Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 83 (522715)
09-04-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


Hello Arphy,
Welcom to EvC. I like your avatar.
Thanks for bringing up another possibility of Jesus saying the OT is literal and inerrant.
About Jesus believeing Genesis:
"46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47
I like to use full context:
John 5, KJV writes:
36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
This can be read as Jesus referencing the OT as something familiar to the people he's talking to all the while not condoning it as literal truth.
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't. This doesn't have to mean that Jesus is saying that Moses must have really written all that.
Like my example in the OP...
Me in the OP writes:
For an anology, consider that Jesus is talking with a modern nerd, instead of a Pharisee, and says:
"Just as the United Federation of Planets gave you the Prime Directive, you to shall not blah blah blah."
In the same way, this would not mean that Jesus is saying that the United Federation of Planets actually exists. He is just referring to something familiar.
You get my point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:27 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 32 of 83 (522772)
09-04-2009 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
09-04-2009 9:25 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
hehe. oops major typo.
1.they believe that the bible is inerrrant which is a lie.
So you believe that the Bible does contain errors? Interesting.
should have read: they believe that the bible has errors, which is a lie.
I agree that the evidence for evolution or creation is for other threads, but didn't know that you are not a christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2009 9:25 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 33 of 83 (522778)
09-04-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 3:21 PM


It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't. This doesn't have to mean that Jesus is saying that Moses must have really written all that.
Moses did write the pentateuch
The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:
1.Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4
2.The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.8
3.The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4—7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
4.Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7—8; 8:32—34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11—13.
5.In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7—8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46—47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
6.Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.
from Did Moses really write Genesis - creation.com
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
For an anology, consider that Jesus is talking with a modern nerd, instead of a Pharisee, and says:
"Just as the United Federation of Planets gave you the Prime Directive, you to shall not blah blah blah."
In the same way, this would not mean that Jesus is saying that the United Federation of Planets actually exists. He is just referring to something familiar.
You get my point?
ok so if a fictional work gives a command we should beleve it? We only take commands from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands something shouldn't influence my actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2009 12:57 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 34 of 83 (522788)
09-04-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
09-04-2009 9:25 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Back in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, the primary explanation for the Earth and for life (amongst Western scholars at least) was Biblical. Theirs was the dominant idea. You know what? It fell apart under the sheer weight of contradictory evidence. There was no ideological war against religion. In fact almost all of the first real geologists and biologists were Christian. Genesis has been tested and failed.
What use is it if you claim to be willing to put scripture to the test if you ignore the results when they don't suit you?
As Hutton and lyell's theories became more popular there were YEC's even back then such as Young (1777—1848), Fairholme (1789—1846), Murray (1786?—1851), Rhind (1797—1874) who opposed old earth interpretations of facts.
There were also many opposed to Darwin's theory when it became popular such as Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur (who pioneered immunization, developed the Law of Biogenesislife comes only from life, the fundamental law of biologyand has often been called the greatest scientist of the 19th century). These people opposed evolution because there was no evidence for it even though it became popular to believe in evolution. Again it was the support of people like Kingsley and Josiah Strong who turned many christians away from biblical creation, not the evidence or the bibel itself.
Yes, the first geologists and biologists were both christians and creationists.
Genesis has been tested to see if the evidence fits, and it does! But anyway the verse I used asks us to search the scriptures to see if teachings by people are in agreement with scripture. Evolution clearly is not in agreement so I don't know how people can believe in both.
Again, sorry about the typo in message 29 (have edited it now), as it has caused some confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2009 9:25 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2009 12:18 PM Arphy has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 35 of 83 (522835)
09-05-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Arphy
09-04-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hi Arphy,
Well that certainly was a confusing typo! Never mind, these things happen.
I'm not sure where to go with this, since you don't touch upon the topic at hand at all in your last messages.
First you list a tiny handful of scientists who did not accept evolution. Of course you are reduced to including individuals like Owen, who abused the scientific method and plagiarised the work of others; I can't say that I really care what the opinion of a dishonest slime-ball like Owen was.
Other than that, most of the individuals you cite were very much Old Earth, so I fail to see how you can use them to back up your argument; they disagreed you Arphy. They also died before compelling evidence for evolution, such as the discovery of genetics, came to light.
You have cited a tiny handful of long-dead voices raised against the overwhelming majority of scientists. I don't find that very impressive. When more than 99% of relevant (and, y'know, living) experts are against your pet theory, that should probably be taken as a hint that you're not on the right tracks.
These people opposed evolution because there was no evidence for it even though it became popular to believe in evolution.
Do you really believe that fantasy? Do you honestly imagine that an entire scientific discipline was convinced of the correctness of an idea by FASHION!? Science is not a popularity contest you know. What do you imagine all those geologists and biologists do all day?
Genesis has been tested to see if the evidence fits, and it does!
I like you! You're funny!
Please start a thread with that title, I'm begging you...
But anyway the verse I used asks us to search the scriptures to see if teachings by people are in agreement with scripture. Evolution clearly is not in agreement so I don't know how people can believe in both.
Quite easily. They believe that Genesis was not intended as an all-knowing, historically and scientifically accurate account of creation. Rather, they see it as an allegorical and poetic account. That leaves no real conflict to trouble them. Now that may not work for me and it may not work for you, but millions of Christian believers find it perfectly satisfying and they have a long tradition of non-literal interpretation on their side.
In addition, many people are quite all right with the idea that the Bible contains errors. This is because... it contains errors. Lots of them. big ones, little ones, important ones, trivial ones... To escape from this problem the Christian is left with two basic choices;
a) Engage in endless and torturous interpretations and re-interpretations of Bible passages, explaining that when the authors said that, they didn't really mean it, they meant something else...
b) Simply accept that whilst the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by men, fallible men who make mistakes. They wrote of the world in a way that was easy for them to understand. Unfortunately, since they knew nothing of science, they understood very little of the world. Non-literalist Christians are fine with this. They regard the important message of the Bible as being spiritual, not a science primer.
There is also the dilemma of whether to believe the Bible or to believe the evidence in front of one's own eyes. Most people find it difficult to believe a millennia-old book above reality and quite right too. I have no idea why anyone would even want to.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 5:53 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 83 (522849)
09-05-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by greentwiga
08-26-2009 11:30 AM


If Jesus knew that several parts of the old testament were factually incorrect, why didn't he bother to tell anyone? If the Bible is supposed to be a guide to a persons life, it seems vitally important that he/she knows what in the bible actually happened and what is simply a moral fictional story. If Jesus knew these events were false, it would seem extremely odd on his part to not spread this news to everyone else. Had he simply slipped a few paragraph into the Bible at one point or another explained what is literally true and what is not, us humans could have avoided centuries of ongoing strife between science and religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by greentwiga, posted 08-26-2009 11:30 AM greentwiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 6:04 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 37 of 83 (522874)
09-06-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ochaye
09-03-2009 4:48 AM


ochaye writes:
There are likewise people today who try to persuade Christians that they need to take a particular view of early Genesis. The danger lies not in what one believes about early Genesis, but just in thinking that anything beyond faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is needed, because it diminishes that work of Christ, and in effect says that he is not divine, that his righteousness is inadequate.
Okay, you wrote this, so I assume you're a Christian. But back in message 15, you wrote that just because Jesus believed in a flood doesn't mean it happened.
So Jesus can be "divine" and give himself on the cross as a "finished work," but not know whether there was a genesis flood or not?
Can you really think both things, or am I misunderstanding you?
Mind you, I believe in evolution, and I believe in a local, not worldwide, flood. I'm not a literalist, and I'm not very worried about scientific errors in the Bible, but if Jesus is the Son of God, he has got to know how the world was made and whether it flooded or not.
Doesn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ochaye, posted 09-03-2009 4:48 AM ochaye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2009 1:08 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 38 of 83 (522875)
09-06-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


God's Word vs. God's Word
Arphy writes:
People lose their faith because of being taught evolution.
People lose their faith because Christians have "I'm not perfect, just forgiven" and "Please be patient with me, God isn't finished with me yet" bumper stickers on their car. People lose their faith because Christians couldn't care less what Jesus teaches about not loving the world, about sharing their possessions, about not storing up for the future, and about not retaliating. In other words, people lose their faith because most Christians don't live like Christians.
Believing in evolution has nothing to do with believing in Christ. It has a lot to do with believing in the sect of the Bible-worshippers. The sect of the Bible-worshippers displays a life of hatred to the world all the time, and they hold onto their followers by fables and lies.
Arphy writes:
You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's.
Those who believe the Bible rather than worship it can listen to what it says. It says that God has many voices, and one of them is the creation.
Thus, those who believe in evolution are not believing in man's word; they are believing in what Psalms 19 says to believe, the voice of God's creation, which testifies to his nature and power.
By the way, it's also not true that there was no creation science in C.S. Lewis' day. When do you think the Scopes trial happened? Smack dab in the middle of his life (when he was 28 or so, and he died at 64).
Sorry for being so harsh. Some days it's very frustrating to me that people argue without considering what the other side is really saying.
One more by the way: C.S. Lewis got his theology from the truly great George MacDonald. There is no way that MacDonald or Lewis would have the slightest interest in the type of Christianity that is associated with creation science. Read MacDonald sometime. Lewis credits him in every single book he wrote.
Edited by truthlover, : minor corrections

Proof of Evolution for those who love God's creation
Christian History for Everyman
Rose Creek Village, where I live

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:27 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 6:56 AM truthlover has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 83 (522881)
09-06-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-04-2009 8:10 PM


Moses did write the pentateuch
I'm not convinced, but I don't care to argue that here. It doesn't matter to the topic.
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
It seems like Jesus was saying that if they couldn't believe Moses, then they wouldn't be able to believe Him.
You get my point?
ok so if a fictional work gives a command we should beleve it? We only take commands from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands something shouldn't influence my actions.
Jesus used "fictional work" a lot, aka parables, so yeah... fictional works are capable of giving us commands that we should believe in.
Remember, I'm not demanding that you accept my interpretation as the right one, I'm claiming that it should be allowed as a possibility. So that one can be both Christian and evolutionist, or lessly "not-Creationist".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:10 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 7:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 83 (522882)
09-06-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by truthlover
09-06-2009 12:02 AM


Whoa!
hey truthlover! long time not see (9 months!)
You're looking well. How's the camp coming along? How are the kids?
So Jesus can be "divine" and give himself on the cross as a "finished work," but not know whether there was a genesis flood or not?
Can you really think both things, or am I misunderstanding you?
It seems that me and you are working under the same assumptions in this thread.
Mind you, I believe in evolution, and I believe in a local, not worldwide, flood. I'm not a literalist, and I'm not very worried about scientific errors in the Bible, but if Jesus is the Son of God, he has got to know how the world was made and whether it flooded or not.
Doesn't he?
I think he would. Which is why I doubt he supports a literal creation interpretation. And I haven't found any passages yet that must suggest otherwise.
By the way, I really liked Message 29 that you wrote.
You should contribute more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 12:02 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 1:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 41 of 83 (522883)
09-06-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
09-06-2009 1:08 AM


Hi. Been busy, and it seemed like all the threads were getting to be the same. Same people, same arguments.
I've been working on a Christian history since February. You figure between six kids, running a business, being one of the leaders of a Christian community, and writing 200 pages on a church history web site (lots of research), there's not much time for EvC. Worse, I started the Proof of Evolution site, too!
I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess. Great life, great wife, great kids, though. Learning a lot lately; bit of revival and recommitment going on. By the way, I really, really like the kids doing the Rebelution blog. We saw their seminar a week or two ago.
Thanks, too. Glad you liked that message.

Proof of Evolution for those who love God's creation
Christian History for Everyman
Rose Creek Village, where I live

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2009 1:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 42 of 83 (522889)
09-06-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
09-05-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
most of the individuals you cite were very much Old Earth, so I fail to see how you can use them to back up your argument; they disagreed you Arphy.
These guys (Young (1777—1848), Fairholme (1789—1846), Murray (1786?—1851), Rhind (1797—1874)) disagreed with uniformitarism.
These guys (Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, Richard Owen (sorry, don't know enough about him to know if your statement is correct), the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur) disagreed with darwinism (even if some believed in an old earth). But yeah, it is starting to go off topic.
When more than 99% of relevant (and, y'know, living) experts are against your pet theory, that should probably be taken as a hint that you're not on the right tracks.
This has often happened in the history of science and often the minority view was found to be correct after all.
Science is not a popularity contest you know.
Maybe, but interpretive philosophies can be.
What do you imagine all those geologists and biologists do all day?
I'm not saying that scientist don't carry out experiments, take measurements, etc in an honest fashion. I just have a problem with many interpretations of the finds that they make.
I like you! You're funny!
Thanks
a) Engage in endless and torturous interpretations and re-interpretations of Bible passages, explaining that when the authors said that, they didn't really mean it, they meant something else...
Exactly!! Why torture a passage ("days doesn't mean days, but long periods of time, etc.") when you can just read it as is, and even though you may disagree with the author, admit that this is what the author meant.
Non-literalist Christians are fine with this.
Great. i'm not.
There is also the dilemma of whether to believe the Bible or to believe the evidence in front of one's own eyes. Most people find it difficult to believe a millennia-old book above reality and quite right too. I have no idea why anyone would even want to.
Exactly because "in the light of evolution" the Genesis account simply becomes a myth. In fact "in the light" of most modern thought most of the bible becomes myth. So then people weigh up the options: myth (with the possibility of some spiritual truth), or, "Rigorous modern scientific thought and scholarship". Hmm...
If these are the options given to people, then well really it's a no brainer. Of course you'd pick scientific thought!
However, if evidence supports that this book is not myth but divinely inspired by the creator of the universe. Then yes, I'd rather be on the side of somebody who was there when the world was made, rather than rely on people interpreting the past based on what they can see in the here and now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2009 12:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 09-06-2009 7:07 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:43 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 43 of 83 (522890)
09-06-2009 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by themasterdebator
09-05-2009 3:03 PM


If Jesus knew that several parts of the old testament were factually incorrect, why didn't he bother to tell anyone? If the Bible is supposed to be a guide to a persons life, it seems vitally important that he/she knows what in the bible actually happened and what is simply a moral fictional story. If Jesus knew these events were false, it would seem extremely odd on his part to not spread this news to everyone else. Had he simply slipped a few paragraph into the Bible at one point or another explained what is literally true and what is not, us humans could have avoided centuries of ongoing strife between science and religion.
Exactly. How come evolutionists (as far as I have worked out you are one) can see the inconsistencies so easily and yet theistic evolutionists can't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by themasterdebator, posted 09-05-2009 3:03 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 44 of 83 (522891)
09-06-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by truthlover
09-06-2009 12:13 AM


Re: God's Word vs. God's Word
In other words, people lose their faith because most Christians don't live like Christians.
Yip this often happens, However it is in association with the thought that christianity is not the Truth. I know that christians don't live perfect lives, however this doesn't mean that Christ didn't. I don't believe in Christianity because people try to be nice to each other, sing nice songs, or any other such reason. I believe in it because it is THE TRUTH. This is the number one reason why people reject or accept it.
The sect of the Bible-worshippers displays a life of hatred to the world all the time, and they hold onto their followers by fables and lies.
I don't worship the bible but i do worship him who is the ultimate author of the bible.
Hatred, fables and lies? I all ready know that you think i am wrong, so is this sort of comment really necessary.
It says that God has many voices, and one of them is the creation.
Thus, those who believe in evolution are not believing in man's word; they are believing in what Psalms 19 says to believe, the voice of God's creation, which testifies to his nature and power.
If evolution is true then no, nature does not testify about God. Afterall, evolution doesn't need any outside help. If evolution is true then all that nature testifys to is that matter when left to it's own devices can come up with some pretty amazing stuff.
By the way, it's also not true that there was no creation science in C.S. Lewis' day. When do you think the Scopes trial happened? Smack dab in the middle of his life (when he was 28 or so, and he died at 64).
Creation science was just about dead in the early 20th century with christianity shying away from the debate or coming up with excuses. Basically it was the attitude of "We'll stick to human morality, etc. and not get into arguments with science". It was only when Morris and Whitcomb wrote "The Genesis Flood" in 1961 that creation science revived and grew from there. Lewis died in 1963 so he probably wasn't that familiar with creation science.
Neither Lewis or MacDonald are God or the bible, so don't have the authority to change the plain meaning of the genesis text. I have read some macdonald (although mainly his novels, which are very good btw) but again I don't know why i should take the opinion of macDonald above the plain meaning of the biblical text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 12:13 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 9:12 AM Arphy has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 45 of 83 (522892)
09-06-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Arphy
09-06-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Hey,
These guys ...
Those guys are all dead. Only the first four were young Earth. You only name a grand total of ten of them. Weigh that against the current complement of hundreds of thousands of practising geologists and biologists who disagree. Pulling a few names off Answers in Genesis isn't going to impress anybody. As I said, the young-Earth geologists had their chance and they failed. They simply did not have the evidence.
This has often happened in the history of science and often the minority view was found to be correct after all.
But yours was the majority view. Evolution and an old Earth both started out as minority views. Give me just one example of the widespread majority view dwindling into obscurity only to rise once more to prominence after a century or more. Just one...
Maybe, but interpretive philosophies can be.
Except that the ToE is a scientific theory, with all the weight of evidence that implies. You can pretend that it is an "interpretive philosophy" if you find that comforting, but it won't make it true.
I'm not saying that scientist don't carry out experiments, take measurements, etc in an honest fashion. I just have a problem with many interpretations of the finds that they make.
So in a nutshell, you think that scientists spend their days doing research, getting it completely wrong and not noticing? You think they spend all their time interpreting a philosophy? You think that you know better, despite your lack of expertise? When was the last time you were in a lab or on a field trip?
I find this kind of attitude incredibly arrogant. A multitude a extremely clever people have created a vast body of knowledge and you seem to think that you can dismiss it all from your armchair on the basis of your precious Bible and a quick scan through AiG.
However, if evidence supports that this book is not myth but divinely inspired by the creator of the universe. Then yes, I'd rather be on the side of somebody who was there when the world was made, rather than rely on people interpreting the past based on what they can see in the here and now.
Fine. Except that the evidence confirms that most of the Bible is fantasy. I know that you have been told otherwise, but I think you'll find that upon a sober analysis of the text, there is little reason to believe that the Old Testament history has any validity.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 5:53 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 7:53 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024