- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Human evolution: astounding new story of the origin of our species
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:21 pm to bfniii
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:21 pm to bfniii
quote:Forgive me if I've missed it, but it seems that my argument so far has been that anything but a literal view of Genesis (in terms of creation) causes a lot of problems, but from a grammatical perspective as well as theologically.
which i, and plenty of others, have done
What I've seen so far (that I recall) is an argument for why it's OK to make the Bible fit with what we seem to observe in nature. If I've simply missed the scriptural argumentation for it, let me know.
quote:The Jesus Seminar scholars is where my mind originally went.
when i say biblical scholars, i'm not referring to secular knuckleheads. i'm referring to real biblical scholars and i can't imagine there's even one who supports the claim you just made
My point is that there are a lot of people who are considered scholars of the Bible that don't even believe its truth claims. Many an atheist have devoted countless hours, months, and years to studying the Bible for the sake of skepticism.
quote:I disagree. Please explain how it isn't supported.
the bible does not exclusively support your claim so this appeal to sola scriptura is irrelevant
quote:I don't believe anyone is looking at the scriptures with neutral eyes and coming to an OEC view. The text, itself, doesn't lend itself to such a reading. It's typical for someone with a bias towards an old age of the earth for other reasons to then take that view to the text and try to justify an old age by redefining what a day is, as an example. It's why I said "[t]hese days the scriptures are interpreted by everything else", meaning that the intent is not to let scripture interpret scripture, but to interpret scripture by making it fit other assumptions about what we think we know about the universe. We don't want the Bible to contradict what people claim is factual science, so the meaning of words is adjusted to allow compatibility between the Bible and scientific understanding. I believe this is wholly unnecessary.
there are people who do not agree with your characterization who are doing so from scripture. not from "something else."
quote:Please explain.
and this is absolutely, totally wrong. you are mistaken on this matter and you have been invited to reconsider your position. biblical scholarship does not support what you are saying.
quote:Paul linked Christ's resurrection (and eventually our own) to the sin of Adam that brought physical death into the world. The context is physical death, and Paul said that through one man (Adam) came physical death. In order for evolutionary theory of origins to be true, there had to be a lot of death that came into the world prior to Adam.
i realize you think this helps your point but it doesn't. there is no need to necessarily connect Jesus to adam merely for the purposes of creation. nothing in that phrase by paul had any intention of being interpreted that way. 1 cor 15 is not about the creation story.
quote:Christ, in His teaching on divorce, affirmed the Genesis account as history: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matt. 19:4-5).
who did nothing to affirm yec over oec
As I said, Christ taught Genesis as history and the Genesis account, as well as the other teachings throughout scripture, don't leave room for the evolutionary account of origins, which provides millions of years of death before Adam evolved, rather than being created from the dust of the ground by God, and his wife being created from his own body by God.
quote:The belief about our origins in the scriptures can certainly impact the view of salvation that a person has. If the Bible can't be trusted in the very first book, it can be very easy to reject all else it says, including about Christ and His sacrifice for sin.
which is not necessarily right, in and of itself nor is it necessarily of primary spiritual importance, i.e. sotierology
The Bible says that if Christ isn't raised, then we Christians above all else are to be pitied, yet those who reject Genesis and the supernatural acts of God in creation in favor of more "natural" means can easily reject the supernatural resurrection of Christ, equating it to some sort of myth that is intended to teach us something else. In fact, many believe that about the creation already but haven't connected the dots to Christ's death and resurrection.
The death that came in to the world through Adam's sin, we are told by Paul, is the last enemy that Christ will defeat at the end. There is significant importance tied together with creation and the fall that is incompatible with evolutionary theory, and the fact that so many try to resort to changing the very genre of the langue used to describe creation in Genesis to reconcile with secular theories shows that the ultimate standard for many people is not the word of God but it is the theories of fallible man.
quote:I don't think I'm doing the same thing at all. I'm using scripture to interpret scripture to come to the conclusions that I hold to (which is not done out of emotion). I'm not trying to interpret (or reinterpret) scripture with each new peer reviewed paper that comes out because I don't hold to a worldview that believes fallible man knows better than God, so my understanding starts with God's word, not man's.
you're doing the same thing. you are using a particular kind of interpretation which isn't even on solid ground nor does it match what we observe in nature/general revelation.
That said, I believe whole-heartedly that no one is neutral and that we all have presuppositions that we cling to that shape what we see in the world. Even science is impacted by this, because science is simply a tool that biased humans use to try to understand the world around us, and someone who presupposes that the Bible is not accurate will come to a different conclusion when looking at evidences than someone who presupposes the accuracy of the Bible.
quote:I agree with you in principle but not in application here. We should be able to harmonize special revelation with general revelation but my issue isn't with that, but with how we are harmonizing the two. When you take the approach that it is scripture that must be harmonized with our interpretations of observations within nature rather than our interpretations of our observations being harmonized with scripture, you open yourself up to discarding much if not all of what scripture teaches because you make the "science" the standard for truth that the Bible must conform to when there is so much in the Bible that goes well beyond what scientific pursuit can even touch upon.
oec positions do NOT do this. you are mischaracterizing them, probably because you have misplaced trust in a position for emotional reasons. there is absolutely no problem harmonzing special revelation with general revelation. none whatsoever. and trying to shoehorn a particular interpretation over and against general revelation is not proper hermeneutics, get this, even if it is proper exegesis.
2
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:21 pm to Esquire
quote:Around 6,000 years old. Could be a few thousand years older, but not millions or billions.
How old do you believe the earth is?
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:24 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
No one knows their creator until they meet them.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." -Romans 1:18-23
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Around 6,000 years old. Could be a few thousand years older, but not millions or billions.
Come on, man.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 1:39 pm to bfniii
quote:almah
There is always meaning lostquote:
totally incorrect.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 2:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Around 6,000 years old. Could be a few thousand years older, but not millions or billions.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 5:31 pm to Snazzmeister
quote:fascinating question. names that would come to mind would be barrow, tipler, lennox, mcgrath. but i don't know that any of them have. granted, i haven't read every single thing they have written.
have any Christian scholars ever tried to apply Schwarzchild’s equation to the estimated mass of the universe in relation to the creation story in Genesis?
one cosmological complication might be that the earth probably came along late in the process, well after time dilation had equalized to a significant degree. it matters since the earth is the focus of the passage.
one interpretation of the account is that it is written from an earthly perspective, not a cosmic/heavenly perspective. this would harmonize with the typical biblical practice of using the phenomenal language of their time; line of sight, no circumnavigation, unaided astronomy, etc.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:54 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:in regards to the principle in philosophy of science, it's absolutely definitive.
that article itself isn't as definitive as you are pretending
quote:not relevant. they thought the migration was one particular way and it turns out it wasn't. that absolutely can have an effect on origins theories.
They don't know for 100% surety where the Aurignacians came from
quote:i never denied this but that doesn't change that my point is correct.
There is quite a bit we don't know, but the evidence we have found continually reinforces the model we've developed here
quote:i think you know what my response to this is going to be. you should at least.
we don't have that evidence
quote:again, irrelevant. your statement should be appended with "given what we know at this time."
the African model is more robust than you are admitting
you're missing the principle
quote:at no time did i do this and honestly you're acting like i care about it specifically a lot more than i do. i'm referring to the epistemological principle and you are really stepping all over it.
Acting as though it hasn't been "tested" is to be ignorant of its development
quote:i have not proposed any such thing and don't care enough to do so
out-of-Europe model
quote:i am fully aware of the specifics you are referring to. it is you who seems like you don't understand the principles behind the specifics that i am referring to
I honestly don't think you know enough about this era to speak on it with the confidence that you seem to possess
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
almah
oh my word. here we go with the middle school level biblical criticism. where did you read about this? on the back of a cracker jack box? so how about you post your grad level hebrew word study to enlighten us on the matter.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:i'm aware of what your opinion on the matter is and it's been corrected already. scripture is NOT definitive on the matter and that fact is why plenty of brilliant, godly scholars are not yec's.
anything but a literal view of Genesis (in terms of creation) causes a lot of problems, but from a grammatical perspective as well as theologically
quote:and you've been corrected on this as well. that is NOT the method being used and you are creating a strawman by continuing to do so. you can keep referring to that but you are talking past the opposition.
What I've seen so far (that I recall) is an argument for why it's OK to make the Bible fit with what we seem to observe in nature
quote:again, only a narrow interpretation leads to the conclusion that a yec perspective is the ONLY perspective allowed by the text. that kind of thinking is not on solid hermeneutical ground. therefore, there is no need to wedge sola scriptura into this issue. there are people who aren't yec's who very much believe sola scriptura.
Please explain how it isn't supported
quote:and i fully understand that is your perspective and it is affecting your ability to be reasonable about it. you cannot possibly tell someone who has devoted their life to evangelism, worship and missions that they are going to hell because they aren't yec. that is absurd, not biblical and not Christlike. it's a westboro baptist, unscholarly kind of thing to say.
I don't believe anyone is looking at the scriptures with neutral eyes and coming to an OEC view
quote:this makes me feel like you've never studied eschatology, kenotic theory, colin humphreys' work, theories of atonement, the exodus route, ezekiel's tyre prophecy, use of hyperbolic numbers in ane civilizations, etc. all these matters have a common thread. special revelation is not irrevocably discrete and wholly separate from general revelation. special revelation is not viewed in a vacuum and interpreted over and against general revelation. that is a very narrow, facile and naive scriptural approach. even Jesus didn't do that. now that you have been introduced to a broader view, the only reason to cling to such a stance is either ignorance or emotional commitment.
We don't want the Bible to contradict what people claim is factual science
quote:there are PLENTY of orthodox, conservative, evangelical scholars who are not yec's. your statement is a huge case of smuggled in authority
the orthodox christian view of the scriptures contradicts the teachings of evolutionary origins
quote:only if you take a narrow, unnecessary view of "death" that not all scholars agree on.
In order for evolutionary theory of origins to be true, there had to be a lot of death that came into the world prior to Adam
quote:which of course does not mean he was steadfastly opposed to it as i'm sure you know. it just means he did not mention it. just like he didn't mention what specific food you should eat today.
don't leave room for the evolutionary account of origins
quote:CAN. does not NECESSARILY do so.
The belief about our origins in the scriptures can certainly impact the view of salvation that a person has
quote:continuing to repeat already refuted assertions does not make them true. no such "tie" is NECESSARY or the ONLY interpretation of the passages you have referred to.
There is significant importance tied together with creation and the fall that is incompatible with evolutionary theory
quote:and this is part of your misunderstanding. that is NOT what is happening. you are stuck in a false dilemma of "my position is literal and yours is metaphorical" which is shallow and naive. if you want to get into the weeds on yom, we can. i will direct you to every lexicon available to mankind to prove to you that yom does not ALWAYS mean a literal 24 hour period nor does it necessarily mean that in the creation account. if you believe otherwise, you are being obtuse.
changing the very genre of the langue used to describe creation in Genesis
quote:the statement you responded to explained precisely how you are.
I don't think I'm doing the same thing at all
quote:first, you aren't. you are using a convoluted process to arrive at a position that is not on solid ground as i have demonstrated multiple times. second, i'm not even primarily referring to yec, like you seem to think. i'm referring to the fact that you think oec's are going to hell because of that convoluted process. i am not opposed to yec. i am opposed to how you have twisted it into soteriology.
I'm using scripture to interpret scripture
quote:not that there's anything wrong with this, if the interpretation is on solid ground. do you know who writes the articles in jets or bar or Bibliotheca Sacra or philosophia christi, etc? conservative, evangelical scholars. probably some of the same authors you read in commentaries and whatnot.
I'm not trying to interpret (or reinterpret) scripture with each new peer reviewed paper
quote:you know how man understands the Bible right? revelation from the holy spirit. do you think you have a monopoly on this?
I don't hold to a worldview that believes fallible man knows better than God
quote:it's astonishing that you continue to think this is what is happening even though i have corrected it numerous times. my prayer for you is that the hs would convict you on this matter. you have taken an issue that scripture is not explicit on and artificially elevated it to a primary matter of soteriology. this unfortunate practice is a huge issue in the church today like arguing over the color of the carpet or choir robes or drums or a community service outreach sunday.
When you take the approach that it is scripture that must be harmonized with our interpretations of observations within nature rather than our interpretations of our observations being harmonized with scripture
mohler on adiaphora
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:42 pm to Eli Goldfinger
No; it just completely rejects God as Creator.
And therefore rejects Christ's divinity.
Too bad for Darwin. He lost.
And therefore rejects Christ's divinity.
Too bad for Darwin. He lost.
Posted on 4/7/20 at 12:07 am to auggie
Watch who you call caveman. It would suck to get knocked the frick out by a “blind” man.
Posted on 4/7/20 at 5:08 am to SantaFe
quote:
by SantaFe
Around 400,000 years ago an alien Circus ship made an emergency crash landing on Earth.We escaped from that Circus ship
and the democrats that were the freaks of the ship have never changed
Posted on 4/7/20 at 5:46 am to TigerNOLAGirl
quote:
No; it just completely rejects God as Creator.
And therefore rejects Christ's divinity.
Too bad for Darwin. He lost.
Posted on 4/7/20 at 5:59 am to bfniii
quote:
have not proposed any such thing and don't care enough to do so
Read my first post. It was specifically in reference to the out-of-Europe model.
quote:
again, irrelevant. your statement should be appended with "given what we know at this time."
you're missing the principle
You keep saying the most banal shite and acting like its profound. I never implied in my first post that this model couldn't be usurped. Find me where I said that. And my point remains correct. One fossil discovery doesn't outweigh the evidence on the other side.
quote:
not relevant. they thought the migration was one particular way and it turns out it wasn't. that absolutely can have an effect on origins theories.
This happens all the time. It has happened like three times within the last five years, from what I remember, and that's at a minimum. Acting like there aren't revisions to the model continually is to be ignorant of the process.
quote:
'm referring to the epistemological principle and you are really stepping all over it.
Which principle is that? I've never implied that the model could not be usurped. You read that into my first post for some reason.
quote:
am fully aware of the specifics you are referring to. it is you who seems like you don't understand the principles behind the specifics that i am referring to
I'm very skeptical you know the specifics at all.
This post was edited on 4/7/20 at 6:07 am
Posted on 4/7/20 at 2:37 pm to bfniii
Part 1
There are brilliant, godly scholars that disagree on a lot of things and I think this is something that should be reexamined. Those who downplay the significance of this particular issue either haven't thought through it or are aren't taking it as seriously as they should. It's not good enough to say it's not overtly an issue of salvation and then leave it at that. Our attitudes should always be to seek to rightly understand the truth that God has revealed to us.
Also, it would be helpful to actually provide correction instead of saying "you've been corrected". If I'm misunderstanding something, provide a better explanation if you're really concerned with me receiving correction. You're essentially saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that. Talk about talking past the opposition...
I also don't believe the "narrow" position I'm taking is incorrect. I believe it's narrow because it abides by the context and language of the text. To believe it's hyperbolic language, poetry, or a parable of some sort is to draw a conclusion without using the material, itself.
Hyperbolic numbers in ANE civilizations also assumes that the Bible was written just like other documents in other cultures who did not have God's special revelation given to them. This view both removes the special nature of the Bible compared to other documents and it assumes too much confidence in archeological knowledge that we possess today to rule out the relative accuracy of the numbers provided in the biblical texts.
I could go on with the other examples but my point is this: while the Bible does utilize different styles and types of literature, the text and context determine what those are. The text and context of the first few chapters of Genesis (or the book as a whole) do not lend an honest person to conclude that it was meant as anything other than historical narrative.
This isn't a matter of silence that could lead to an either/or view of Genesis. The creation days were used as the basis for the 4th commandment and Jesus used the account of the creation of man as a justification for marriage and to rebuke those who taught that divorce was something to be taken lightly.
quote:Like I said, if you take a non-literal view of what is clearly written as history, you open yourself up to a lot of theological problems.
i'm aware of what your opinion on the matter is and it's been corrected already. scripture is NOT definitive on the matter and that fact is why plenty of brilliant, godly scholars are not yec's
There are brilliant, godly scholars that disagree on a lot of things and I think this is something that should be reexamined. Those who downplay the significance of this particular issue either haven't thought through it or are aren't taking it as seriously as they should. It's not good enough to say it's not overtly an issue of salvation and then leave it at that. Our attitudes should always be to seek to rightly understand the truth that God has revealed to us.
quote:I'm saying that the Bible, when read in its entirety and without inserting our own biases based on secular, extra-biblical understanding of nature, will not lead anyone to believe what evolutionary theory proposes. In fact, much of what is taught about secular origins blatantly contradicts what scripture does say.
and you've been corrected on this as well. that is NOT the method being used and you are creating a strawman by continuing to do so. you can keep referring to that but you are talking past the opposition.
Also, it would be helpful to actually provide correction instead of saying "you've been corrected". If I'm misunderstanding something, provide a better explanation if you're really concerned with me receiving correction. You're essentially saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that. Talk about talking past the opposition...
quote:The sola scriptura issue I'm raising is that of hermeneutics. Do we use scripture to interpret scripture or do we use something else? I'm saying that using scripture to interpret scripture will not lead you to conclude that evolutionary origins are compatible with what God has revealed to us about our origins and the need for salvation and the resurrection of the dead. The only way to agree with evolutionary theory and maintain a faith in the Bible is to alter the meaning of what the Bible says or claim it's written as a different literary genre than it was. And yes, there are a lot of people who are inconsistent with their own views of scripture.
again, only a narrow interpretation leads to the conclusion that a yec perspective is the ONLY perspective allowed by the text. that kind of thinking is not on solid hermeneutical ground. therefore, there is no need to wedge sola scriptura into this issue. there are people who aren't yec's who very much believe sola scriptura.
quote:Where have I said that no one can be saved if they believe in an old-earth view of creation? I haven't. I have warned against believing evolutionary theory is compatible with scripture because it can lead to potential issues with soteriology if one were to be consistent with their positions.
and i fully understand that is your perspective and it is affecting your ability to be reasonable about it. you cannot possibly tell someone who has devoted their life to evangelism, worship and missions that they are going to hell because they aren't yec. that is absurd, not biblical and not Christlike. it's a westboro baptist, unscholarly kind of thing to say.
I also don't believe the "narrow" position I'm taking is incorrect. I believe it's narrow because it abides by the context and language of the text. To believe it's hyperbolic language, poetry, or a parable of some sort is to draw a conclusion without using the material, itself.
quote:This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are using extra-biblical material to interpret the Bible as you see fit and then lecturing me about my concern for abandoning the scriptures. Kenotic theory is dangerous in that it can lead to the denial that Jesus was fully God. It's why the doctrine of the Hypostatic union is important.
this makes me feel like you've never studied eschatology, kenotic theory, colin humphreys' work, theories of atonement, the exodus route, ezekiel's tyre prophecy, use of hyperbolic numbers in ane civilizations, etc. all these matters have a common thread. special revelation is not irrevocably discrete and wholly separate from general revelation. special revelation is not viewed in a vacuum and interpreted over and against general revelation. that is a very narrow, facile and naive scriptural approach. even Jesus didn't do that. now that you have been introduced to a broader view, the only reason to cling to such a stance is either ignorance or emotional commitment.
Hyperbolic numbers in ANE civilizations also assumes that the Bible was written just like other documents in other cultures who did not have God's special revelation given to them. This view both removes the special nature of the Bible compared to other documents and it assumes too much confidence in archeological knowledge that we possess today to rule out the relative accuracy of the numbers provided in the biblical texts.
I could go on with the other examples but my point is this: while the Bible does utilize different styles and types of literature, the text and context determine what those are. The text and context of the first few chapters of Genesis (or the book as a whole) do not lend an honest person to conclude that it was meant as anything other than historical narrative.
quote:You misunderstand. I am not saying that modern scholars or people today who consider themselves aligned with Christian orthodoxy are only in the YEC camp. I'm saying that the normative view throughout all of Church history was aligned with more or less a literal view of Genesis in terms of creation and that even those early Church fathers who did not know exactly what was meant could not envision the concept of millions or billions of years as the OEC's attempt to contend with to reconcile their beliefs with that of evolutionary theory. In that sense, the "orthodox"--or generally accepted belief--throughout history aligns with a younger earth than an older one. There wasn't any reason to assume otherwise, which was my point, as the Bible didn't lend credence to anything but a YEC view from a plain reading and there was no evolutionary theory of origins to shadow the interpretation of the text.
there are PLENTY of orthodox, conservative, evangelical scholars who are not yec's. your statement is a huge case of smuggled in authority
quote:Again, I'm taking the view of death that the Bible provides within context. The context of 1 Corinthians 15 that you brought up yourself is physical death, because it's talking about physical resurrection after death.
only if you take a narrow, unnecessary view of "death" that not all scholars agree on.
quote:So.. Christ, while teaching the Genesis account of creation as history, wasn't opposed to the modern view of evolutionary origins that is diametrically opposed to the view He taught as history? Am I understanding you correctly here?
which of course does not mean he was steadfastly opposed to it as i'm sure you know. it just means he did not mention it. just like he didn't mention what specific food you should eat today.
This isn't a matter of silence that could lead to an either/or view of Genesis. The creation days were used as the basis for the 4th commandment and Jesus used the account of the creation of man as a justification for marriage and to rebuke those who taught that divorce was something to be taken lightly.
quote:That's very true and I haven't yet said that those who hold to a OEC view cannot be saved. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part that I hope to have resolved.
CAN. does not NECESSARILY do so.
Posted on 4/7/20 at 2:37 pm to bfniii
Part 2
BTW, you're quick with the pejoratives. Why are you using such charged language in this discussion?
I'm not saying everyone who believes a YEC or OEC view understands the logical conclusions of their positions, nor am I saying that every person that holds to a particular view accepts those conclusions even if they've thought about them. Humans are sinners with fallen intellects and are capable of errors everywhere. All I'm saying is that I believe the YEC view to be compatible with the plain reading of the text (within its context) and that going with an alternative viewpoint based on something outside of scripture is a slippery slope that can lead to all sorts of errors or heresies, including the full rejection of the gospel message.
In that light, when you attempt to change the meaning of the Bible to fit the theories of fallible men, you are not standing on solid ground. Even the best-meaning, conservative Christians are capable of error, which is why sola scriptura was one of the battle cries of the Reformation. The reformers didn't think the doctrines of men were sufficient to contradict the word of God, and that only the scriptures had the authority to be a rule of faith and life for the Christian.
No, I don't have a monopoly on the Spirit but my understanding is guided by the word of God first and foremost. There have been many people throughout history who have led people astray with "revelation" from "God" that did not conform to what scripture teaches. It's precisely why I'm using scripture to interpret scripture. It's the only solid ground to stand on.
Thank you for the link (it was a good read), but I'm glad that we've finally found the issue here: you didn't understand what I was saying. That's likely an error on my part and I'll take responsibility for the lack of clarity. With that said, hopefully my responses here have set your mind at east that I'm not saying that any view other than a YEC position will send a person to hell. And with that, I hope you settle down on the charged rhetoric. I don't seek division, especially with other brothers and sisters in Christ (I assume you are one). I just want to defend the truth of God's word and provide an apologetic for the hope that is within me.
quote:I've already shown that the context of those passages does not naturally allow for any other view. This has been my point from the beginning: you cannot come to an OEC view just from the texts alone. You can only re-interpret the texts to attempt to support an OEC view if you already assume that view before reading the text, which is why I brought up the topic of sola scriptura.
continuing to repeat already refuted assertions does not make them true. no such "tie" is NECESSARY or the ONLY interpretation of the passages you have referred to.
quote:You're right about yom, but that's why other words are used within the context to let us know what's going on, which brings us back to my point: you have to use context to understand meaning. "Evening", "morning", "first" (day), "second" (day), etc. all come together to provide context for what "day" means.
and this is part of your misunderstanding. that is NOT what is happening. you are stuck in a false dilemma of "my position is literal and yours is metaphorical" which is shallow and naive. if you want to get into the weeds on yom, we can. i will direct you to every lexicon available to mankind to prove to you that yom does not ALWAYS mean a literal 24 hour period nor does it necessarily mean that in the creation account. if you believe otherwise, you are being obtuse.
BTW, you're quick with the pejoratives. Why are you using such charged language in this discussion?
quote:I don't think I am. I'm using the scriptures to interpret scriptures. So far you're the one relying on everything else (outside sources) to color your understanding of scripture, as if scripture wasn't the final authority.
the statement you responded to explained precisely how you are.
quote:Again I think we hit on the crux of the issue. You think that I'm saying OEC's are going to hell. I don't think that at all, at least not because of that issue. I'm simply saying that your view of creation and of the Bible can lead someone to question both the accuracy and the authority of scripture as well as contradict certain doctrines about death, resurrection, and even who Christ died for, when taken to their logical conclusions.
first, you aren't. you are using a convoluted process to arrive at a position that is not on solid ground as i have demonstrated multiple times. second, i'm not even primarily referring to yec, like you seem to think. i'm referring to the fact that you think oec's are going to hell because of that convoluted process. i am not opposed to yec. i am opposed to how you have twisted it into soteriology.
I'm not saying everyone who believes a YEC or OEC view understands the logical conclusions of their positions, nor am I saying that every person that holds to a particular view accepts those conclusions even if they've thought about them. Humans are sinners with fallen intellects and are capable of errors everywhere. All I'm saying is that I believe the YEC view to be compatible with the plain reading of the text (within its context) and that going with an alternative viewpoint based on something outside of scripture is a slippery slope that can lead to all sorts of errors or heresies, including the full rejection of the gospel message.
quote:"Solid ground" is what is at issue here, it seems. I take the position that the Bible is God's special revelation to humanity; it's the very word of God, and there is no more solid of a ground to stand on than that.
not that there's anything wrong with this, if the interpretation is on solid ground. do you know who writes the articles in jets or bar or Bibliotheca Sacra or philosophia christi, etc? conservative, evangelical scholars. probably some of the same authors you read in commentaries and whatnot
In that light, when you attempt to change the meaning of the Bible to fit the theories of fallible men, you are not standing on solid ground. Even the best-meaning, conservative Christians are capable of error, which is why sola scriptura was one of the battle cries of the Reformation. The reformers didn't think the doctrines of men were sufficient to contradict the word of God, and that only the scriptures had the authority to be a rule of faith and life for the Christian.
quote:I'd say it's enlightenment by the Spirit, but that's not worth quibbling about.
you know how man understands the Bible right? revelation from the holy spirit. do you think you have a monopoly on this?
No, I don't have a monopoly on the Spirit but my understanding is guided by the word of God first and foremost. There have been many people throughout history who have led people astray with "revelation" from "God" that did not conform to what scripture teaches. It's precisely why I'm using scripture to interpret scripture. It's the only solid ground to stand on.
quote:Why is it astonishing to think that the scriptures are being interpreted by outside influences on this matter? Have you shown how a person would reach the same OEC conclusions from the scripture alone without such outside influences? I've debated, argued, and discussed a lot of issues with a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds over the years and one common theme I've noticed with those that hold to an OEC view is that they are heavily influenced by a desire to reconcile their belief in God and/or the Bible with the modern scientific view of origins. I don't think I've encountered a person yet who has simply read the scriptures and come to those conclusions from the text alone.
it's astonishing that you continue to think this is what is happening even though i have corrected it numerous times. my prayer for you is that the hs would convict you on this matter. you have taken an issue that scripture is not explicit on and artificially elevated it to a primary matter of soteriology. this unfortunate practice is a huge issue in the church today like arguing over the color of the carpet or choir robes or drums or a community service outreach sunday.
mohler on adiaphora
Thank you for the link (it was a good read), but I'm glad that we've finally found the issue here: you didn't understand what I was saying. That's likely an error on my part and I'll take responsibility for the lack of clarity. With that said, hopefully my responses here have set your mind at east that I'm not saying that any view other than a YEC position will send a person to hell. And with that, I hope you settle down on the charged rhetoric. I don't seek division, especially with other brothers and sisters in Christ (I assume you are one). I just want to defend the truth of God's word and provide an apologetic for the hope that is within me.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 6:08 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:tell me what i said that's not factual
You keep saying the most banal shite and acting like its profound
quote:it CAN. scientists went back and forth on archaeopteryx. i never said that it does but it does illustrate an important principle regarding the status of theories which for some reason seems to be upsetting your emotional commitment to the out of africa model
One fossil discovery doesn't outweigh the evidence on the other side
quote:i read it from your visceral and emotional defense of the theory. like you're being attacked personally by the philosophy of science
You read that into my first post for some reason.
quote:you've agreed with me that the point i'm making is right. theories are just theories no matter how much "evidence" there is. ever heard of phlogiston? luminiferous aether? caloric?
I'm very skeptical you know the specifics at all
Posted on 4/9/20 at 6:12 pm to FooManChoo
The last few pages of this thread, make my stomach turn.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 6:14 pm to ThinePreparedAni
I did not evolve from an ape
Deer did not "stretch their necks to reach the higher leaves and thus evolve into giraffes"
A "pre big bang" clump of microscopic something did not pop into existence from nothing, and then blow up
I'm not 10,000 years old, nor am I a million years old, so I don't know how old the universe is, and neither does some fricking egghead atheist who depends on politicos for federal grants
Deer did not "stretch their necks to reach the higher leaves and thus evolve into giraffes"
A "pre big bang" clump of microscopic something did not pop into existence from nothing, and then blow up
I'm not 10,000 years old, nor am I a million years old, so I don't know how old the universe is, and neither does some fricking egghead atheist who depends on politicos for federal grants
This post was edited on 4/9/20 at 6:17 pm
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News