StanJ53
New member
That is NOT true, according to the following poll.
http://glynch1.hubpages.com/hub/Gen...he-Earth-in-six-literal-twenty-four-hour-days
Maybe you can supply some support for your fallacious assertion?
toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
That is NOT true, according to the following poll.
http://glynch1.hubpages.com/hub/Gen...he-Earth-in-six-literal-twenty-four-hour-days
Maybe you can supply some support for your fallacious assertion?
noguru
Well-known member
The options on the first question are too limited. I would not choose any of thoise. But with only those options I would chose #1 for that question.
Did you read through the responses on this thread?
One has to be very careful of drawing hasty conclusions based on polls like that.
Do you think such a poll is a good representation of the possibilities?
From wiki
Hands on, like the engine I have on my workbench.
Yes. An actual place where Adam and Eve dwelt in the presence of God.
I'll say no because I can't imagine what empirical evidence there would be for it.
Yes
:thumb:
btw - I don't use strategies here, at least not consciously. I consider this to be a conversation more than a debate, an opportunity to share beliefs and methods of believing.
noguru
Well-known member
Well perhaps you and I have different ideas of his methodology then. Not that I don't think God is hands on. But I just don't think of his work as similar to that which gets done on your workbench.
An actual place in the presence of God would fit into my perspective as well.
I agree with you on that as well. So I am not sure how we could gauge whether your understanding of this is any more accurate than my understanding.
And again, there is no evidence that this is the case. And scripture is not specific that this had to be the case.
That's good to know. I will keep that in mind for future dialogue with you. Thanks for the information. I guess I have gotten rather jaded by many here whose strategy is to try and stump those who might see things differently.
Your post where you originally mocked me in this thread for your false understanding that I thought "planets fall to earth" lended itself to such a strategy.
As it turns out, I share this same purpose here. I don't think debates here actually become compelling evidence for those who might see things differently. But I certainly like to give food for thought to others, as well as get food for thought from others.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Science is not neutral. With very few exceptions, scientists proceed from the assumption God does not exist and is upholding the universe at all moments. These non-believing presuppositions do not yield the neutrality you seem to hold in high regard.
For that matter, neutral ground is not what we as believers are to be seeking in any endeavor. Rather we must proceed from the position that the triune God exists and is the source of all truth we seek. [FONT="]For me, when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including Scriptural assertions/affirmations of doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.[/FONT]
Biblicism and historicism are two views we as believers must not yield to secularism. The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is biblical (Biblicism).The interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition (Historicism). [FONT="]Moreover, if we limit the notion of inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, what then of biblical history? Is the historical substratum of the Bible negotiable? Is inerrancy limited to only those portions of the biblical narrative that have a clear bearing on faith? We know that the Bible is not an ordinary history book but a book of redemptive history. But is it not also a book of redemptive history? If we exclude the realm of history from the category of inspiration or inerrancy either in whole or in part, do we not inevitably lose the messages God intended to give us? [/FONT]
When we make biblicism and historicism polar opposites it inevitably leads to a distortion in method as one then gains the priority over the other. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is not understood equally by the believer and the unbeliever. In fact the evolutionist understands the passage quite well--and rejects it.
[FONT="]God spoke through the authors and He is not the God of confusion. God spoke phenomenologically when describing things, that is, the way they appear to human observers. So we find passages stating that the sun rises, which we know from science that it does not "rise" but appears to us to do so.[/FONT][FONT="] We admit the Bible is not a scientific book, nor does the the Bible contain all truths, but the Scriptures, God’s word in human language, authored by the God of all truth, do not impart misinformation when touching on scientific matters. [/FONT] [FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]As the Author, God is not an author of confusion, thus where we encounter what we consider to be contradictions or errors, we cannot claim these to be genuine and must continue to diligently seek to resolve, including via the analogy of faith, what we think are contradictions or errors.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I believe the Holy Spirit, the objective Scripture interpreter, can lead us to the meaning of any passage of Scripture by means of study of the Scripture as a whole. Indeed, I view Scripture as an organic whole, the very inscripturated Word of God of a single revelation of God in Jesus Christ, with every aspect of Scripture illuminating every other part, and any part shedding light on the whole. [/FONT]
[FONT="]In short, I simply do not agree with those who will tell me of all the literary, rabbinic, historical, archeological, etc., information which I must need if I am to see what, say, Mark or Luke means in their writings. Now I am not discounting knowledge of such topics, but I remain cautious of these approaches for they not too infrequently end in error at best, or heresy at worst. Of course we are to renew our minds and seek instruction and consult with those that have come before us. But when we start to elevate extra-bibical materials over the biblical text we have created a new authority. We may claim that we are not doing this, but one need only review this thread and discussions elsewhere on the matter of evolution to see how secular views are used to hold the believer up to ridicule.[/FONT]
[FONT="]AMR
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Alate_One
Well-known member
Why then was there such a controversy when science showed the geocentric model to be incorrect? This was not only in the catholic church but in protestantism as well.
| There are a number of passages from the Psalms that were often discussed during the astronomical revolution. The first example is Psalm 93:1b, which Calvin translated as "he hath also established the world, it shall not be moved."[23] Calvin's exegesis clearly demonstrates that he believed in the Ptolemaic system of astronomy. He interpreted this passage as evidence both of the Creator's power over and care for the world. He writes: The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion. ... By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? |
source
I would not say the passages in question, "teach" geocentrism, but they do assume it.
StanJ53
New member
What it did, was address the unsupported assertion made by GCT. He can feel free to support his assertion or not.
As far as your input, based on Wikipedia info, 78% of the U.S. is Christian, based on a 2008 Gallup poll. That is NOT an accurate figure based on how Gallup phrased the question. In any event, the Wiki article about Bible literalness says 30% of U.S. adults. Not a U.S. adults who say they are Christian. Nor does it mention any other question or answers.
30% of U.S. adults would be 99 million. 78% claiming to be Christian, would be 257.4 million. From those percentages, 38.4% agree with the literalness of the Bible. From those figures, it appears YEC is NOT a majority belief.
However not knowing all the factors involved, nor the accuracy of the figures, it is not sound to say the least.
Now according to the following link, a Gallup poll in June 2012 shows 46% of Americans believe in the YEC scenario.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx
My experience, from 42 years of being a Bible believing Christian, is that the majority of actual Bible believing Christians, support YEC.
noguru
Well-known member
I'm not excluding the realm of history. Literary device does not (when science is absent) negate the infalliblilty of the message. Though one must be honest and conclude that we as humans are just as prone to error in determining the nature of text in regard to literary device, as we could be with our view of science. One man's view (or even a group of men's views) of scripture does not escape critical analysis simply on their say so. I aksed you in another post to explain how such literary device 6 days being allusion and the following evening/day repetition as amplification does anything to undermine the veracity of the text. I would welcome your opinion on this matter. And though I may not agree, I will at least give your words a thorough consideration.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Science is and must be neutral with regard to the existence and actions of God. You confuse the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism.
| Science and Methodological naturalism | |
Not necessarily. I think you're assuming much about the "evolutionist". Many of those that accept evolution do so with the understanding that God created the heavens and the earth as well as everything else through processes we can study and understand.
I agree in general, however the phenomenological language was confusing to early Christians during the cosmological revolution. You can say that was overemphasis on the greek model of the cosmos as well as overemphasis on certain passages but the confusion is a matter of history.
| Melanchthon (1497-1560), one of Luther’s associates, added, “The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.” |
I am someone that believes the two books approach illustrated below:
This site explains the ideas in a bit more detail
noguru
Well-known member
When anyone pushes science to be anything other than neutral in regard to making any theological text a foundational premise of the physical sciences, they are then abusing science. I don't agree with atheists that use the agnostic nature inherint in science as evidence against God.
For Chrisitans who also practice and/or follow science, there are seperate foundational philosophical underpinnings/assumptions that fall outside the realm of science. It serves no one any good to deny this reality. Followers and/or practicioners of science that are Christian do not need to be nuetral in the overall philosophical world view. The foundational and inherint epistemology of science should not be confused with the epistemology one might use in matters of faith in theology. And yes, I do realize that the epistemology of natural philosophy and theology do overlap to some degree, but they are still distinct in their philosophical (epistemology) foundation. We must honestly recognize the limitations inherint in methodological naturalism and the empirical verification process that is the basic cloth of science.
For those who think science should not be nuetral in regard to theology, I started a thread a few months back for people who felt that the foundational philosophical assumptions of the physical and social sciences should be modified. I am willing to hear how you propose to modify those foundational assumptions. I can look up the thread for you.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The voice of the historical church is entitled to more than what has been offered to date by those who would deny the six day view. As I have stated and will continue to state, only when someone has offered up properly sound reasons why the accepted six day view is wrong, does the discussion even start. Rather than doing just that, those in disagreement have taken the liberty to grant themselves a new hermeneutic to force fit the text to their views. I am sorry, but, again, as I have stated, that just won't do.
I have not answered because I was hoping you would make some subsequent posts to me or others from which I could possibly understand what you are actually asking. I have little time to parse sentences poorly formed or second-guessing what someone is trying to say but saying it so obliquely. For example, "how such literary device 6 days being allusion and the following evening/day repetition as amplification" is not even grammatically correct and I do not want to try to sort it all out. Perhaps if you just plainly state your question and I will do my best to answer you.
AMR
Haven't you granted yourself a new hermeneutic in order to accept the modern scientific understanding of cosmology (heliocentrism, etc.), which is in contradistinction to the voice of the historical church and the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have provided several pointers to other materials that outline my position adequately. I would hope that persons interested in this topic avail themselves of the materials and thoroughly acquaint themselves of it as I fear things explanantory of things explained. This is a serious topic and requires serious effort. A quick fix or superficial cheat sheet for folks to wade into the topic with gund blazing is a negligent tactic. In addition to educating themselves on all the issues, including proper hermeneutical methods, if anyone wants to weigh in and declare the majority view erroneous, they need to do more than basically claim "science says" or "the text is poetry". These persons bear the burden to argue
- we have not read Genesis thoroughly, skipping nothing, adding nothing
- we have not understood the passage(s) correctly as narratives
- we do not have the right rules for interpreting narrative texts
- that there is no such thing as a narrative text
- that God does not intend an essential meaning for a passage of text that remains the same throughout all time and places
- and so on. :AMR:
[FONT="]I have no problem with science challenging biblical interpretations. But science cannot provide any reasons for changing our biblical interpretations. We must recognize that the more down on the hermeneutical tree the oponent's axes strikes, the more fundamental are the changes they are demanding. I remain convinced, along with many, many others, that those that deny the six-day view have offered no cogent criticisms. Instead those that deny the six day view arrogantly dismiss the grammatico-historical hermeneutic.
[/FONT]
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To say that man can reason correctly and cogently apart from having the Bible at the foundation of his thinking sets man up as the standard and the judge over what is true and what is not true. In effect, man becomes the ultimate epistemological authority and not the Bible. I categorically refuse to adopt such a position as it is anathema to God who has declared Himself the ultimate authority of the universe. The same God who condemns man's desire for independence and intellectual self-sifficiency (1 Sam 2:3; Proverbs 1:7;Isaiah 40:25;Romans 10:9;14:9;Phil 2:11;2 Cor 10:5). Let's keep God out of the dock and man in there as he rightly belongs.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No. See previous posts above and the below.
I am not.
God wrote two books—a book of nature and a book of Scripture. The book of nature, common revelation, called such as everyone has this book and has read it:
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. (Psalm 19:2)
The second book, Scripture, that is God’s special revelation is given in a book to the literate minority of mankind. Common revelation is called natural revelation as it is derived from nature and human nature:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)
Without special revelation natural revelation is nothing but an argument for theism. Nature reveals God, but not the gospel. Common revelation is like a bill from the department store—it tells us much about its offering, fairness, orderliness and value—but nothing about where to go to get money to pay for it. Natural revelation reveals God to the sinner but not how to be reconciled to God.
Scripture assumes men know God independently of Scripture, for example,
“In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1).
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalm 19:1)
Indeed, Scripture teaches us that man “gets” the message:
[There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:3)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:20-21)
The facts are that men would not retain the knowledge of God and that men had this knowledge—otherwise why would Scripture teach us that one refuses that which they did not have? Clearly, mankind has refused the knowledge they possessed and are without excuse.
AMR
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Exactly!
The more I ponder these truths, the more convinced I am of Adam's failure according to the natural witness (law) of Creator God, which was his in the very beginnings.
Adam was created good, in the image of God, and walked in fellowship with God, participating in the blessings of gifted intelligence, abilities, strengths, in order to perform duties of commanded dominion and rule over the creation.
I believe Adam possessed an extremely high intelligence, not seen in man (but only occasionally glimpsed in a rare few) since the fall.
Adam failed the natural laws of God, and since, we being his offspring have also therefore failed the formal law meant to convict us of how far off we are from our first estate, we are dependent upon God's saving grace alone, for moral restoration.
None of us can excuse ourselves for this loss of high knowledge, and natural intelligence; let alone the loss of intimate fellowship with God, once known.
We can only cry to God for mercy, and ask to receive at least His temporal down payment upon the eternal restoration of what was once ours.
There is no excuse for our failures before our Maker . . .
Nang
Great! Now is your chance to point out that text. :thumb:
"Six days" means what it says.
This thread is about the plain teaching you reject. Quit dodging. :thumb:
Great! You should do that like you promised to do before. :thumb:
noguru
Well-known member
To say that man can reason correctly and cogently apart from having the Bible at the foundation of his thinking sets man up as the standard and the judge over what is true and what is not true. In effect, man becomes the ultimate epistemological authority and not the Bible. I categorically refuse to adopt such a position as it is anathema to God who has declared Himself the ultimate authority of the universe. The same God who condemns man's desire for independence and intellectual self-sifficiency (1 Sam 2:3; Proverbs 1:7;Isaiah 40:25;Romans 10:9;14:9;Phil 2:11;2 Cor 10:5). Let's keep God out of the dock and man in there as he rightly belongs.
AMR
Any hermeneutic, whether it is considered historical or not, is also setting man up as the ultimate authority on all epistemology. And from there man can also proclaim what they will or will not accept from science. You cannot escape that reality, however more grammatically correct your comments are compared to mine.
I respect your right to categorically refuse to consider a position other than the one you have chosen. I understand your choice here. You will only accept that a certain epistemology, which was established at some point prior to modern science and is restricted to a specific historical Biblical hermeneutics, is the closest you can get to knowing God's own mind on this issue. I completely understand why you are making that choice. It is, after all, a more conservative choice if one limits their realm to only that of Biblical hermeneutics. And since you have chosen that, you feel that you should not have to defend your position, as it should be the default position for any Christian.
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
I've done it twice. You're the one that is dodging the question.
If the meaning is plain and we're dealing with six literal chronological days, how can you have evening and morning for three days with no sun, moon or stars?
Answer the question or admit your interpretation doesn't make sense within the context of the text itself.