Featured Those who concede errors in the Scriptures n order to remove conflict with science

Maybe so, but you don't like to be questioned, either.

 

Many professors do take the young earth theory, if from reading the news many have lost their jobs over it. If I recall the Scopes Trial history correctly, John Scopes wanted to challenge the Butler law and teach the theory of evolution a long side of the creation theory which was forbidden by the Butler law in Tn. at the time.
Is it a narrow view that in most if nor all states it is against the law to teach creation theory as a science.
I know we will disagree on this, so be it. I've met many creation scientists over the years and I believe them. However I will admit that my education was in history and theology not science.
I hope you will agree with me that vanilla ice cream is the best or I'll have to worry about you.

 

Your answer in post #8 was confusing: You responded to a quote of Galileo: “It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.

Did you mean that theologians “almost never” are restrained by science?
Or did you mean that theologians “almost never” feel bound to answer by reason and experiment?


I apologize if I’ve misinterpreted your position on this issue but the general demeanor of the thread here is that in general “science” should not be trusted but our interpretation of Scripture can be trusted without question.

That’s like comparing apples and aardvarks.

To be clear,

• an theological interpretation is based upon God’s revelation presented in Scripture.
  
• a scientific theory is an interpretation based upon God’s revelation presented in his creation.

The opening post presented a quote by a professor of Biblical interpretation.
The quote is certainly out of context so we can't be sure exactly what the professor is speaking about and must draw our own conclusions. He may certainly be dealing with historical facts that are questioned by secular historians rather our responses that concern the earth’s position in the solar system and the age of the earth (but the time frame of the quote brings to mind the conflict between materialistic evolutionism and theistic creationism.

In either case the author of the quote fails to recognize that science can make useful contributions to our understanding of scripture.

Yeah, none of us like to be questioned, but that’s the way we learn.

Rob

 

Being Dogmatic....

Let me jump to Rev's defense here! There is nothing wrong with taking a "dogmatic" position on anything Biblical when you get to the position where you are sure you are correct and true to God and His Word. But.....(and it is a big "but") don't plan on being popular! Also...it is required that we practice some level of humility and remain humble...not proud. Very difficult. Oh yeah...one other thing Rev....you might want to reconsider the use of the title "Rev"(short for "reverend" I'm sure). The ONLY use of the word "reverend" in scripture is found in Psalm 111:9 and is attributed to God Himself and His Holiness. I actually agree with the "Church of Christ" boys on that one. I have "fussed" with my own Pastor about that one as well. You might want to find a more appropriate "handle" brother.....like "Bro.Mitchell" or something!:thumbs: On the rest of the stuff about YEC and the global warming nuts let me just say....AMEN!!! As Bro.Ken Ham and others who are more knowledgable on the subject say...the issue is the authority of the scriptures beginning in Genesis. If ANY of it can be questioned or discredited by science (so-called) then NONE of it has any true or real authority. OE, millions of years, evolutionary theory is nothing more or less than an attack on the authority of God's Holy Bible. It is sad that many in the church think more highly of their "science" teachers than they do their Bible teachers. The kids are leaving the churches in droves these days because they have bitten the hook that public education has dangled in front of them. The church has for years characterized the Biblical accounts of history as fanciful "stories" instead of actual history and the kids don't see the authority of the Bible. There is much more I could say but I'll stop there.

Bro.Greg

 

No Problem...

I have no personal issue with you on that....was just saying. I went through and internet name "change" after I got back into fellowship with the Lord after many years away. It took some time for me to transition from one on-line "identity" to one that more accurately reflected my current life and convictions. I'm even sure I lost some "friends" when I did it.
For the record....brother....I enjoy reading your comments.

Bro.Greg

 

It is extraordinarily strange that a professor of interpretation would fail to recognize that different interpretations of Scripture don’t represent error and are not an affront to the inspiration of scripture.

If his charge of error in Scripture is merely a different interpretation his argument falls apart.

If the “peace of … submission” is a reconciliation of God’s full and complete revelation in Scripture and creation – this would be a submission to truth IMO.



I run a cardiology lab. It is a secular endeavor.

There are scientifically established limits to the reliability of a stress test which is estimated at between 65 to 95% accurate.

Recognizing the limitations, cardiologists still rely upon stress tests to discern the probability of coronary artery disease.

Science is based upon probability and is rarely provides a full and complete understanding.

You charge that “The secular science of today in general cannot be trusted.”
That’s a bizarre statement!

You rely daily upon the sciences to live the life you do.
It's like a vegetarian that wearing a leather belt.

'Every man must then select ad libitum what portions of the science’s teachings he will accept as true.’

Asking questions and skepticism was a virtue among the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

A wise man learns when to trust and when not to trust information.

We can fully trust Scripture and still recognize that our understanding is limited and incomplete.

Cute ...and yet grace is so broad and God is grand,

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Romans 11:33

Rob

 

Just because Ken Ham says something doesn't make it right.

Let's consider this, then, for the very literal fundamentalists:

Elijah did not LITERALLY come before the Messiah.

John the Baptist came in the SPIRIT of Elijah, serving as the forerunner.

By the logic of the 6/24 is the only thing we can consider crowd, we are still waiting for the first coming of the Messiah.

 

Kudos Rob. :applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

Baloney. The standard is the Bible. Science is the subject that has to conform. Your logic is totally backwards. You have no evidence whatsoever that the six days of Creation were not 24 hour days. All you can do is speculate based on measuring sticks that man created. If you graduated from seminary, I seriously doubt you have an in depth knowledge of the space-time theories.

 

Some Scripture is subject to different interpretation, others are not. For example: There are a number of different interpretations regarding the return of Jesus Christ. I believe my interpretation is correct and reject all others. That being said differing interpretations of the Scripture concerning the return do not compromise the integrity of Scripture.

There are many who reject the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ because science would say this is an impossibility, or at least was at that time in history. However, rejecting the Virgin Birth not only compromises the integrity of Scripture but disputes both the Deity of Jesus Christ and also the absence of the sin nature in Jesus Christ.

The insistence of some that the theory of biological evolution is correct disputes the assertion that God created life in all its forms. Belief in universal evolution, or evolution of all things, contradicts the teaching of Scripture regarding creation ex nihilo. Furthermore, evolution requires that order arises from disorder which contradicts the most universal law of Science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Some argue that whether God created all that exists in six days or 13-14 billion years is irrelevant. I believe the Bible is clear that God created all that exists in six 24 hour days. This assertion is not just made in Genesis but also in Exodus 20:11.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


There is no justification for interpreting this passage to mean anything other than six 24 hour days. I realize that legitimate questions have been raised about starlight, distance, and time but there have been explanations proposed which may provide an explanation such as time dilation. I would also note that Scripture tells us that the first command of God in His creative act was:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Old Testament existed in written form at the time of Jesus Christ. He quoted from all books of the Old Testament. Questioning the truth of Old Testament Scripture questions the character of Jesus Christ. it is particularly worth noting that Jesus Christ quotes from the 2nd chapter of Genesis regarding marriage, establishing Adam and Eve as literal persons, husband and wife!

 

I would like to commend to all the OP in the thread: You Were Fearfully and Wonderfully Made!

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Yes we were fearfully and wonderfully made.

But the point is one does not have to be YEC to take the Bible literally and take creation literally.

NOWHERE--NOWHERE are the length of the days listed. Nor are we told how long Adam and Eve lived pre-fall in the garden.

Now, personally, I'm old earth. I lean toward gap theory because of other parts of the Bible, but I know I could be wrong.

I'm not too day/age. I know there is evidence FROM THE BIBLE that it is possible, so I'm not going to denigrate those that hold to it.

My personal belief might be summed up this way: the earth is very old, and we don't know the half of its history. God created the entire universe by special creation, but I don't have the date and time given to me. He is so powerful I truly doubt He need 24 hours to accomplish what he accomplished those first six "days." Evening and morning COULD mean it was around 24 hrs, but doesn't have to mean that. It could also simply denote beginning and ending. Six finite creative acts.

My personal belief is that YEC proponents get caught up in it as they try to fight the concept of evolution and assume ALL old earther's do so in order to accept evolution. Tain't so.

Many of us simply accept Genesis, set no date or time frame, and are not afraid to be told the earth is very old. Ok, so maybe it is. And maybe someday scientists will find evidence of mankind on this earth for billions of years. Who knows?

It isn't important WHEN God created things. At all.

It is of some importance, but not huge importance, HOW God created things.

It is of great importance THAT God created all.

Many in the oil field have studied geology. Used to be most of those were Christians in our neck of the woods. Now most unsaved one's won't even consider Christ because they've been told to be saved they have to accept YEC.

But I tell you this: get one of them to lay that aside and they see God every day in their work and readily come to Him. Later on some stay day/age, some are OE creationists, and some become YEC.

We dare not make this a stumbling block.

 

You are giving the old Earth theory credit without evidence. In the first place, at the point of Creation, we are not even certain that time existed. You are assuming that the Creation took place in our present deminsion of time and space.

Reverend Mitchell has made several excellent posts on why our method of dating the age of matter is flawed. The Bible says the Lord created the universe in six days. If there is a time element involved, why is it so hard to accept a 24 hour standard as much as any other?

God is the Creator. He made the rules. His Word gives us an account of Creation. That is the golden standard. If man with his flawed and finite mind has discovered any of God's secrets, it is only because He allowed it. Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous for us to tell the Creator that His Word must agree with the latest findings of one of our grand experiments or conclusions about a theory?

 

Well said S/N. Also it seems to me that the passage from Exodus clearly shows that the days of the Genesis account of Creation were the same as the days of the Exodus, 24 hours.

Exodus 20:11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.