In the Beginning....

[glfredrick]

This isn't my exit. I was resonding to your "exit" which is I don't agree with it so I'll say its out of context. Which of course it isn't look at the structure of the passage. in verse 35 and 38 the discourse about the bread of life is coming down from heaven. 20 verses later is a different discourse about eating jesus flesh. You want to draw aline from 35 to 54 but leave out 35 was about being compared to manna in that it came down from heaven. later Jesus said you must eat him and that its real. verse 54 has already left 35 as concluded. But since you don't agree with it you just assert and thats all you are doing is asserting its not contextual with the way you understand it. There are many bible scholars who differ with you just as there are scholars who agree with you. But of course you cannot admit that. Do you want to call me another name? Common, I know you can do it. You've been such an inspiration.

here is a commentary on it

This is a literal reading of the passage. In the context of how it was written. But you don't apply your standard for the reading of Genesis to this passage in John 6

You seriously misunderstand how literalism is applied in hermeneutics. Context is useful in determining the genre of the text, which could be anthropomorphism, allegory, poetry, apocalyptic, historical, etc. Each is literal, but interpreted based on what it is, not strictly literal. When a figure of speech is used, i.e., "I am the door," or "I am the bread of life" something is being communicated -- I am the way in, or I am the sustenance -- but that does not mean that Christ is a literal door or a literal bread to be eaten. That error traces back to the 1st century Romans, for crying out loud. It was false then and still false today.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe that there are spiritual allegorical truths in both Genesis and John. But no I don't believe you have to cut off Jesus flesh and eat him. No.

I am asking this question in direct relationship to your view of the Lord's Supper. Am I understanding you correctly that you do not apply this text to the Lord's Supper at all or if at all only figurative/allegorically?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In one of those links you stated this concerning creation scientists:

This is a false statement. Perhaps it is slanderous concerning creation scientists, if not of most of us.

If your accusation is to hold water is is libel. However, it is not a false statement. Think about it. The term Creation Scientist indicates a held position. The person is biased in favor of their faith. A scientist, who may have faith apart from their profession, is unbaised will not call themselves a creation scientist but a scientist who has faith. If they are honest they would see discepencies in both evolutionary and modern creationist theories and will print or expound on them. Agnostics with no dog in the fight also come from an unbiased position as would an unbiased scientist who is atheistic and is honest about discrepancies in both views. However, to be a creation scientist, or an evolutionary scientist indicates that you have taken a position and will only support that position or skew data to support that view. So I have not libeled your precious creation scientist who in zeal for their faith will display only that data supporting their position and remain curiously quiet on data that does not support their theories as does the evolutionist.

None of us approach science from a biased position.

That my friend is obtusely incorrect. All of us approach science from a biased position. You must actually train yourself to be unbaised.

You have it wrong.

No. I haven't. This can be assertained time and again in the scientific community. Most recently East Anglia University in the UK got hammered because its baised approach to global warming skewed its findings.

This is a ridiculous statement to make

What is ridiculous is your statement that no one is biased when it comes to science.

What biased position do I take when I say that 3+1=4.

Thats math. Science is a method by which we are able to make observations create a hypothesis test results and obtain a predictive result which occures with regularity and predictability. At any point in that process but especially the begining is where our bias plays a part. So that the premise shows bias. Let me give you an example. I'm a creationist who believes in a literal 6 days lets say. I know that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. Judging the distance of a certain star I may use a triangulation method where I note the star and 6 months later note the stars location again taking into account the the earths rotation diameter in relationship to the sun we calculate the star is 40,000 light years away. Now since it takes longer for light to reach the earth then my faith says the universe has been in existance the data must be interpreted differently and I come up with an assumption that "God" a scientifically unverified being "made" the light cover the distance immediately. This becomes assumed because I am biased. Especially since there is no mechanism shown by which God used to created the distance of light to cover that distance. I would also, against data, have to assume that God created dying stars or already exploded stars as well. Where is the proof of this and logic of it? Assumed because I don't hold science at face value but must interpret it with in the bias of my faith. A real unbiased scientist would conclude that it took the light to travel 40,000 years to earth. And would not comment on what God could or could not do. The data. Just the data.

Where is my bias? Where is my bias when I say that it takes two atoms of hydrogen plus one atom of oxygen to make water (H2O)? How biased was I? Your statement was absurd.

Now you're talking chemestry and the mechanics of chemical bonds. Science again is a method. All you've done is comment on recurring effects that every water molecule is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. What makes them hold together? What are electrons made of how do quarks work? Get small enough and you have to ask what is your thoughts on how it holds together and work? Eventually, due to your bias you will say God does it. That my friend is a bias.

"I would that they would try to be unbiased but they must meet the requirements of their faith."
--What requirements of my faith have I denied in the above examples?

I just gave you an excellent example.

Now take your statement:
"I just don't take genesis literally in its six day account of creation."

Does it adhere to the principles of science?

Yes and I showed you why in those links. the language used indicates a dome in which stars are displayed and above the dome is a large body of water seperated from the water on earth. This doesn't match reality. Since it doesn't match reality must I assume the text is lying or misinformed by ignorance? Certainly, however, if I put in the factors of God (and holding that he is a constant) and assuming God is honest (my bias btw) means God is speaking figuratively. Unless we make God's nature variable and he can lie or is ignorant or insane then we can assume his figurative laguage has purpose which he wants communicated other than the mechanics of how he put the universe together. So the next step is to determine what that is.

1. Try the law of biogenesis--that life must come from life. Your theory is that the passage is allegorical, and that evolution can fit into there. If so, where did life come from? The Big Bang, like the Pope now believes. Scientific law states that life only comes from life. To go against that law is to against the laws of science. No one has ever seen life come from anything else but something that is living. Life does not come from rocks for example, but this is what the Big Bang theory proposes. If God started everything, possibly with the Big Bang, then one starts with breaking the laws of science right away.

see how your bias gets in the way? God being life himself could he not created the big bang and organized the universe over time to create such an environment for life? You don't know and no one else does either. God could speak and bang its in existance. How does God break the Laws of science having created the universe from a big bang? Can it not be assumed that if he made a primordial explosion he could also direct it. Where did the gravity wells come from? You haven't made sence.

2. Let's look at the days of creation themselves. Why aren't they 24 hour days? What are they if they aren't 24 hours--a thousand years? a million years? a billion? Please explain

I've explained already they are figurative language that organizes the creation of the universe in sets of three organization steps indicated by a day. Thus day one and day 4 are connected and day 2 and day 5 and day 3 and day 6. It also establishes sabbath theology. It also points to the ancient summerian and Egyptian gods by each classification (as I've shown comparison with the ennuma Elish) of Day showing these elements subservience to God thus implying God is greater than all gods and all gods apart from god are nothing more than natural forces.

You need to read my comments and comparisons of genesis with the Enuma Elish.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am asking this question in direct relationship to your view of the Lord's Supper. Am I understanding you correctly that you do not apply this text to the Lord's Supper at all or if at all only figurative/allegorically?

How many times in how many ways do you want me to say it? I was clear. Ask anyone. I believe there is a correlation to the Lords supper but its referring to a spiritual truth and expressed allegorically. Let me give you an example. Ancient Rabbi's say you must eat Torah. My wife says she devoured a book. Jesus says you must gnaw his flesh.

This passage does several things. It suggest that you must so engross yourself in Jesus Christ that you take on his person. That you will take on his suffereing. Be willing to be crucified yourself. That you nurish yourself on his very person. That you intake and commmune with his essense. That you partake in this fellowship offering and holocaust offering.

 

[Dr. Walter]

How many times in how many ways do you want me to say it? I was clear. Ask anyone. I believe there is a correlation to the Lords supper but its referring to a spiritual truth and expressed allegorically. Let me give you an example. Ancient Rabbi's say you must eat Torah. My wife says she devoured a book. Jesus says you must gnaw his flesh.

This is interesting in lieu of our recent discussion. What contextual basis do you have then to interpret that precise langauge in that precise text to be allegorical rather than literal. Remember we were discussing the contextual basis for heremeneutically interpreting this language figuratively rather than literally.

If you will recall, I gave you a contextual basis that was rooted in the use of similar language (eat and drink) and in precise grammar (linking verb - "I AM the bread of life) as a contextual precedent for understanding and interpreting that very langauge to be figurative rather than literal. Whether you agree with me or not in my analysis, you cannot deny I provided a contextual based heremeneutical precedent but where is your contextual basis to interpret that langauge allegorical instead of literal?

Likewise, in Genesis 1 I gave you a contextual basis for a literal hermeneutic as "the evening and the morning" is a TECHNICAL HEBREWISM that is NEVER USED in Hebrew Scripture for anything other than for a literal 24 hour period and the Pagan records do not use this expression in your analogies. This Hebrew technical expression of a literal day cannot be overturned simply by referring to pagan use of "year." You must prove that "the evening and morning" was used and understood allegorical among Hebrew writers as this whole debate hinges upon the meaning of this very technical hebrewism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is interesting in lieu of our recent discussion. What contextual basis do you have then to interpret that precise langauge in that precise text to be allegorical rather than literal. Remember we were discussing the contextual basis for heremeneutically interpreting this language figuratively rather than literally.

I've shown why I believe based on the literary style of gensis account that its figurative not literal. Not based on the discection of the words themselves because quite clearly yom means in the context of the passage 24 hours evening then day. But like a poem what it says internally belies the figurative nature of the whole work. I can take John 6 and do the same thing. Where as you by discecting internally word usage must obtain a literal meaning just like you would with genesis. You do not call into account literary styles. Jesus in John 6 if you do a comparative analysis with Rabbi Hillel a contemporary of Jesus you will see the overall dialogue to be similar in vein to cultural emphasis with regard to the bread of life discourse. A significant help is reading second temple period literature and selections of Talmud. Don't forget that Jesus was also an itenerant Rabbi with in the cultural understand of his day.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I've shown why I believe based on the literary style of gensis account that its figurative not literal. Not based on the discection of the words themselves because quite clearly yom means in the context of the passage 24 hours evening then day. But like a poem what it says internally belies the figurative nature of the whole work. I can take John 6 and do the same thing. Where as you by discecting internally word usage must obtain a literal meaning just like you would with genesis. You do not call into account literary styles. Jesus in John 6 if you do a comparative analysis with Rabbi Hillel a contemporary of Jesus you will see the overall dialogue to be similar in vein to cultural emphasis with regard to the bread of life discourse. A significant help is reading second temple period literature and selections of Talmud. Don't forget that Jesus was also an itenerant Rabbi with in the cultural understand of his day.

Here is the problem that I see with your whole approach. You place God's Word in a more subjective role to uninspired materials and authors in your approach to interpret its meaning rather than placing uninspired materials and authors in a more subjective role to the Scriptures in your reproach to interpret its meaning.

Notice I did not deny the inclusion of either in the process of interpreting the scriptures but merely pointed out a difference in priority or emphasis.

This is seen in your answer above. You do not believe you have to justify your intepretation of the disputed langauge in John 6 by INTERNAL evidence at all but rather you appeal to EXTERNAL sources (uninspired writings/traditions) that you choose to READ INTO the text in order to justify your hermeneutical approach and thus justify your interpretation of the text. Let me be quick to say, in cases where no INTERNAL evidence is provided and where applicable EXTERNAL sources exists you would be perfectly just in doing so as in such cases EXTERNAL sources only play a SUPPORTIVE role.

However, in both John 6 and Genesis 1 there are INTERNAL data that must take precedence over EXTERNAL sources in establishing the interpretative approach regardless if the external sources agree or disagree. To ignore such INTERNAL evidences (as I feel you have done in John 6) or to allow EXTERNAL sources to dominate (as I feel you have done in Genesis 1) in order to redefine internal evidence is to subject the inspired to the uninspired and to subject God's wisdom to the wisdom of men and consequently pervert the true meaning and intention of God's Word.

In regard to John 6 I have provided contextual precedent in the use of similar langauge (eating and drinking) in direct relationship to Christ in clear metaphorical language ("I AM the bread of life") and grammar (linking verb in contrast to action verb) as INTERNAL evidence to support my hermenetuical approach to the same kind of language in the disputed text.

In regard to Genesis 1 the Technical Hebrewism "the evening and the morning" based strictly upon INTERNAL evidence cannot be used for anything other than a literal 24 hour day. It is never used allegorical or figurative of something else and no one can deny that this phrase is the issue of this debate. EXTERNAL sources used to overthrow this INTERNAL evidence do not use this phrase and therefore cannot be used to overthrow what INTERNAL EVIDENCE unequivocally demands it always means by inspired writers in Genesis and throughout the scriptures. To do so is to place INTERNAL evidence in subjection to EXTERNAL, to submit inspired to uninspired, to submit God's wisdom to man's wisdom and thus to approach scripture with the wrong emphasis. That very approach destroys and overthrows scripture in every point where human wisdom conflicts with God's wisdom.

BTW I previously understood you to interpet the langauge in John 6 in regard to the Lord's Supper in much the same manner (although not exactly) as Rome and this has influence my thinking in regard to your view of the gospel coupled with your rejection of justification by faith without works as a completed action. I am happy to be wrong in regard to the former and I hope in the future I will be happy to be wrong in regard to the latter.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is the problem that I see with your whole approach. You place God's Word in a more subjective role to uninspired materials and authors in your approach to interpret its meaning rather than placing uninspired materials and authors in a more subjective role to the Scriptures in your reproach to interpret its meaning.

Notice I did not deny the inclusion of either in the process of interpreting the scriptures but merely pointed out a difference in priority or emphasis.

This is seen in your answer above. You do not believe you have to justify your intepretation of the disputed langauge in John 6 by INTERNAL evidence at all but rather you appeal to EXTERNAL sources (uninspired writings/traditions) that you choose to READ INTO the text in order to justify your hermeneutical approach and thus justify your interpretation of the text. Let me be quick to say, in cases where no INTERNAL evidence is provided and where applicable EXTERNAL sources exists you would be perfectly just in doing so as in such cases EXTERNAL sources only play a SUPPORTIVE role.

However, in both John 6 and Genesis 1 there are INTERNAL data that must take precedence over EXTERNAL sources in establishing the interpretative approach regardless if the external sources agree or disagree. To ignore such INTERNAL evidences (as I feel you have done in John 6) or to allow EXTERNAL sources to dominate (as I feel you have done in Genesis 1) in order to redefine internal evidence is to subject the inspired to the uninspired and to subject God's wisdom to the wisdom of men and consequently pervert the true meaning and intention of God's Word.

In regard to John 6 I have provided contextual precedent in the use of similar langauge (eating and drinking) in direct relationship to Christ in clear metaphorical language ("I AM the bread of life") and grammar (linking verb in contrast to action verb) as INTERNAL evidence to support my hermenetuical approach to the same kind of language in the disputed text.

In regard to Genesis 1 the Technical Hebrewism "the evening and the morning" based strictly upon INTERNAL evidence cannot be used for anything other than a literal 24 hour day. It is never used allegorical or figurative of something else. EXTERNAL sources used to overthrow this INTERNAL evidence do not use this phrase and therefore cannot be used to overthrow what INTERNAL EVIDENCE unequivocally demands it always means by inspired writers in Genesis and throughout the scriptures. To do so is to place INTERNAL evidence in subjection to EXTERNAL, to submit inspired to uninspired, to submit God's wisdom to man's wisdom and thus to approach scripture with the wrong emphasis. That very approach destroys and overthrows scripture in every point where human wisdom conflicts with God's wisdom.

I can only respond Yes and No to this. Yes, I do look for external sources but have not excluded internal issues. Which is why when you read my internal contextual review of Firmament in regards to the sky that the understanding of the author clearly indicates he believes in a Dome of some material into which the stars are placed where there are primordial waters placed above the dome and beneth the dome on the earth. This dome cannot be mistaken for just plain atmosphere. Note if compared to the reality of the nature of the sky the writer of genesis would have placed the water in the firmament or dome and the stars above and beyond that dome. But that is not what it says. It says above the dome in which the stars as we know are spread across a space of billions and trillions of light years beyond the atmospher of the earth there is a body of water. Can you imagine a body of water greater in volume than the entire universe? In fact the stars are placed or eched into this dome. If God was being literal here he certainly misrepresented the sky itself and water. Thus he must not be communicating the mechanics of the sky but is using it in an allegorical sence. and If so then its reasonable to conclude that the day patern is also allegorical and not literal.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can only respond Yes and No to this. Yes, I do look for external sources but have not excluded internal issues. Which is why when you read my internal contextual review of Firmament in regards to the sky that the understanding of the author clearly indicates he believes in a Dome of some material into which the stars are placed where there are primordial waters placed above the dome and beneth the dome on the earth. This dome cannot be mistaken for just plain atmosphere. Note if compared to the reality of the nature of the sky the writer of genesis would have placed the water in the firmament or dome and the stars above and beyond that dome. But that is not what it says. It says above the dome in which the stars as we know are spread across a space of billions and trillions of light years beyond the atmospher of the earth. If God was being literal here he certainly misrepresented the sky itself and water. Thus he must not be communicating the mechanics of the sky but is using it in an allegorical sence. and If so then its reasonable to conclude that the day patern is also allegorical and not literal.

Your missing my point. I have not excluded either as I also use both but it is the emphasis that determines if God's Word is authoritative in my procedure or the wisdom of men. In your previous posts you reveal clearly which holds the subjective role in your method of approach to Biblical interpretation. Your very explanation why you choose to believe the language in John 6 is allegorical reveals your approach. This very same approach characterizes your arguments for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis one even though you deal with internal evidences. However, in the end EXTERNAL trumps INTERNAL just as it does in your John 6 conclusion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This very same approach characterizes your arguments for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis one even though you deal with internal evidences. However, in the end EXTERNAL trumps INTERNAL just as it does in your John 6 conclusion.

Not so. External doesn't trump internal. If internal reading shows inconsistencies with in the overall document or contradictions or is incompatable with reality (such as the dome) then it is clear a literal reading is not appropriate for such an instance. Another interpretation must be considered. Anyway thats how I see it because there are factors which I consider not to be variable but fixed.
1)God Does not lie
2)God speaks truth
3)The bible is God's word to man.

BTW some externals I don't really consider external. Jesus is the full revelation of God. Paul says in romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Nature express Gods qualities and nature. So it may have something to say about its own creation. Don't you think?

 

[billwald]

Most people no longer know the difference between the sciences and the arts. Ignorant people think that any study that utilizes expensive technical equipment is "science."

The study of history is NOT science. The study of evolutionary history is history, not science. Astronomical studies are historical investigations, not science.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not so. External doesn't trump internal.

It "shouldn't" but often it does. All you have to do is look at procedure of a person to see which is true. Your procedure in John is strictly external in procedure toward interpretation. You provided no internal evidence to support your intepretation and rejected what I think others on this forum would acknoweldge to be objective internal evidence as precedence toward the same interpretation.

If internal reading shows inconsistencies with in the overall document or contradictions or is incompatable with reality (such as the dome) then it is clear a literal reading is not appropriate for such an instance. Another interpretation must be considered. Anyway thats how I see it because there are factors which I consider not to be variable but fixed.
1)God Does not lie
2)God speaks truth
3)The bible is God's word to man.

I think you overlook another INTERNAL factor. You have to distinguish between unquestionable and questionable internal evidence. The Hebrew usage and understanding of "the evening and the morning" is unquestionable evidence because it is verfiable through consistent unyeilding inspired INTERNAL usage. However, you seek to overturn the unquestionable internal usage by questionable interpretations of terms whose internal usage has not been equally established.

For example, can you prove equally by the same internal usage of the Hebrew term translated "firmament" that your particular intepretation of it is the factual unyeilding INTERNAL usage and understanding throughout inspired writings? If not, then you have no valid internal evidence to reinterpret unquestionable terms and phrases. If so, then you have made your point that either there is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled by the strictly intepretative method. I see no evidence you have proven YOUR INTEPRETATION of those terms are EQUALLY factually based as the usage and meaning of "the evening and the morning" especially in light of the fourth commandment.

BTW some externals I don't really consider external. Jesus is the full revelation of God. Paul says in romans 1:20 Nature express Gods qualities and nature. So it may have something to say about its own creation. Don't you think?

The Bible is in your hands and is capable of personal visible examination and study but Jesus is not. Creation acts only in a SUPPORTIVE role but is not given as a substitute for God's Word and is not designed to be final in authority for our faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Isa.8:20).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For example, can you prove equally by the same internal usage of the Hebrew term translated "firmament" that your particular intepretation of it is the factual unyeilding INTERNAL usage and understanding throughout inspired writings?

Consistently with the bible raqia is used in Psalm 104:3 to describe the dome consistant with Genesis. So internally Genesis is speaking of a solid dome which supports the primordial waters serparated above it. This dome contains the stars, moon, and sun. Therefore, from the consistant use of this word it describes an attribute of nature that is non existant. The Earth's atmosphere is not a solid dome containing the heavenly array of stars, sun and moon. Nor does it support above it water keeping it out as it were save by the floodgates. Therefore this incorrect description of something observably different must mean. 1) God is lying 2) God is mistaken 3) God doesn't mean it to be taken literally. And if we go with point 3 determining that this is in the day account of creation it becomes clear then that the account is to be taken spiritually, allegorically, figuratively. Not literally. The reason for the 24 hour destinction is to establish a theology of the Sabbath. Not to determine the number of Days God actually created the earth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible is in your hands and is capable of personal visible examination and study but Jesus is not. Creation acts only in a SUPPORTIVE role but is not given as a substitute for God's Word and is not designed to be final in authority for our faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Isa.8:20).

So what are you attempting to say?

 

[DHK]

If your accusation is to hold water is is libel. However, it is not a false statement. Think about it. The term Creation Scientist indicates a held position. The person is biased in favor of their faith. A scientist, who may have faith apart from their profession, is unbaised will not call themselves a creation scientist but a scientist who has faith. If they are honest they would see discepencies in both evolutionary and modern creationist theories and will print or expound on them. Agnostics with no dog in the fight also come from an unbiased position as would an unbiased scientist who is atheistic and is honest about discrepancies in both views. However, to be a creation scientist, or an evolutionary scientist indicates that you have taken a position and will only support that position or skew data to support that view. So I have not libeled your precious creation scientist who in zeal for their faith will display only that data supporting their position and remain curiously quiet on data that does not support their theories as does the evolutionist.

Your whole argument is biased and doesn't make a lot of sense.
First, a Christian is more likely to be honest than the people you keep company with--the JEDP theorists, the Higher Critics, the liberals, the unbelievers, the evolutionists, the atheists, the ungodly--all of which have an axe to grind--that the Bible is not true, and the supernatural does not exist. They are the ones that are biased.
Second, all men have faith whether they say they do or not. An atheist has faith in his ideology that there is no god. You will find "atheism" in any book on world religions under the section of "secular religions." Likewise, agnosticism is a religion in and of itself. So is humanism, and so is evolution. They all have their agenda, and they all have their set of belief systems. There is not a man on this earth that is totally unbiased. The individuals that are most likely to approach science without bias are Christians who show the fruit of the Spirit, because they have the most integrity.

The question is not "science" per se, but what model (evolution or creation) does the science best fit. That is the question one must answer. It is not honestly answered by unbelievers. As Julian Huxley answered the question himself: "I do not believe in evolution because of its credibility, no, rather I believe it because belief in God is far too incredible." The evolutionist believes in evolution because he is running away from God and does not want to submit to God as his authority. They are undgodly, as Peter himself states:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (2 Peter 3:3-5)

That my friend is obtusely incorrect. All of us approach science from a biased position. You must actually train yourself to be unbaised.

That is true.
Here is an example of that:

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

http://www.worthynews.com/top/teleg...-because-of-climate-change-report-finds-html/

One scientist, wanting to get on the band wagon of climate change due to global warming claimed that the glaciers of the Himalayas were receding, and "proved" that this was happening "through his 'science.'" His scientific method was never verified, and recently found out to be wrong. He had a bias. He was dishonest in his reporting of so-called facts. This happens in the scientific community quite often. Why? Because these unsaved men are dishonest, wanting to make a name for themselves. This is less likely to happen among Christians.

As I have said, one must take the science and see what model it supports. Does it support the model of evolution or the model of creation. In most cases, if not all, it supports creation. Evolutionists turn a blind eye to this because they refuse to believe in God, just like Huxley did.

No. I haven't. This can be assertained time and again in the scientific community. Most recently East Anglia University in the UK got hammered because its baised approach to global warming skewed its findings.

What is ridiculous is your statement that no one is biased when it comes to science.

That is not true. I have already demonstrated that. Many can be unbiased. The most likely to hold bias are those with an agenda--the ungodly evolutionists who do not want to admit that there is a God, and He is the Creator of all things. Thus they have formed an alternative religion. This is their bias.

Thats math.

Last time I checked Math is considered a science. Do your Math.

Science is a method by which we are able to make observations create a hypothesis test results and obtain a predictive result which occures with regularity and predictability.

Who observed the Big Bang?
Who observed intermediate species--the so-called half ape/half man?
If they occurred where are they today? There should be plenty?
Why isn't such evolution taking place today?
Why isn't such evolution observable today, and never has been observable to the naked eye?
Your definition, and any proper definition of science excludes evolution as a science.

At any point in that process but especially the begining is where our bias plays a part. So that the premise shows bias.

Your very premise lies outside the realm of science. A false premise leads to a false conclusion.

Let me give you an example. I'm a creationist who believes in a literal 6 days lets say. I know that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. Judging the distance of a certain star I may use a triangulation method where I note the star and 6 months later note the stars location again taking into account the the earths rotation diameter in relationship to the sun we calculate the star is 40,000 light years away. Now since it takes longer for light to reach the earth then my faith says the universe has been in existance the data must be interpreted differently and I come up with an assumption that "God" a scientifically unverified being "made" the light cover the distance immediately. This becomes assumed because I am biased. Especially since there is no mechanism shown by which God used to created the distance of light to cover that distance. I would also, against data, have to assume that God created dying stars or already exploded stars as well. Where is the proof of this and logic of it?

The proof and logic of this is in the Bible.
First, the Bible doesn't lie. Again do the facts fit Creation or do the facts fit evolution? That is the question that must be asked. The science is there as you stated. That was science. Now you have two models. Which model does that science best fit since both must be accepted by faith.
1. God created all things in six 24 hour days as the first chapter of Genesis plainly teaches if read with simple objectivity.
2. When Adam was created, at one day old he did not look like a one day old infant. He looked like a 30 year old man. In other words all things were created with an appearance of age. That includes the stars.
3. In day four God created the sun, moon and stars--all giving light at the same time or during a 24 hour period. The light came with the sun, moon and stars, 40,000 light years after their creation. Therefore your calculation has nothing to do with the age of the earth. The universe was created with an appearance of age just like Adam was.
4. I don't assume anything, because the Bible tells me all things were created in six days. I quoted to you many references that state this. If you don't believe this then you have to deny much of the Bible, NT included. Is it that difficult to believe that God created exploding stars for man's amazement as he looks into the universe. We behold and wonder at the glories of what we see:

Remember there was no advanced astronomy in David's day. Here is what he exclaims:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (Psalms 19:1-4)
--The entire universe, exploding stars and all, were to declare the glory of God to man, and to show to him that there is a God. Only God could create something so amazing, so beautiful. It did not come there by chance, as the evolutionist would have us believe. It was spoken into existence by the very word of God.
Does order come out of chaos? That is what evolution teaches. It violates scientific law.
Does the scientific data fit the creation model or the evolution model.
It fits the creation model in the sense that there is Intelligent Design behind the entire universe with its many solar systems operating in perfect order with each other and within each other. Chance did not do this.

 

[DHK]

Assumed because I don't hold science at face value but must interpret it with in the bias of my faith.

That is precisely what the evolutionist does, because he rejects God. That is his bias.

A real unbiased scientist would conclude that it took the light to travel 40,000 years to earth. And would not comment on what God could or could not do. The data. Just the data.

No, a real unbiased scientist would take that data and ask himself which of the two models put forth does that data fit? You are blind to that fact and assume that evolution is your default mechanism, and therefore must be true.

Now you're talking chemestry and the mechanics of chemical bonds. Science again is a method.

Now you have redefined science to fit your arguments. Science is not a method. Science is observation, rather facts gained by observation, organized and then classified. The key is that there must be an observer.

All you've done is comment on recurring effects that every water molecule is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

That is what is observed. Time after time that is what is observed, and that is what happens. That is science.

What makes them hold together? What are electrons made of how do quarks work? Get small enough and you have to ask what is your thoughts on how it holds together and work? Eventually, due to your bias you will say God does it. That my friend is a bias.

You have entered into the equation a red herring. I never said anything about quarks. Do we know how water is formed? Yes. How do the bonds stay together? Protons have a positive charge and electrons have a negative charge. I don't need to give a science lesson here. Go and study your High School chemistry book.

I just gave you an excellent example.

You gave no example at all. It was aptly refuted.

Yes and I showed you why in those links. the language used indicates a dome in which stars are displayed and above the dome is a large body of water seperated from the water on earth. This doesn't match reality. Since it doesn't match reality must I assume the text is lying or misinformed by ignorance?

You haven't read "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris, have you? You haven't read much on how this could happen. You haven't read the science that does support such a view, have you? Therefore you are the one that comes to the table with a biased view!!
You have no reason to disregard the six day/24 hour creation.
Your allegorization presentation is not science. It is opinion, based on comparisons to other literary styles of the same time. It has the same scientific value as me saying that because my son, a framer, builds house in the same style of Mr. Brown who lives in Arkansas, that they must be related, though they have different last names and have never met. But the style is the same. And they live in the same time period. This is the junk science that you are presenting to me.

Certainly, however, if I put in the factors of God (and holding that he is a constant) and assuming God is honest (my bias btw) means God is speaking figuratively.

This is a big assumption since we have no reason to believe that God is speaking figuratively. Your whole argument fails at this point. You have made an assumption that is only an opinion, your opinion that over-rides what Christ has said, what Moses has said in different parts of the Bible, what the Jews themselves have said in other parts of the Bible. You basically have called many in the Bible, "liars."

Unless we make God's nature variable and he can lie or is ignorant or insane then we can assume his figurative laguage has purpose which he wants communicated other than the mechanics of how he put the universe together. So the next step is to determine what that is.

Have you ever taken a course in hermeneutics?
A basic rule of thumb in hermeneutics is to take the passage literally unless there are direct indicators to take it figuratively. There are no such indicators here. Therefore you are the one here, that is calling God insane or ignorant, a very blasphemous call to make. God is immutable. He does not change. He is constant, and has constantly said that all things were made in six days, and on the seventh he rested.
You have not refuted the evidence I gave you why they must be six/24 hour days, have you? Can you? I doubt it.

see how your bias gets in the way? God being life himself could he not created the big bang and organized the universe over time to create such an environment for life? You don't know and no one else does either. God could speak and bang its in existance. How does God break the Laws of science having created the universe from a big bang? Can it not be assumed that if he made a primordial explosion he could also direct it. Where did the gravity wells come from? You haven't made sence.

1. What bias? I stated a scientific law, and you call it bias. Who is the one that is biased? The one that denies science of course!
2. As a general rule, in studying the Bible we find that God himself does not go against the laws of nature. He created as per Genesis one. All of nature had an intelligent Creator. Then by the power of his hand he has sustained it for us.
3. Your view is what God could have done, not what God plainly said he did.
4. I know what God said. He said it all in the first chapter of Genesis, and you refuse to believe it. The same is repeated in many other places in the Bible, and you still refuse to believe it.
5. Can you find me one scripture reference to a big bang theory in the Bible?
6. No, primordial existence cannot be assumed when there is no evidence for it. That is bias not science. It is religion not science. It goes into the metaphysical outside the realm of science. This is bias. It is claimed to be science but it is not. It is outside the realm of science, and always has been. It is the most biased approach that there is.
7. The unbiased approach to the Scriptures is to take the first chapter literally as it is written just like we take the rest of the book--a historical book--recording the events of creation to Adam and on to Joseph. It is history.
8. Who hasn't made sense?

I've explained already they are figurative language that organizes the creation of the universe in sets of three organization steps indicated by a day.

Science does not back up figures of speech. You lose on that one.

Thus day one and day 4 are connected and day 2 and day 5 and day 3 and day 6. It also establishes sabbath theology. It also points to the ancient summerian and Egyptian gods by each classification (as I've shown comparison with the ennuma Elish) of Day showing these elements subservience to God thus implying God is greater than all gods and all gods apart from god are nothing more than natural forces.

So they copied from paganism. You still don't account from all the scientific data I gave you. Scientific data is not backed up by figures of speech. The scientific data supports six orderly days of 24 hours in duration. But you can't refute that can you?

You need to read my comments and comparisons of genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Uh, no I don't. You need to read the Bible. You need to come to terms how science supports creation. You can't refute the facts that science supports creation, and won't do it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Consistently with the bible raqia is used in Psalm 104:3 to describe the dome consistant with Genesis.
So internally Genesis is speaking of a solid dome which supports the primordial waters serparated above it. This dome contains the stars, moon, and sun. Therefore, from the consistant use of this word it describes an attribute of nature that is non existant. The Earth's atmosphere is not a solid dome containing the heavenly array of stars, sun and moon.

When David wrote Psalms 19:1 it was visibly apparent to David as David uses it after the manner of Genesis:

Ps 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Ge 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

If birds can fly "in" this firmament it cannot possibly be solid. Hebrew scholars do not confirm one meaning for this term as a glance into any hebrew lexicon can readily reveal. Hence, this is no comparable evidence to the phase "the evening and the morning." So you have no legitimate basis here to use raquia as internal evidence to reinterpret "the evening and the morning" as something other than literal 24 hour days.

Nor does it support above it water keeping it out as it were save by the floodgates.

If a "firmament" is biblically described as containing flying birds and apparent and visible to David then obviously it cannot be a solid as you are suggesting EVEN THOUGH in some contexts it may take on that meaning. However, that divergence demolishes your EQUAL internal evidence to prove contradiction.

Are you saying that it is impossibe for atmospheric space, the kind of space that birds can "fly" in, to act as a barrier between water vapor and planet earth separate water when God's power is involved because according to science the atom should fly apart but it is kept together by some inexplainable force that the Bible defines as the power of Christ (Col. 1:17).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When David wrote Psalms 19:1 it was visibly apparent to David as David uses it after the manner of Genesis:

Ps 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Ge 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

first this supports the internal consistency. Note the Use of the term Open indicating within the dome not attached to so in the sky above the earth with in the dome. Note David uses this phrase poetically as well. We can assume from internal consistency that this is God's non literal use of the term.

So you have no legitimate basis here to use raquia as internal evidence to reinterpret "the evening and the morning" as something other than literal 24 hour days.

Actually I have and thus I've shown it to you. Open Firmament with in the open space of the dome which holds water above it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So what are you attempting to say?

I am saying that only the Scriptures have been provided by God as the objective standard to define our faith and practice (Deut.29:29; 2 Tim. 3:15-16) and is to be accepted over the opinions of men when they are in conflict (Isa. 8:20).

I am saying that the Son of God has no visible manifestation and therefore any claim to have personal subjective revelation from Christ is to be SUBJECTED to the Scriptures and thus Scriptures VALIDATE and interpret such professed revelation rather than such professed revelation VALIDATES and interprets scripture (Isa. 8:20; Rom. 3:6).

I am saying that nature is not the objective standard for faith and practice and any subjective opinions and observations by finite creatures is subject to God's Word rather than God's Word subject to them. We have been told for nearly two hundred years that it is scientific fact that man as well as all other current life evolved from lower life forms when God's word explicitly states man was directly created by God in God's image. We had been told by Archeologists that King Sardon did not exist; there was no writing in the time of Moses; no such thing as the Hitites and the list of lies presented as "scientific" fact goes on and on.

Thus far, the evidence you have presented in Genesis to overthrow and reinterpret INTERNAL constants have not stood the test of Scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

first this supports the internal consistency. Note the Use of the term Open indicating within the dome not attached to so in the sky above the earth with in the dome. Note David uses this phrase poetically as well. We can assume from internal consistency that this is God's non literal use of the term.

Actually I have and thus I've shown it to you. Open Firmament with in the open space of the dome which holds water above it.

I don't have to do mental gymnastics when I study the usage of "the evening and morning" but with your take on "firmament" it requires mental gymnastics to avoid a more common sense and obvious explanation that will not support your theory and thus you will reject.

What do you find difficult to accept in the concept of a layer of space wherein birds fly that functions like a solid barrier, in regard to separation purpose, that separates water vapor from planet earth? The natural reading of Psalm 19:1 is that David is describing something visible to his eyes that he is beholding.

What you are doing is first asserting your allegorical meaning to Genesis and asserting it to every other passage that would conflict with your view of Genesis. That is circular reasoning just like the geological time table argument.


Da 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Are you going to suggest that Daniel is also speaking allegorical and the brightness is allegorical? The natural reading of this is that the moon and stars are located in a layer of space between the earth's atmosphere and heaven. That God's people shine like the stars IN the firmament or second heaven or space. Would not these two firmaments or layers of space (earths atmosphere, and outer space) explain the Biblical use of the plural for "heaven" in the original and for Paul's "third" heaven or space where God dwells beyond stellar space and earth's atmospheric space?