Dinosaurs

[seanD]

This is an oversimplification that leads to a logical error. Yes the creation is a supernatural event. But the universe contains within it records of its history. And so the events (with supernatural or natural causes) which occurred as part of creation can be constrained by that record - if we assume God did not tamper with that record. So, for example, If Noah's flood was truly global, then we can most certainly expect that the record of water rising many miles world wide and then receding in the course of 1 year would exist. We could propose that the existing sediments are that record, but then we would be confronted with the fact the existing sediments do not record a single flood event, but millions of years of much more mundane events and catastrophes. We then need to propose that this flood occurred in such a way as to not leave a record in a time far before the time implied by the genealogical reconstruction. Or we could propose the flood was a more local event. And so forth.

So we can constrain the kinds of mappings that could exist for the text to the record that exist - if we start assuming God does not create false records of non-existent events in the past. If we drop that assumption, then you are correct, there is really nothing we can say. God could have created a completely false record of the past yesterday and we have no way to know any different.

For many of us, the idea God made a completely false historical record of events natural or supernatural is more theologically disturbing than the idea God may have used metaphor in communicating the Genesis creation narrative, or that He may have simply allowed the story of Noah's flood to be communicated from Noah himself where Noah's assessment of the extent of the flood was limited by his culture and knowledge.


Jim

How do you know sinning man is interpreting the historical record correctly? How do you know what the physical record of a flood would show if we can’t actually experiment with it today? We have nothing to compare those results with. The only way we could possibly know for sure is if we flooded the earth in the exact same environment and under the exact same conditions of the past, observed the results afterward and compared them to the results we have now. They can’t actually observe a human evolving from a lower primate or test it in a lab, thus everything is guesswork and theorizing. This also comes back to the issue of dinosaurs, the topic of the thread. We can’t observe these living species in their natural habitat, thus everything is speculation based on inanimate decayed bone fragments. Almost everything they estimate about our physical past ends up as speculation and guesswork. So you’re basically staking your faith on their speculations and theories about a physical world they can’t possibly prove or observe, just because they have a stellar reputation when it comes to current medicine and technology. Basically, to you it’s: science theory about the past is right, end of discussion. Therefore, since the theories are correct, God is a deceiver and must be making them come up with their speculations and theories about the physical past. You force a false dichotomy just so you can give sinning man the benefit of the doubt and even boarder on blasphemy to do it.

[RBerman]

I do fall on my knees and worship the Living God. What you seem not to comprehend is the magnitude of the record that confronts us RBerman. There is no less here that the equivalent of Adam being created with an apparent age of 26 and a complete and full memory of every second of life from birth to the age of his creation, complete with memories of parents and brothers and sisters and summer play and winter hunts and whatever else you might thing would make up the life of a man living in the time of Adam. For you to mock at my concern over the theological problems that creates is astounding. The Bible tells us that the ungodly can look at the witness of nature and see the Grandeur an majasty of God, that certain of His attributes are revealed there. Well, according to this line of reasoning God is a massive prankster and trickster, for on one hand he 'tells us' the world is 6000 years old in scripture, and then writes a perfect record of a history for the universe amounting to 13.7 billion years and for the Earth of 4.5 billion years in the substance thereof. What kind of being does that RBerman?

You're skirting blasphemy to suppose that any circumstance would make God "a massive prankster and trickster." I'm sorry God doesn't measure up to your expectations, but the more important question is how you don't measure up to his, with your insolent tone. The world has no shortage of mockers attacking God for all manner of perceived failings. With friends like you, what need has he of enemies?

[oxmixmudd]

I'm saying it's inconsistent to believe in some miracles as the Bible describes them and reject others. You've already denied(or reinterpreted to the effect of denial) the creation week, the global flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, Joshua's long day, and I'm sure that the list will continue should we make the effort to create one. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I simply have no choice but to break in here. The statement above is simply false, and I suggest you reread what I've written. I have not denied ANY of the above as being real to the extent that they are intended by God to be real.

The 'creation week' is historically a section of scripture that men of God have long debated its literal nature. You can not get away with accusing me is 'reinterpreting to the effect of denial' that passage. The nature of that text speaks loudly as to its potential to be a non-literal narrative, and this has been recognized for thousands of years.

I came nowhere near denying the crossing of the 'Red Sea'. The Bible does not say "Red Sea" in the Hebrew for pity sake!. It says the "Sea of Reeds' Or "bulrushes". It is known this refers to the waters around the Red Sea and can include the Red Sea, but it is you that is misrepresenting the word of God if you insist it says what is does not say! I believe God parted the waters. I believe the Israelites walks through it, and the Eqyptians perished as the waters closed around them. I have no clue how that amounts to a denial of that miracle - though it most certainly does represent a commitment to the truth over human tradition!

Joshua's long day. The utter incorrectness of you words rises with each claim! How did I ever say ANYTHING that denied the reality of Joshua's long day! The only thing I ever said was that the Bible says the Sun and Moon stopped - which is physically incorrect. For the sun and moon to stop their motions in the sky, the Earth must stop rotating, or time must stop. The only thing I ever said about it was that people that mistakenly thought that God's inspiration extended to correcting cultural misconceptions about the structure of the cosmos were wrong. That to try to directly derive scientifically accurate descriptions of nature from the Bible is a foolish thing to do. I believe God lengthened that Day. But I don't believe the Bible's description of what happened is suitable for the derivation of cosmological physics.

You say that these events did not actually happen as the Bible describes, yet you believe in the healings of various kinds? The raising of Lazarus whom Christ Himself pronounced dead? Casting out demons? Multiplying a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish to feed upwards of 20,000 people? The virgin birth? The physical resurrection? The ascension? Which of these do you believe and why do you believe them?

I do believe they happened 'as the Bible describes them', but from within a recognition of the culture in which they were written and a submission to Gods purpose for them. You seem to think you know the mind of God in inspiring these texts and can declare without a doubt exactly how God inspired them and exactly what His purpose is, to the extent you ignore any and all evidence that calls those assumptions into question. You assume arbitrarily the 'creation week' is literal history when the evidence is that it simply is not. You assume arbitrarily that the story of Noah's flood was communicated by direct narration from God himself when in reality is is more likely the story comes to us from Noah himself passed down from generation to generation till it was written down. Noah would have had no conception of the Earth as a sphere 25000 miles in circumference. The flood came and destroyed 'all the land' that he understood to be, rose to the height of the mountains he knew of, and destroyed every person and animal he was aware of. And so the story in it original context is true, completely true. But our understanding of 'all the land' has expanded beyond that of Noah. And we can't properly interpret the text without factoring that into our reading of the text.

Why do I believe in miracles? Because I have witnessed them is one reason. Because I know the living God and His power. Because He has saved me by Grace through the power of the Risen Christ and filled me with his Holy Spirit. Why would I NOT believe in miracles? I do not doubt ANY miracle recorded in scripture, nor do I doubt that any miracle recorded in that text is accurate and true - WITHIN THE ABILITY OF THE WRITER TO REPORT IT AND SUBJECT TO THE CULTURAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE DAY. We can not read the text as if somebody who grew up in the 20th century wrote it. That the text is phenomenal can not be debated. Every attempt to read it as non-phenomenal has resulted in folly. From Galileo to the present.

I’m not trying to be difficult about whether or not we agree concerning the basic tenets of the faith. Maybe we are in agreement about those things. I may even call you brother. However, the subject at hand isn’t in the periphery. This teaching is knocking at the door of the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and so forth; those things which you say we agree on. The arguments you use against the many miraculous events recorded in Scripture can and should also be applied to the fundamentals because they read in the same descriptive manner.

I disagree with you wholly here. First it is beyond me that you could have any doubt I am your brother in Christ. But regardless, I have no doubt you are my brother in Christ, regardless of our disagreements here and to the extent I can know anyones standing before God. And you are ignorantly mistaken. I do not argue against any miraculous event recorded in scripture. I only argue that our traditional conception of those miracles is flawed in some cases.

You believe that life did not instantaneously begin as fully formed creatures manifested out of nothing by the spoken word of God. Whether a materialist or a theistic evolutionist, ToE must be unnaturally imposed onto the text. Creationism is the clearest reading that coheres with the rest of Scripture.

Where in the Bible does it say "instantaneously"? I can given you a verse where it tells us in the context of the immense age of the earth that 'a thousand years is as a day or a watch in the night" to justify my view that time in Genesis 1 is not human time. Where do you get a scripture that says life arose 'instantaneously" as perceived by men?

This is the difference between literal and non-literal language:

(The Flood)

Genesis 6:11-13

11 Now the earth was (N)corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was (O)filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for (P)all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.13 Then God said to Noah, “(Q)The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

7:4

4 For after (A)seven more days, I will send rain on the earth (B)forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land (C)every living thing that I have made.”

7:17-24

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountainseve rywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, (B)and the mountains were covered. 21 (C)All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all (D)in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only (E)Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 (F)The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Compared to:

(The sun)

Genesis 15:12

Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.

Deut. 24:13

When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

They are not even remotely similar. The error of geocentrism does not set a precedent for calling the flood into question because it hardly had a leg to stand on in the first place. It’s justifiable only to the extent that the Bible doesn’t say that the earth revolves around the sun. If the Bible spoke of the sun’s relation to the earth in the same way it spoke of the flood (and the purpose, effects, and details surrounding the flood), then I would not believe in the heliocentric model. Although, I suspect that if it did, God would have formed the universe to match the description.

The case for geocentrism in the scripture does not arise from references to sunrise and sunset. It arises from references such as those in Jushua where the sun and moon stood still, it comes from references to the sun and moon going under the earth to be ready to rise again, it comes from references to the Earth not being moved, to it resting on pillars, and to the sky itself being a 'firmament' which contains the sun, moon, and stars.

Your last statement is somewhat telling: "God would have formed the universe to match the description". Why do you suppose you'd be able to percieve God as having done that? RBerman just said God is justified in making 13.7 billion years of false history. Why in the world would He not then be justified in making geo-centrism undetectable? In reality, to be consistent, you need to believe in Geo-centrism in spite of the fact the universe does not appear to be geocentric - because that is the only fully consistent literal reading of the text. Because every time you accept what science tells you about the world over the literal reading of the text, you violate your principles as you have expressed them here.

Then use portal instead of window, or perhaps door, or opening, or gate, or whatever expresses the idea of something crossing a threshold. The firmament is a continuum of the first and second heaven (Gen. 1:8, the sky and outer space), the third heaven being God's dwelling (2 Cor. 12) which the firmament presumably does not extend. What we have in view are those things that are above, whether first or second heaven. The context is clarified by the flood narrative. The waters which were above the firmament were indeed above the firmament, but relative to the first heaven only. The verse in Ezekiel doesn’t create any problems for me.

This is a bit of compartmentalization on your part. The verse in Ezekial gives us the only other use of the word translated firmament in the King james. The firmament as it is described in Genesis speaks of a structure, a firm structure, that holds sun moon and stars, that supports waters above. And the use in Ezekial confirms that usage. Textually, you do not have a leg to stand on remapping that to the sky and all of outer space. That is modern science 'twisting the plain meaning of the text'. And literally, there are sluces in this firmament that ALLOW THE WATERS OF HEAVEN to fall to the Earth. So, do you then postulate that supernatural waters fell to the Earth in the flood through some kind of transdimensional portal connecting heaven and Earth? Interesting if you do. But these supernatural waters then would need to leave little to no evidence of there coming or their receding. But I'll give you this: IF you postualte something like that in explanation of the flood, then you have far more to stand on than the idea physical H2O Covered the globe.

And that was the best guess they could come up with based on the knowledge available. Luther and Calvin were key figures in the Reformation, so of course they were going to be rather divisive. Luther also could not tolerate Zwingli's interpretation of the Lord's Supper and forfeited an alliance because of it, which is something that most Protestants wouldn't even think to divide on today given the minor differences between them. They were incredibly sensitive to even the smallest of issues because of the dominating presence of an apostate church.

I explained in my last post that competing theories can have a positive effect on refining orthodoxy. The science that determined the sun's relationship with the earth was like the Occam Razor to the contorted physics of geocentricism. More importantly, it forced us to take a closer look at those passages which supposedly argued for a geocentric universe. We found that there is no significant evidence to support the notion that it even needs to be. There are no meaningful or even slightly relevant theological implications in rejecting the geocentric model.

Actually, it created a good deal of consternation. This issue took over 100 years to settle. We accept it now, but the people of the time were not comfortable with it at all. They were used to reading these passages in a most literal fashion, and many most definitely did feel the integrity of the scriptures was threatened by this 'new hypothesis'.

The age-long 'yom' arguments are Biblically weak. Context always defines what 'day' means, exactly like it does now. There is no difference. "And the evening and the morning" can't get any more specific in defining the meaning of 'day'. Comparing verses which refer to ‘day’ as being something other than a 24 hour period to the ‘days’ in the creation week is one and the same as comparing the contemporary phrases “back in the day” and “the day after tomorrow”. There is no question that one is a figure of speech and the other is a literal reference.

I'm sorry. There is nothing quite as figurative as the opening 'day' in Genesis. The cosmos begins 'dark'. God makes 'light', divides it from the dark and calls the light 'day' and the dark 'night' and thus was the 'evening' and the 'morning' of the first 'day'. This is about as poetic and figurative as it gets. Light is clearly creating what is a METAPHOR for 'day', and darkness is a 'METAPHOR' for night, and together that form a METAPHORCAL 'day', 'day' one. If anything then the precedent of Genesis one per its first day is that these 'days' begin and continue as a chorus like metaphor marking God's progress in creation. There is no talk of temporal nature to day until 'day' four when we are told that God put the sun moon and stars in place to tell us about times and seasons. These first three days are just periods of light and dark which mark potentially sequential metaphorical days like the first. No one has any reason to demand they have any particular measurable human length of time. And it is these very textual issue that have kept this debate over the literality of Genesis 1 alive for thousands of years.

Indeed, even the sequence can be seen to have structure in essentially in parallel form marking out the creation and the the filling of the major components of the comos (as observed by primitve man from the Earth) - sky, sea, and land.

The gospel and epistle of John makes a strong case for the necessity of actual knowledge and confession.

John 3:36

36 He who (A)believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who (B)does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

1 John 4:15

15 (AL)Whoever confesses that (AM)Jesus is the Son of God, God (AN)abides in him, and he in God.

The Bible tells us exactly how the forgiveness of sins is implemented. Those who are called of God will come to Him and that person will confess Jesus Christ in their lifetime. I really don’t need to try and define how this works. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders if you think something different.

I don't think something different. That is my point. What God is telling us about our sin nature and our need for redemption is not thwarted if God used evolution to create life on the Earth, or even the form of mankind. Because these are spiritual issues and their mechanism is not understood.

Whether it reads "being a wall" or "like a wall" still describes a wall. Neither interpretation envisages receding waters giving way to a land bar. Additionally, the ground was dry, not moist or marshy.

Did I say it was moist or marshy? It says a strong wind dried the gound. And yes, it describes something that APPEARED as a wall to those walking through. ANY implementation that had that appearance satisfies the Biblical description. My point is that there are events that appear as a wall that are not Cecil B Demil's depiction of the waters standing straight up. And my point is NOT that this miracle had necessarily natural origin. I'm just saying that I will not exclude the possibility of a natural cause.

The RCC, though wielding a false gospel, were fundamentalists, but this isn’t a point I’m going to stress.

The RCC doesn't wield a 'false gospel'. There are definite aspects of their theology I disagree with and think is wrong, but they are Christians. They preach the good news ("gospel") of Christ crucified, dead, and buried, raised on the third day etc. Our basic confessions of faith match.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You're skirting blasphemy to suppose that any circumstance would make God "a massive prankster and trickster." I'm sorry God doesn't measure up to your expectations, but the more important question is how you don't measure up to his, with your insolent tone. The world has no shortage of mockers attacking God for all manner of perceived failings. With friends like you, what need has he of enemies?

No I am not. God is not a man that He can lie. God is that same yesterday, today, and forever. God is constrained by His righteousness, He is NOT a capricious god like the pagan gods of Egypt. There are things He could do that would violate His nature. The fact he would never be a massive prankster and trickter is what I am banking on, not what I am saying He is. Blasphemy would be to claim He actually did something that violated His Truthfulness and Justice and Mercy. You are the one claiming He did something that violated those characteristics, not me. I'm the person saying I don't believe God made a big lie when He made the universe.


Jim

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Actually, that is just one explanation of how an observable fact came to be. Do you see the difference? The explanation is a merely a hypothesis. So how do we test it? How do you test history?

No actually, It's really not, give me one other way to explain that data.

We should all know that basic logic dictates that a similarity no more proves a cause than it does a common creator.

But this isn't similarity, Also you cannot get a tree of life without either evolution or deliberate deception (when dealing with omniscient beings at least).

Its called science. Everything we know about genetics says that two individuals with different number of chromosomes can not mate and produce viable offspring. So until you can prove that it can happen, I am find resting on what we have actually observed happen.

No you are resting on what we've never seen happened Except when it does (I'll have to track down the source for this).

[RBerman]

No I am not. God is not a man that He can lie. God is that same yesterday, today, and forever. God is constrained by His righteousness, He is NOT a capricious god like the pagan gods of Egypt. There are things He could do that would violate His nature. The fact he would never be a massive prankster and trickter is what I am banking on, not what I am saying He is. Blasphemy would be to claim He actually did something that violated His Truthfulness and Justice and Mercy. You are the one claiming He did something that violated those characteristics, not me. I'm the person saying I don't believe God made a big lie when He made the universe.

Jim, what you're saying is simply your version of what nonChristians around the world say: "I could never believe in a God who..." I'm sure you're familiar with some of the ways that sentence ends, whether ".... sends people to eternal torment" or "... sacrifices his own son" or "...creates people with homosexual urges and then calls it sin if they follow those urges" or "... ordered the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites" or "...would want me to give up activity X", etc. etc.

That is not a Christian posture. Rather, the Christian looks at Scripture to look at what God actually has said. Inevitably, some aspect of what God says will conflict with something that we believe, or do, or desire. Up until that moment, we have not been trusting God; we have simply enjoyed agreement with God. It's only when God says "go left" when we would otherwise go right that we find out whether we're really committed. This happens a few times in the gospels, as with the Rich Young Ruler. Someone claims he follows Jesus. Jesus presses, and presses, and presses until he gets past all the points of pre-existing agreement to a place where Jesus says something not already on the other person's agenda. Then we find out whether the other person is really a disciple of Jesus or not, by whether they submit to Jesus' revealed will.

What you're revealing here is that you're happy to follow the Bible when it agrees with what you would have thought already. But when the rubber meets the road and you're presented with an actual conflict, an opportunity to declare whether you follow God or follow the world, you choose the world. That's a really perilous place to be, Jim. I worry for you, which is why I spoke in such strong terms in my previous post. Give up the presumption that says, "If God is presented as doing something that surprises me, I must be reading it wrong, because God would never do that." Wrong, wrong, wrong. God is not a man. God surprises. Open your heart for Scripture to penetrate and teach you something.

[oxmixmudd]

How do you know sinning man is interpreting the historical record correctly? How do you know what the physical record of a flood would show if we can’t actually experiment with it today? We have nothing to compare those results with. The only way we could possibly know for sure is if we flooded the earth in the exact same environment and under the exact same conditions of the past, observed the results afterward and compared them to the results we have now. They can’t actually observe a human evolving from a lower primate or test it in a lab, thus everything is guesswork and theorizing. This also comes back to the issue of dinosaurs, the topic of the thread. We can’t observe these living species in their natural habitat, thus everything is speculation based on inanimate decayed bone fragments. Almost everything they estimate about our physical past ends up as speculation and guesswork. So you’re basically staking your faith on their speculations and theories about a physical world they can’t possibly prove or observe, just because they have a stellar reputation when it comes to current medicine and technology. Basically, to you it’s: science theory about the past is right, end of discussion. Therefore, since the theories are correct, God is a deceiver and must be making them come up with their speculations and theories about the physical past. You force a false dichotomy just so you can give sinning man the benefit of the doubt and even boarder on blasphemy to do it.

First, I would ask the corollary: "How do you know sinning man is interpreting the Biblical record correctly". The thing which consistently amazes me in these discussions is that from your side of the fence there is simply no possibility you could be wrong in your interpretation of scripture. It is in fact my awareness of the fact that mankind has consistently through the millenia misundertood through his own arrogance what God was saying in scripture that forces me to consider the possibility we simply do not understand what God was saying or how he was revealing in some of these passages.

There are hundreds of mainline protestant denominations, there is the RCC, the Orthodox ahd Coptic churches as well. Each of these has their own traditions and their own take own specific passages of scripture outside the core of the gospel. Why with all those differences of opinion concerning 'what the Bible plainly says' should I ignore that side of this discussion?

As for what we tend to be best at relative to the two (understanding nature vs understanding God's word and God), Jesus marvels that we can read the 'signs of the times' or the 'signs of the weather' yet we can't see His sign of His coming. That is, how can we be so capable in terms of the natural, yet so incapable in relation to matters of faith? So as I see it, it is FAR more likely the discrepancy between the record of nature and the record of the scripture rests in how we view scripture, not so much how we view the record of nature.

And this suspcion is in fact borne out historically. One of the major failure historically of the church itself is that it digs its heals in on matters of scripture and natural science, where it assumes that because the Bible is the word of God, then necessarily then have the proper insight from the text into the structure or time frame of the universe. And historically, time after time, it is the Church and it leaders that have made these assumptions that have been wrong. From Galileo to the present. And in each case, this error on the part of the church has given Satan footholds and stumbling blocks to use to help keep people away from faith in Christ.

So why do we continue in this day and age to insist we must necessarily understand what the Bible can't possibly mean in its descriptions of nature. That is what was done with Galileo, and that is what was wrong. Why can't we look at both issues and evaluate them objectively?

Finally, as to my discussion of what God would or would not do - I am quite aware of the fact that in the end whatever God actually did would necessarily be correct. But let me ask you this, does not the Bible indicate that we will be held responsible for misconceptions we have about the nature of God. Was not the fellow who went and his talent reprimanded for the fact that he did not act based on an understanding of Gods mercy, rather than an understanding of God's judgement. It is fundamentally wrong in my perspective to chose a path of understanding the discrepancy between our traditional view of scripture and our understanding of nature that places God in a position of having done something that is dubious at best. In the end when we stand before God He can then say "but you knew I was a righteous and just God, why then did you assume I would do this thing?"

You see, you and RBerman are hiding behind a technicality. What you are effectively doing is saying "Well God can do whatever He wants, so there is no reason to look any further and any aspect of this question". And all I'm saying is this: Why would you assume God would do such a thing when this is against His revealed nature, and why would you assume you've necessarily got it right on the scriptural side when our track record as humanity is so miserably poor when it comes to understanding God and His revelation in scripture?

Further, why would you ignore the evidence, textual and physical, that we have it wrong in Genesis? How can you be so absolutely sure you CAN ignore that evidence?


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, what you're saying is simply your version of what nonChristians around the world say: "I could never believe in a God who..." I'm sure you're familiar with some of the ways that sentence ends, whether ".... sends people to eternal torment" or "... sacrifices his own son" or "...creates people with homosexual urges and then calls it sin if they follow those urges" or "... ordered the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites" or "...would want me to give up activity X", etc. etc.

You know RBerman, I will admit that to a certain extent you are correct. My argument on this issue does fall into that category. But let me ask you a question. How is that significantly different from you saying God would not reveal His creation epic in a way that appeared to be history when it was not? Aren't you doing the very same thing? Why can you say God would not do X because of his nature, but I can not? Why is YOUR understanding of God's nature necessarily better than mine?

In the end God CAN do whatever He deems best, and that will necessarily BE what is best because He is God. So, IF He chose to make the universe a facsimile of a 13.7 billion year old universe then so be it. But likewise, YOU and sendD and others here SHOULD be able to also say "If God used an Egyptian creation epic as a template for the Biblical creation epic - then so be it. He would necessarily be correct AND justified in doing so, would He not? Because He is God.

So the question then becomes - what does the evidence indicate is in fact what He did, on both fronts. And as best I can tell, scripturally and scientifically, what God did was to speak more metaphorically and figuratively in Genesis. And if that is what He did, then it is necessarily good and correct and it is up to us to humble ourselves and submit to that fact - is it not?

That is not a Christian posture. Rather, the Christian looks at Scripture to look at what God actually has said. Inevitably, some aspect of what God says will conflict with something that we believe, or do, or desire. Up until that moment, we have not been trusting God; we have simply enjoyed agreement with God. It's only when God says "go left" when we would otherwise go right that we find out whether we're really committed. This happens a few times in the gospels, as with the Rich Young Ruler. Someone claims he follows Jesus. Jesus presses, and presses, and presses until he gets past all the points of pre-existing agreement to a place where Jesus says something not already on the other person's agenda. Then we find out whether the other person is really a disciple of Jesus or not, by whether they submit to Jesus' revealed will.

And again, I turn this back on you. How often did Jesus rebuke the disciples and others for not being able to understand His teachings? Indeed, did He not rebuke Nicodimus for begin overly literal in how he understood Jesus when He said 'you must be born again'? Was not Jesus expecting that Nicodemus would realize that one can't crawl back into one's mothers womb and to trust that He would not command something physically impossible and thus understand that what Jesus was saying was then not a physical literality but rather referring to a spiritual rebirth?

So why would God ALSO not expect that upon realizing the physical impossibility of the 'days' of Genesis being literal that we would look for a different understanding of that text also? As I said to seanD, why is it necessarily correct that we intuit Gods words to us? Is not the history of the church and mankind riddled with our hardness of heart and arrogance leading us to a false understanding of Gods words?

What you're revealing here is that you're happy to follow the Bible when it agrees with what you would have thought already. But when the rubber meets the road and you're presented with an actual conflict, an opportunity to declare whether you follow God or follow the world, you choose the world. That's a really perilous place to be, Jim. I worry for you, which is why I spoke in such strong terms in my previous post. Give up the presumption that says, "If God is presented as doing something that surprises me, I must be reading it wrong, because God would never do that." Wrong, wrong, wrong. God is not a man. God surprises. Open your heart for Scripture to penetrate and teach you something.

No RBerman. Here you violate I Corinthians 13 when you ascribe to my motivation such a low place. My reasoning is not "God would not do this", even though I appealed to that on your behalf. Indeed, it seems to me YOUR reasoning is "God would not do this" as regards how Genesis is structured and revealed. Are you not rejecting the possibility Genesis is more metaphor that literal history on the very same ground - God would not do this? Why are you justified in saying "God would not do this" and I am not? I would quote you as regards that: "God is not a man. God surprises. Open you heart for Scripture to penetrate and teach you something".

But here is the problem. If God can and would do ANYTHING, then how can we know ANYTHING He has revealed is true? You are taking a tack that ultimately leads to a more pagan view of God, where one has no reasonable expectation that God would behave in any particular way. Jesus appeals most critically and over and over again in scripture that an improper understanding of who God is is in fact also a sin. Does He not rebuke the disciples and his other hearers for not understanding that God has a merciful and compassionate nature? Jesus does in fact in Luke 11 give an entire litany of rebukes oriented around the Idea that we should not act out believing Gods character is less than our own. Consider luke 11:9-13:

Luke 11:9-13

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

© source where applicable

So while your principle that says "God can do as He wishes and it would be correct" is technically correct, it's spirit is in direct contrast to Jesus' expectation that we would necessarily understand and act on a reasonable expectation that God is GOOD and does not act toward us in a fashion that is less good that we ourselves are.


So I believe I am rightly dividing Gods word, and rightly respecting God and God's revealed nature by tending away from the expectation that God did something that would indeed be a deception when he made the universe. I believe we can reasonably expect that the physical reality is in fact an accurate and real record of what God did. And I do believe that historically we can expect that God would speak to us metaphorically and expect us to use our knowledge of that self-consistent reality to guide us in understanding what He is in fact saying. Your tack is to me, not at all consistent with God's revelation or example in Christ. You are saying that you will stick with tradition even when it places God in a position of doing that which would be morally wrong from a human perspective. This appeal to the 'nuclear option' - that God is God and can do what He wants - I believe Jesus shows us is NOT the direction God wants us to go. This is more like the direction the Pharisees went. He wants us to realize He is GOOD and TRUE and to then, when confronted with a clear conflict between what He has said and reality, look for a non-literal understanding of His words wherein He remains GOOD and TRUE. That God expects us to EXPECT good from Him.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

What you're revealing here is that you're happy to follow the Bible when it agrees with what you would have thought already. But when the rubber meets the road and you're presented with an actual conflict, an opportunity to declare whether you follow God or follow the world, you choose the world. That's a really perilous place to be, Jim. I worry for you, which is why I spoke in such strong terms in my previous post. Give up the presumption that says, "If God is presented as doing something that surprises me, I must be reading it wrong, because God would never do that." Wrong, wrong, wrong. God is not a man. God surprises. Open your heart for Scripture to penetrate and teach you something.

Just to pause and say thank you for that concern, I do appreciate and believe this is a true and sincere expression of genuine concern. And I do thank you for it. I need all the help I can get. I want you to know I'm listening to you, I recognize we are all fallable and I constantly pray as I try to discern and understand the truth in these matters that God will guide me and make it clear to me if I have 'missed the mark'. So I will not stop listening to any objection anyone makes to my current views. I want God's best.


Jim

[seanD]

First, I would ask the corollary: "How do you know sinning man is interpreting the Biblical record correctly". The thing which consistently amazes me in these discussions is that from your side of the fence there is simply no possibility you could be wrong in your interpretation of scripture. It is in fact my awareness of the fact that mankind has consistently through the millenia misundertood through his own arrogance what God was saying in scripture that forces me to consider the possibility we simply do not understand what God was saying or how he was revealing in some of these passages.

There are hundreds of mainline protestant denominations, there is the RCC, the Orthodox ahd Coptic churches as well. Each of these has their own traditions and their own take own specific passages of scripture outside the core of the gospel. Why with all those differences of opinion concerning 'what the Bible plainly says' should I ignore that side of this discussion?

As for what we tend to be best at relative to the two (understanding nature vs understanding God's word and God), Jesus marvels that we can read the 'signs of the times' or the 'signs of the weather' yet we can't see His sign of His coming. That is, how can we be so capable in terms of the natural, yet so incapable in relation to matters of faith? So as I see it, it is FAR more likely the discrepancy between the record of nature and the record of the scripture rests in how we view scripture, not so much how we view the record of nature.

And this suspcion is in fact borne out historically. One of the major failure historically of the church itself is that it digs its heals in on matters of scripture and natural science, where it assumes that because the Bible is the word of God, then necessarily then have the proper insight from the text into the structure or time frame of the universe. And historically, time after time, it is the Church and it leaders that have made these assumptions that have been wrong. From Galileo to the present. And in each case, this error on the part of the church has given Satan footholds and stumbling blocks to use to help keep people away from faith in Christ.

So why do we continue in this day and age to insist we must necessarily understand what the Bible can't possibly mean in its descriptions of nature. That is what was done with Galileo, and that is what was wrong. Why can't we look at both issues and evaluate them objectively?

Finally, as to my discussion of what God would or would not do - I am quite aware of the fact that in the end whatever God actually did would necessarily be correct. But let me ask you this, does not the Bible indicate that we will be held responsible for misconceptions we have about the nature of God. Was not the fellow who went and his talent reprimanded for the fact that he did not act based on an understanding of Gods mercy, rather than an understanding of God's judgement. It is fundamentally wrong in my perspective to chose a path of understanding the discrepancy between our traditional view of scripture and our understanding of nature that places God in a position of having done something that is dubious at best. In the end when we stand before God He can then say "but you knew I was a righteous and just God, why then did you assume I would do this thing?"

You see, you and RBerman are hiding behind a technicality. What you are effectively doing is saying "Well God can do whatever He wants, so there is no reason to look any further and any aspect of this question". And all I'm saying is this: Why would you assume God would do such a thing when this is against His revealed nature, and why would you assume you've necessarily got it right on the scriptural side when our track record as humanity is so miserably poor when it comes to understanding God and His revelation in scripture?

Further, why would you ignore the evidence, textual and physical, that we have it wrong in Genesis? How can you be so absolutely sure you CAN ignore that evidence?


Jim

Your reference to religious differences just proves my point. It is true that there are different religious opinions, which is what we would expect, and this just reflects the fact that we’re not perfect nor are our judgments perfect even about the divine, which also reflects the fact that man has constantly been revising, adjusting and modifying his understanding of the universe from a scientific position as well, and still doing that to this day. That’s the beauty with scientific theories and they're eerily much like religious opinions. They’re designed to never be wrong, to never fail because we don’t have anything to compare the historical record to. If data is discovered that conflicts, the theory need not be abandoned, just modified or adjusted accordingly. And it is true that the folks in Jesus’ time were using methodologies to predict nature (though that doesn’t mean these were secular or natural methodologies, as Jesus doesn’t indicate what methodologies they used), but there’s a big difference observing – even in a secular sense – conditions of the past that can’t possibly be duplicated and tested, and determining… well… the signs of the times (things that are CURRENTLY happening). It’s not even in the same ballpark. As far as what followed in the rest of your post; I don’t see anything different than the position you’ve always held, which is what I addressed in my previous post, so it would be just rehashing things that have been discussed here exhaustively. Your faith is in sinning man and his speculations and theories about a world he can’t possibly know for sure because he can’t duplicate it in order to observe it and test it. Therefore, you declare a false dichotomy. It’s either have faith in this because it can’t possibly be incorrect or conclude that God is a deceiver. You give fallible man and his guesswork the benefit of the doubt, and then resort to blasphemy to justify it.

[RBerman]

You know RBerman, I will admit that to a certain extent you are correct. My argument on this issue does fall into that category. But let me ask you a question. How is that significantly different from you saying God would not reveal His creation epic in a way that appeared to be history when it was not? Aren't you doing the very same thing? Why can you say God would not do X because of his nature, but I can not? Why is YOUR understanding of God's nature necessarily better than mine?

Our debate is not about what God's nature is like (i.e. We agree that God is good), but rather how that good nature plays itself out in creation. Our arguments are not at all "the very same thing." First yours, then mine:

1. Science says that the universe is old, and I believe it.
2. God's goodness requires that he never mislead anyone, else he is an unjust trickster. (This idea is Biblically problematic, by the way Jim.)
3. If the Bible teaches that the earth is younger than it seems, then God is misleading people. (An unwarranted leap from action to motive, even more dangerous with God than with men.)
4. Therefore, whatever the Bible says, it cannot be teaching that the earth is young.

1. The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. God gave it so we would know what is true.
2. Genesis presents itself as a history from creation to the travel of Jacob's extended family to Egypt.
3. Therefore the earth is as young as it is portrayed in Genesis.

My argument is not "God would not do this" but rather "God tells us that he did not do this." That makes all the difference in the world, for you rely on deduction whereas I simply accept testimony. As I noted earlier, such reliance on deduction is used by nonChristians around the world to say why they don't think God is really like the Bible says he is. It ultimately amounts to the oldest trick in the world: "If I were God, I would..."

[oxmixmudd]

Your reference to religious differences just proves my point. It is true that there are different religious opinions, which is what we would expect, and this just reflects the fact that we’re not perfect nor are our judgments perfect even about the divine, which also reflects the fact that man has constantly been revising, adjusting and modifying his understanding of the universe from a scientific position as well, and still doing that to this day. That’s the beauty with scientific theories and they're eerily much like religious opinions. They’re designed to never be wrong, to never fail because we don’t have anything to compare the historical record to. If data is discovered that conflicts, the theory need not be abandoned, just modified or adjusted accordingly. And it is true that the folks in Jesus’ time were using methodologies to predict nature (though that doesn’t mean these were secular or natural methodologies, as Jesus doesn’t indicate what methodologies they used), but there’s a big difference observing – even in a secular sense – conditions of the past that can’t possibly be duplicated and tested, and determining… well… the signs of the times (things that are CURRENTLY happening). It’s not even in the same ballpark. As far as what followed in the rest of your post; I don’t see anything different than the position you’ve always held, which is what I addressed in my previous post, so it would be just rehashing things that have been discussed here exhaustively. Your faith is in sinning man and his speculations and theories about a world he can’t possibly know for sure because he can’t duplicate it in order to observe it and test it. Therefore, you declare a false dichotomy. It’s either have faith in this because it can’t possibly be incorrect or conclude that God is a deceiver. You give fallible man and his guesswork the benefit of the doubt, and then resort to blasphemy to justify it.

So this is what your conception of a discussion boils down to? Rather that discuss the concepts I lay out rationally and with mutual respect, you dodge the issues and then toss our an accusation of Blasphemy? I guess I could take comfort in that they accused our Lord of Blasphemy as well. But there is nothing I've said in any of these posts that is fact Blasphemy. Not by any historical definition of the term anyway. And so I will respond to your spirit of condemnation and libel with what the Scriptures asks of us on such occasions.

May God's blessings and peace be with you.


Jim

[seanD]

So this is what your conception of a discussion boils down to? Rather that discuss the concepts I lay out rationally and with mutual respect, you dodge the issues and then toss our an accusation of Blasphemy? I guess I could take comfort in that they accused our Lord of Blasphemy as well. But there is nothing I've said in any of these posts that is fact Blasphemy. Not by any historical definition of the term anyway. And so I will respond to your spirit of condemnation and libel with what the Scriptures asks of us on such occasions.

May God's blessings and peace be with you.


Jim

Being so ready to accuse God of deception is a precarious view, don't you think? Is that not the choice you leave us with? Either man is correct or God is a deceiver?

[Phat8594]

Now the bottom line is this. In terms of the operations available, there exist multiple (perhaps even infinite) sequences of change operations that can create innumerable amounts of new genetic information. So on the simplest level (the level of your assertion as you gave no qualifying parameters), the answer is an unqualified YES.

You are not staying on task Phat.

I have been speaking of the creation of new chromosomes, with viable information that can be passed down to subsequent generations. THAT is our task.

I am NOT speaking about new information (the paint) WITHIN a chromosome (the car), which is what you have been talking about.

My point is that as much as you can get new information, or change information within a chromosome, that doesn't account for the creation of a whole new chromosome.


The evidence you put forward had to do with similar genome sequences, and down syndrome. Sure, we can suppose different theories about why there are similarites between the genomes...but this in no way is conclusive. Rather, it just fits within particular paradigms.

As for the down syndrome...well down syndrome is having an extra chromosome...but not a pair. Furthermore, the extra chromosome is a copy of an existing chromosome, so it is not new viable information.

So we are still stuck with having to create new chromosomes that have new viable information that can be passed down to subsequent generations.

[Phat8594]

No actually, It's really not, give me one other way to explain that data

Thats how God created it. Common creator.

Also you cannot get a tree of life without either evolution

That's because the tree of life idea (or at least what I am assuming you are talking about) is based on evolution.

No you are resting on what we've never seen happened

Actually you are the one resting on unobserved phenomenon. Where have we ever seen new chromosomes with new viable information created and then passed on to subsequent generations? You are just assuming that it can happen to fill in your gaps, despite the total lack of evidence.