition for scientific inquiry and study.

My question to you is without FIRST presupposing the truth of Scripture how can you rationally account for the above two beliefs of yours?

If you, as you asserted, maintain your faith in the reliability of your senses and the rationality of your mind BECAUSE God has created you that way AND has revealed it in Scripture, then I will point out that you cannot then rationally turn around and repudiate that necessary epistemological foundation as you claimed in the following:


As I explained before, if the Bible said that the sky was green, and I know from experience that it is blue, I would not deny that the sky is blue. Sorry, but I believe my senses first -- I have to.

Of course, as I've already asserted, Christians have God's revelation as our rational foundation for knowing that our senses are generally reliable. Therefore, you are setting up a straw man argument when you claim that God would have our senses deceive us into seeing the sky as blue when in reality it is green.

Instead, I affirm the reliablity of our sense perception, contra your hypothetical. But I deny that ALL interpretation of our sensory data is equally valid. Only THAT which conforms to God's objective (and revealed to us) understanding of the world, and our place in it, is a TRUE interpretation.

This leads to what appears to me to be another problem with your view. It seems to discount the noetic effects of sin on fallen man. According to Scripture, as you pointed out, God has clearly revealed that He exists, and also what attributes (i.e, divine power, etc.) He has. Yet Scripture also explains that since the fall mankind has twisted their interpretation of the data in a vain attempt to usurp God from His rightful place as Sovereign Creator and Lord of all.

So, I'm wondering if you might help clear things up by answering two things.

1) By what objective and universally binding standard do you distinguish truth from error?

2) What are the intellectual ramifications of man's rebellion against his Creator?

[Morpheus]

to 5solas. just a quick thought.

In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.

but in order to garner any understanding of god's revelation in scripture, one must presuppose the reliability of his senses and rationality.

your point seems to be - one can only account for rationality/reliability of senses by presupposing the veracity of scripture, in which we can discover that we do indeed have these qualities.

however, in order to discover that we have these qualities, we have to presuppose rationality/reliability of senses when it comes to reading and interpreting the scripture with regard to rationality/reliability of senses. the argument, to my mind, is circular.

from my pov, rationality/reliability of senses must be presupposed a priori and axiomatically, before anything else can be understood and interpreted.

regards.

[Socrates]

Morpheus: to 5solas. just a quick thought.

How do you know your thought processes are rational, if we have just evolved from pond scum?

TheFiveSolas: In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.

but in order to garner any understanding of god's revelation in scripture, one must presuppose the reliability of his senses and rationality.

Nein, nyet -- a philosophical system begins with axioms, which are by definition starting propositions incapable of being proved. TheFiveSolas and I propose that Christians should use the propositions of Scripture as the axioms. That is, we assume they exist, and deduce theorems from them. And by definition, it is the truth claim of the axioms that matter, not whether our senses that read the axioms are reliable.

Similarly, the axioms for the Brouwer system of modal logic are those of System T plus the axiom "A implies necessarily possibly A" I don't have to be able to read the text at all for the Brouwer system to be coherent and to deduce theorems in it.

Therefore, we can develop an axiomatic system that merely starts from the propositions of Scripture. From those we can deduce theorems such as our senses being generally reliable, a real orderly universe that exists independently of ourselves, and even the ability to understand Scripture.

However, compromisers such as Zeus and Morpheus propose that unaided human reasoning should be able to come to the trust about world history independent of Scripture, which is the evidentialist error. Even worse, these two allow such autonomous human reasoning (like Eve's in the Garden) to override God's propositional revelation.

Also, science presupposes order in the universe. It can never prove that there is order, because any such "proof" would have to assume this order in the first place (as physicist and theologian Dr Thomas Torrance pointed out). The biblical proposition that the universe was created by a God of order means that the orderliness of the universe is a theorem for Christians. Without the Bible, the orderliness of the universe must be taken as an axiom.

[Socrates]

Zeus: And, as a Christian, I agree wholly in principle. Your post summarizes rather well my justification for belief in objectivity. In practice, however, your argument is incomplete. Paul disagrees with the contention that no objectivity exists outside of Christianity, since he wrote concerning un-Christians -- "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead". IOW, Scripture itself supports the view that there is objective reality obvious to humans even in the absence of a Christian epistimological foundation.

And the point of Romans 1 is that the unregenerate man refuses to believe in God despite the obvious evidence from creation, so he is "without excuse". Paul continues by saying that denial of the creator God leads to futile thinking. So general revelation is sufficient only to condemn man, not to save him. The salvation message is found only in special revelation.

Furthermore, the whole idea of evolution for the vast majority of its proponents is to explain eveything without a creator. If evolution is true, then the living things of the world do NOT show evidence of having been made, but merely show the evidence of a struggle for survival. See my post Another cardinal difficulty with theistic evolution: Romans 1:18 ff. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=123548#post123548), which made the Dean's List (wow what a stumbling block I must be :yipee:).

[Zeus]

Zeus
I believe God gave me my senses and my rationality for a reason.

5Solas
Herein lies the problem with your view, or more correctly, its inconsistency.

You could only know that God gave you reliable senses because God has revealed it in Scripture.


And herein lies the circularity with your view, as Morpheus has already pointed out:

You can only know Scripture and believe it is revealed if and only if you already believe your senses are reliable and you believe that rationality is useful.

To look at this fundamental inconsistency more closely, consider the "Scripturally-based" axioms previously given by 5Solas (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105258#post105258), and the comment on them from Socrates:


5Solas
1) Nature acts uniformly, such that it can be studied and predictions made, BECAUSE a rational God of order created it.
2) Since God created and sustains all of nature, and is a supremely rational being, it follows that His creation is rational in the sense that it can be studied and understood.
3) Man was created in God's image with the ability to excercise dominion over His creation. Therefore, man's senses were created to be generally reliable in bringing us into contact with a world external to our bodies and mind.
4) God, as Sovereign Creator, has established universally binding laws of thought, logic, and reason, therefore, Laws of logical deduction/induction, rationality and reason exist and are morally binding upon all mankind.
5) Man was created in God's image. Part of God's image is in reflecting His rationality. Therefore, man was created with the ability to think rationally and logically (though that has been impaired by the Fall of man into sinful rebellion against his creator).
6) Man is a material creature with an immaterial aspect. Therefore, his actions and thoughts are not fully subject to physical "laws". In other words, man is more than just the matter he is composed of, meaning that his thoughts and actions are not determined by his/her physical makeup. In addition, man has been given freedom of will through his being created in God's image. In other words, God created man as a volitional being able to INITIATE actions/thoughts, rather than as a passive reactionary creature whose actions/thoughts are controlled/determined by strictly physical laws.



Socrates:
TheFiveSolas and I propose that Christians should use the propositions of Scripture as the axioms. That is, we assume they exist, and deduce theorems from them. And by definition, it is the truth claim of the axioms that matter, not whether our senses that read the axioms are reliable.

Similarly, the axioms for the Brouwer system of modal logic are those of System T plus the axiom "A implies necessarily possibly A" I don't have to be able to read the text at all for the Brouwer system to be coherent and to deduce theorems in it.

Therefore, we can develop an axiomatic system that merely starts from the propositions of Scripture. From those we can deduce theorems such as our senses being generally reliable, a real orderly universe that exists independently of ourselves, and even the ability to understand Scripture.


You postulate your axioms in a logical background that you assume exists already. Each of your postulated axioms contains a logical deduction that is only valid presupposing a valid system of logic, including valid deductive arguments. Your postulated axioms of course do not contain the definition of "axiom", nor do they contain the rules of propositional logic that you assume by postulating your axioms. Even if you were to include such rules in your axioms, such rules are not stated in Scripture nor are they derived from statements given in Scripture (of course such an inclusion would be circular anyway, violating the very rules you would be including).

IOW, by simply postulating your Scripturally-based set of axioms and deductions, you have already assumed, in the absence of Scripture, (1) the existence of axioms in general (not just the specific ones that you list), and (2) a system of propositional logic which axioms are subject to. As Socrates states, you "can develop an axiomatic system that merely starts from the propositions of Scripture" -- but you cannot derive the essential rules which that axiomatic system follows, except apart from Scripture.


5Solas
IOW, the reliablity of your senses, and the ability of your mind to think rationally is a necessary precondition for scientific inquiry and study.
...
In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.


That latter statement is impossible in reality. Nobody is born with innate knowledge of what Scripture teaches. We are all born into this world ignorant, and we all learn as we go. All of us, whether we are conscious of it or whether we even admit it, learn to trust our senses and our reasoning first. Only afterwards do we then learn what Scripture teaches, and that learning is completely based upon the premises that (1) our senses are generally accurate and that (2) our reasoning abilities are generally useful.


5Solas
My question to you is without FIRST presupposing the truth of Scripture how can you rationally account for the above two beliefs of yours?


Those two premises are not just assumed, they are learned via experience. We need no formal justification for these premises to use them or to trust them. To justify them is an entirely different matter, and that is where Scripture comes in.


5Solas
Only THAT [interpretation of sensory data] which conforms to God's objective (and revealed to us) understanding of the world, and our place in it, is a TRUE interpretation.

The obvious problem with that claim is that we can never know with certainty God's objective understanding of the world and our place in it. That knowledge must be based upon a Scriptural interpretation itself. As a very simple example, I (and presumably you also) believe in inerrancy of original texts. It is obvious that Scripture has become corrupted for several reasons: (1) errors in translation, (2) vagaries of translation, in which word meanings do not transfer between languages accurately, (3) copying errors, and (4) intentional human addition and subtraction. Furthermore, even if we were furnished with uncorrupted original texts, we would still be subject to the problem of interpretation of Scripture. These claims are proven by the fact that no two people on this board, not even the literalists here, have the exact same interpretation of Scripture.


This leads to what appears to me to be another problem with your view. It seems to discount the noetic effects of sin on fallen man. According to Scripture, as you pointed out, God has clearly revealed that He exists, and also what attributes (i.e, divine power, etc.) He has. Yet Scripture also explains that since the fall mankind has twisted their interpretation of the data in a vain attempt to usurp God from His rightful place as Sovereign Creator and Lord of all.


Yes. Scripture also claims that man has twisted and/or erred in his interpretation of Scripture (e.g. Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees and Sadducees and even of Moses, and his frustation at the disciples inability to understand simple metaphorical stories).


1) By what objective and universally binding standard do you distinguish truth from error?


There is none, if you mean by "universally binding" that it is infallible and gives 100% certainty. In practice, the scientific method comes closest as far as our physical world is concerned. As for spiritual matters, there is Scripture and revelation. All are subject to human fallibility in practice.

I realize that most here (including myself) wish this were not true, and many here even pretend that it is not. However, this is the reality we have been born into; this is part and parcel of the human condition.


2) What are the intellectual ramifications of man's rebellion against his Creator?


Spiritual death.

[Warcraft3]

Sher:
I'll get back to you guys when I'm feeling better ... remind me if I forget ...

.... but I wanted to say "welcome back Russ"
Hey thanks Sher :thumb:


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Wienerdog:

Welcome back Russ! The military sucks, don't it!

Hey thanks man.

Yeah some stuff does suck about it, but I guess I am proud to be a part of it. I am still not sure if I am going to reenlist, but lately I have been thinking about it. The army is a part of me now I guess, so who knows I may reenlist after all.

But anyway....it is good to be back.


Russ

[Morpheus]

to socrates. zeus has already covered much of this, but allow me to reiterate.

How do you know your thought processes are rational, if we have just evolved from pond scum?

i agree that this is a problem for materialists who hold that our thought processes are built on nothing more than the arational properties of matter. read this post of mine - http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=128475#post128475

though i believe that everyone, regardless of his belief system of lack thereof, must first presuppose his own rationality and sensory reliability, i do also hold that the christian is in a better position to give an account of why we can trust this presupposition than the atheist/materialist.

the point i am countering here, however, is that one can hold the propositions of scripture as axioms before presupposing his rationality and sensory reliability.

a philosophical system begins with axioms, which are by definition starting propositions incapable of being proved.

yes. i do have some philosophical background, just fyi.

TheFiveSolas and I propose that Christians should use the propositions of Scripture as the axioms.

no. explain to me how you can know what the propositions of scripture are if you do not first presuppose your own rationality and sensory reliability. if you don't presuppose your sensory reliability, then how do you know that what you see with your eyes in the bible is actually what it says? if you don't presuppos your own rationality, how can you read something and know that you're correctly understanding it? understanding implies rationality - the latter is a prerequisite of the former.

That is, we assume they exist, and deduce theorems from them. And by definition, it is the truth claim of the axioms that matter, not whether our senses that read the axioms are reliable.

there are two possibilities for your position here.

1) if you are assuming that the propositions of scripture exist as you understand/read them, then you are presupposing your own rationality and sensory reliability, per what i say above.

2)if you are not assuming that the propositions of scripture exist as you understand/read them, then your "philosophical system" is built on unknown axioms - what you read and understand in the bible as "god providing us with rationality" could just as easily be "god deceives us into irrationality," because these propositions may not exist as you understand/read them.

Therefore, we can develop an axiomatic system that merely starts from the propositions of Scripture. From those we can deduce theorems such as our senses being generally reliable, a real orderly universe that exists independently of ourselves, and even the ability to understand Scripture.

socrates, please give me a concrete example of a scriptural proposition that acts as an axiom that you don't come to via your own rationality and sensory reliability. if you cannot, then your actual axioms are your rationality and sensory reliability, despite what you may say.


However, compromisers such as Zeus and Morpheus propose that unaided human reasoning should be able to come to the trust about world history independent of Scripture, which is the evidentialist error.

no, i don't. this claim is just wrong.

Even worse, these two allow such autonomous human reasoning (like Eve's in the Garden) to override God's propositional revelation.

please, please read this post of mine to you, specifically the portion i reproduce below - http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=114172#post114172

if scripture absolutely unequivocably says something, and mainstream science says something else, then the christian should go with scripture. that's exactly what i meant when i said "if i thought that there was no tenable biblical interpretation aside from the young earth one, then i would be a yec-er."

i posted this in response to your claim that i "have a low view of scripture." in another later thread, you made the same claim, and i linked to the same post linked to above, in order to once again show you that this claim about me is untrue. yet here you imply that once again, and again i provide you with my own words showing how highly i obviously view scripture.

i would appreciate it if you would refrain from falsely making this claim about me anymore.

if you think i am some kind of "compromiser," i suggest you go here - http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=92387 - which links to the archive of all my posts thus far on theologyweb. if you read through some of those, it should become quite clear that my worldview taken as a whole is directly opposed to materialism or atheism, and i make no bones about this in my discussions.

regards.

[Zeus]

Morpheus:
If you don't presuppose your sensory reliability, then how do you know that what you see with your eyes in the bible is actually what it says? if you don't presuppos your own rationality, how can you read something and know that you're correctly understanding it?


You can't, and that pretty much sums up the insurmountable problem with Socrates' and TheFiveSolas' views.

z

[Zeus]

Zeus:
Paul disagrees with the contention that no objectivity exists outside of Christianity, since he wrote concerning un-Christians -- "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead". IOW, Scripture itself supports the view that there is objective reality obvious to humans even in the absence of a Christian epistimological foundation.


Socrates:
And the point of Romans 1 is that the unregenerate man refuses to believe in God despite the obvious evidence from creation, so he is "without excuse". Paul continues by saying that denial of the creator God leads to futile thinking. So general revelation is sufficient only to condemn man, not to save him. The salvation message is found only in special revelation.


All very true and uncontested by me. I fail to see how any of your statements contradict mine above.


Socrates:
Furthermore, the whole idea of evolution for the vast majority of its proponents is to explain eveything without a creator.


For atheist scientists, the same can be said of all scientific theories, not just evolution. For theistic scientists, evolution simply explains how the Creator created/creates -- it does not replace him as the prime Creator. In exactly the same way, universal gravitation simply explains how God moves mass around in the universe -- it does not replace Him as the prime Mover.


If evolution is true, then the living things of the world do NOT show evidence of having been made,

Au contraire -- the entire Universe, including life, shows plenty of evidence of being made. Do you think that the movement of the planets shows no evidence of design simply because we can explain it using a theory? If not, then there is no logical reason to think that life shows no evidence of design simply because we can explain it using a theory. Life does not show evidence of direct, supernatural design --- that is very different from claiming that it shows no evidence of design whatsoever. For many mainstream evolutionary biologists and astronomers, the entire universe appears carefully and precisely constructed to support evolution and life. Evolution cannot happen in just any old system -- conditions must be exactly right, as they are in our universe, for things to be capable of evolution by natural selection. Our universe looks designed for evolution to happen and for life to exist.


See my post Another cardinal difficulty with theistic evolution: Romans 1:18 ff., which made the Dean's List (wow what a stumbling block I must be ).


I will address that post in turn. But the fact it made the Dean's List at Theology Web, whose number one affiliate is AiG, only adds further support to my contention that you simply preach to the crowd. The stumbling block you present is for non-Christians, not the saved.

z

[TheFiveSolas]

Morpheus:
but in order to garner any understanding of god's revelation in scripture, one must presuppose the reliability of his senses and rationality.


Of course. I've nowhere implied that we presuppose only ONE thing (i.e., God's revelation in Scripture).

We must also presuppose the reliability of our senses (among other things). Such a presupposition is a transcendental (i.e., a precondition for intelligibility). In other words, one cannot deny the general reliability of our senses without our position reducing itself to absurdity. Or to put it another way, our senses must be generally reliable or else ALL of our experience would be unintelligible.

However, asserting that in reading Scripture I need to presuppose the reliability of my senses no more takes away from my argument (that we need to presuppose the truth of Scripture) than using our eyes to scientifically investigate the structure of the eye takes away from the validity of such a use of our eyes in the act of investigating eyes. (How was that for a run-on sentence?) In other words, does using our eyes as tools for seeing the structure of the eye make such a use invalid or somehow circular?

What I've asserted is that in order for you, or anyone, to rationally JUSTIFY (or give a rational account of) our belief in the reliability of our senses, we need two things.
1) A metaphysic (view of reality) that can rationally account for sense reliability.
2) An epistemology (basis for knowing) that can rationally account for sense reliability.

Therefore, in terms of rational justification for our belief in sense reliablity our faith in the God revealed in Scripture is logically prior.

Since Scripture reveals that God has made Himself known to all mankind, both in the conscience, and in the creation my assertion that knowledge of God is logically prior to all other knowledge seems consistent with Scripture's own teaching.

[Zeus]

To TheFiveSolas:

From your response to Morpheus it appears that I may have misunderstood you as claiming more than what you actually did, since I essentially agree with the above response without issue. Perhaps I was arguing primarily against Socrates' position instead of yours. After rereading your response, it seems that you probably agree with much of my "rebuttal" -- but I look forward to hearing your clarification of the matter, regardless.

z

[Socrates]

Zeus
I believe God gave me my senses and my rationality for a reason.

5Solas
Herein lies the problem with your view, or more correctly, its inconsistency.

You could only know that God gave you reliable senses because God has revealed it in Scripture.

Z: And herein lies the circularity with your view, as Morpheus has already pointed out:

No circularity at all, because neither Morpheus nor Zeus understand that every system starts with axioms.

You can only know Scripture and believe it is revealed if and only if you already believe your senses are reliable and you believe that rationality is useful.

As said, we know that our senses and thought patterns can be generally trusted because of the propositions of Scripture. Evolutionists have no rational basis for this. However, we also recognise that logic determines only the relationships between propositions, not the right axioms to which we should apply logic. That's the trouble--Morpheus and Zeus, like Eve, refuse to start with God's Word as the foundation for their axiomatic system and prefer to start with their senses.

Z: To look at this fundamental inconsistency more closely, consider the "Scripturally-based" axioms previously given by 5Solas, and the comment on them from Socrates:

5Solas
1) Nature acts uniformly, such that it can be studied and predictions made, BECAUSE a rational God of order created it.
2) Since God created and sustains all of nature, and is a supremely rational being, it follows that His creation is rational in the sense that it can be studied and understood.
3) Man was created in God's image with the ability to excercise dominion over His creation. Therefore, man's senses were created to be generally reliable in bringing us into contact with a world external to our bodies and mind.
4) God, as Sovereign Creator, has established universally binding laws of thought, logic, and reason, therefore, Laws of logical deduction/induction, rationality and reason exist and are morally binding upon all mankind.
5) Man was created in God's image. Part of God's image is in reflecting His rationality. Therefore, man was created with the ability to think rationally and logically (though that has been impaired by the Fall of man into sinful rebellion against his creator).
6) Man is a material creature with an immaterial aspect. Therefore, his actions and thoughts are not fully subject to physical "laws". In other words, man is more than just the matter he is composed of, meaning that his thoughts and actions are not determined by his/her physical makeup. In addition, man has been given freedom of will through his being created in God's image. In other words, God created man as a volitional being able to INITIATE actions/thoughts, rather than as a passive reactionary creature whose actions/thoughts are controlled/determined by strictly physical laws.

Socrates:
TheFiveSolas and I propose that Christians should use the propositions of Scripture as the axioms. That is, we assume they exist, and deduce theorems from them. And by definition, it is the truth claim of the axioms that matter, not whether our senses that read the axioms are reliable.

Similarly, the axioms for the Brouwer system of modal logic are those of System T plus the axiom "A implies necessarily possibly A" I don't have to be able to read the text at all for the Brouwer system to be coherent and to deduce theorems in it.

Therefore, we can develop an axiomatic system that merely starts from the propositions of Scripture. From those we can deduce theorems such as our senses being generally reliable, a real orderly universe that exists independently of ourselves, and even the ability to understand Scripture.

You postulate your axioms in a logical background that you assume exists already.

I assume it exists because Scripture itself presupposes such a logical background in relating its propositions. The logical background is not the result of sense perception, but is a built-in law of thought, that we have because we are made in the image of the Logos.

Z: Each of your postulated axioms contains a logical deduction that is only valid presupposing a valid system of logic, including valid deductive arguments. Your postulated axioms of course do not contain the definition of "axiom", nor do they contain the rules of propositional logic that you assume by postulating your axioms. Even if you were to include such rules in your axioms, such rules are not stated in Scripture nor are they derived from statements given in Scripture (of course such an inclusion would be circular anyway, violating the very rules you would be including).

Not so -- an axiom cannot contain a logical deduction by definition. They are what the rules of logical deduction are applied to. I wonder if Zeus would also mix up truth and validity. And Scripture presupposes that the Law of Non-Contradiction exists.

5Solas
IOW, the reliablity of your senses, and the ability of your mind to think rationally is a necessary precondition for scientific inquiry and study.

In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.

Z: That latter statement is impossible in reality. Nobody is born with innate knowledge of what Scripture teaches. We are all born into this world ignorant, and we all learn as we go. All of us, whether we are conscious of it or whether we even admit it, learn to trust our senses and our reasoning first. Only afterwards do we then learn what Scripture teaches, and that learning is completely based upon the premises that (1) our senses are generally accurate and that (2) our reasoning abilities are generally useful.

Again, wrong way round. Seems like the naive tabula rasa view of the Endarkenment philosophers.

5Solas
Only THAT [interpretation of sensory data] which conforms to God's objective (and revealed to us) understanding of the world, and our place in it, is a TRUE interpretation.

Z: The obvious problem with that claim is that we can never know with certainty God's objective understanding of the world and our place in it. That knowledge must be based upon a Scriptural interpretation itself.

This could only be true if we ignore the propositional revelation of Scripture, or spout existentialist piffle like "that's just your interpretation."

Z: As a very simple example, I (and presumably you also) believe in inerrancy of original texts. It is obvious that Scripture has become corrupted for several reasons: (1) errors in translation, (2) vagaries of translation, in which word meanings do not transfer between languages accurately, (3) copying errors, and (4) intentional human addition and subtraction.

This is hardly a problem, since the originals can be reconstructed with immense accuracy. And in the Scripture passages about creation and the Rez, there is no doubt about the original text.

Z: Furthermore, even if we were furnished with uncorrupted original texts, we would still be subject to the problem of interpretation of Scripture. These claims are proven by the fact that no two people on this board, not even the literalists here, have the exact same interpretation of Scripture.

That's the fault of the people, and doesn't in the slightest bit undermine the fact that Scripture still contains propositions that have a certain meaning.

[quote][quote]5S: This leads to what appears to me to be another problem with your view. It seems to discount the noetic effects of sin on fallen man. According to Scripture, as you pointed out, God has clearly revealed that He exists, and also what attributes (i.e, divine power, etc.) He has. Yet Scripture also explains that since the fall mankind has twisted their interpretation of the data in a vain attempt to usurp God from His rightful place as Sovereign Creator and Lord of all.

Yes. Scripture also claims that man has twisted and/or erred in his interpretation of Scripture (e.g. Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees and Sadducees and even of Moses, and his frustation at the disciples inability to understand simple metaphorical stories).

And Scripture was the corrective for that!! And they also failed to understand the prophetic books, and they added their own traditions to the word of God. Theistic evolutionists do likewise since they also deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

5S: 1) By what objective and universally binding standard do you distinguish truth from error?

There is none, if you mean by "universally binding" that it is infallible and gives 100% certainty. In practice, the scientific method comes closest as far as our physical world is concerned.

Unfortunately Zeus makes this the authority to decide the truth about Earth history, overriding the propositional revelation of Scripture. It's even worse that this so-called science has an axiom of materialism -- i.e. the God, if He even exists, did not add to the normal "laws of nature".

As for spiritual matters, there is Scripture and revelation.

How can they be distinguished? This is a peculiar Western false dichotomy. The Rez is a matter of both the physical world and spiritual. The 4th Commandment is an aspect of morality based on the historicity of Creation Week. What Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:12 is pertinent:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Z: All are subject to human fallibility in practice.

So why should we trust the propositions Zeus spouts over the propositions of Scripture. Especially when Zeus in practice kowtows to the pronouncements of God-hating evolutionists as if they are infallible. Never mind that creation itself is cursed.

Z: I realize that most here (including myself) wish this were not true, and many here even pretend that it is not. However, this is the reality we have been born into; this is part and parcel of the human condition.

Jesus was infallible and He is fully human, so Zeus is mistaken. Rather, it is part of sinful human condition. And this was first brought about when humans rejected God's propositional revelation in favor of autonomous trust in their senses.

5S:
2) What are the intellectual ramifications of man's rebellion against his Creator?

Z: Spiritual death.

Where is this term in Scripture? Does it mean that our spirit ceases to exist? Sure, there is separation from God, but we should not ignore the aspect of the Curse involving return to the dust.

[dizzle]

Zeus said:

But the fact it made the Dean's List at Theology Web, whose number one affiliate is AiG

Pluuhheease! Zeus, don't talk out of the wrong end of your body please. Please prove that our number one affiate is AiG. You do realize that YeC is not the belief of the entirety of our leadership don't you? You do realize that AiG will not even give us a link (they do not link to anyone promotionally)? You do realize that AiG does not even have a subforum here which is what ALL of our strong affiliates have (though I would give them one if they showed interest in doing such a thing). Please don't say dumb things. AiG is only on our links list because I am a PERSONAL supporter and put them there. Why do substantiveless allegations like that have to be said?

So I am asking you to retract that silly comment which is seconded only by Higgins' assinine speculation that we are getting paid by AiG!! I wish!!! But I give thanks to Higgins in sayikng that because he gave us a compliment in implying that our site is so nice we must be getting paid by someone. Yes we are. Our real life jobs.

[Zeus]

Zeus said:

But the fact it made the Dean's List at Theology Web, whose number one affiliate is AiG

Pluuhheease! Zeus, don't talk out of the wrong end of your body please. Please prove that our number one affiate is AiG.


OK, look at your affiliates page:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=links#friendsandaffiliates

AiG is number one. Since you admittedly have access privilege to the content of that page, you can move it down the list if it really bothers you so much.


You do realize that YeC is not the belief of the entirety of our leadership don't you? You do realize that AiG will not even give us a link (they do not link to anyone promotionally)? You do realize that AiG does not even have a subforum here which is what ALL of our strong affiliates have (though I would give them one if they showed interest in doing such a thing). Please don't say dumb things. AiG is only on our links list because I am a PERSONAL supporter and put them there. Why do substantiveless allegations like that have to be said?


No, I didn't know most of that -- but I really couldn't care less. My "allegation" is hardly unsupported (it is fact). You simply seem to be reading a bit too much into an offhand comment about the most prominently placed affiliate on your affiliates page (that is, BTW, easily verified by simply checking your affiliates page).


So I am asking you to retract that silly comment which is seconded only by Higgins' assinine speculation that we are getting paid by AiG!! I wish!!! But I give thanks to Higgins in sayikng that because he gave us a compliment in implying that our site is so nice we must be getting paid by someone. Yes we are. Our real life jobs.


Your site is quite professional -- it's actually lovely. And even if AiG did support your site monetarily, why would it matter? I personally think you can accept money from whomever you choose.

z

[dizzle]

Here is the original assertion:

But the fact it made the Dean's List at Theology Web, whose number one affiliate is AiG, only adds further support to my contention that you simply preach to the crowd.

With the implied statement that we are a YEC site (we are not and I do not know where all of our leadership stands on this statement) and because of that, Soc's Dean's List pic was simply kowtowing to the crowd and our number one affiliate. Soc wrote a good post and got picked. Atheists here have written good posts and have gotten picked.


OK, look at your affiliates page:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=links#friendsandaffiliates

AiG is number one. Since you admittedly have access privilege to the content of that page, you can move it down the list if it really bothers you so much.

The list is quite random and notice that the sites with whom we have most to do involvement wise are partners not affiliates. Another affiliate if you will notice is monergism.com (check it, a nice site with a lot of information) but neither Boom or I are Calvinists!


No, I didn't know most of that -- but I really couldn't care less. My "allegation" is hardly unsupported (it is fact). You simply seem to be reading a bit too much into an offhand comment about the most prominently placed affiliate on your affiliates page (that is, BTW, easily verified by simply checking your affiliates page).

It is "prominently" placed only to someone look for such a thing. It is not even a partner ministry which ARE prominently placed and given their own forums on our board. By no stretch of the imagination can AiG be considered a prominent ministry here, but certainly Tekton or Godisnowhere could be. I have NEVER even run a featured article by AiG!! How's that when I am the one SOLELY in charge of selecting the ministries? I am sure I will eventually, but I do not even have that on my plate right now. But perhaps I did read too much into your comment, wouldn't be the first time, and of course you had the unfortunate luck of saying such a thing after the silly allegation was made elsewhere that we are getting paid off by AiG.


Your site is quite professional -- it's actually lovely. And even if AiG did support your site monetarily, why would it matter? I personally think you can accept money from whomever you choose.

Hey if they wanted to send us money, I wouldn't turn it down, but right now, it is I who personally financially contribute to them. And thanks for the compliment, remember that to become a subscriber is only $5 month, perhaps you will consider.

[Zeus]

You postulate your axioms in a logical background that you assume exists already.

I assume it exists because Scripture itself presupposes such a logical background in relating its propositions. The logical background is not the result of sense perception, but is a built-in law of thought, that we have because we are made in the image of the Logos.

And thus the circularity. You assume a logical system in your axioms, yet you also claim that the same logical system is a deduction from your axioms. That is undeniably circular reasoning, a logical fallacy as defined by the very logical system you claim is deduced from your axioms!



Z: Each of your postulated axioms contains a logical deduction that is only valid presupposing a valid system of logic, including valid deductive arguments. Your postulated axioms of course do not contain the definition of "axiom", nor do they contain the rules of propositional logic that you assume by postulating your axioms. Even if you were to include such rules in your axioms, such rules are not stated in Scripture nor are they derived from statements given in Scripture (of course such an inclusion would be circular anyway, violating the very rules you would be including).


Not so -- an axiom cannot contain a logical deduction by definition. They are what the rules of logical deduction are applied to. I wonder if Zeus would also mix up truth and validity. And Scripture presupposes that the Law of Non-Contradiction exists.

Well, of course I agree that an axiom cannot itself contain a logical deduction by definition. But I wonder if you actually read the "axioms" you referred me to. They all contain logical deductions. Must I step you through this? Axioms 3-6 all make a statement and then folow it with "therefore ...". That necessarily indicates a logical deduction from the first statement. Axioms 1 and 2 also have a "it follows" and a "because" in there, which also necessarily entail a logical deduction. I didn't write those axioms.


5Solas
IOW, the reliablity of your senses, and the ability of your mind to think rationally is a necessary precondition for scientific inquiry and study.

In other words, faith in God's revelation in Scripture is logically prior when it comes to you being able to provide a rational account as to why you believe your senses are reliable.

The5Solas has clarified that by "logically prior" he means "with regard to justification" only. Which is also my view. That is different from being logically prior in terms of chronology or logical flow. You must first assume that your senses and rationality work in general, then you can read Scripture, and only then can you form epistemological axioms.


Z: That latter statement is impossible in reality. Nobody is born with innate knowledge of what Scripture teaches. We are all born into this world ignorant, and we all learn as we go. All of us, whether we are conscious of it or whether we even admit it, learn to trust our senses and our reasoning first. Only afterwards do we then learn what Scripture teaches, and that learning is completely based upon the premises that (1) our senses are generally accurate and that (2) our reasoning abilities are generally useful.

Again, wrong way round. Seems like the naive tabula rasa view of the Endarkenment philosophers.

So ... you are claiming that you have an innate knowledge of all Scripture, inborn and not learned? Remarkable! So you have no need of a Bible?


Z: Furthermore, even if we were furnished with uncorrupted original texts, we would still be subject to the problem of interpretation of Scripture. These claims are proven by the fact that no two people on this board, not even the literalists here, have the exact same interpretation of Scripture.


That's the fault of the people, and doesn't in the slightest bit undermine the fact that Scripture still contains propositions that have a certain meaning.


You seem to think I'm trying to "undermine" Scripture. Of course there are Scriptural propositions that are very clear and essentially undisputable without maligning the text. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious fact that there are also many instances where interpretations will differ, and that the real meaning of Scripture is unclear. Of course you probably believe your interpretation is perfect and that it is impossible for you to error in any way. (And if you don't, then my point is proven to you).


5S: This leads to what appears to me to be another problem with your view. It seems to discount the noetic effects of sin on fallen man. According to Scripture, as you pointed out, God has clearly revealed that He exists, and also what attributes (i.e, divine power, etc.) He has. Yet Scripture also explains that since the fall mankind has twisted their interpretation of the data in a vain attempt to usurp God from His rightful place as Sovereign Creator and Lord of all.


Yes. Scripture also claims that man has twisted and/or erred in his interpretation of Scripture (e.g. Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees and Sadducees and even of Moses, and his frustation at the disciples inability to understand simple metaphorical stories).

And Scripture was the corrective for that!!

Scripture was not the corrective for the disciples' misunderstandings of parables. Jesus told them to open their eyes and ears.


Theistic evolutionists do likewise since they also deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.


Which TE here is denying the authority and sufficiency of Scripture? You are the one denying its real and obvious intent, not me.


It's even worse that this so-called science has an axiom of materialism -- i.e. the God, if He even exists, did not add to the normal "laws of nature".


Oh malarky. You invent your own definition of "materialism" and apply it to science. Science is ultimately about testability. If it is testable against empirical observation, it is science, no more no less. How in the world could science distinguish between an "addition" to the laws of nature and a "normal" law of nature? It can't -- as far as science is concerned, they are the same thing.


As for spiritual matters, there is Scripture and revelation.


How can they be distinguished?


I never said they could be.

Z: All are subject to human fallibility in practice.

So why should we trust the propositions Zeus spouts over the propositions of Scripture.

You shouldn't. You should realize that your interpretation of the propositions of Scripture is fallible. You should realize that the Scriptures we have today are not original texts, and are thus likely to be in error. This latter point is especially pertinent to the OT and Genesis, since our modern translations all are based upon the Masoretic Hebrew, for which our extant texts are much less reliable than for the Septuagint. Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church until Jerome all used the LXX as the primary source of Scripture. We don't (I've heard you exclusively refer to the Hebrew).


Especially when Zeus in practice kowtows to the pronouncements of God-hating evolutionists as if they are infallible.

First, many evolutionary biologists are not God-hating but God-loving. Second, as a scientist I don't need to just rely upon what biologists tell me, I know from first hand experience and I know that evolutionary theory has led to correct predictions in my work on cancer and aging. Third, I've never claimed evolutionary biologists were "infallible" -- that's absurd. In fact, I was trying to convince you that SJ Gould was not infallible, and you disagree.


Z:
I realize that most here (including myself) wish this were not true, and many here even pretend that it is not. However, this is the reality we have been born into; this is part and parcel of the human condition.

Jesus was infallible and He is fully human, so Zeus is mistaken.

And Jesus is the one, single exception to that rule.


And this was first brought about when humans rejected God's propositional revelation in favor of autonomous trust in their senses.


No. Eve was different, since she heard God's very words from His mouth. We, on the other hand, must rely much more upon interpretation of God's revelation via our senses and our rationality, so of course our trust in our senses and rationality must come first.


5S:
2) What are the intellectual ramifications of man's rebellion against his Creator?

Z: Spiritual death.

Where is this term in Scripture? Does it mean that our spirit ceases to exist? Sure, there is separation from God, but we should not ignore the aspect of the Curse involving return to the dust.

Where is any English word in Scripture? Jesus spoke of death of the soul (spiritual death), and that we should fear that over mere death of the body (Mt 10:28). Paul explains that our natural bodies will die and be gone forever, whereas we will live forever with transformed spiritual bodies. The return of our natural bodies to dust is only symbolic of the more important spiritual death that the Fall entailed (since Adam and Eve did not return to dust the day they disobeyed, even though God said they would die that day).

z

[Zeus]

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133321#post133321)
Dee Dee Warren:

With the implied statement that we are a YEC site (we are not and I do not know where all of our leadership stands on this statement) and because of that, Soc's Dean's List pic was simply kowtowing to the crowd and our number one affiliate.

No, I was not implying that TW is a YEC site. I've read your statement of faith. And I was not criticizing the Dean's list picks (at all), but rather Soc's justification for why he believes he is not a stumbling block to non-Christians, especially scientifically-minded ones.

I am claiming that there are lots of YECs who post here (quite a few more than at most Christian forums in my experience), that there are active moderators who are YECs, that Soc is a pathological AiG fan, that, as minor as it may be, TW's most prominently placed affiliate is indeed AiG (a well-known YEC organization), that most posters here are not theistic evolutionists or scientists, and that therefore Soc's anti-theistic evolution post is preaching to the crowd (Dean's pick or no Dean's pick).

z

[dizzle]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133379#post133379)
Zeus:



No, I was not implying that TW is a YEC site. I've read your statement of faith. And I was not criticizing the Dean's list picks (at all), but rather Soc's justification for why he believes he is not a stumbling block to non-Christians, especially scientifically-minded ones.

I think arguments can be made that persons can stumble over anything. We are a clumsy and sinful people. But like I said, YEC was never a stumbling block to me, unbiblical comprimise was. The whole stumbling block argument is ultimately wrongheaded anyways, as it makes man the center, and not God (and it is so highly subjective to be beyond usefulness)

I am claiming that there are lots of YECs who post here (quite a few more than at most Christian forums in my experience)....

LOTS? Please do not exaggerate. The YEC here are grossly outnumbered and aggressively pursued. I have posted at fora (smile) for years, and do not find the numbers here any different than elsewhere.

...that there are active moderators who are YECs.....

... not unusual....

, that Soc is a pathological AiG fan....

ONE poster, though he is very active and in our top ten.....


, that, as minor as it may be, TW's most prominently placed affiliate is indeed AiG (a well-known YEC organization)....

And affifilates are not prominently placed at all, but merely nods to ministries that are put thre by leadership (as AiG was by me) or ones with whom we have exchanged links. The mention is in the scheme of the page minor. It is our partners that are prominently featured and to be a partner requires an active cooperative promotional effort with thissite. Don't get me wrong, I would love to partnr with AiG, but they have a policy that they do not do such things from what I understand.

...., that most posters here are not theistic evolutionists or scientists...

No ,most posters here in science are atheists!!! so much for the YEC domination.



, and that therefore Soc's anti-theistic evolution post is preaching to the crowd (Dean's pick or no Dean's pick).

z

That was short jump over a wide chasm... the Dean's List picks are broadcast toour entire forum. Do you really think that YEC are even remotely in the majority?? Come on, you made a bad point, swallow it, and move on.

[Zeus]

Today @ 08:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133392#post133392)
Dee Dee Warren:

LOTS? Please do not exaggerate. The YEC here are grossly outnumbered ....


Is this true? In the "What I believe" thread I think everyone was a YEC except me. Not even any OECs.

ONE poster, though he is very active and in our top ten.....

yes, and the very poster I was replying to.


No ,most posters here in science are atheists!!! so much for the YEC domination.


Is that really true? That most posters in Natural Sciences are atheists?

Anyway, if true, that's irrelevant to my point, since Soc's Dean's-List-pic-post was initially posted to Cosmo 201, which supposedly is reserved for Creationists (not just Theists).


Do you really think that YEC are even remotely in the majority??

I don't know -- I wasn't claiming they were. I do claim that YEC exerts a strong influence here, more, in my experience, than at most Christian "fora". Got any hard stats?

z

[dizzle]

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133404#post133404)
Zeus:



Is this true? In the &quot;What I believe&quot; thread I think everyone was a YEC except me. Not even any OECs.

That thread was in this area was it not? In the science area in toto which is what I said, atheists dominate.


yes, and the very poster I was replying to.

The vocal and active YEC here can be counted on one hand.

Soc, Me, Sher, TFS, Socratism... others have come in and out.



Is that really true? That most posters in Natural Sciences are atheists?

Yes.

Anyway, if true, that's irrelevant to my point, since Soc's Dean's-List-pic-post was initially posted to Cosmo 201, which supposedly is reserved for Creationists (not just Theists).

And was broadcast to the entire forum.


I don't know -- I wasn't claiming they were. I do claim that YEC exerts a strong influence here, more, in my experience, than at most Christian &quot;fora&quot;. Got any hard stats?

No hard stats at all.

And for everyone else, so that we do not have to take bribes from AiG (smile with tongue in cheek), subscribe already!

:rofl:

[Sher]

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133404#post133404)
Zeus:

Is this true? In the &quot;What I believe&quot; thread I think everyone was a YEC except me. Not even any OECs.

That's because Wienerdog didn't ring in and Russ was on a military run. However, that info could be found in the other threads in this area ... some you have participated in.

... just a minor nit.

Sher, YEC ... AiG f-a-n ... FYI ... :teeth:

(and :rofl: DD!)

[Warcraft3]

06-26-2003 @ 06:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133489#post133489)
Sher:



That's because Wienerdog didn't ring in and Russ was on a military run. However, that info could be found in the other threads in this area ... some you have participated in.

... just a minor nit.

Sher, YEC ... AiG f-a-n ... FYI ... :teeth:

(and :rofl: DD!)

I am back now and will try to post some more on this issue later on today. I was having a good discussion with Dee Dee on Genesis 1 before I left and hope to continue my defense of OEC (and possibly even TE) from the text. I plan on posting what I see as the scriptural strengths and weaknesses of both the YEC view and the OEC (maybe TE also) view sometime this week. Maybe I will even get to it later on today.

But to address the post Sherbear was discussing, yes I am of the OEC/TE variety, and am not a YEC.


Russ

[Morpheus]

to 5solas.

morpheus:
but in order to garner any understanding of god's revelation in scripture, one must presuppose the reliability of his senses and rationality.

5solas:
Of course. I've nowhere implied that we presuppose only ONE thing (i.e., God's revelation in Scripture).

in which case, we don't really disagree as much as i thought we did. the point i thought you were trying to make (and socrates as well) was that the propositions of scripture are logically prior to our rationality and sensory reliability, when in fact the latter must be presupposed in order to make sense of the former.

We must also presuppose the reliability of our senses (among other things). Such a presupposition is a transcendental (i.e., a precondition for intelligibility). In other words, one cannot deny the general reliability of our senses without our position reducing itself to absurdity. Or to put it another way, our senses must be generally reliable or else ALL of our experience would be unintelligible.

agreed.

However, asserting that in reading Scripture I need to presuppose the reliability of my senses no more takes away from my argument (that we need to presuppose the truth of Scripture) than using our eyes to scientifically investigate the structure of the eye takes away from the validity of such a use of our eyes in the act of investigating eyes. (How was that for a run-on sentence?) In other words, does using our eyes as tools for seeing the structure of the eye make such a use invalid or somehow circular?

the argument is circular if you say that knowledge of the propositions of scripture is logically prior to our rationality and sensory reliability, because, again, the latter is necessary for the former.

it is not circular when a scientist uses his eyes to study the eye precisely because he is starting from the axiom that his senses are reliable. it would be circular if the scientist asserted that, without first assuming his own sensory reliability, he could prove that his sight is a reliable sense through studying the eye.

all i'm saying, essentially, is that the propositions of scripture cannot be known if rationality and sensory reliability are not supposed beforehand.

What I've asserted is that in order for you, or anyone, to rationally JUSTIFY (or give a rational account of) our belief in the reliability of our senses, we need two things.
1) A metaphysic (view of reality) that can rationally account for sense reliability.
2) An epistemology (basis for knowing) that can rationally account for sense reliability.

Therefore, in terms of rational justification for our belief in sense reliablity our faith in the God revealed in Scripture is logically prior.

and i agree that the christian account expounded in the bible gives us a better reason to believe that our senses are reliable. to clarify, let me lay out my view on the issue:

1) we assume rationality and sensory reliability. this is necessary for any deduction/conclusion that follows.

2) from #1, we can know the propositions of scripture.

3) from #2, we can provide justification for our assumptions (i.e., axioms) in #1.

the non-christian cannot deny #1, obviously, without relegating descriptions of reality to the realm of absurdity. he may deny #2, but then (and i think this is your point) he cannot provide justification for the validity of his axioms posited in #1.

there is a way i could see someone getting around this, however. he could say, "well, my rationality and sensory reliability are axioms. the nature of axioms is that they don't need to be deduced or justified - they are just presumed beforehand. so i don't care if i can't justify my axioms from #1, because that's just what axioms are - presumptions used as a starting point of some system."

and that, i guess, is why i don't find the presuppositional argumentation that powerful (though i do think it has some merit). everyone has to start from the axiom that he can trust his own thought processes, whether he is a christian or not. and since this is an axiom, its veracity doesn't need to be justified - if it did, then it wouldn't really be an axiom.

regards.