I will now begin to answer your questions about my views on creation. But first a few observations on the way you and many other YEC's use the Bible.
Quite frankly, you don't seem to understand the difference between revelation and theology.
I think that you do not understand me or where I'm coming from, and I think that is improper to make such an accusation or summarization until you do. I apologized for making similar accusations in the Egyptian Mythology thread. I see you responded in kind. I'm sorry for starting with such comments. Please forgive me. I hope that we can end that type of talk and continue on with our mutual endeavor to find the truth.
As I've written in some posts in this thread and in the Egyptian
Mythology thread, I understand that the Bible contains both literal and symbolic information. God uses similies, metaphors, puns, analogies, poetry, etc. throughout the Bible. Sometimes what is written is to be taken as literal, sometimes not. When we read to understand what is being said, taking into account the context of the passage, we'll know how the words were intended to be taken. Though there may be some passages that one may read one way, whereas another person may be convinced that it is to be taken another way. That is just part of being human--we do not all see it the same way, it is the weakness of being finite and limited. However, I believe the truth is firm and not dependant upon anyone's view of it.
It would be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I know the truth completely and fully and that everyone else is wrong. I hope that I have not given that impression. What I mean to say, and I hope I'll say it now as clearly as possible, is that I believe that the Bible states the truth. And I want to understand what it is saying because I want to know the truth.
As far as the Gen 1 account, I do not believe that it is poetry or a metaphor or any other such thing. I believe it is literal. I know that you and I had a similar discussion regarding the geneology in Matt, versus the accounts given in Genesis and I Chron. As I pointed out then, the account in Matt. does not include years, whereas the account in Genesis does. The accounts of Genesis and I Chron. agree. In Matt, the point is made about fourteen generations--skipping some and including others. I think that this shows that the author is giving the geneology to document to the Jews the perfection of Jesus' earthly, royal lineage. Given all these facts, I conclude that God is being literal when he gives the account in Genesis, and not literal in the geneology in Matt.
Is that not a logical way of looking at it, perhaps I am missing something? You did not respond to that post, perhaps you could now as to whether or not my take on it is accurate.
Look how a couple of pretty highly thought of folks have committed blunders of this nature in the past.
1. Augustin-"But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, THAT IS ON NO GROUND CREDIBLE...for scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended fromn that one first man"..., (Adam).
Here you have Augustine denying the world-wide spread of mankind because the Bible doesn't mention these people or continents. If the Bible doesn't say it, it can't be true...that is his position. Bad theology producing bad science.
2. Martin Luther-"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon...This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tellss us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."
What an incredible idea! The sun goes around the earth. Doesn't the Bible say, "O sun, stand thou still over Gibeon, O moon over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies"?
Do you believe the sun goes around the earth, Arthur? If you don't, I know why.
It is because there is overwhelming evidence of a heliocentric solar system. Virtually no one doubts that Copernicus was right.
What Luther was doing was using bad theology to criticize good science. Most, if not all, modern readers of the Bible use good science to achieve good theology, when appropriate. This is just one example among many of phenomenological speech in the Bible. It is modern science that has shown us this!
I have never met a YEC that agreed with Luther. They believe that the earth goes around the sun, just as the "evolutionists" do. There are several ways God could have worked this miracle, but the sun can't stop going around the earth simply because it DOESN'T revolve around the earth.
It is inconsistent to criticize others for doing what you yourself allow.
Ok, I see your point here, Tom, and it is a good one. I don't think that I have turned my back on science in believing what I do. I think science is fun, and I've had a few physics classes, a chemistry class, some calculus, differential equations and linear algebra at the university. I wouldn't say that I'm a science-illiterate, but not a pro either. I did notice when I was at college that many professors were caught up in how they saw things and thought they were all-that-and-a-bucket-of-chicken, and if you had a good question that might show what they said to be false, they'd make it seem like you were the stupid one and they were the smart one. Reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except they listened to the boy in that story. And then there were the Liberal Arts professors. Man were they loony. They had us read books by people who committed suicide after they died, so that we might be "enlightened" by their great thinking.
I guess what I'm saying is that so-called "higher" education can mess a person up and/or make him proud if they don't have a solid foundation in the Lord.
But I digress.
Science is a good tool if used properly.
All of the major branches of science were founded by creationists. I'm just saying that:
-scientists don't have all the answers
-what they say should not be taken as the gospel truth
-they'll probably find out their wrong about many things in just another few years just like the last few years
-scientists are not objective.
Rather all approach their studies with pre-conceived ideas and as such as prone to
1. neglecting important data because it didn't fit with their understanding
2. skewed data
3. incorrect conclusions based on their data.
Now, please, I'm not saying that all scientists are evil or that they intentionally produce bad findings to confound Bible-believers. I'm just saying, how can we trust everything that is published? My stance is that I believe th Bible first, and then measure everything else that is written by the Bible. The question then is what does the Bible say and how to take it--as literal or not.
Ok, now your arguement is that there are things that are common knowledge in the science community that I seem to be brazenly disregarding. Very well, let's go through them point by point. I am not a scientist (i.e. I do not do research for a living), and I doubt you are either (what do you do for a living, btw? I'm a computer guy). But we'll look at each one and hope to find the truth about each.
You would agree, would you not, that there have been as many if not far more scientists than theologians who have believed something and then found out they were wrong. A practical example. MD's opinions over the past 50 years or so have changed from "lay your baby on its back", then "no, lay your baby on its stomach" then "no, lay your baby on its back" again. Also, "breast-feeding is good", then "no breast-feeding is bad", then "no, breast-feeding is good" again.
In your generation, evolution and the Big Bang were all the rage. Most kids started being heavily taught evolution, with the curriculum actively rejecting creationism, in the early 60's. Today, some secular scientists are saying that no, the Big Bang couldn't have happened, nor evolution as is taught in schools, esp. the origin of the species. Some consider these theories as laughable now, as laughable as thinking the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.
Now, remember that I pointed out that in Genesis 8:5 it says that the tops of the mountians were visible. Then in 8:9 it says that the dove came back because there was no place to land, because "the water was on the surface of all the earth".
First it says the mountain tops were visible, then it says they were covered with water! Contradiction? I don't believe so Arthur. It is just another example of phenomenological language in the Bible. The dove couldn't see the distant hilltops.
Now on to other things in a later post.
Thomas Maddux
Well, Tom, reading the flood passage, I don't see how you think that it was a local flood (that is what you are saying, right). And I wrote a post that included many other verses in the Bible that support the fact that it was a world-wide flood that is being described in Genesis.
Arthur
