Inconsistency of literalists vs science

I take Genesis chapter one literally. You are free to err as much as you want to.

 

Gup,

"IF Genesis were not literal... it still must be non-literally describing something actual..."

Where did you get this statement? I strongly disagree. You seem to think that Hebrew writings were either literal or "poetic". Again I disagree.

What is REALLY UNLIKELY is that Genesis 1 is allegorical - which is what it would be if you suggest it is directly symbolic of something else!

 

Once you agree to toss exegesis out the window and interpret scripture primarily by the "junk-science dictates of evolutionism" -- then what is left?

Notice that the Word of God says "and evening and morning were the 5th day". It also says "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them"

That language is clear, direct and explicit. There is no way to "turn it on its head" as the Christian evolutionist seeks to do.

Just not possible.

Even worse - the Gospel writers themselves appeal to the very DETAILS of Gen 1-2:3 that evolutionists so "need" to ignore.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A freedom well-exercised so far.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, what they said was that with additional evidence, they found that the simple progression they thought was true when they had but a few fossils was actually bushy and jerky when they found more. Despite your misquotes, the scientists in question do not doubt the sequence.

Where? I have given you reference after reference of none racemiced mixtures and even optically pure compounds resulting from common catalysts. You have not even attempted to show problems with these references yet you continue to make the same assertions without facts.

Again, still waiting for you to justify this. I have given beaucoups of references showing this claim to be false and asking for you to justify the cliam. You merely continue to make the claim sans evidence.

And your reference for this disagrees with what you say he is claiming. More misquoting I am afraid.

The horrible damage comes from those Christian leaders who feel that it is necessary to misrepresent and even to lie for God.

 

Some may feel that is is OK to lie for GOD. True Chrisitians (not pretenders) know that lying in never acceptable. Evolutionists on the other hand feel that it is OK to ignore data that doesn't fit the evolutionary mold until such time that the "problem data" be reconciled and understood to fit the evolutionary model. Honest creationists have repeatedly attempted to show problem areas as problem areas. Starting with the book THE GENESIS FLOOD, Whitcomb & Morris have endeavored to honestly point out both sides of the issues surrounding the FLOOD and did not attempt to ignore difficulties nor other views.
This is something evolutionists as a whole are very guilty of. They are often rude, mean, and very abusive toward Creationist's data (hostile fits). They often ignore any influence that Creationists reasearch may have in an effort to ERADICATE the opposition. Evolutionists forget that science is suppoose to be and open and level playing field. Science is NOT suppose to be evolutionists owned and operated territory. I feel that Creationists as a group very respectful, I really feel that secular scientist are the ones that feel that they only have to answer to other EVOLUTIONISTS. It is my contention that secular evolutionists are doing more to harm scientific reasearch then all "Creationists" combined. Science class in public instituions are dull, unless there happens to be a Christian on fire for GOD present.

 

If you have some specific problems you would like to discuss, feel free. I went on for 20 pages here

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2740.html?

and must have given at least two dozen specific, deliberate falsehoods by YE leaders. Not simply mistakes. But specific examples of misrepresenting data or misrepresenting what scientists have actually said. There are examples from Morris there if you read through (since you specifically mentioned him).

Some of your comments seem to indicate that either you do not understand the scientific method or that you have problems with it. If this is the case, feel free to bring up those issues as well.

 

UTEOTW:

The is painfully obvious to me that evolutionists have been saying so many things for so long that they really have no clue what they themselves really mean. The data is what the data is, how it may be applied is totally up to ones interpretation. My comments are that even "evolutionists" should mind what they say plus how they say it, and that being indifferent constitues hidding one's head in the dirt--------even if they are only looking for fossils in places or of a type that could be construed as evidence for evolution. What you imagine are deliberate falsehoods is only a sign of your evolutionist indoctrination. You view ALL data from the aspect of evolutionary theory. You do not simply regard the data. I disagree with you. There is nothing deliberate about Dr. Morris other than his realization that he answers to a much higher authority than anyone in the field of scientific research.

 

It is painfully obvious to me that evolutionists have been saying so many things for so long that they really have no clue what they themselves really mean. The data is what the data is, how it may be applied is totally up to ones interpretation. My comments are that even "evolutionists" should mind what they say plus how they say it, and that being indifference constitues hidding one's head in the dirt--------even if they are only looking for fossils in places or of a type that could be construed as evidence for evolution. What you imagine are deliberate falsehoods is only a sign of your evolutionist indoctrination. You view ALL data from the aspect of evolutionary theory. You do not simply regard the data. I disagree with you. There is nothing deliberate about Dr. Morris other than his realization that he answers to a much higher authority than anyone in the field of scientific research.

 

Any so called "Christian" who believes in evolution is a first rate fool. I don't care what the so called "scientist" say, evolution is a doctrine of devils and to claim to believe in God while holding to this false belief shows where a person's true faith is at.

 

Terry,

"Any so called "Christian" who believes in evolution is a first rate fool. I don't care what the so called "scientist" say, evolution is a doctrine of devils and to claim to believe in God while holding to this false belief shows where a person's true faith is at."

First of all you have no knowledge about anyone's faith. I don't recall either Jesus or Paul stipulating that one's salvation is contingent on his/her beliefs regarding Genesis 1.

Second - do you suggest that science is evil? The "so-called scientists" are "tools". So I suppose if your child were sick you'd stay far away from the evil scientific pediatricians. Laying of hands and oil will cure any illness! I'd argue that you embrace the fruits of science when they make life easier and spurn them when they say something that you don't like.

Third - how do you know what Moses intended in the creation account? You're sure it's literal. Can you read Hebrew? Have you read Enuma Elish? Have you read the epic of Gilgamesh? Have you heard of Ras Shamra? Yet you insist that everyone who doesn't agree with your position is a "so-called Christian".

It sounds to me like you're afraid that acceptance of scientific knowledge will be the first step to giving away the farm. This is not so. Anyway I am not afraid of knowledge. I am not scared that if I read a book by an evolutionist that the rug will be pulled out from under me. There are plenty of reasons to assume that Genesis 1 was NOT MEANT TO BE LITERAL. Funny the only people who seem to see this are those who have actually done any real research into it!

I will not insist that anyone believe just like I do. But I cannot stomach claims that all Christians must flee from scholarship to be real Christians.

 

Go read the thread. I didn't look for cases of simple mistakes. I listed specific cases of deliberate falsehoods. Misquoting a scientist to make it appear that he said something different than what was inteded for example. Or misrepresenting the results of a test. Let me give an example of that. The RATE group carbon dated a diamond. The expected result would be about 50000 years because the diamond is much older than that and background radiation should be sufficient to make enough C14 to give that measurement. A properly trained scientist knows that a C14 date of 57000 years, which they got, simply means that the sample is too old to carbon date. You are measuring nothing but background. But they simply said that a supposedly millions of years old diamond dated to "thousands" of years. They knew the mistake because you have to really hunt to find the actual number. It is a deliberate misrepresentation about the age.

They do the same thing with volcanic rocks. They take young rocks an use a date where the minimum age is about 1 million years and then report that it does not work instead of reporting the truth which is that the date was below the minimum detection limit and was therefore essentially zero. Or they deliberately date a rock the did not completely melt and rid itself of its argon.

And where you not the one that brought up the "dino blood" recently? Did you read the abstract I gave you? Did you see that what was actually found was a well preserved bone not fresh bone? Do you not see the dishonesty there?

 

I do feel that a true believer in Christ must have faith in what Christ/God says. If one doen't trust what Christ/God says, one cannot grow spiritually. Jesus is the second Adam. If Jesus is the second Adam ----- who was the first? (I Corinthians 15:21-23 and Romans 5:12-15)

If my child is sick, I pray to GOD through Jesus Christ to heal my child. I may take him to the doctor; however, a doctor cannot heal anyone. The doctor may be used of GOD, but the doctor can accomplish nothing on his own. Some scientists think they work independent form GOD. Their theories are very often a testamony to this fact.

Jesus spoke of Noah. Noah and the Flood must be a literal historic fact or there isn't any hope of the catching away nor salvation for that matter.

 

A_Christian,

No one would dispute that we must listen to what Christ says. I still assert that the OT writings are somewhat different than the NT writings in terms of original audiences. True they are also for us. Still I find believer after believer insisting on a LITERAL GENESIS 1 in order to be a true Christian. One's belief in Christ has nothing to do with his/her belief in a literal Genesis 1. I believe that we cannot disregard ANY scripture. By the same token I find it hard to believe a group of people, many of whom have not mastered Englsih, to speak authoritatively on proper interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Don't get me wrong - I have no beef with a believer who says that he/she simply chooses to take the bible at face value and believe literally. What I have a problem with is the one who asserts that we all must take the whole bible literally - or else be considered second rate Christians. I believe that all scripture is given of God - I also believe that all scripture was given for a purpose. The OT audience was not the same as the NT audience.

 

Charles Meadows:

When Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, who was the audience? When Christ went to preach to those in Paradise, who was the audience?
Everything in the Old Testament foreshadows what Christ came to do. If the Old Testament history isn't literal, than neither is that of the New Testament. The Old Testament is the foundation upon which the New Testament rests. This is why our society is totally falling apart. Christians are not accepting that the Bible is either true or even the Word of GOD. As a result ministers maybe practicing HOMOSEXUALS. Christians are getting divorced in record numbers. People are living their lives outside the CHURCH because the CHURCH isn't relevent to "modern" lifestyles. Children are having sex without care and parents think abortion is an option. I'm sorry, but there is the proof in a nut shell. You do reap what you sow. If you sow unbelief, you reap unbelievers. If you sow non-literal interpretation of the Word, you reap irrelevance and irreverence. This IS what I see and this is exactly what the Old Testament predicted would happen.

 

A_Christian,

"Christians are not accepting that the Bible is either true or even the Word of GOD. As a result ministers maybe practicing HOMOSEXUALS. Christians are getting divorced in record numbers. People are living their lives outside the CHURCH because the CHURCH isn't relevent to "modern" lifestyles. Children are having sex without care and parents think abortion is an option. I'm sorry, but there is the proof in a nut shell. You do reap what you sow. If you sow unbelief, you reap unbelievers."

I agree with all of that - but not the first part of your post. Part of the reason our churches are getting less full is that people continue to insist that we have to do everything the old way. Old hymns, old instruments, old-style sunday school books, old-style dress. Just because something is traditional it is not necessarily right.

I'd say if you could ask Moses if the creation account was intended specifically to show the age of the earth he'd say, "No, why would you think that?"

Here's another angle:

Why believe that the creation account wasn't meant to be literal? Because it's written in similar style as near eastern epic. Because ancient near easterners wrote in similar ways. Because an account that was intended to show scientifically how creation occurred would have made no sense to the ancient Israelites. And scientific observation to date supports this to boot!

Why believe it's literal? Because a large number of people without formal knowledge of any of the above want it to be that way.

It would suit me just fine if it WERE literally true! But I absolutely reject the notion that to believe the Gospels one must also believe a literal Genesis 1.

And once again, the NT documents were clearly witnessing about Christ's resurrection. The OT documents not so. I believe that the OT is just as valid - but I think many ultrafundies are guilty of misapplying the scriptures when they insist on a completely literal Genesis.

 

"If the Old Testament history isn't literal, than neither is that of the New Testament."

There is no logical reason to conclude that if part of the Bible was meant to be non-literal that the whole thing is non-literal. That was the whole point of starting this thread, to show that even the literalists take parts as non-literal when they feel comfortable enough with the evidence that indicates that it is the correct way. Or do you take ALL parts as literal?

"Christians are not accepting that the Bible is either true or even the Word of GOD."

I do not think that anyone here is saying the Bible is not true nor that it is not the Word of God. You are confusing non-literal with not true. You do not take every bit as literal, so does that mean that YOU think of the Bible as not true?

"If you sow unbelief, you reap unbelievers. If you sow non-literal interpretation of the Word, you reap irrelevance and irreverence."

It is a common debate tactic to blame all of the world's evils on whatever you are attacking. But you have not shown a factual link between a non-literal creation account and the things you mention. I have shown that a literal insistence leads to compromised morals when advocating a young earth. I'll quote my summary of some of the examples from the other thread here.

Do you find the above behavior by Christian leaders acceptable? As I said, these are not just examples of mistakes, they are deliberate misrepresentations. They feel that it is OK to lie for Christ. Well it is not.

The whole thread can be found here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2740.html?

 

I believe that Creationists are "literally" giving evolutionists and their cohorts a taste of their OWN medicine. You don't like the way the data is collected and presented by Creationists. I don't like the way the data is collected and presented by evolutionists. You believed man is the decendent of apes. I believe that satan and his fallen angels were corrupting the human race that Christ would someday come to be born through (see Genesis 6:4). You don't see this-----I do. You don't observe the FLOOD ------I do. You think nature is progressive --- I don't. You think that science and Bible stories are at odds ---- I don't. FACTS ARE FACTS and TRUTH IS TRUTH. The Bible presents the truth and that is a fact. It isn't enough to demonstrate how apes are like humans. We must show how they are different-----anything else is just a bunch of beans...