Denying Miracles—the problem with non-YEC interpretations

[brett]

I see this debate as represented by 4 basic views.

The young earth creationist view (YEC), the old earth progressive creationist view (OEC), the theistic evolutionist view (TE), and the atheistic evolutionist view (AE).

But I think this debate really has much less to do with science than it does with the simple concept of supernatural miracles. All christians believe in supernatural miracles. By definition then, they believe God can, will and has caused effects in this world that are in addition to the effects caused by natural laws. Some examples would be the instantaneous changing of the water to wine, the many healings of the sick, the various resurrections recorded in the new testament, the virgin birth, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc.. No true christian denies these truths, especially the last one, which is the foundation of our faith. Yes these events are scientifically impossible, but christians believe they happened nonetheless. Most would simply say, "scientific impossibilities are no problem for God."

Yet there are some other Biblical miracles that aren’t as widely accepted by all christians, namely:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now this, like the Resurrection, is a scientific impossibility. Yet for some reason, many of my fellow christians have urged me NOT to take this miracle literally. “Science has falsified this!” they insist, “Therefore we must apply a different framework of interpretation.”

Now wait a minute, science has also falsified (ostensibly) the possibility of resurrections after 3 days. Why is this any different?

The way I look at it, TEs and OECs are simply picking and choosing which miracles they want to believe. TEs deny both the instantaneous creation of the universe, and the instantaneous creation of its various living creatures (animals, humans, etc.). Progressive OECs are a little better. They affirm animals and men were created instantly and supernaturally (at least Ross does), but deny that the heavens and earth were created in one week. But my question to both of them is, why?? Well, inevitably they start talking about how the scientific data discredits a 6-day creation. So now, all of the sudden, scientific impossibilities are a problem for God. Yet when you question them about the Resurrection, "hey that was a miracle—no problem." To me this is just inconsistent thinking.

Now some might argue that the dispute on origins isn’t really about miracles but rather about the age of certain miracles. In other words they’ll say, "yeah, creation was a miracle, but we know through science it must have happened billions of years ago." Ok, so how does science determine the age of a miracle? If God changed water to wine and scientists could examine that wine, how would they be able to determine when that miracle took place? Wouldn’t the “miracle” part completely throw off their calculations? How about the age of Adam (for those who believe he was created instantaneously)? Wouldn’t the scientific method be fooled by him as well? Trying to prove or disprove a miracle (or the age of a miracle) via the scientific method is just bad reasoning. Science cannot give us any insights about miracles.

So the way I look at it is this. There are really only two consistent views to consider. AE, which completely rejects all biblical miracles and YEC which completely affirms all biblical miracles. The other two are just compromises (IMO) of both modern scientific theories and biblical revelation. No two ways around it in my view, but I’m sure some interesting comments will follow. :popcorn:

P.S. I realize this is an emotional issue, but the views expressed above are sincere. A good profitable conversation is possible on this topic, but insults and accusations will certainly prevent this. Please attack the view, not the view holder nor his motives.

P.S.S. I don’t consider this to be a salvation issue, nor a breaking of fellowship issue. I admire and respect many non-YEC preachers and theologians. I simply disagree with them as they do with me.

That being said, let's get it on! :fight:

[shunyadragon]

I see this debate as represented by 4 basic views.

The young earth creationist view (YEC), the old earth progressive creationist view (OEC), the theistic evolutionist view (TE), and the atheistic evolutionist view (AE).

But I think this debate really has much less to do with science than it does with the simple concept of supernatural miracles. All christians believe in supernatural miracles. By definition then, they believe God can, will and has caused effects in this world that are in addition to the effects caused by natural laws. Some examples would be the instantaneous changing of the water to wine, the many healings of the sick, the various resurrections recorded in the new testament, the virgin birth, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc.. No true christian denies these truths, especially the last one, which is the foundation of our faith. Yes these events are scientifically impossible, but christians believe they happened nonetheless. Most would simply say, "scientific impossibilities are no problem for God."

Yet there are some other Biblical miracles that aren’t as widely accepted by all christians, namely:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now this, like the Resurrection, is a scientific impossibility. Yet for some reason, many of my fellow christians have urged me NOT to take this miracle literally. “Science has falsified this!” they insist, “Therefore we must apply a different framework of interpretation.”

Now wait a minute, science has also falsified (ostensibly) the possibility of resurrections after 3 days. Why is this any different?This is a very different argument. Science has not falsified the possibility of resurrections after three days. From the point of view of scientists and other skeptics is that there is no evidence supporting it.

In the case of YEC vs. OEC, TE, ID and AE the argument is that there is overwhelming evidence for the scientific view and none for the Biblical belief in a six day creation and a world flood.

The way I look at it, TEs and OECs are simply picking and choosing which miracles they want to believe. TEs deny both the instantaneous creation of the universe, and the instantaneous creation of its various living creatures (animals, humans, etc.). Progressive OECs are a little better. They affirm animals and men were created instantly and supernaturally (at least Ross does), but deny that the heavens and earth were created in one week. But my question to both of them is, why?? Well, inevitably they start talking about how the scientific data discredits a 6-day creation. So now, all of the sudden, scientific impossibilities are a problem for God. Yet when you question them about the Resurrection, "hey that was a miracle—no problem." To me this is just inconsistent thinking. You can take the fideist view that science cannot understand the history of the earth and the origins of humanity. Some say that God created all the evidence 'as is.'

I personally do not consider a miracle a problem for God, but all the evidence points to a very natural God who did things naturally. The Bible was writen by men who wrote imperfectly in the world view of the time. Later it was compiled and edited various times.

The Bible never refers to itself as a literal document as we see it today.

Now some might argue that the dispute on origins isn’t really about miracles but rather about the age of certain miracles. In other words they’ll say, "yeah, creation was a miracle, but we know through science it must have happened billions of years ago." Ok, so how does science determine the age of a miracle? If God changed water to wine and scientists could examine that wine, how would they be able to determine when that miracle took place? Wouldn’t the “miracle” part completely throw off their calculations? How about the age of Adam (for those who believe he was created instantaneously)? Wouldn’t the scientific method be fooled by him as well? Trying to prove or disprove a miracle (or the age of a miracle) via the scientific method is just bad reasoning. Science cannot give us any insights about miracles.
Science does have the evidence on its side concerning the history of the universe and life, unless God created all this evidence by a miracle 'as is'.

[brett]

This is a very different argument. Science has not falsified the possibility of resurrections after three days. From the point of view of scientists and other skeptics is that there is no evidence supporting it.

But wouldn’t it be more precise to say science cannot falsify the Resurrection. For miracles can never be falsified nor verified through science.


In the case of YEC vs. OEC, TE, ID and AE the argument is that there is overwhelming evidence for the scientific view and none for the Biblical belief in a six day creation and a world flood.

Of course there’s no scientific evidence for a six day creation. Science can never verify a miracle? Aren’t miracles, by definition, outside the realm of scientific investigation? Science must assume there has been no breaks nor additions to natural processes? The reason is obvious. Miracles would throw off scientific calculations.

And if an alternative theory is compatible with scientific evidence, would this fact prove a miracle did not happen? For instance: if scientists were examining the wine Jesus created (the very next day), they would certainly estimate the wine to be much older than it was. In fact, the evidence would be overwhelmingly compatible with their theory. But does that really prove the wine was not created miraculously? Can you see the fallacy in this approach?


You can take the fideist view that science cannot understand the history of the earth and the origins of humanity. Some say that God created all the evidence 'as is.'

Correction. I take the view that science cannot understand the age of a miracle. And I also disagree that God creates misleading evidence for the purpose of misleading. For instance, Jesus did not create fermentation in order to mislead. A wine expert back in that day would have only been mislead if he insisted the wine was formed naturally. Likewise, christians will only be mislead by scientific theories if they insist on a natural formation of the universe. And I really don’t see how anyone could deny the Bible conveys the creation as a miracle.


I personally do not consider a miracle a problem for God, but all the evidence points to a very natural God who did things naturally.

Just as the wine would have. But the fact that evidence is compatible with an alternative theory, does not prove a miracle didn’t happen. Shun, think about what you’re saying. How can scientific investigation support a natural event over a miraculous one? Science cannot verify nor falsify miracles. I’m pretty sure you believe this, but your statement above implies otherwise.


The Bible was writen by men who wrote imperfectly in the world view of the time. Later it was compiled and edited various times.

I can see why you’ve come to this conclusion.


The Bible never refers to itself as a literal document as we see it today.

No one believes the Bible always uses literal language. This misses the point.


Science does have the evidence on its side concerning the history of the universe and life, unless God created all this evidence by a miracle 'as is'.

‘Science has evidence on its side?’ :huh: Miracles can never have scientific evidence on their side. If they did, they wouldn’t be miracles.

Let me ask you this, Shun. For the sake of argument, let’s say the universe really is a miraculous supernatural creation. Would this fact be verifiable through scientific investigation?

[shunyadragon]

But wouldn’t it be more precise to say science cannot falsify the Resurrection. For miracles can never be falsified nor verified through science.



Of course there’s no scientific evidence for a six day creation. Science can never verify a miracle? Aren’t miracles, by definition, outside the realm of scientific investigation? Science must assume there has been no breaks nor additions to natural processes? The reason is obvious. Miracles would throw off scientific calculations.
This is the fideist created 'as is' last fall back argument when all else fails.

Let me ask you this, Shun. For the sake of argument, let’s say the universe really is a miraculous supernatural creation. Would this fact be verifiable through scientific investigation?
I do not believe that God put in place overwhelming 'as is' evidence in contradiction to an alternative method of creation. Believing in God as the Creator is indead a miracle regardless. The question is whether God would put in place overwhelming 'as is' contradictory evidence that would be in conflict with reality.

I believe God is neither a trickster or deciever.

My God is just and more consistent than the version of a literal interpretation of genesis or the rest of the OT for that matter.

[brett]

Earlier I said,


But wouldn’t it be more precise to say science cannot falsify the Resurrection. For miracles can never be falsified nor verified through science.

You responded:


This is the fideist created 'as is' last fall back argument when all else fails.

Wow, Shun! Sounds like you actually believe science CAN verify and falsify miracles. In fact you accuse belief in such an idea as “a fideist created ‘as is’ argument.” You do realize the every scientist in the world agrees with what I’ve said above. Even the most hardened atheist wouldn’t take the stand you’re taking.


I do not believe that God put in place overwhelming 'as is' evidence in contradiction to an alternative method of creation. Believing in God as the Creator is indead a miracle regardless. The question is whether God would put in place overwhelming 'as is' contradictory evidence that would be in conflict with reality.

Then you must, to be consistent, reject the miracle of changing water to wine, as it would have created contradictory evidence to the wine expert who stubbornly didn’t believe in miracles. And you would have to reject the Resurrection, as it creates contradictory evidence for medical scientists who don’t believe in miracles. Basically you would have to reject the possibility of all miracles and allegorize the entire bible. In fact there are may (so called) christians who do just that. They think you’re nuts for believe in a virgin birth and Resurrection. But what’s funny is, they’re using the very same arguments you are.

I believe God is neither a trickster or deciever.

Ah, the “miracles are deceptive” last fall back argument when all else fails. :smug:


My God is just and more consistent than the version of a literal interpretation of genesis or the rest of the OT for that matter.

So you’re content with a God whose only consistent when it comes to the OT, eh. :wink:

[shunyadragon]

Earlier I said,



You responded:



Wow, Shun! Sounds like you actually believe science CAN verify and falsify miracles. In fact you accuse belief in such an idea as ¡°a fideist created ¡®as is¡¯ argument.¡± You do realize the every scientist in the world agrees with what I¡¯ve said above. Even the most hardened atheist wouldn¡¯t take the stand you¡¯re taking.

No science cannot verify or falsify miracles. 'The 'fideist created as is' arguement may agree with what you believe, but most scientists and I do not accept it. It is a religious belief and not related to science. I am not an atheist.

I believe in TE.

Then you must, to be consistent, reject the miracle of changing water to wine, as it would have created contradictory evidence to the wine expert who stubbornly didn¡¯t believe in miracles. And you would have to reject the Resurrection, as it creates contradictory evidence for medical scientists who don¡¯t believe in miracles. Basically you would have to reject the possibility of all miracles and allegorize the entire bible. In fact there are may (so called) christians who do just that. They think you¡¯re nuts for believe in a virgin birth and Resurrection. But what¡¯s funny is, they¡¯re using the very same arguments you are.

I have already explained my view of miracles and it has nothing to do with the line of logic your using. I do not try to disprove or prove miracles that are recorded in the past. My faith and belief in God is not grounded in the vain attempts to build a Tower of Babel to prove or disprove God by the fallable human reasoning, science and logic.

So you¡¯re content with a God whose only consistent when it comes to the OT, eh. :wink:

No. That statement does not reflect my belief.

[brett]

No science cannot verify or falsify miracles. 'The 'fideist created as is' arguement may agree with what you believe, but most scientists and I do not accept it. It is a religious belief and not related to science. I am not an atheist.

I believe in TE.

What people need to understand is that science currently is not designed to discover truth, but only to discover how the world must work within the framework of a particular philosophy. I realize that you want to add God to this system, but He’s really not necessary in it. And if you argue that He is necessary for it to work, then that means the system really doesn’t work from scientific standpoint.


I have already explained my view of miracles and it has nothing to do with the line of logic your using. I do not try to disprove or prove miracles that are recorded in the past. My faith and belief in God is not grounded in the vain attempts to build a Tower of Babel to prove or disprove God by the fallable human reasoning, science and logic.

The assumption that miracles do NOT happen is the epitome of human fallable reasoning. Let’s hope your faith and belief in God is built on the miracle of the Resurrection. You see if miracles don't happen, your faith is in vain.

[tkster]

Was it not Schaeffer who warned us what would happen when we rejected miracles.

These issues come down to Historic Christianity vs. New Theology. I am afraid that New Theology has taken over.

tk

[A Beautiful Truth]

Was it not Schaeffer who warned us what would happen when we rejected miracles.

These issues come down to Historic Christianity vs. New Theology. I am afraid that New Theology has taken over.

tk

Miracles are foundation to our faith. Christ raised from the dead and this miracle is the bedrock of true Christianity. To deny it is to deny Christianity. Every Christian must accept the miraculous. This does not, however, mean that every Christian must accept a young earth. I would not sooner accept a geocentric earth than to accept a young earth. If God made such things clear and demanded in scripture, there would be evidence to back it up, I believe, as is the case of the resurrection. There is mucho evidence for the historic resurrection, this is not so with the so called science put forth by so many creationists.

[jhappel]

There is mucho evidence for the historic resurrection, this is not so with the so called science put forth by so many creationists.


There is mucho evidence for the historic resurrection, this is not so with the so called science put forth by so many creationists.

I hear this attack often made by OEC against YEC's. Ross for instance confidently claims YEC has been scientifically falsified. And yet when he makes this statement he stills wants us to believe his position is purely biblically based as if science has nothing to do with his position. Anyway. Assume OEC's that Genesis 1 really means a 6 consecutive 24 hour day creation and a global flood. What kind of 'evidence' would we expect if this did indeed take place. How is this different that what we observe? I don't think this can be fully answered since noone knows what a 'young' earth would look like as compared to what an old earth would like. Thats why science must acknowledge its limitations on origins issues and the YEC is perfectly justified in trusting in his omniscient creator. His ways our beyond our ways. YEC's only claim a best guess when it comes to their models based on what the Bible says about history. The Bible is the only truly fully trustworthy light in trying to piece together the past which is filled with confusion and missing data. The OEC position relies on the folly of atheistic materialistic driven philosophy and even elevates this 'science' to scripture. Atheist's see this as nothing more than desperate accommodation trying to gain respectability from thier circle.


Ross even confuses himself on this as he tries to address it. He claims life isn't possible unless the universe is billions of years old. This is of course utter nonsense coming from the lips of someone who claims to believe in an omnipotent God and every one of his followers should be embarrassed by his statements like this.

[Amazing Rando]

I see this debate as represented by 4 basic views.

The young earth creationist view (YEC), the old earth progressive creationist view (OEC), the theistic evolutionist view (TE), and the atheistic evolutionist view (AE).

Seems a fair division. :yes:

But I think this debate really has much less to do with science than it does with the simple concept of supernatural miracles. All christians believe in supernatural miracles. By definition then, they believe God can, will and has caused effects in this world that are in addition to the effects caused by natural laws. Some examples would be the instantaneous changing of the water to wine, the many healings of the sick, the various resurrections recorded in the new testament, the virgin birth, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc.. No true christian denies these truths, especially the last one, which is the foundation of our faith. Yes these events are scientifically impossible, but christians believe they happened nonetheless. Most would simply say, "scientific impossibilities are no problem for God."

Yet there are some other Biblical miracles that aren’t as widely accepted by all christians, namely:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now this, like the Resurrection, is a scientific impossibility. Yet for some reason, many of my fellow christians have urged me NOT to take this miracle literally. “Science has falsified this!” they insist, “Therefore we must apply a different framework of interpretation.”

Now wait a minute, science has also falsified (ostensibly) the possibility of resurrections after 3 days. Why is this any different?

The way I look at it, TEs and OECs are simply picking and choosing which miracles they want to believe. TEs deny both the instantaneous creation of the universe, and the instantaneous creation of its various living creatures (animals, humans, etc.). Progressive OECs are a little better. They affirm animals and men were created instantly and supernaturally (at least Ross does), but deny that the heavens and earth were created in one week. But my question to both of them is, why?? Well, inevitably they start talking about how the scientific data discredits a 6-day creation. So now, all of the sudden, scientific impossibilities are a problem for God. Yet when you question them about the Resurrection, "hey that was a miracle—no problem." To me this is just inconsistent thinking.

The biggest difference between the 7 days issue and the Resurrection is falsifiability. Judging by the world around me and the undeniable appearance of age, what am I to do? Conclude that God has created a charletan world to test our faith?

My faith in the Resurrection has to do with a lot more than just "because the Bible says so."

Now some might argue that the dispute on origins isn’t really about miracles but rather about the age of certain miracles. In other words they’ll say, "yeah, creation was a miracle, but we know through science it must have happened billions of years ago." Ok, so how does science determine the age of a miracle? If God changed water to wine and scientists could examine that wine, how would they be able to determine when that miracle took place? Wouldn’t the “miracle” part completely throw off their calculations? How about the age of Adam (for those who believe he was created instantaneously)? Wouldn’t the scientific method be fooled by him as well? Trying to prove or disprove a miracle (or the age of a miracle) via the scientific method is just bad reasoning. Science cannot give us any insights about miracles.

This is true. But the way I see it, either God made the earth to look old even though it's actually quite young, or the earth is actually quite old. Knowing that God does not deliberately decieve those who seek him earnestly, how can I not choose the latter option?
[/QUOTE]

[Abigail]

This is true. But the way I see it, either God made the earth to look old even though it's actually quite young, or the earth is actually quite old. Knowing that God does not deliberately decieve those who seek him earnestly, how can I not choose the latter option?

I always hear this argument and it's really lame. If God has told us in the Bible that the Earth is young then how can you charge Him with deceit. So if I am 21 but look 40 and I tell people I am only 21 then am I deceiving them? By Rando's logic you are as old as you look and therefore in his book I would be a liar even though I was telling the truth.

[Amazing Rando]

I always hear this argument and it's really lame. If God has told us in the Bible that the Earth is young then how can you charge Him with deceit. So if I am 21 but look 40 and I tell people I am only 21 then am I deceiving them? By Rando's logic you are as old as you look and therefore in his book I would be a liar even though I was telling the truth.

I've got a bit of a background in the natural sciences (not much mind you, buta little bit), and in all honesty, it strongly appears to me that archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations, and certainly geological data point toward an old earth. When what I see contradicts with what the Bible tells me, I run into some serious trouble, personally. I also likely read the Bible in different ways than you do. Sorry, I'm a little to sleepy right now to articulate it more clearly. Perhaps I can do better tomorrow.

Then again, many Christians are quite content with and believe that an allegorical interpretation of six days of creation is the proper understanding of the text. I would like to know how many Orthodox Jews today maintain that the world is six thousand years old?

[Abigail]

I would like to know how many Orthodox Jews today maintain that the world is six thousand years old?Hold on I'll just do a quick survey :ahem:

[jason]

Yet there are some other Biblical miracles that aren’t as widely accepted by all christians, namely:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Who said OEC's did not believe in this miracle ? That they disagree with your take on the text does not mean that they do not think that the act of creation was miraculous in many many ways.

So I think, at least in terms of OEC, you are burning a straw man here.

Jason

[jhappel]

Who said OEC's did not believe in this miracle ? That they disagree with your take on the text does not mean that they do not think that the act of creation was miraculous in many many ways.

So I think, at least in terms of OEC, you are burning a straw man here.

Jason


Just like pure theistic evolutionists believe in the 'miracle' of creation since they claim to be creationists as well. The trouble with OEC is that the greatly limit God. In their view God is not allowed to touch the physical universe in the sense of how the universe develops. He sits back for billions of years and just watches the universe form by the mere laws of physics and then decides, OK enough time has past, now I can start creating biological life. But I can only create with a gradual progression of simple to more complex for billions of years until I finally get to what my whole point of this is. Human beings. I am forced to create this way because I can't interfere with the development of the universe. And as he creates biological life again he has no direct influence on weather, supernova, planetary formation, extinction events, stellar evolution etc. All these just run by the laws of nature. This clearly is not what the Bible is describing. God's omnipotence is clearly revealed throughout scripture by acts that contradict 'science'. Whether its the burning bush or the feeding of the 5,000 these are all small samples of God's omnipotence beyond the laws of nature. In Exodus 20:11 it clearly is referring to a miraculous creation of the universe that could not be reducible to an evolutionary process whether biological or astronomical. The context could not be clearer for this interpretation. And history is almost unanimous in agreement with this position in pre-uniformitarian times.

[rogero]

Just like pure theistic evolutionists believe in the 'miracle' of creation since they claim to be creationists as well. The trouble with OEC is that the greatly limit God. In their view God is not allowed to touch the physical universe in the sense of how the universe develops. He sits back for billions of years and just watches the universe form by the mere laws of physics and then decides, OK enough time has past, now I can start creating biological life. But I can only create with a gradual progression of simple to more complex for billions of years until I finally get to what my whole point of this is. Human beings. I am forced to create this way because I can't interfere with the development of the universe. And as he creates biological life again he has no direct influence on weather, supernova, planetary formation, extinction events, stellar evolution etc. All these just run by the laws of nature. This clearly is not what the Bible is describing. God's omnipotence is clearly revealed throughout scripture by acts that contradict 'science'. Whether its the burning bush or the feeding of the 5,000 these are all small samples of God's omnipotence beyond the laws of nature. In Exodus 20:11 it clearly is referring to a miraculous creation of the universe that could not be reducible to an evolutionary process whether biological or astronomical. The context could not be clearer for this interpretation. And history is almost unanimous in agreement with this position in pre-uniformitarian times.


This discussion seems to hinge on what your perception of "miracle" is vis-a-vis God's purpose in enacting such. If a 6day/24hour/6000-10000 year Creation is a miracle in the same sense as the Burning Bush, then we have a problem in our perception of the nature of God. We have a plethora of physical evidence that the Earth and Cosmos are ancient (billions of years old. ) We have no tangible observable evidence of the Burning Bush. The latter is certainly a sign of Divine interaction with His creatures, the former is a clearly a cleverly fabricated sham by a deceiving cruel demiurge. The latter I choose not to accept, and I don't see how acceptance of such is necessary for the saving gospel of Christ.

I totally disagree with the bolded statement in your quote. What do you mean by "history"? Is this a particular authority?

In God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Is that a WWI doughboy in your avatar? Is it your Grandpappy? I love American history!

[jhappel]

This discussion seems to hinge on what your perception of "miracle" is vis-a-vis God's purpose in enacting such. If a 6day/24hour/6000-10000 year Creation is a miracle in the same sense as the Burning Bush, then we have a problem in our perception of the nature of God. We have a plethora of physical evidence that the Earth and Cosmos are ancient (billions of years old. ) !

We have stars, rocks, fossils, etc. There mere existance doesn't demand they are ancient. Some people interpret these as ancient based on their fallible theories of the past. This is not a testable established science like electromagnetic field theory where we can monitor and measure current, voltage, and how its effected by changing magnetic fields. I am still waiting for OEC's to present to us what a young earth and universe should look like after 144 hour creation week and how this differs from the universe we observe today (+6000 years of course)




We have no tangible observable evidence of the Burning Bush.

We have God's record of this event.

The latter is certainly a sign of Divine interaction with His creatures, the former is a clearly a cleverly fabricated sham by a deceiving cruel demiurge. The latter I choose not to accept, and I don't see how acceptance of such is necessary for the saving gospel of Christ.

I could interpret a bush that would not burn as a cruel deceiving sham since it violates 'science'. The point is its a miracle and can't be boxed into a model we can understand. The same happens to be the case for a 6 day creation. No YEC argues this is a salvation issue. However its essential for many people that the Bible be fully reliable on such a central doctrine. The first verse of the Bible is a verse on creation. Obviously God thought this doctrine was quite important.

I totally disagree with the bolded statement in your quote. What do you mean by "history"? Is this a particular authority?


I meant church fathers and orthodox Jews were pretty much all YEC. It wasn't until scientific views of an ancient Earth became popular that day-age, gap, progressive creation,etc. became popular. Thats pretty clear evidence to me that these views are nothing more than reactions to sceince and not derived from proper biblical principles of interpretation.

In God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Is that a WWI doughboy in your avatar? Is it your Grandpappy? I love American history!


It's Bix 6. I love history and sports. Wish I could have seen him pitch.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Mathewson_Christy.htm

[jason]

This post is a text book example of why it is important to know what your opponent actually believes and not just assume you know what they believe.
In their view God is not allowed to touch the physical universe in the sense of how the universe develops.
Which is false. Hugh Ross offers no such claim. Quite the reverse dare I say.

He sits back for billions of years and just watches the universe form by the mere laws of physics and then decides, OK enough time has past, now I can start creating biological life.
False.

But I can only create with a gradual progression of simple to more complex for billions of years until I finally get to what my whole point of this is.
False

Human beings. I am forced to create this way because I can't interfere with the development of the universe.
False

And as he creates biological life again he has no direct influence on weather, supernova, planetary formation, extinction events, stellar evolution etc. All these just run by the laws of nature.
False.

So far you have not 1 accurate charge at all.

This clearly is not what the Bible is describing.
Which is irrelevant because you have constructed a strawman.

God's omnipotence is clearly revealed throughout scripture by acts that contradict 'science'. Whether its the burning bush or the feeding of the 5,000 these are all small samples of God's omnipotence beyond the laws of nature.
And now you don't even really understand about the "laws of nature" as such.

In Exodus 20:11 it clearly is referring to a miraculous creation of the universe that could not be reducible to an evolutionary process whether biological or astronomical.
Which is an odd charge given your understanding of OEC has more holes in it than a seive.

The context could not be clearer for this interpretation.
I disagree. But at least your opinion is not going to result in the utterance of falsehoods on your part.

And history is almost unanimous in agreement with this position in pre-uniformitarian times.
This is at best some very heavy spin to score a cheap point, and i've always found it to be a very dishonest point to try and score myself.

Jason

[jhappel]

This post is a text book example of why it is important to know what your opponent actually believes and not just assume you know what they believe.

Which is false. Hugh Ross offers no such claim. Quite the reverse dare I say.


False.


False


False


False.

So far you have not 1 accurate charge at all.


Which is irrelevant because you have constructed a strawman.


And now you don't even really understand about the "laws of nature" as such.


Which is an odd charge given your understanding of OEC has more holes in it than a seive.


I disagree. But at least your opinion is not going to result in the utterance of falsehoods on your part.
Jason





Well at least you provided specifics to back up your charges against me. :rofl: Here is a specific quote from your master on his view of cosmology

"This entire process of stellar evolution is by natural processes alone. We do not have to invoke Divine intervention at any stage in the history of the life-cycle of the stars we observe." [Hugh Ross, "Species Development:Natural Process or Divine Action," audiotape(RTB 1990)]

Now you can say God was 'active' in using the natural processes of stellar evolution. Scientifically it is indistinguishable from a God laying back and watching it evolve by itself.


This is at best some very heavy spin to score a cheap point, and i've always found it to be a very dishonest point to try and score myself.

Are not the essentials of the Christian faith agreed upon by the historic Christian church? How do we separate the cults from orthodox? Name me some essential biblical doctrines that aren't rooted in historic Christianity? I mean these people weren't chopped liver when it came to their knowledge of ancient languages. If it really is in the text as Ross claims someone somewhere must have seen it.

[tkster]

Miracles are foundation to our faith. Christ raised from the dead and this miracle is the bedrock of true Christianity. To deny it is to deny Christianity. Every Christian must accept the miraculous. This does not, however, mean that every Christian must accept a young earth. I would not sooner accept a geocentric earth than to accept a young earth. If God made such things clear and demanded in scripture, there would be evidence to back it up, I believe, as is the case of the resurrection. There is mucho evidence for the historic resurrection, this is not so with the so called science put forth by so many creationists.
Nice misquote.

I didn't say anything about Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design Theory. What I said is that this issue is what separates Historic Christianity from New Theology. If you remove miracles, you remove Jesus Christ. New theologist have long suffered with how to make these two compatible without getting rid of Jesus Christ.

Thus, I do not accept the uniformity of natural laws in a closed system. Not only did miracles happen in those days, but Jesus still does them today. Jesus is God.

take care,
tk

[jason]

Well at least you provided specifics to back up your charges against me. :rofl: Here is a specific quote from your master on his view of cosmology

"This entire process of stellar evolution is by natural processes alone. We do not have to invoke Divine intervention at any stage in the history of the life-cycle of the stars we observe." [Hugh Ross, "Species Development:Natural Process or Divine Action," audiotape(RTB 1990)]
Nice of you to cherry pick quotes from 14 year old works. But I guess that is business as usual. Got anything current ? And besides unless you have not much read your bible (you know beyond genesis 1) God regularly works all manner of miracle through the careful timing and coincidence of otherwise natural events. They are no less miraculous because of this.

Now you can say God was 'active' in using the natural processes of stellar evolution. Scientifically it is indistinguishable from a God laying back and watching it evolve by itself.
Not really. Unless you want to say that God drying up the Jordan for the Israelites to cross, or the red sea are "indistinguishable from God laying back and watching things happen by themselves". Both of these miracles (to name 2) are entirely explicable in terms of natural events, but they are miracles none the less.

Are not the essentials of the Christian faith agreed upon by the historic Christian church?
What is dishonest about the claim is that you point to a number of early christians and the like who had no reason to think that perhaps the events of Genesis 1 are more complex than they first appear.

But to claim that therefore they believed in a Young Earth and that it is the historiuc position of the church is about as useful as if I was to claim that the Bible when read properly teaches geocentrism and then go back and find geocentrist christians to quote prior to the time of Copernicus. I could argue that that is therefore the "Historic Teaching the Church" and call you a dirty filthy evil bible compromiser as well.

We have no way to know what Luther or Calvin or others would think about recent discoveries about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. So to cite them as supporting a YEC position is dishonest.

Jason

[jhappel]

Nice of you to cherry pick quotes from 14 year old works. But I guess that is business as usual. Got anything current ? And besides unless you have not much read your bible (you know beyond genesis 1) God regularly works all manner of miracle through the careful timing and coincidence of otherwise natural events. They are no less miraculous because of this.

Why not counter with something from Ross that contradicts this statement? I have not found anything.


Not really. Unless you want to say that God drying up the Jordan for the Israelites to cross, or the red sea are "indistinguishable from God laying back and watching things happen by themselves". Both of these miracles (to name 2) are entirely explicable in terms of natural events, but they are miracles none the less.


Its highly unlikely this event occurred without any disruption of natural law. Its rather dubious to site this as a naturalistic 'miracle' since we really don't know where this precise location occurred. Given all the clear miracles in the Bible that can't be reducible to natural law its most likely this too involved direct Divine intervention beyond natural law given the precise timing involved. Besides your definition of a miracle seems so loose it can accommodate any event. Is it a miracle that I caught a 5 lb bass on my first cast? Is it a miracle that I scored a hole in 1? You have no scientific way too distinguish so your definition of a miracle is useless and unfalsifiable.


What is dishonest about the claim is that you point to a number of early christians and the like who had no reason to think that perhaps the events of Genesis 1 are more complex than they first appear.


So are you conceeding that one's initial impression of Genesis is a young earth? Even Ross won't conceed this.


But to claim that therefore they believed in a Young Earth and that it is the historiuc position of the church is about as useful as if I was to claim that the Bible when read properly teaches geocentrism and then go back and find geocentrist christians to quote prior to the time of Copernicus. I could argue that that is therefore the "Historic Teaching the Church" and call you a dirty filthy evil bible compromiser as well.


There are many problems with this shameful comparision. The Bible’s phenomenological statement that the sun ‘rises’ is consistent with either a geocentric or heliocentric view of the solar system. Plus there are only passing references to the movements of the heavenly bodies. Nothing like the detailed accounts of the creation and flood. This is layed out in more detail here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1001cornered.asp


I am not calling anyone names. I am only following my Biblical mandate to test all prophets and make sure they are consistent with infallible Word of God. I sincerely love Dr. Ross and all OEC's. I however am troubled on how this position threatens the Christian faith. The impression I get is that 90% of the material RTB produces are either direct or indirect attacks on YEC's who follow and defend the historic Christian position of creation, the flood and the effects of the curse. The character of our Creator is at stake and this is serious buisness.


We have no way to know what Luther or Calvin or others would think about recent discoveries about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. So to cite them as supporting a YEC position is dishonest.

First there are no 'recent discoveries' about the age of the earth. There may be new observations that haven't been seen before. But these observations don't shout old earth. Its the glasses you wear that determine where these observations fit into the history of the universe. Its seems to Ross the only valid glasses are secular uniformitarian ones.

Second, Ross claims his position is founded in the Biblical data and is a fully literal position. If thats true science should not be needed to properly interpret the text.

Of course Ross knows this is impossible so he nearly violates the warning in Revelation 22 by adding to the Bible 'nature' as a new book. Of course what he means by nature is secular speculations on the origin of the universe. So now he has the authority to override any verse so its consisent with this 'new book'. In other words lay people can't understand the Bible. They need (secular) geologists and astronomers to tell them what it means. I'm sorry but this is not the way God chooses to reveal himself. Its rank downgrading of scripture opening the door to dangerous heresy.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Nice misquote.

Where did I quote you?

I didn't say anything about Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design Theory. What I said is that this issue is what separates Historic Christianity from New Theology. If you remove miracles, you remove Jesus Christ. New theologist have long suffered with how to make these two compatible without getting rid of Jesus Christ.

Of all the Christian theistic evolutionists I know of here, none of them deny miracles. I just wanted you to know that because I was not sure if you knew that or not, I see you are new around here.

[jason]

Why not counter with something from Ross that contradicts this statement? I have not found anything.
Perhaps you should listen to his current radio programs. Just reading the distorted screeds against him from AiG wont get you anywhere.

Its highly unlikely this event occurred without any disruption of natural law.
Actually both are entirely explicable in terms of natural causes. There is an apocryphal story of Napoleon campainging in Egypt and he witnessed the Red Sea part, and the drying up of the Jordan, just as the Bible says, has been witnessed to day after earthquakes in the reign block the river. Sorry i'm going from memory on these, but neither miracle needs to violate anything.

Given all the clear miracles in the Bible that can't be reducible to natural law its most likely this too involved direct Divine intervention beyond natural law given the precise timing involved.
Not at all. You have a very limited idea of God who acts in a very ham-fisted fashion.

Besides your definition of a miracle seems so loose it can accommodate any event.
Not really. The miracle is certianly one of timing, as the events to make it happen would need to be set in motion much earlier than the events themselves. But this is no problem for an omniscient God. Are you denying God's omniscience ?

You have no scientific way too distinguish so your definition of a miracle is useless and unfalsifiable.
I'm not silly enough to claim that a miracle needs scientific verification.

So are you conceeding that one's initial impression of Genesis is a young earth? Even Ross won't conceed this.
No, because OEC approaches to genesis predate discoveries about the actual age of the earth. So I see no need to concede such a point. But I can see why you make the mistake you do when you read it. I too made such errors once.

There are many problems with this shameful comparision.
There aren't any problems at all. you just don't understand the example. It is irrelevant what the bible actually teaches on the question, because your argument that "the universal voice of the church says YEC" is your claim. Well prior the Copernicus, the "universal voice of the church said Geocentric". Pointing out that the bible does not teach this is irrelevant because what is at question is not what the bible teaches, but what the church has believed that the bible teaches. Once you try to score the cheap point of "The church always thought YEC was right", then you have abandoned any ability to argue about what the text says on such a point. It is simply not relevant.

Either your point is irrelevant, because what the church thinks does not have to match what scripture actually teaches, as is the case with geocentrism and what the church taught, the church can be mistaken

or

what the church thinks does matter, and you have a serios problem with this misunderstanding on the part of the geo-centrists.

I however am troubled on how this position threatens the Christian faith.
You've never considered that YEC is a serious hindrance to christian faith ? I know once christian very well that had her faith damaged quite badly by YEC, causing all manner of doubt for her. There is also Glenn Morton and others here who see YEC as a positive hindrance to Christian faith. And lastly of course, regardless of whether or not it is intentioned, in practice it appears to be the case that, YEC groups are in danger of purveying a false gospel that says, "Non-YEC's are not real christians". Regardless of what you say, the use of langugage about compromise and all the rest is only going to lead people to sich conclusions.

And so YEC groups indirectly contribute to the spread of a false gospel based on the way they go about propogating the subject.

YEC's who follow and defend the historic Christian position of creation
Unless you are going to defend the "Historic Christian position on Geocentrism" then this is a rather vacuous statement.

First there are no 'recent discoveries' about the age of the earth. There may be new observations that haven't been seen before. But these observations don't shout old earth. Its the glasses you wear that determine where these observations fit into the history of the universe. Its seems to Ross the only valid glasses are secular uniformitarian ones.
:ahem: I've heard this conspiracy nut stuff before from YEC's and even propogated such silliness myself once. It is wrong ok.

Second, Ross claims his position is founded in the Biblical data and is a fully literal position. If thats true science should not be needed to properly interpret the text.
But science and scripture should never conflict. The general revelation in nature can never conflict with the Word of God when both are understood rightly.

Of course Ross knows this is impossible so he nearly violates the warning in Revelation 22 by adding to the Bible 'nature' as a new book.
Oh for pity sake, the warning in Rev 22, only applies to the book of Revelation. And secondly Paul quite clearly recognises such a "book" as well.

In other words lay people can't understand the Bible.
:ahem: Of course they can. It is only with all the YEC's running around confusing people that there is a problem.

Also, how you understand creation in the fine details, is irrelevant to the question of salvation, which is what people do need to understand.

Its rank downgrading of scripture opening the door to dangerous heresy.
And yet it is the YEC's who are the ones seriously in danger of adding to the requirements for salvation and in leading others astray by the language they use.

Jason

[jhappel]

Perhaps you should listen to his current radio programs. Just reading the distorted screeds against him from AiG wont get you anywhere.


I do listen to his programs when I get time. I also look at his archives to see what his latest shots against YEC's are. It seems every week he manages to get at least one shot against YEC's. Even the self-confessed science no nothing Krista can't help but take shots at YEC's. It seems that program is really the weekly YEC bashfest.











Actually both are entirely explicable in terms of natural causes. There is an apocryphal story of Napoleon campainging in Egypt and he witnessed the Red Sea part, and the drying up of the Jordan, just as the Bible says, has been witnessed to day after earthquakes in the reign block the river. Sorry i'm going from memory on these, but neither miracle needs to violate anything.







Certainly most biblical miracles require 'violation' of things. Can't see why God didn't step in here either.













No, because OEC approaches to genesis predate discoveries about the actual age of the earth. So I see no need to concede such a point. But I can see why you make the mistake you do when you read it. I too made such errors once.







Then lets see them. Give me one approach to Genesis from an Orthodox well learned Christian leader that predate 'discoveries' (aka Hutton geology) that resemble modern OEC.











There aren't any problems at all. you just don't understand the example. It is irrelevant what the bible actually teaches on the question, because your argument that "the universal voice of the church says YEC" is your claim. Well prior the Copernicus, the "universal voice of the church said Geocentric". Pointing out that the bible does not teach this is irrelevant because what is at question is not what the bible teaches, but what the church has believed that the bible teaches. Once you try to score the cheap point of "The church always thought YEC was right", then you have abandoned any ability to argue about what the text says on such a point. It is simply not relevant.








Let me further clarify here why this is not a valid comparison.

1)There was no Christian position on the movement of heavenly bodies. Christian leaders did not write on the issue. It had no barring on doctrinal issues like the atonement, restoration, etc. Unlike Genesis where there is a wealth of commentary on Genesis and the effects of the curse. Of course its the NT and specifically Paul who link the curse with the resurrection.

2)Geocentrism was the established scientific position that was thought obvious by all people. Christians merely took the science of their day and read into scripture what wasn't really there exactly what modern OEC's do.

3)A literal interpretation of scripture is consistent with heliocentrism. The same can't be said of the day-age local flood compromise.










Either your point is irrelevant, because what the church thinks does not have to match what scripture actually teaches, as is the case with geocentrism and what the church taught, the church can be mistaken

or

what the church thinks does matter, and you have a serious problem with this misunderstanding on the part of the geo-centrists.







Explained above. Yes the church can be wrong. Buts its irresponsible to compare what the Bible says on the movements of the heavenly bodies to what it says on creation. Creation is woven throughout the whole Bible. There is precious little texts on the movement of heavenly bodies. Its certainly more likely people will error on a doctrine where this little data to work with. But if a doctrine like creation doesn't mean what it clearly says with its mass of textual data Christians have no hope to decode the rest of scripture.











You've never considered that YEC is a serious hindrance to Christian faith ? I know once christian very well that had her faith damaged quite badly by YEC, causing all manner of doubt for her. There is also Glenn Morton and others here who see YEC as a positive hindrance to Christian faith. And lastly of course, regardless of whether or not it is intentioned, in practice it appears to be the case that, YEC groups are in danger of purveying a false gospel that says, "Non-YEC's are not real christians". Regardless of what you say, the use of langugage about compromise and all the rest is only going to lead people to sich conclusions.







I am not ashamed of the Word of God. The creator I worship is omniscient and because of that He has His stamp of approval on what the Bible says. He knew what the text would say before it was written and He made sure it came out just how He wanted it. There is no need to reinterpret what He has predestined to reveal to us. The problem is people (like Ross) think their reason is infallible and can't error. The God I worship is the only infallible mind in existence. I bow the knee to his Word and realize I know nothing. The next time Morton writes a article defending the Christian faith would be the first time in what a decade? I hardly call him someone we should go out of our way to please when chances are he is just another apostate no longer interested in the faith. Jesus didn't command us to try to get as many to faith but tearing out doctrines people don't like. There are many who say if we just deny the Trinity many Jews would convert. However we have to realize who the God we worship is. And that begins with the doctrine of creation.










And so YEC groups indirectly contribute to the spread of a false gospel based on the way they go about propogating the subject.







YEC's are open to correction given our interpretation can be refuted. But we will not back down from what our Creator clearly has revealed. See Ken Ham's article entitled 'Our Rally Cry' http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1220letter.asp

A number of times, Luther reminded me of AiG. He would say something like, ‘If you can show me from Scripture what I have written or stated is wrong, I will recant—but you must show me from Scripture.’

The film’s climax was the scene in Worms (Germany) where Luther was brought before the church leaders, who demanded that he recant his beliefs. I must admit, tingles went up my spine as Luther stated, ‘Here I stand [on Scripture]. I can do no other. God help me.’

Wow! That’s the ministry of AiG in a nutshell. Here we stand on Scripture … we can do no other. God help us!













I've heard this conspiracy nut stuff before from YEC's and even propogated such silliness myself once. It is wrong ok. .







Who said anything about a conspiracy? People interpret evidence based on their framework. The same assumptions and biases the cause people to accept biological evolution also cause them to accept geological and astronomical evolution. They truly believe they are right. They are not covering up anything. The problem is their thinking is based on the wrong framework which causes them to generate faulty interpretations.











:But science and scripture should never conflict. The general revelation in nature can never conflict with the Word of God when both are understood rightly.







Two problems.

1)The creation we see today is not the same creation that God originally made but is a fallen cursed creation that was probably effected in ways that we can't properly model.

2)'Nature' according to Ross is whatever is in the secular science journals. We can't interpret the Bible based on the latest speculations from godless men who are committed to fully naturalistic atheistic explanations of origins. If Ross was consistent he would have to accept biological evolution since its the majority accepted theory











:Oh for pity sake, the warning in Rev 22, only applies to the book of Revelation. And secondly Paul quite clearly recognises such a "book" as well. .







Revelation is a closing of the canon. John borrows heavily from the OT which also has such warnings see Deutoronomy 4:2. Also Paul never elevates Nature aka. Human speculations on how the universe came into existence with scripture.












: Of course they can. It is only with all the YEC's running around confusing people that there is a problem.

Also, how you understand creation in the fine details, is irrelevant to the question of salvation, which is what people do need to understand.







My point was lay people would never come to these Rossian interpretations unless they are told this is how the text must be interpreted because of 'science'.

[jason]

I do listen to his programs when I get time. I also look at his archives to see what his latest shots against YEC's are. It seems every week he manages to get at least one shot against YEC's. Even the self-confessed science no nothing Krista can't help but take shots at YEC's. It seems that program is really the weekly YEC bashfest.
:ahem: And everything AiG says is aimed at bashing other Christians who disagree with them :ahem:

Certainly most biblical miracles require 'violation' of things. Can't see why God didn't step in here either.
Because there was no need to. At least not in the hamfisted way that is normally thought.

Then lets see them. Give me one approach to Genesis from an Orthodox well learned Christian leader that predate 'discoveries' (aka Hutton geology) that resemble modern OEC.
Right after you give me "One approach to Genesis that resembles mordern YEC".

Which "Orthodox well learned Christian leader" are you going to point to that argues as a modern YEC does, that modern science is a set of glasses through which to view the world.

[qutoe]1)There was no Christian position on the movement of heavenly bodies. Christian leaders did not write on the issue. It had no barring on doctrinal issues like the atonement, restoration, etc. Unlike Genesis where there is a wealth of commentary on Genesis and the effects of the curse. Of course its the NT and specifically Paul who link the curse with the resurrection.[/quote]
No OEC I know denies the curse. They simply dispute your reading of what the curse is. In a way I think is more faithful to the text no less. So your offbase anyway.

But it doens't matter. It is a legitimate comparison because it is what the church held to be the case for the majority of its life.

2)Geocentrism was the established scientific position that was thought obvious by all people. Christians merely took the science of their day and read into scripture what wasn't really there exactly what modern OEC's do.
Not at all, modern YEC's are just being luddities and insisting on a reading of the text that is in error.

3)A literal interpretation of scripture is consistent with heliocentrism. The same can't be said of the day-age local flood compromise.
The same was said about heliocentrism. Just deal with it your trying to defend a dog of an argument.

Buts its irresponsible to compare what the Bible says on the movements of the heavenly bodies to what it says on creation.
I'm not.

There is no need to reinterpret what He has predestined to reveal to us.
So why do you with this YEC I wonder ?

The problem is people (like Ross) think their reason is infallible and can't error. The God I worship is the only infallible mind in existence.
:lmbo: I'm sorry that is too funny.

Apart from not actually being true in your charge against Ross (How many times are you going to bear false witness like that I wonder ?) but how do you know your understanding of the text is the correct one ? What do you base that on ? Should I charge you with "Thinking that your mind is infallible and can't error" at this point ?


when chances are he is just another apostate no longer interested in the faith.
More false witness against another brother.

Wow! That’s the ministry of AiG in a nutshell. Here we stand on Scripture … we can do no other. God help us![/i]
:ahem:

[quote]1)The creation we see today is not the same creation that God originally made but is a fallen cursed creation that was probably effected in ways that we can't properly model.
Convenient.

2)'Nature' according to Ross is whatever is in the secular science journals.
How many times will you bear false witness in conversation ?

We can't interpret the Bible based on the latest speculations from godless men who are committed to fully naturalistic atheistic explanations of origins. If Ross was consistent he would have to accept biological evolution since its the majority accepted theory
this does assume that Ross accepts the long age of the universe only because it is "the majority accepted theory". Which is false.

Revelation is a closing of the canon.
Not when it was written it was not, as no canon existed at the time.

My point was lay people would never come to these Rossian interpretations unless they are told this is how the text must be interpreted because of 'science'.
You've interviewed everybody then ?

I'm just curious how exactly you know this ?

Now I agree you probably would not come up with Ross's exact model without some thought and study, but to say that the only conclusion you can come away with without "science" (Which is clearly what you are implying and is certianly the charge of YEC groups like AiG) is a YEC one is clearly false because there was argument amongest some of the Jews and ECF's about the age of the earth.

Jason

[kuboes1831]

Then lets see them. Give me one approach to Genesis from an Orthodox well learned Christian leader that predate 'discoveries' (aka Hutton geology) that resemble modern OEC.

.
Try this then
First Fr J Needham and then J De Luc both highly orthodox . de Luc was opposed to Hutton and criticised him strongly.
Also see Rudwicks essay on de Luc in "The age of the earth " Geol soc (of London) Special Pub 190 2001.
This is part of an article I am preparing for publication and there is much more to show that YEC was never official church teaching.



In the middle decades Buffon met and corresponded with Fr. Joseph Needham, an English Roman Catholic priest and scientist. Needham was a skilled microscopist and the first Roman priest to be elected to the Royal Society, but that does not concern us. What is important here is his understanding of Genesis published in his Nouvelles Researches (1769). There Needham was happy to extend the understanding of “Day” to signify periods of different times and that the day of Moses are probably periods of more than 24 hours, pointing out that even millions of years are merely ‘a infinite part of eternity’. Almost with echoes of Calvin, he wrote that ‘ in effect Moses wrote for all the human race and not for the Astronomers and philosopher’ and cited Augustine.
accom
Buffon returned to and lengthened his timescale in Epoques in 1778. His suggestions of 74,000 years and seven epochs are well–known, along with his unpublished estimate of the age of the earth of 2 million years. Buffon sought to bring his extended time–scale into line with Genesis in a manner which can be perceived as devout or undevout. Though he was hardly the most disciplined of Catholics, he cannot be aligned with les philosophes and their infidelity. His scientific and speculative arguments do not concern us but his theology does. In Premier Discours Buffon devoted some dozen pages to the interpretation of Genesis. Compared to Archbishop Ussher (and the associated mythology) this is radical indeed, but compared to earlier biblical exegetes, Roman and Protestant, it is a development and no more. Roger considers Buffon to have based his ideas on Calmet, but there is only a general likeness and no citation. Further, Calmet though writing fifty years earlier gives no indication a long duration of time. Buffon does not cite any authorities, but his ideas of the creation of an initial chaos followed by six lengthened days are similar to those of Needham and Whiston, both of whom were devout believers even if Whiston was Arian. Buffon had merely extended the conventional exegesis of Genesis. Whereas in his Natural History Buffon omitted all reference to Genesis One and criticised interpretation of the Deluge, in the Epoques he omitted any reference to the Deluge and concentrated on a “stretched” Genesis One. This may have been to forestall major criticism.
The reactions in France were mixed, the theologians at the Sorbonne and some other clergy were slightly uneasy, Abbe Soulavie was favourable but Abbe Barruel less so. Barruel rejected the idea of chaos and held to a literal six day creation in a forceful manner. Possible later developments were interrupted by the French Revolution and when the church was restored a decade later its ethos was far more reactionary. This is epitomised by Chateaubriand’s Genie du Christ which criticised Buffon.

De Luc and his letters to Queen Charlotte and Blumenbach.

The Swiss–born geologist Jean Andre de Luc was a friend of both de Saussure and Voltaire who came to England in 1773 to be Reader to George III’s Queen Charlotte. He was also friendly with members of the Lunar Society. From 1776 he wrote many letters to the Queen, which were published in 1779. These letters were almost entirely on geology and its relation to the Christian faith. As these fill many volumes only a few highlights can be mentioned. Like Buffon he discussed Whiston and other Theorists at length and stressed that ‘Moyse n’a donc voulu nous apprendre, ni la durée ni la maniére de la création. Il nous a indiqué l’ordre sucessif de l’existence de parties distinctif de l’Universe’. thus re–iterating an accommodation view of scripture and here he concurred with Buffon, and of course with Calvin and many others..
From 1793 de Luc wrote another series of letters to the German geologist Blumenbach, which were later published in The British Critic. The Germans were more than amenable to a long time in Genesis as in 1776 J. G. Rosenmüller ("Antiquissima telluris historia", Ulm, 1776) had published a commentary in Latin allowing a long time for Genesis One. The letters were very wide–ranging and thought both Buffon and Hutton to over–estimate geological time. De Luc was a Swiss Protestant and was at pains to reconcile Genesis and geology. He believed that geological time was far shorter than Buffon suggested and that the world’s continents had been formed only some 10,000 years ago. However, as Rudwick has recently pointed out de Luc was instrumental in enabling geological time to be accepted as conformable to Christian orthodoxy throughout Europe and, as we shall see next, was particularly significant for England.

[jhappel]

Try this then
First Fr J Needham and then J De Luc both highly orthodox . de Luc was opposed to Hutton and criticised him strongly.
Also see Rudwicks essay on de Luc in "The age of the earth " Geol soc (of London) Special Pub 190 2001.
This is part of an article I am preparing for publication and there is much more to show that YEC was never official church teaching..

I thought I made it clear that I wanted a position before Hutton geology (aka. before millions of years ideas were popular)

[jhappel]

:ahem: And everything AiG says is aimed at bashing other Christians who disagree with them :ahem:


Because there was no need to. At least not in the hamfisted way that is normally thought.



Thats not true. YEC existed long before RTB. Ross made it clear that he established his ministry to confront YEC.


Because of my concern for those who cannot reconcile the young-earth concept with their scientific observations, I founded the evangelistic organization Reasons To Believe. Ross, 'Matter of days', 2004

YEC's have to spend time refuting the false attacks from RTB who seemed to have little else to do except attack YEC.


:Right after you give me "One approach to Genesis that resembles mordern YEC".

Which "Orthodox well learned Christian leader" are you going to point to that argues as a modern YEC does, that modern science is a set of glasses through which to view the world.


Well lets see. Ussher argued for a creation date of 4004 BC and believed in a global flood. He believed the Earth was created in 6 literal days and he believed secular history must be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical record. Hardly any difference to modern YEC.

1)There was no Christian position on the movement of heavenly bodies. Christian leaders did not write on the issue. It had no barring on doctrinal issues like the atonement, restoration, etc. Unlike Genesis where there is a wealth of commentary on Genesis and the effects of the curse. Of course its the NT and specifically Paul who link the curse with the resurrection.
No OEC I know denies the curse. They simply dispute your reading of what the curse is. In a way I think is more faithful to the text no less. So your offbase anyway.

And Jehovah witnesses dispute our interpretations of the Trinity. Doesn't mean both are using proper exegetical methods of interpretation. The fact is OEC have to interpret the effects of the curse in such a way because of science. They are unable to accept any other interpretation because they have accepted millions of years idea from outside of scripture.


But it doens't matter. It is a legitimate comparison because it is what the church held to be the case for the majority of its life.

As I demonstrated it nots a valid comparison because the church had already accepted the popular science of their day and read into scripture what they already thought was true. They fact is many church leaders were receptive to Galileo’s ideas but it was the scientists who had the strongest objections. Their last resort to stop him was to get the church to rule him a heretic. Just like today the secularists best defenders of their ideas our church leaders.



Not at all, modern YEC's are just being luddities and insisting on a reading of the text that is in error.

Then demonstrate where were in error without referencing the 'science of millions of years'.


The fact is even leading PC's acknowledge the force of the YEC biblical arguments

‘From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicated that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.’ Archer, G.L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.


‘It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils [sic — creationists would say ‘most’] were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.’ Pun, P.P.T., Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987; emphasis added.


‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’ Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997.





The same was said about heliocentrism. Just deal with it your trying to defend a dog of an argument.

It doesn't sound like you believe in objective biblical interpretation. It sounds like you believe anyone’s interpretation is as good as anyone else’s.


I'm not.

Then why did you bring up and compare it YEC?


So why do you with this YEC I wonder ?

We are not reinterpreting anything. YEC is the ancient position of the church.

:lmbo: I'm sorry that is too funny.

Apart from not actually being true in your charge against Ross (How many times are you going to bear false witness like that I wonder ?) but how do you know your understanding of the text is the correct one ? What do you base that on ? Should I charge you with "Thinking that your mind is infallible and can't error" at this point ?


I said it many times in this post YEC is open to refutation on exegetical grounds. OEC's biblical arguments cannot be refuted on exegetical grounds because its not based on exegesis. Its based on science. Ross is so convinced his science is infallible he won't consider any arguments from scripture that don't allow billions of years. Here is a quote which illustrates my point perfectly and refutes your charges against me once again.

Ross states: "Why do I take the view these days of Genesis are long periods of time? Let me again share a little bit about my naive experiences as a young man. You know, I felt that the best arguments for a seventeen or eighteen-billion-year-old universe would come from astronomy.I was trained in astronomy and realize that you've got overwhelming evidences in those sciences from that kind of creation date. In fact, that was part of my message, that the evidence in astronomy is so powerful that God created, and created at a definite point in the past, that I use that as a tool from demonstrating that biblical creation was right on target. Part on parcel of that is the billions of years. And I was naive to think, 'Well, of course the Bible addresses this issue, but the scientific data is so much more specific, and is really beyond any real question that that's the way to go . And so I would try to talk to audiences of Christians and giving the powerful evidence, namely the scientific evidence (Hugh Ross, 'Creation Days' audio-tape, RTB 1990)

Again Ross leaves little possibility that the billions of years might be incorrect. Therefore scripture must be made to allow for it. Nowhere in the Bible does God say human ideas about the unobserved past are as authoritative as the written Word.



More false witness against another brother.

It didn't say he definitely was. And you snipped my main evidence. Where has ever defended a single Christian doctrine in the last 10 years or so? It seems all his time and energy is devoted to confronting YEC and never breaks a sweat to actually try to bring a single soul to Christ.


Wow! That’s the ministry of AiG in a nutshell. Here we stand on Scripture … we can do no other. God help us![/i]
:ahem:


[quote]Convenient.

Obviously since God cursed the ground the creation isn't the same. If the creation is to be restored as scripture clearly teaches it must have changed. Again all of AiG’s position’s our based on what the Bible plainly says. RTB on other hand accepts the BB therefore the creation must be essentially unchanged before the fall and after the fall regardless of the Biblical text.

How many times will you bear false witness in conversation ?


Ok its whatever is in the secular astronomical or geological journals. He rejects biological. If you still want to charge me then bring evidence to refute me. I do acknowledge he rejects quantum cosmology and other naturalistic origins of the singularity. But after the singularity he accepts secular cosmology point for point.

this does assume that Ross accepts the long age of the universe only because it is "the majority accepted theory". Which is false.

See my direct quote above. The Bible is certainly not his main tool.

Not when it was written it was not, as no canon existed at the time.

Ok a closing of the revelation from the prophets.

You've interviewed everybody then ?

I'm just curious how exactly you know this ?

Now I agree you probably would not come up with Ross's exact model without some thought and study, but to say that the only conclusion you can come away with without "science" (Which is clearly what you are implying and is certianly the charge of YEC groups like AiG) is a YEC one is clearly false because there was argument amongest some of the Jews and ECF's about the age of the earth.

Jason


Nothing like modern day OEC. There were a few ECF's who took the days as 1 year long. But again this is essentially modern YEC anyway. How do I know a layperson would never look at Genesis and conclude it means overlapping ‘days’ of billions of years with the stars made long before the Earth, generations of advanced animals living and dieing before Adam and a local flood? I guess its just a hunch.

[kuboes1831]

I thought I made it clear that I wanted a position before Hutton geology (aka. before millions of years ideas were popular)

Read what I said Hutton first published in 1788 but Needham published in 1769 and de Luc in 1776 but was of that opinion years before. If these dont predate Hutton then what can I say as in my stupidity I thought 1769 was 19 years before 1788.

1788-1769=19.

I could have given many examples of those from 1656 who reckoned the earth to be older than 6000 years eg Ray, Hooke, Whiston, Woodward, Patrick, Steno, Traherne and more and a good number from the 18th century including W Williams Pantycelyn (who wrtoe Guide me o thou great jehovah)

In fact poor old Ussher was in a minority from the day he published.

[jhappel]

Read what I said Hutton first published in 1788 but Needham published in 1769 and de Luc in 1776 but was of that opinion years before. If these dont predate Hutton then what can I say as in my stupidity I thought 1769 was 19 years before 1788.

1788-1769=19.

I could have given many examples of those from 1656 who reckoned the earth to be older than 6000 years eg Ray, Hooke, Whiston, Woodward, Patrick, Steno, Traherne and more and a good number from the 18th century including W Williams Pantycelyn (who wrtoe Guide me o thou great jehovah)

In fact poor old Ussher was in a minority from the day he published.

What I wanted is someone preferrably from before the Huttonian era (19 years before Hutton is still in the same general era. Ideally 17th century or before) who argued solely from scripture that the days of creation must be vast ages of time. I don't mean 1 year long days but vast ages. Also you threw a lot of names. None of these have any resemblance to modern OEC. OEC's seem to think that anyone who didn't follow Ussher's exact chronology are support for their position. Its dishonest to throw out those names in support of OEC. All of them were YEC compared to modern OEC.

[Pete4Honduras]

I see this debate as represented by 4 basic views.
So the way I look at it is this. There are really only two consistent views to consider. AE, which completely rejects all biblical miracles and YEC which completely affirms all biblical miracles. The other two are just compromises (IMO) of both modern scientific theories and biblical revelation. No two ways around it in my view, but I’m sure some interesting comments will follow. :popcorn:
A year ago my understanding of Genesis 1 shared many similarities with what your view seems to be. But recently I have been challenged to reassess my views. I would like to suggest an alternative understanding of Genesis 1 which remains within a conservative, evangelical hermeneutic.

A general principle of hermeneutics--

When studying any book of the Bible we should have an understanding of the original context and the original audience. These inspired books were, after all, written by human authors to a human audience in their particular situation. For example, our understanding of Galatians will be more accurate if we keep in mind that Paul was writing to the multi-racial church in Galatia in which the Christians that had come from Judaism were attempting to force the law on gentile Christians. I think we would agree on this. We would not superimpose our cultural situation upon the interpretation of Galatians.

Application in Genesis--

But for some reason many Christians (I was one of them) approach Genesis with a modern, “scientific” point of view. By using that method it appears that the scientific data does not agree with what we read. We must keep in mind that Genesis was originally written when polytheism, and the many origin stories it developed, ruled the day. The people of the second millennium B.C. did not approach their experiences exactly as we do. Why then should we insist that God is communicating to us that he created the universe in six 24-hour days?

I find it more important to look at the essential teachings of Genesis 1. These ideas and arguments would have been cogent for the original audience of Genesis, yet they still give us crucial knowledge today. (I owe these points to the work of Kenneth Samples.)

1. Creation ex nihilo - This negates physicalist and pantheist theories of origins.

2. God is independent, absolute. Creation is contingent, finite.

3. Mankind is created in the image of God. Humans are different from animals in kind not just in degree.

4. God created Adam and Eve in a special, direct, and personal way.

I suggest to you that this understanding not only would have resonated with the original audience but also allows us to appreciate scientific observations today. It does not remove the supernatural or the miraculous. While this understanding eliminates some scientific hypotheses about origins, it does allow for billions of years or just a few thousand years. (N.B. This is not the place for the discussion but a good argument can be made that the scientific method required a theistic worldview for its development.)

[brett]

A year ago my understanding of Genesis 1 shared many similarities with what your view seems to be. But recently I have been challenged to reassess my views. I would like to suggest an alternative understanding of Genesis 1 which remains within a conservative, evangelical hermeneutic.

A general principle of hermeneutics--

When studying any book of the Bible we should have an understanding of the original context and the original audience. These inspired books were, after all, written by human authors to a human audience in their particular situation. For example, our understanding of Galatians will be more accurate if we keep in mind that Paul was writing to the multi-racial church in Galatia in which the Christians that had come from Judaism were attempting to force the law on gentile Christians. I think we would agree on this. We would not superimpose our cultural situation upon the interpretation of Galatians.

Application in Genesis--

But for some reason many Christians (I was one of them) approach Genesis with a modern, “scientific” point of view. By using that method it appears that the scientific data does not agree with what we read. We must keep in mind that Genesis was originally written when polytheism, and the many origin stories it developed, ruled the day. The people of the second millennium B.C. did not approach their experiences exactly as we do. Why then should we insist that God is communicating to us that he created the universe in six 24-hour days?

I find it more important to look at the essential teachings of Genesis 1. These ideas and arguments would have been cogent for the original audience of Genesis, yet they still give us crucial knowledge today. (I owe these points to the work of Kenneth Samples.)

1. Creation ex nihilo - This negates physicalist and pantheist theories of origins.

2. God is independent, absolute. Creation is contingent, finite.

3. Mankind is created in the image of God. Humans are different from animals in kind not just in degree.

4. God created Adam and Eve in a special, direct, and personal way.

I suggest to you that this understanding not only would have resonated with the original audience but also allows us to appreciate scientific observations today. It does not remove the supernatural or the miraculous. While this understanding eliminates some scientific hypotheses about origins, it does allow for billions of years or just a few thousand years. (N.B. This is not the place for the discussion but a good argument can be made that the scientific method required a theistic worldview for its development.)

Hi Pete. I've been a very busy fellow. I hope to be able to dialog with you but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post. Maybe it would help if you explained a little more about where you're coming from. For instance, are you a theistic evolutionist? Or perhaps you're closer to the Hugh Ross persuasion? Do you believe in a literal Adam or is he merely an allegorical figure? And finally do you believe the creation and the flood of Genesis are conveyed as supernatural miracles (redundant, i know) or are they merely natural occurrences resulting from natural processes. These will perhaps help our conversation.

You see I don't have a problem with anything you've posted I don't think. The problem I have with long age interpretations of Genesis is they are formulated solely to harmonize Genesis with current scientific hypotheses. This seems to be a flawed approach from the get go.

[shunyadragon]

I didn't say anything about Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design Theory. What I said is that this issue is what separates Historic Christianity from New Theology. If you remove miracles, you remove Jesus Christ. New theologist have long suffered with how to make these two compatible without getting rid of Jesus Christ.Fideistic belief in the miracles of creation and the world flood with the evidence as is today that the scientists is an option of belief, but the unconditional link of Evolution and Atheism is false. Darwin was TE and so am I. I do not remove the possibility of miracles from the nature of God, but to believe that God must use the miraculous six-day plan for creation is difficult to support.

Thus, I do not accept the uniformity of natural laws in a closed system. Not only did miracles happen in those days, but Jesus still does them today. Jesus is God.
Your rejection of uniformity is an apriori assumption based on your religious beliefs and no reflection on the evidence.

I see no miracles today on the scale of anything close to the Biblical claims. There are not any reserrection of thousands of saints walking around or even the healings and turning water into wine. The claims of miracles today are vague, undocumented and often based on coincidential circumstances.

If you could document any significant modern miracles your argument would carry more weight.

[brett]

An interesting exchange between jhappel and Jason:


And besides unless you have not much read your bible (you know beyond genesis 1) God regularly works all manner of miracle through the careful timing and coincidence of otherwise natural events. They are no less miraculous because of this.


Now you can say God was 'active' in using the natural processes of stellar evolution. Scientifically it is indistinguishable from a God laying back and watching it evolve by itself.

Not really. Unless you want to say that God drying up the Jordan for the Israelites to cross, or the red sea are "indistinguishable from God laying back and watching things happen by themselves". Both of these miracles (to name 2) are entirely explicable in terms of natural events, but they are miracles none the less.


Its highly unlikely this event occurred without any disruption of natural law. Its rather dubious to site this as a naturalistic 'miracle' since we really don't know where this precise location occurred. Given all the clear miracles in the Bible that can't be reducible to natural law its most likely this too involved direct Divine intervention beyond natural law given the precise timing involved. Besides your definition of a miracle seems so loose it can accommodate any event. Is it a miracle that I caught a 5 lb bass on my first cast? Is it a miracle that I scored a hole in 1? You have no scientific way too distinguish so your definition of a miracle is useless and unfalsifiable.



Actually both are entirely explicable in terms of natural causes. There is an apocryphal story of Napoleon campainging in Egypt and he witnessed the Red Sea part, and the drying up of the Jordan, just as the Bible says, has been witnessed to day after earthquakes in the reign block the river. Sorry i'm going from memory on these, but neither miracle needs to violate anything.

Here are the actual texts where Jason claims no interruption of natural processes needed to occur.

Josh 3:16 that the waters which came down from upstream stood still, and rose in a heap very far away at Adam, the city that is beside Zaretan. So the waters that went down into the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, failed, and were cut off; and the people crossed over opposite Jericho.

Young’s Literal Translation renders it this way:

16 that the waters stand; those coming down from above have risen -- one heap, very far above Adam the city, which [is] at the side of Zaretan; and those going down by the sea of the plain, the Salt Sea, have been completely cut off; and the people have passed through over-against Jericho;

Standing water is not a natural process. The text says the water stood in a great heap far away. Water just doesn’t do this naturally—no more than axe-heads naturally float or water naturally changes into wine. There is absolutely no reason to brush this off as anything but a genuine supernatural miracle.

Jason’s charge about the Red Sea miracle is even more incredible:

Exodus 14
15 And the LORD said to Moses, "Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward. 16 But lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. ...... 21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

Notice the waters were a wall on their right and left. Winds don’t simultaneously blow in opposite directions to form such walls naturally. And obviously the winds had to be still in the center where the Israelites were walking otherwise they would have be blown away along with the water. There’s no way someone can read these texts (without some sort of agenda) and conclude a rare natural event has taken place. It simply defies logic.

[shunyadragon]

An interesting exchange between jhappel and Jason:

Notice the waters were a wall on their right and left. Winds don’t simultaneously blow in opposite directions to form such walls naturally. And obviously the winds had to be still in the center where the Israelites were walking otherwise they would have be blown away along with the water. There’s no way someone can read these texts (without some sort of agenda) and conclude a rare natural event has taken place. It simply defies logic.The central problem is the testimony accurate as to the events that took place.

If these events took place in a colder time in history. An ice jam from melting snow and ice in the mountains can create this effect of 'water heaped far away. This is very common in colder climates.

Things like the great world flood in the Bible do not fit any of the evidence or logic. There is likely a more local natural explanation for what was experienced.

[brett]

The central problem is the testimony accurate as to the events that took place.

I'm assuming you meant to say, "The central problem is the testimony's accuracy as to the events that took place."

If you want to dispute the accuracy of the testimony, that’s fine. I think it’s accurate and therefore have no choice then to believe these were supernatural miracles.

[rogero]

I'm assuming you meant to say, "The central problem is the testimony's accuracy as to the events that took place."

If you want to dispute the accuracy of the testimony, that’s fine. I think it’s accurate and therefore have no choice then to believe these were supernatural miracles.


I see li'l ol' Brett has become educated in critical redaction in the past few months. Well done, Jocko!

Now, he has to realize that accepting the simple-minded Bronze Age obvious-even-to-a-child interpretation of Genesis 1-11 would make his god a cruel deceiving demiurge. Such a lesser deity is incompatible with the teachings of the Christ. So, all you theists out there -- let's say a prayer for poor li'l Brett. Fortunately, I believe staunchly that the Logos of Creation forgives the kind of abject ignorance that this obviously intellectually disadvantaged fella possesses.

It's the Christian way to be concerned for and pray for the less fortunate. I firmly believe this applies to the intellectually slighted as well as to the pecunarily disadvantaged.

R

[shunyadragon]

I'm assuming you meant to say, "The central problem is the testimony's accuracy as to the events that took place."

If you want to dispute the accuracy of the testimony, that’s fine. I think it’s accurate and therefore have no choice then to believe these were supernatural miracles.
You failed to respond to the fact that there are often logical natural explanations for what appears to supernatural to the observations made by Stone and Bronze Age people with a limited horizon of knowledge. I gave an example of a real world explanation for water being heaped up.

There are natural explanations for many events like the parting of the Red Sea, which likely was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. It is possible that God actually relies on natural processes for these events or that sometimes they are just simply interpretations of natural processes from the point of view of Stone and Bronze Age people.

I think that was one of the main points to justify the natural explanation as not logical.

[brett]

I see li'l ol' Brett has become educated in critical redaction in the past few months. Well done, Jocko!

Now, he has to realize that accepting the simple-minded Bronze Age obvious-even-to-a-child interpretation of Genesis 1-11 would make his god a cruel deceiving demiurge. Such a lesser deity is incompatible with the teachings of the Christ. So, all you theists out there -- let's say a prayer for poor li'l Brett. Fortunately, I believe staunchly that the Logos of Creation forgives the kind of abject ignorance that this obviously intellectually disadvantaged fella possesses.

It's the Christian way to be concerned for and pray for the less fortunate. I firmly believe this applies to the intellectually slighted as well as to the pecunarily disadvantaged.

R

Honestly Rogero, you really need to schedule an appointment with your doctor and have him recheck those meds. :no:

BTW did you mean “pecuniarily”? You’re knocking poor folk now? Man, you've flown the coop! :rando:

Seriously though, if you really are that edgy I don't want to be the one to push you over. I mean you were always rude from what I remember, but you weren’t quite...well you know..... :bomb: Anyone else see this or is it just me?

[brett]

You failed to respond to the fact that there are often logical natural explanations for what appears to supernatural to the observations made by Stone and Bronze Age people with a limited horizon of knowledge. I gave an example of a real world explanation for water being heaped up.

Of course this is true. It’s even true of people in our age. I dabble in magic a little myself (the kind with cards and coins that is). I've actually convinced people I was doing voodoo. It's hilarious sometimes!


There are natural explanations for many events like the parting of the Red Sea, which likely was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. It is possible that God actually relies on natural processes for these events or that sometimes they are just simply interpretations of natural processes from the point of view of Stone and Bronze Age people.

Okay, so you believe there is a natural explanation for water standing up like walls on either side of the Israelites and they walked through the Sea of Reeds? Walls so high that they drowned the entire Egyptian army when they collapsed? Or would you question some of the specifics in that particular testimony?


I think that was one of the main points to justify the natural explanation as not logical.

To try to inject natural explanations into these biblical accounts is not logical, unless of course you’re questioning the accuracy of some of the testimony. This is what I thought you were doing. In that case, yes I can see the logical connection. But if you let the text stand (in these particular cases) your stuck with genuine supernatural miracles.

[rogero]

Honestly Rogero, you really need to schedule an appointment with your doctor and have him recheck those meds. :no:

BTW did you mean “pecuniarily”? You’re knocking poor folk now? Man, you've flown the coop! :rando:

Seriously though, if you really are that edgy I don't want to be the one to push you over. I mean you were always rude from what I remember, but you weren’t quite...well you know..... :bomb: Anyone else see this or is it just me?

Well, it seems that Jocko Brett has learned to use emoticons. Bravo! Good boy!

Perhaps, now he can learn some science and see how the hard observational facts completely contradict his childishly ignorant view of nature.

Prayers are encouraged by everyone! :clueless: Certainly a fine exemplary and intelligent Christian as Brett couldn't foster the ridiculously heretical belief that the Logos God of the New Testament would willingfully fool the very small minority of 21st century people who are willing to invest the time and effort to understand Creation?

Naw! Brett and his 'merkin high school or less trained colleagues must be right and the vast vast majority of scientists (actually all those people who understand the scientific method) must be wrong.

R


P.S. Brett, you can spew as much ignorant rhetoric as you like, but if you can't provide any empirical evidence for your YEC view, then all you have is a worthless and annoying political soundbite, a'la the crap we've thankfully gotten over since the November 2 election.

R

[brett]

Er, can't you just call 'em smileys? :ahem:

[Lion]

Seems like you guys need a little education about the place where Israel crossed the red sea.

Ex. 14:1 ¶ Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Ex. 14:2 “Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea.
Ex. 14:3 “For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’

No wonder Paraoh's spies thought Israel was wandering aimlessly because they were down at the tip of the Sinai peninsula where the sea is shallow. They evidently crossed there, not at the sea of reeds. I am not discounting the miracle at all. There is a mountain in Saudi Arabia that is called Jebel al Lawz. That is the true Mt. Sinai, not the traditional Sinai. I have a map showing a mountain of that name in NE Saudi Arabia, not far from the crossing site. You can read about it in the gold of Exodus

[brett]

Seems like you guys need a little education about the place where Israel crossed the red sea.

Ex. 14:1 ¶ Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Ex. 14:2 “Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea.
Ex. 14:3 “For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’

No wonder Paraoh's spies thought Israel was wandering aimlessly because they were down at the tip of the Sinai peninsula where the sea is shallow. They evidently crossed there, not at the sea of reeds. I am not discounting the miracle at all. There is a mountain in Saudi Arabia that is called Jebel al Lawz. That is the true Mt. Sinai, not the traditional Sinai. I have a map showing a mountain of that name in NE Saudi Arabia, not far from the crossing site. You can read about it in the gold of Exodus

Actually I'm not arguing which sea it was either way (I'm somewhat familiar with the debate and didn't want to go there). Shun said it was Reeds so I granted it for the sake of argument. The point is, according to the text, there were walls of water on the left and right of the Israelites. And when they collapsed, the waters drowned an entire army. Doesn't matter which sea it was. This was a supernatural event.

[Lion]

Folks,I want to inject a bit of reality here. The Bible was written as God's letter to man. When Adam and Eve sinned face to face commnication was cut off.

Gen. 3:8 ¶ They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Gen. 3:9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”
Gen. 3:10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”
Gen. 3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Notice: They heard the sound of God walking. It does not say they SAW him walking. Right away there was a separation. They knew who was in the garden because He had been there before. There was no primitive savage type of communication. Man was blessed with a superior intellect probably wiser than Solomon. He knew enough to name all the animals. I don't know how much God taught him and how much God let him experiment to learn. But God evidently told them about creation week because man was the last of the animal creation made.
Whatever, man became very wicked and god decided to destroy the earth by a flood. God said the earth was filled with violence. I cannot help wondering if it was worse than today.

The Bible is god's letter to man.
There are a number of revealing statements in Genesis like this:
Gen. 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
Gen. 5:2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
A thousand years later Noah was born.
Gen. 6:9 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.
Six hundred years later,(dates are after creation)
Gen. 10:1 ¶ Now these are the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood.
Gen. 11:10 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; 1658
Gen. 11:27 ¶ Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot. 1878
Gen. 25:12 ¶ Now these are the records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maid, bore to Abraham; (he was the father of the Arabs)
Gen. 25:19 ¶ Now these are the records of the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham became the father of Isaac; 2108
Gen. 36:1 ¶ Now these are the records of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).
Gen. 36:9 ¶ These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.
Gen. 37:2 These are the records of the generations of Jacob. 2158
The exodus is 2513 after creation.

[shunyadragon]

Of course this is true. It’s even true of people in our age. I dabble in magic a little myself (the kind with cards and coins that is). I've actually convinced people I was doing voodoo. It's hilarious sometimes!
Then you should understand that some of the Biblical miracles performed by Moses and Christ were very similar to the tricks of the day.

Okay, so you believe there is a natural explanation for water standing up like walls on either side of the Israelites and they walked through the Sea of Reeds? Walls so high that they drowned the entire Egyptian army when they collapsed? Or would you question some of the specifics in that particular testimony?
Some of both, there are occurenses in nature that cause a tidal wave or tidal surge like phenomenum related to natural events that could be interpreted as miracles. I believe you also overstating the description of a Bronze Age people recording these events in the Bible.

Third point is there is no evidence that the flight of the Hebrews in Genesis ever took place. There is no evidence of a conquest of Canaan at the time it was said to have occured. In fact the possitive evidence contradicts Exodus.

Fourth point is that none of this can be found in any known recerds even scraps until around 300 to 100 BC.

It is tough to present a convincing argument when there is not any evidence.



To try to inject natural explanations into these biblical accounts is not logical, unless of course you’re questioning the accuracy of some of the testimony. This is what I thought you were doing. In that case, yes I can see the logical connection. But if you let the text stand (in these particular cases) your stuck with genuine supernatural miracles.
When there is known natural phenomenum that explain these events then it is perfectly logical to assume a Stone or Bronze Age people would report them as miracles. Yes, I am questioning the accuracy of the testimony of Stone Age and Bronze Age peoples in the same way I would question the supernatural events recorded by Homer and in Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh has far more older documentation than Exodus, but I still have no reason to believe the supernatural events of Gilgamesh.

[kofh2u]

Hi Pete. I've been a very busy fellow. I hope to be able to dialog with you but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post. Maybe it would help if you explained a little more about where you're coming from. For instance, are you a theistic evolutionist? Or perhaps you're closer to the Hugh Ross persuasion? Do you believe in a literal Adam or is he merely an allegorical figure? And finally do you believe the creation and the flood of Genesis are conveyed as supernatural miracles (redundant, i know) or are they merely natural occurrences resulting from natural processes. These will perhaps help our conversation.

You see I don't have a problem with anything you've posted I don't think. The problem I have with long age interpretations of Genesis is they are formulated solely to harmonize Genesis with current scientific hypotheses. This seems to be a flawed approach from the get go.

I understood him to say that interpretation og Genesis is conditional upon the prevailing paradigm of the moment, yet this living bible is always, has always been complementary to what men of all ages have come to understand in their secular idas concerning the Universe and our presence in it.

With that Living Bible as an example, an adjunct to our own mental growth, intellectual development, and Modern Homo sapiens maturation, both man and his God, the Word have come to understand one another ever more clearly throughout the ages.

Now, as we see the evidence of Seven Geological Eras recorded in the locked chemistry of the rocks w examine, those seven "days" take on new meaning and give us, by the grace of God, reaffirmation in our faith that scripture is true.

1Cor. 13:12 For now (in this 1st Century) we see (in
semi-consciousness) as through a glass, darkly, (we perceive as well as our growing knowledge allows); but then, (in the coming time of Daniel, in the Information Age of the 21st Century), face to face (with secular understanding and Truth of God): now I know (both God and his Truth) in part; but then shall I know (tangibly) even as also I am known (concretely).

[grmorton]

I see no miracles today on the scale of anything close to the Biblical claims. There are not any reserrection of thousands of saints walking around or even the healings and turning water into wine. The claims of miracles today are vague, undocumented and often based on coincidential circumstances.

If you could document any significant modern miracles your argument would carry more weight.

Frank, Since you are Bahai, I thought I should ask a question about a Bahai miracle. I read a book about the history of Bahai written by a Bahai several years ago. Sorry but I can't recall the name of the book. The Bab was in front of a firing squad and was supposedly miraculously translated back to the jail cell where he finished the teaching he was giving the people.

No, admittedly, this is from memory and I don't think it was a Bahai religious text, but isn't Bahai full of miracles as well? Do you not believe them? The reason I ask is that if one believes the miracles of one's religion, especially one that is so recent in origin (the 1850s), I am curious why you would suggest such documentation in light of the Bahai teachings.

[kofh2u]

shunyadragon:

Some of both, there are occurenses in nature that cause a tidal wave or tidal surge like phenomenum related to natural events that could be interpreted as miracles. I believe you also overstating the description of a Bronze Age people recording these events in the Bible.

KOFHY:
Truevon both vounts, plusvwe ourselves have dufficulty separating what might have been meant as hyperbole and/or poetic license, metaphor even, from the literal.

Time magazine, I believe, ran an article where the author described the divided wall of water as a possible result of some natural event, an underwater earth quake or some such thing.

Nevertheless, belief in this story is hardly contingent upon proofs at this date.

shunyadragon:
Third point is there is no evidence that the flight of the Hebrews in Genesis ever took place. There is no evidence of a conquest of Canaan at the time it was said to have occured. In fact the positive evidence contradicts Exodus.

KOFHY:
Exodus is contradicted in magnitude, not in essence. The 2 million Hebrews is way wrong in the literal sense. But, in the prophetic sense, I believe the Exodus is tied into our own times.

shunyadragon:
It is tough to present a convincing argument when there is not any evidence.

KOFHY:
But, even though many would need to put a finger through the holes in the story handed down to us, these same people will not accept what they see for themselves, here and now.

I ask you, whereas you have strong argument to doubt the cases that ought be exempt by the Statue of Limitations, as it regards the testimony of the scriptures... that is, while it is easy ridicule for you, now, to demand concrete evidences that these ancient stories are true,...
...would you accept as undeniable, predictions right before your face.

Or, would you and others find if's ands and buts... would you argue the literal prediction as too vague or too broad, or not exactly the way it might be taken,...?

For instance:
Zech. 7:14 But (in 70 AD) I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man (from that diaspora) passed through nor returned: for (the Romans), they laid the pleasant land desolate.

Zech. 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, (those who have already been gather into the State of Israel), and house of Israel (those ten lost tribes throughout America and the world); so will I, (by my Spirit), save you (in 1948 AD) and ye shall be a blessing (to the Christian World): fear not, but let your hands be strong.

Zech. 8:14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you (in holocaust), when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I repented not:

Zech. 8:15 So again have I thought in these days (of 1948 AD) to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.

[lucaspa]

I see this debate as represented by 4 basic views.

The young earth creationist view (YEC), the old earth progressive creationist view (OEC), the theistic evolutionist view (TE), and the atheistic evolutionist view (AE).

But I think this debate really has much less to do with science than it does with the simple concept of supernatural miracles. All christians believe in supernatural miracles. By definition then, they believe God can, will and has caused effects in this world that are in addition to the effects caused by natural laws. Some examples would be the instantaneous changing of the water to wine, the many healings of the sick, the various resurrections recorded in the new testament, the virgin birth, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc.. No true christian denies these truths, especially the last one, which is the foundation of our faith. Yes these events are scientifically impossible, but christians believe they happened nonetheless.The problem is in the last sentence. Miracles are NOT "scientifically impossible". If they happen, they happen. Science does NOt deny miracles. However, science is oftentimes unable to deal with miracles. This is because science can only study an event that leaves physical evidence that is present TODAY. Now, none of your list leaves any evidence that persists to TODAY. The wine was all drunk. The cured people have long since died. EVen Lazarus died again and we have no idea where his tomb is. The resurrected Jesus is not physically present today.

Now, some "miracles" do leave consequences that can be studied today. The world-wide Flood is one of them. After all, all those geological layers that Flood geologists say are due to the Flood are here to be studied. So that miracles can be tested, has been tested, and has been shown to not have happened. The geology of earth is not due to a single, world-wide Flood.

Yet there are some other Biblical miracles that aren’t as widely accepted by all christians, namely:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Because creation in 144 hours has consequences that are here TODAY. When we look around today, we see that those consequences are not what they would be if God had created in 144 hours. Therefore God did not really create in 144 hours.

Now wait a minute, science has also falsified (ostensibly) the possibility of resurrections after 3 days. Why is this any different? Because science has NOT falsified the possibility of resurrections -- despite the desire of atheists to say that it has.

The problem is a confusion of the relationship of data to theory. Data are observations. We have a lot of observations that people dead 3 days don't come back to life. Therefore, we extrapolate from those observations and make a theory: people dead 3 days don't come back to life. BUT, theories are modified in the light of data (observations). And what is the resurrection? An observation.

Let's take this resurrection thing. You say 3 days. But 100 years ago the theory was: people who stop breathing don't come back to life. Then what happens? Along comes mouth-to-mouth resusitation and we can get people breathing again. Do we deny that those people are alive? NO. We modify the theory: people who stop breathing don't come back to life unless they are given mouth to mouth resusitation. Apply this same type of reasoning to the theory "people don't come back to life after their heart stops beating" As medical techniques improve, our theory of when people don't come back to life has changed again and again, hasn't it?

So, the Resurrection is DATA. You can never use theory to deny data. Second worst crime in science. So, the theory is now modified: "people dead 3 days don't come back to life unless deity intervenes and resurrects them." See, science can accomodate miracles.

Now, the reason atheism is still viable is that the observation of Jesus' resurrection is not universally accepted. We can't produce a living, physical Jesus. We are relying on the accounts of people that lived 2,000 years ago and were devoted followers of Jesus. So there can be doubt as to their veracity. Thus, this observation is what is called an "anomaly" and is not sufficient to revise the theory. Christians take the account on trust or on personal experience of the risen Jesus. However, neither of those types of evidence are acceptable to science. Science works with a very limited and narrow subset of evidence. Science does not say other evidence is wrong, necessarily, just that it can't be used in science.

So, anyone who says the resurrection is scientifically impossible is misusing science.

The way I look at it, TEs and OECs are simply picking and choosing which miracles they want to believe. TEs deny both the instantaneous creation of the universe, and the instantaneous creation of its various living creatures (animals, humans, etc.).This is not arbitrary. Instantaneous creatoin of the universe and the various living creatures would have consequences we see TODAY. When we look around today, what we see is the opposite of what we would see if God had really created that way. Basically, TEs trust that God really did create. And what He created is the physical universe. Thus, the physical universe comes from God and must have evidence in it of how God created. TEs trust God and not a human interpretation of the Bible. They realize it is a lot better to listen to God than tell Him how He had to do something. So, TEs use the second of the quotes in my signature and decide that our interpretation of scripture is in error. God did not create by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

Resurrection, "hey that was a miracle—no problem." To me this is just inconsistent thinking. Well, after reading this post, I hope you realize how it is not inconsistent thinking.

[lucaspa]

I'm assuming you meant to say, "The central problem is the testimony's accuracy as to the events that took place."

If you want to dispute the accuracy of the testimony, that’s fine. I think it’s accurate and therefore have no choice then to believe these were supernatural miracles.Right. You trust the accounts are accurate. We do that with historical events all the time. A lot of the time we don't have some independent means of testing whether the event happened or exactly how it happened. And many times when there are multiple witnesses, we get multiple stories. Historians sort thru these stories and, when they write the book, put down only the most likely series of events. There is a book called The Lost Battalion (made into a TV miniseries) about an American battalion trapped behind German lines in WWI. If you read the afterward, the author honestly admits that the accounts of the survivors differ in many important respects. He has picked the most likely.

So ... in the event you describe, you trust that the account is completely accurate and, therefore, a supernatural miracle. Others read the account and, taking into account that it was written long after the actual event, that although the city was taken and Joshua's army crossed the river, that the details of how the crossing was done may have been exaggerated or altered to satisfy a possible desire of the author to generate a miracle to inspire the faithful. So, they look to see if there is a modification of a natural event that would have permitted the crossing.

You are both making trust statements. You on the accuracy of the account; the other that the account was altered.

Of course, since the river went right back into its old course, there is nothing we can look at TODAY to decide the issue. While there would have been physical evidence right after the event, after 1500 years that evidence has been destroyed.

[shunyadragon]

Frank, Since you are Bahai, I thought I should ask a question about a Bahai miracle. I read a book about the history of Bahai written by a Bahai several years ago. Sorry but I can't recall the name of the book. The Bab was in front of a firing squad and was supposedly miraculously translated back to the jail cell where he finished the teaching he was giving the people.

No, admittedly, this is from memory and I don't think it was a Bahai religious text, but isn't Bahai full of miracles as well? Do you not believe them? The reason I ask is that if one believes the miracles of one's religion, especially one that is so recent in origin (the 1850s), I am curious why you would suggest such documentation in light of the Bahai teachings.Miracles from the Baha'i point of view needs some expalnations. The miracle described in the book you read is indeed on of the best documented 'apparent miracle from the human point of view' in modern history of religion. It was witnessed and recorded, by the Moslem authorities, Russian representatives, other foreigners, and limited records of believers. The fact is the Baha'i Faith relies a great deal on the records of non-believers for this incident, because of the limited records of believers.

Miracles are conditionally accepted by the Baha'i Faith, but should not ever be claimed as proof of anything. In the writings it states that magicians and others can easily perform miracles that cannot be explained by the observer, deception is common by charlitans, and natural events can be interpreted as miracles due to limited knowledge.

This is why I say 'apparent miracle from the human point of view' as the most honest way to describe this and other remarkable events in the Baha'i Faith that would be called miracles. I believe what are observed as miracles have a natural explanation and nothing is truely supernatural. God is very natural.

It is often said 'We do not need to mention miracles, . . .'

[shunyadragon]

But, even though many would need to put a finger through the holes in the story handed down to us, these same people will not accept what they see for themselves, here and now.

I ask you, whereas you have strong argument to doubt the cases that ought be exempt by the Statue of Limitations, as it regards the testimony of the scriptures... that is, while it is easy ridicule for you, now, to demand concrete evidences that these ancient stories are true,...
...would you accept as undeniable, predictions right before your face.

Or, would you and others find if's ands and buts... would you argue the literal prediction as too vague or too broad, or not exactly the way it might be taken,...?
If you have followed my posts you will not that I do not discount miracles. My response to grmorton should clarify my view some.

I do not believe in holding up miracles as trophies to justify a religious belief, particularly apologists who view the records of ancient Stone, Bronze and Iron Age peoples as ablsolutely inerrent and literally reliable.

'Thou dost protest too much . . .'