Inconsistency of literalists vs science

Wayne - unfortunately all science that reaches out beyond what we can demonstrate in the lab seeks to fit the data to a larger model that must be "imagined". That means that our world views DO affect the way we interpret the meaning of the data we find.

Atheist evolutionists are quick to point out that they see evolutionism as the perfect non-God "come back" to the Creation ACCOUNT that God gave in His Word.

Christian evolutionists abandon critical thinking and objectivity just "enough" to try to marry the atheists "nervana" to the Gospel. And obviously both Christians and atheists find fault with that compromised position.

The "religion of evolutionism" simply does not allow for describing "Evolution" in the following terms "For in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the EARTH the SEA and ALL that is in them".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm convinced

 

Sir: Einstein, Hubble, Sagan, Hawking, Gamow, and their fellows were not fools. Is this intended to be a serious statement?

I will believe the evidence and I will allow the evidence to influence how I interpret the Bible.

Do you allow the evidence to influence you in how you interpret the Bible?

NEWS FLASH - scientist have not answered all the mysteries of the universe.

It is part of my worship experience to marvel at His creation.

How much good did it do for Christianity when Gallileo was tried and convicted of teaching things against the church? How much good did it do for Christianity when Martin Luther railed against the teachings of the upstart Copernicus?

Why are you so sure you are not repeating that history, in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence?

Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." (NASV)

I ask you sincerely, don't cut yourself out of the knowledge the Lord has made available in these latter days!

 

Sir: Einstein, Hubble, Sagan, Hawking, Gamow, and their fellows were not fools. Is this intended to be a serious statement?

I will believe the evidence and I will allow the evidence to influence how I interpret the Bible.

Do you allow the evidence to influence you in how you interpret the Bible?

NEWS FLASH - scientist have not answered all the mysteries of the universe.

It is part of my worship experience to marvel at His creation.

How much good did it do for Christianity when Gallileo was tried and convicted of teaching things against the church? How much good did it do for Christianity when Martin Luther railed against the teachings of the upstart Copernicus?

Why are you so sure you are not repeating that history, in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence?

Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." (NASV)

I ask you sincerely, don't cut yourself out of the knowledge the Lord has made available in these latter days! </font>[/QUOTE]Say what you want to loud-mouth, but you are still just a fool parading around in Christian garb!

 

All this has to do is with people who feel that they have eternal security through their WORKS and keeping the LAW. They were so wrapped up in their own rules and regulations they excluded GOD.
This has nothing to do with literal interpretations of the Word of GOD. In fact, I see that this actually applies to evolutionists who have all but destroyed scientific investigation and reasoning by refusing to acknowledging the CREATOR.

 

Even evolutionists admit that the failed "stories" about horse evolution were erroneous - essentially contrived to "fit" the many-storied-myths of evolutionism.

Abiogenesis so necessary to evolutionism - has been shown to be impossible.

Supposed transitionals between Birds and reptiles are shown to be TRUE BIRDS.

The MASSIVE decrease in entroyp so necessary in the local system for evolution from molecule-to-brain mythology is SEEN to be false by the confesssion of evolutionists themselves Isaac Asimov for example.

Point after point is raised showing that EVEN atheist evolutionists (those who have NO CHOICE but to cling to the godless model called evolutionism) - even they will confess some of the less-falttering facts of TRUE science as it opposes the myths and "Stories" of evolutionism.

Yet you will find Christian evolutionists clinging to the "bad science" yes even the "junk science" of the myths of evolutionism "anyway".

But then we point out the horrible damage this does to the Bible and the Gospel - and "still" they cling to myth over scripture and even myth over "good science".

What else can be said?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If there is a group of people who insist that there must be a rule of always interpreting the Bible literally even when science seems to indicate the truth is something else - and meanwhile, on another subject in the Bible, they allow themselves to step away from the literal teaching of the bible, in the light of scientific developments . . . then those people are guilty of doing what Jesus said here, laying the burden of unthinking literalistic interpretation on others while declining to take that burden on for themselves.

Does the description not fit you? Please explain why not!

If the opponents of evolution put forth inadequate, misleading arguments against evolution, then they are guilty of not entering into knowledge and hindering others who would be gaining knowledge.

Are you aware of the strength of the evidence in favor of evolution and the age of the earth?

 

Evolutionists "admit" that, with more fossil evidence, the more complicated details of horse evolution have come into view, and the earlier picture was valid, as an outline is a valid view of more detailed narrative.

Nobody knows how life could begin naturally, in complete detail, at this time. That is not the same as having shown it to be impossible. Therefore, I have to ask you - What are you talking about here?

So there was once an almost bird and then there was a barely bird. This is, however, not an argument against evolution!

Isacc Asimov himself always said entropy was not any barrier to evolution. This is because (a) He knew less than BobRyan about entropy and was wrong or (b) because he knew more than BobRyan about entropy and it is not a problem.

Let the impartial reader decide which is more likely to be true.

As misunderstood by BobRyan, however, not as they intended to be understood.

And folks like BobRyan keep opposing the scientific findings of common descent of all life and the great age of the universe in spite of the damage it does to the gospel by asking people with scientific knowledge to deny what they already know to be true in order to be saved.

And its not as any of them - like BobRyan, for example, don't go right ahead and deny the literal teaching of the bible about how the sun goes up in the daytime and down in the night to its own place of habitation to come back out the next day. Just because science has taught them the literal teaching isn't true.

You know what the difference is? The evidence isn't yet clear to them. Partly because the educational system hasn't been very good at teaching science. Partly because they've all agreed to avoid the evidence as a matter of religious duty.

 

Paul,

take it easy Some people won't get it no matter what.

 

Evolutionists continually co-opt science "as if" they actually rely on it.

As the horse "story" shows - they are relying on everything BUT science.

This leaves it for the Bible believing Christians to embrace BOTH true science and the Word of God - while others cling simply to "junk science" that is debunked even by atheist evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul of Eugene, it is sad that you put more faith in evolution than in God. It is evident looking at your posts that when science is diametrically opposed to the Word of God, you choose science.

Josh 24:15-16
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
(KJV)

 

Terry, what do you do about the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night? This is the teaching of science. Do you accept it or do you go with the literal expression of the Bible?

 

I will let you and your ilk question every syllable of every verse of the Bible. I accept that God knows exactly what He is doing and will continue to trust him.

If I could explain every detail of what God said, I would not need faith. What you are doing is not new, for hundreds of years archaeologist have questioned scores of things about certain cities or areas and claimed that they did not exist, only to later find that they were the ones who were wrong. I trust that when all the facts are known, we will see that God knows exactly what he was saying in His Word.

 

If there is a group of people who insist that there must be a rule of always interpreting the Bible literally even when science seems to indicate the truth is something else - and meanwhile, on another subject in the Bible, they allow themselves to step away from the literal teaching of the bible, in the light of scientific developments . . . then those people are guilty of doing what Jesus said here, laying the burden of unthinking literalistic interpretation on others while declining to take that burden on for themselves.

Does the description not fit you? Please explain why not!

If the opponents of evolution put forth inadequate, misleading arguments against evolution, then they are guilty of not entering into knowledge and hindering others who would be gaining knowledge.

Are you aware of the strength of the evidence in favor of evolution and the age of the earth? </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is the key to the interpretation of the Bible. It isn't a matter of what I think or you think. We know that portions of the Bible are poetry. We know that portions of the Bible are prophetic. We also know that portions of the Bible are historic. I am aware that the reason the Bible exists is solely because God authored it. I am aware that to understand the Bible fully one must have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I also know that one must consider the audience when events and communications were originally delievered.

All this said, I know that the Bible gives me enough evidence to consider that what we investigate has be currupted first by the FALL of man, next by the FLOOD, and finally by the passage of time. It is sort of like considering the solar particules after they've been smashed in Utah. There is a big problem----but in that case the event was seen. We need to depend on GOD. That is clearly what the Bible teaches. If I cannot trust my Bible------what can I trust...

 

Paul,

take it easy Some people won't get it no matter what. </font>[/QUOTE]Its like watching glaciers move. Nothing seems to be happening. But sometimes - a whole iceberg falls off.

 

I take it from your response that you sense the tension between accepting the rotation of the earth and accepting the literal interpretation of the words of the Bible about the Sun moving across the sky.

Because you waffle and don't address my question directly, that is all I can do, but please! feel free to correct my understanding of your view!

Meanwhile - I also see you are willing to live with that tension in the faith that God has a way out for both his word and the facts of science, even if you don't see it.

OK I can accept that. My question to you now is, why don't you let others live with that same tension in accepting the findings of science about evolution and the age of the earth, without accusing them of denying God?

Why not be fair and let others do what you already do in relation to the rotation of the earth?

 

Paul of Eugene:

Does the Sun move across the sky or does the sky move across the sun?

It always seems to be a war of words with you. I hate to suggest that the serpent in the garden (located eastward in Eden where a river went out from that garden that parted into four heads, the first river is Pison, the second Gihon, the third Hiddekel, and the third river is Euphrates), seems to have done the same thing...

"Yea, hath GOD said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Ye shall not surely die: for GOD doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

Because by accepting evolution, a person is denying the Bible and implying that my Lord Jesus Christ evolved from a lower life form. This is something I cannot, nor will not do.

You are free to believe whatever you want, just as a person if free to deny God's offer of grace and thereby spend eternity in hell.

 

Terry Herrington said, "If I could explain every detail of what God said, I would not need faith."

Very true! It still seems to me that many Christians insist on being able to explain every objective facet of creation as fitting neatly into the literal 6 days.

Genesis 1 was obviously not meant to be a science text - or it would have been written differently. Knowing what we do about near eastern epic there is good reason for us to believe that Genesis 1 makes no attempt at all to describe the literal sequence of creation. That being said we still can't be sure.

Yet many are still completely sure that Genesis 1 must be 100% literal. Do we then surmise that Genesis 1 was written only for 21st century American Christians - or was it actually written by Moses for the nation of Israel (in which case a literal account would have been somewhat strange)?

 

You are asked to have faith, but you are not asked to have BLIND FAITH.

There is a very good article on whether or not Genesis should be taken literally on AiG's website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp

In this article, the author discusses the different content types in scripture - Poetry, Parables, Prophecy, Letters, Biography, Autobiography/testimony, and Authentic historical facts. It discusses each of these and compares Genesis to the other books of these styles to see where it fits in.

Here is the conclusion it draws:

The next question I sometimes pose to people is even if it isn't literal... if it were poetic for example (which it isn't, btw)... it would still have to stand for something real. It still gives a sequence and order of events that ... even if not literal, still must be followed. That sequence still makes the general theories of humanists today unrealistic or impossible.

For example it says that plant life came before the Sun in our solar system. Even if the days were not literal days, you still have the first life on earth forming in the abcence of our sun. If that is not literal... what literal fact does the non-literal language stand for?

You see... we always hear people saying "genesis isn't literal" and then they make the GIGANTIC leap to say that evolution and uniformitarianistic views are true. But all admit that the Bible doesn't support those views in any way... so even IF Genesis were not literal... it still must be non-literally describing something actual. I have yet to see someone who claims Genesis is not literal actually give a plausible explaination or description of a theory that still agrees with the criteria of Genesis in a non-literal form. As I said... typically, they will say "Genesis is not literal, therefore we will dismiss it entirely and believe evolution". If you truely believed Genesis was not literal, you would give us theories based on a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. But that is not what happens... we get the 'party-line' evolutionary tale in place of a non-literal exegesis of scripture.

Again... there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support a straight forward literal interpretation of Genesis.