| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1268 Registered: 5-2007 |
I read an article that suggested that the explaination of dinosaurs was a preexisting, previously created version of earth and that after the destruction of the earth's bio sphere,(take your pick how)........."the earth (became) (not was) without form and void" They claim that 'became' is a more accurate translation and explains that in essence, God terraformed the earth with new life in 6 days. Is this a plausible theory ? (Message edited by jim02 on August 30, 2011) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2071 Registered: 7-2007 |
No, because sin causes death. Who was living on Earth who sinned, causing the dinosaurs to die? It isn't right to compromise with evolutionists any more than it's right to compromise with Islam. God's word is true. Evolutionists don't believe in a worldwide flood either and they don't believe in God. Christians should never compromise the truth. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 368 Registered: 7-2010  |
Jim, I believe what you are referring to is called the "gap theory". It's proponents would argue around the "sin causes death" point by saying that applies to human death only and that humans didn't exist during the gap. This, of course, largely relies on assumptions (that there was a previous creation not spoken of elsewhere in the Bible and that the death contingent was exclusively a human one). As such, it isn't held by many (in old earth paradigms, age epoch seems more popular). I've recently been studying the various creation paradigms that are out there (young earth creationism, age epoch, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.) just to understand them. I have not yet formed an opinion or taken a position on the topic (it is one of those "takes many months even begin to cover" type of studies), although I will say that I have had to unlearn a lot of faulty arguments that I previously held as fact. All in all it is an interesting fun area of study, but it is not essential to understanding salvation unless you are considering a position that brings the sin/death relationship into question (an essential component of the gospel message). Michael | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1269 Registered: 5-2007 |
Hi Michael, I have read several books through the years supporting the Biblical version of creation. Challenging the Secular theories. Some of which include radio Halo effect on rock dating, inaccurate carbon dating, density stratifaction of sediments, assumed constants in physics are challenged, explainations of standing petrified forests, along with a few from SDA friends of that referred to almagamation (genetic experimentation with animals) of which I could not even speculate on. I believe in the young earth version myself. Approx 6000 years since God moved upon the face of the waters. I assume that the dinosaurs were wiped out at the flood, or by meteor winter perhaps. It would be nice to find human bones with dino bones. I understand that there is a claim that nails were found in coal deposits. But that is one of those undocumented tidbits. I agree , it is not salvational, but being able to defend the Bible is a part of reaching others. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 556 Registered: 3-2009 |
Young Earth Creationism is SDA's little gift to the Christian world that keeps giving, and giving, and giving... http://www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com/Henry_Morris__Deception.html | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1971 Registered: 6-2006  |
I don't know if you are familiar with this site, but the institute for creation research, icr.org, is a great resource. Not only do they research creation, but they have an online apologetics school as well. Leigh Anne | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2074 Registered: 7-2007 |
Our sun is too hot for this earth to be millions of years old. Just because the SDA church is false and 99% of it's teaching are wrong, doesn't mean that they don't have 1% right. A false teaching wouldn't be swallowed by so many people if there wasn't anything true in it. Satan mixes a tiny little bit of truth with a whole lot of false to get people to swallow it. Just like that song that says something like; "a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down." SDAism is fatal if people believe it, because they then cannot accept Jesus' finished work. That's Satan's goal. Mixing in a little bit of truth that won't give the adherent salvation, just makes the whole thing easier to swallow. (I think all the false religions have something that they do right. Roman Catholics rightly hold to the sanctity of life. Muslims believe homosexuality is wrong. Mormons have strong family values. But all those people are lost if they really believe the teachings of their religions, because they cannot fully accept Jesus' death in their place.) | ||
| Thegoldenway Registered user Username: Thegoldenway Post Number: 107 Registered: 5-2011 |
You know this is something that I have pondered....what about those who truly believe SDA teachings. Truly believe...100%. Will they be saved? There is a verse in Proverbs, which incidently many SDA's quote regarding 'Sunday keepers', which actually also can be very much applied to them as well. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Prov 14:12 There is no reason especially in America for anyone not to know the gospel. Many SDA's don't prove the authencity of their faith because they arrogantly believe that they have all the truth. I know that God gives them many opportunities to come to a knowledge of the true gospel....but they refuse to look and be saved. Asurprise, as time goes by and as I learn more and more of the true gospel and the errors of SDAism I have to say that I am coming to see things the way you do. "People are lost if they really believe the teachings of their religions, because they cannot fully accept Jesus' death in their place." If this wasn't true....then why did Paul write so harshly to the Galation church about getting sucked into a false gospel? Out of all his letters to the churches, the Galation letter seems to be the harshest one he wrote. It is extremely important that we believe and receive the finished work of Jesus on our behalf and rest in Him. I think of what Jesus said too. Abide in Me, and I will abide in you. If we, the branches don't connect with the vine...those branches die. hmmmmm..... I am very thankful that God is the Judge. lynn | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 369 Registered: 7-2010 |
I used to be a staunch supporter of a 6 day / 6,000 year creation (hereafter young earth creation, or YEC) and refused to hear any other option. As such, I've absorbed lots of evidence for it over the years, but until recently I never bothered to look at the other positions out there, nor have I bothered to actually work out the math for the physics (some of which is within my capability, some of which I lost years ago). I took all that I read/heard regarding creation science as fact without actually checking it. Today I am more open to other possibilities in addition to YEC. I'm in no way saying that young earth creationism is wrong (as previously posted, I have no conclusion at this point), but I would advise caution at using many of the "popular" arguments when discussing this issue with those skeptical of your position. Some of them come across as pretty pathetic to anyone with even a basic education in one or more of the subject fields and will get you more tuned out than it will "help them understand." For every good compelling point out there in favor of a young earth there are dozens of points which would be better suited to the trash bin. Without taking the time to actually understand the subjects and the opposing arguments it is impossible to know the good from the bad. It is the irresponsible myth spreading that marginalizes every young earth supporter. Studies of my interest - Cosmology: The starlight problem (how we see things happening more the 6k LY away). Common YEC solutions include in situ light creation and a few different "stretching combined with altered speed of light" cosmologies. The in situ argument results in a philisophical debate ("is God a deceiver?") which may or may not be acceptable to you, while the cosmological ones rely on relativistic math solutions to the problem. I did work through the math on the cosmological solutions. One of the proposed solutions I encountered which did not include supporting math was flat out wrong on a very basic level (having completely flipped the relational consequence of E=MC^2). The other solutions did work out mathematically and did exactly what their authors claimed of them. I could have stopped and accepted them as fact right there, but I asked myself the scientific question "how can I test this hypothesis?" These proposed cosmologies predict expected behaviors, such as observable pulsar periods. Are these observable per the proposed cosmologies? They are not. Thus, the hypothesis is either incorrect or incomplete. I made a few attempts of my own to fix the problem (to complete it), but every attempt to make a universal change that fixed the pulsar periods also altered everything else such that the 6 days expanded back out into billions of years (albeit in a bizarre universe where the sun is 2 inches wide and has less mass than a grain of sand). I was above my pay grade though, so I gave up. The pulsar problem (and apparently also an absorption spectra problem that I haven't taken the time to understand) have been well known since these alternate cosmologies have been proposed (quite a while now). Despite this, they are tossed about as fact. I'm not saying the problem isn't solvable, but I am saying that the "solutions" out there certainly shouldn't be treated as fact or treated as "solved" at this point. Dating methods: First off... for those of you who are not aware, Carbon 14 is not the end all and be all of dating methods used on everything. I wish I had a dollar for every time a YEC supporter or pastor misapplied C14 while supporting some point or another! Even while I was a SDA and was a staunch supporter of YEC this simple ignorance of the science used to annoy me. At the very least, everyone engaging in a discussion on the subject should know that other dating methods exist and which one is used for what application. For those with a penchant for science, understanding the validation checks in place (they are not foolproof, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about their reliability as well) should be understood before making authoritative claims on the subject. There are "creative explainations" out there for the dates (e.g. "flood leaching"), and there are questions that can be asked about those explainations as well (e.g. "then why do various different dating methods produce similar dates when leaching should yield wildly varying dates?"). There are compelling arguments both ways, but this is by no means a "solved" issue. Dendrochronology: A side topic to understand when discussing anything C14 related since dendrochronology is used in calibrating C14 (but not the other methods). Be prepared to properly refute claims regarding a tree ring chronology that extends beyond the flood and even beyond 6k years (and check for refutations to the common refutations). Biblical Chronology: Do you know how to derive the 4,004 BC date which is the basis for the "6,000 year" chronology that is frequently cited? Are you aware that different manuscripts show wildly different chronologies (such as ages of people) than the Masoretic from which our modern OT is derived? Can you explain the contradictions some will point out in the Biblical chronology (see, for instance, my topic on Exodus 12, which contains one item I solved while working out the chronology for myself)? Can you align the Biblical record with the record of other cultures? Depending on how you work the chronology, which solutions (assumptions) you use, and which manuscripts you use, the chronology can be anywhere from 5,800 years up to 10,000 years. Why do we fix on "6,000 years" today then? We get it primarily from Usher's chronology which became annotated into several KJV Bibles of the day and thus popularized. There is some debate if Usher was influenced by the then popular fascination with millennial alignment (making a day of creation also equal a thousand years of earth's history, resulting in a 6,000 year date for the begin of the 7th millennial reign of Christ). This belief persisted for a few centuries; 6,000 years was even later included as of William Miller's "proofs". Chronologies longer than 6,000 years were not popularized because they didn't fit, but a longer literal chronology does deserve more serious attention today. And finally, if you are a young earth creation supporter, don't be hypocritical and swiftly support global warming science which is derived from some of the same long-scale data sets. Either you trust the science, or you don't. In fact, if you support YEC, then the dinosaurs are trapped carbon from before the flood that belongs released into the atmosphere instead of sitting in the ground. I've heard YEC support and global warming support come up in the same breath before and had to go "huh"? Imagine how contradictory this sounds to non-Christians who are skeptical of YEC in the first place. Sorry to introduce a politically charged issue into the discussion... it just is a cognitive dissonance I see all over the place that has become a pet peeve of mine. Michael | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 479 Registered: 1-2007  |
I don't believe God's method of creation or exactly how He created or how long it took is important or salvational. What's important is that we believe God did indeed create all and He alone is the only God of this Universe. I believe Genesis 1 is poetic language used to prove that creation was done by One God and with purpose. As other peoples believed that things were created by many gods and by accident or through fighting with one another or with man. If you look at the 6 days of creation you will see an interesting pattern, one that I think cannot be ignored or just explained away as the literal 6 days of creation. I don't subscribe to gaps, theories, literal or any, I don't think God's method or order is what is being described but just that He created all and Man being the crown of His creation to rule over it and be in relationship with Him. I'm sure some here will disagree, that's fine we are entitled to our opinions as we all know the only way we can be saved is through Jesus alone. I would like to point out the 6 days and something interesting that you may or may not have seen. Day 1 = Light/Darkness Day 4 = Sun, Moon, stars Day 2 = Sky and waters Day 5 = Sealife/flying Day 3 = Land/plants Day 6 = Landlife and man the creation account is written in groups of 3, I put them side by side so you can see it. Day 1 and 4 are parralel, Day 2 and 5, Day 3 and 6. Anyhow, I think it is pretty interesting, I am not trying to convince anyone anything, beside we all know how hard that is anyway, LOL. Why do we or others as Christians have to twist science to fit a literal interpetation of something that is appears to be poetic language? And by no means meant to be a word for word description of How God created, Just look at Genesis 1 and 2 and compare and you will see that they would contradict each other if you took them as literal, Gen 1 animals first then man, Gen 2 man then animals. I see it as poetic Gen 1 describes God creator of all and Man as being his crown and final creation. Gen 2 in relationship to God, man comes first and is most important. OK, let the disagreeing begin... LOL Paul | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1605 Registered: 7-2003  |
I would just like to back up something Michael Miller said. Without taking a particular side in the debate, I think it's okay to say that some of the arguments used for a young earth are really, really embarrassing to Christians. Understand, I'm not saying that believing in a young earth is necessarily embarrassing and I'm definitely NOT saying that believing the Bible including the Genesis account is embarrassing Christianity. Far from it. I'm saying that some of the *proofs* that get repeated are just bad and we need to be careful about that because it really hurts our cause and credibility. There are some common things that get thrown around that I know many people repeat sincerely, but unfortunately, some of the people originating them appear to be okay with using a little slight of hand to support their cause. I'll give an example in a subsequent post. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 557 Registered: 3-2009 |
Just b/c you believe in the absolute, inerrant truthfulness of all that Scripture affirms, does NOT mean that you have to read the Bible literally in every case. There are many orthodox Christians who believe in Old Earth Creationism, rejecting the 6 day creation week. Another example is the flood. Was it local or literally global? Apologist Greg Koukl tackled this question on one of his recent radio shows: http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/081411.mp3 (starting at the 57 min. mark). He makes the case that from an honest reading of the text, it can be concluded that the flood was local--which is compatible w/ the scientific evidence, whereas the global flood is not as compatible. SDAs had a huge influence in the shift in Christian thinking on this several years ago, b/c they had to defend the Sabbath (i.e., literal 6 day creation week). Since then, it's become so politically charged in the evangelical realm, as Michael alluded, that many times, we cannot even have a decent conversation w/out accusations being thrown around. To understand the confusion of the categories of literal interpretation and inerrancy, see the following roundtable discussion by equally committed Christian theologians as they wrestle with it (below). Michael and Paul, I agree with you both. If we don't stop being so dogmatic about this as Christians, I believe we're turning many people off to Christianity as a whole. And this is a peripheral issue (not salvational) and SO not worth it, IMO. The things that are important in Scripture are clear. The things that aren't so important (e.g., origins) aren't so clear. For some reason, God hasn't revealed as much extensive detail re: origins as He has on the life of Jesus, for example. I'm going to say something ostensibly heretical to some. Although all Scripture is true and serves various purposes, it is not all (1) equally important for us to know/understand (2) equally clear as far as interpretation. The Bible is not meant to be read as a scientific textbook to give all the answers of science & origins. This is a false idea that came with the Enlightenment and scientific age. IMO, this resulted from humans' penchant for answers to their curiosity--even in matters where God has not been pleased to reveal answers to us. Many answers we may be curious about just aren't in the Bible, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Scripture is meant to draw us to Jesus, Who is Life  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Roundtable Discussion on Inerrancy Participants: Michael Horton is co-host of the White Horse Inn and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation. Michael Spencer is a writer (www.InternetMonk.com) living in southeastern Kentucky. His first book is scheduled for publication in late 2010 by Waterbrook Press. The Very Rev. Dr. Donald P. Richmond, a presbyter and examining chaplain with the Reformed Episcopal Church, is author of multiple books, articles, poetry, and art. His most recent book is A Short Season in Hell: Meditations on Dante (Episcopal Recorder Publications, 2010). It seems to me that critics of inerrancy sometimes share with fundamentalists a naive and modernistic set of assumptions about the way to read a series of covenantal documents. Michael Horton recently had an engaging e-mail conversation on inerrancy with Michael Spencer, the "Internet Monk," and Donald Richmond, a presbyter and examining chaplain with the Reformed Episcopal Church. Here is what they had to say about this controversial topic. Horton: "The Bible, in its original autographs, is without error in all that it affirms." Shaped especially by B. B. Warfield and fleshed out in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), this particular formulation was forged in response to a growing reticence to identify the Word of God directly with the words of Scripture. It also was intended to clarify the position and to distinguish it from fundamentalist views that downplay the human aspect of Scripture, such as the belief that each word was dictated by the Holy Spirit. With Warfield, I would argue that while inerrancy is not a foundational Christian doctrine, it expresses faithfully the teaching of the Scriptures themselves and the historic teaching of the church--and its denial puts us in the position of determining for ourselves the parts of Scripture we regard as canonical. What are your major objections or qualms about this formulation? Richmond: I unreservedly affirm Holy Scripture as the written Word of God. However, while affirming the full sufficiency of Holy Scripture regarding all matters related to belief and behavior, I refuse to use the word "inerrancy." There are several reasons for my resistance to both the word and its current meaning. First, it is not a foundational doctrine. As such, to focus upon this word places us in a position of majoring on minors. Second, the word "inerrancy," at least as it is popularly understood, is entirely foreign to the apostles, Fathers, and Reformers. Third, the concept of inerrancy places a template upon the biblical text that forces the contemporary reader into a position of evaluating and applying the text anachronistically. Fourth, when we embrace inerrancy, we are invariably brought to a position of embracing plenary verbal inspiration and an unwholesome literalism. Fifth, the doctrine of inerrancy reflects a fear-based, not a faith-based, response to contemporary criticism. Finally, although it is a dangerous position in which to place ourselves, it is inescapable that we do "determine for ourselves the parts of Scripture that we regard as canonical." I welcome Scripture's authoritative rule over my life. Nevertheless, while accepting this rule, I do not think I must accept inerrancy in order to arrive at authority. Spencer: I do not so much believe that the concept of inerrancy is untrue as that it is inefficient, unnecessary, and divisive. It is inefficient because the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy itself is a syllabus on the special definition of "error" at the heart of inerrancy, a special definition that allows literary genre, imprecision and approximation to exist alongside the curious idea of "no errors," thus necessitating a special definition of error. Further, the church has long used perfectly adequate language about the Bible, such as can be found in the Westminster Confession's article on Scripture, without the use of inerrancy and its required special definitions. Finally, the enthusiasts for the use of this term have managed to treat all kinds of brothers and sisters who accept the truthfulness and authority of Scripture as deniers of the orthodox place of Scripture in the church. Inerrancy may repair some breaches in the theological hull of evangelicalism, but I am unconvinced that strict enforcement of the term itself was necessary or the fruits beneficial. In response, why is the technical definition of Chicago-style inerrancy necessary when the Reformed confessions have a good and workable statement on Scripture? Horton: What would be the main reason (or maybe two) you would offer for inerrancy being "untrue"? Richmond: While I very much agree with Michael Spencer's observations, I do not believe he has gone quite far enough. Inerrancy is both "untrue" and "inefficient." The reason that inerrancy is "untrue" is primarily because it is a concept foreign to the Bible, and as such foreign to God. I do not in any way mean to suggest that God is untrue (quite to the contrary!), but rather in regard to inerrancy, the doctrine is so entirely foreign to the biblical narrative that God cannot endorse it. Spencer: The problem for me isn't the untruthfulness of the term on some level; it's clearing out all the baggage that comes with it. We have to define "error," which apparently takes several pages of the Chicago Statement and excludes several kinds of information ordinary people call errors. Then we have to understand why "inerrancy" is a required term, when the church operated just fine without it for centuries. Finally, the use of "inerrancy" will pick an immediate fight with certain literalistic views of the Bible as a science textbook, and we will have to work through the entire young earth creationist presentation in order to preserve our definition of "inerrant" without pre-committing all of us to be creationists. My contention is not that the Bible has errors in what it teaches, but that the material in the Bible that operates in a broader sense of truth--rather than the narrow, technical sense--deserves better treatment than having to conform to this modernistic and confusing term. Richmond: The word "inerrancy" did not fall from heaven, laden with divine patronage. Instead, when we use the word, it is infected with philosophical ideas that were a knee-jerk response to what was happening theologically and philosophically between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. If you ask me if I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, a historic Abraham, or in the physical death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, I would heartily and happily agree. However, I oppose the concept of inerrancy because the word itself moves the argument, intentionally or not, into the arena of a philosophical system foreign to the apostles, Fathers, and Reformers. In short, if we are going to use the word, we will need to submit ourselves to the system from which it arose. On these terms, inerrancy is indefensible. Horton: Let me respond to both of your answers--first, on the question of whether inerrancy requires investment in a whole philosophical system (modernist epistemology). Surely words such as "hypostatic," "Trinity," and, for that matter, biblical terms such as "Logos" (Word) and even "Theos" (God) don't have to be used exactly the same way that most people used them in antiquity. I'm not sure why the claim that the Bible doesn't err is wrapped up in Enlightenment philosophy, especially when the term itself was used by Augustine and many others since. Furthermore, I sympathize with your point about the qualifications that the formal statements of inerrancy often make: only the original autographs, not the copies; the distinction between discrepancies and actual errors; and so forth. However, the closer I study these qualifications, the more valid they seem. We do have access to the "original autographs" indirectly by comparing the best-attested families of manuscripts. The whole enterprise of textual criticism assumes we can reconstruct the original autographs to such an extent that the only remaining questions concern verses that do not affect any article of faith and practice. And doesn't it make sense to discriminate between discrepancies (apparent conflicts)--for which in many cases good explanations have been offered--and errors or contradictions. Second, when we look at issues such as young earth creationism, that's a question of interpretation, not thecharacter of the text as such. I'm as worried about the way the young earth argument handles the Scriptures as I am about the science. If they misinterpret the Scriptures, expecting it to answer questions beyond its scope and intention, then I fail to see how the inerrancy of Scripture itself is jeopardized. Third, when Michael says that the Bible operates with a broader understanding of "truth" than modernistic assumptions (technical accuracy, like mathematics), I cannot only concur but could cite Warfield and the Chicago Statement to support that point. Fundamentalists and modernists have defended and rejected biblical truthfulness by demanding modern standards of exactitude. For example, clearly the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, but Jesus wasn't giving a lecture on botany--and since he did not know the time or hour of his return, we shouldn't assume that Jesus knew what the smallest seed was in any case during his earthly humiliation. That's why the Chicago Statement says the Bible is "without error in all that it affirms." As a fully human book, the Bible exhibits the weaknesses, limitations, and cultural locations of each writer. All of this is affirmed in such formal statements. Are you sure you're taking issue with this formulation, or is it a more fundamentalist version to which you are responding? Richmond: Regarding Dr. Horton's comment, "As a fully human book, the Bible exhibits the weaknesses, limitations, and cultural locations of each writer," when we use the word "inerrancy," I am not sure we can enjoy the luxury of such discriminating thinking. As for his reference to St. Augustine and others, I concede their use of the word; but when they used it, they did not have between 500 and 1,500 years of baggage (such as the Enlightenment and Scientific Rationalism) with which to contend. Spencer: Dr. Horton's answer on young earth creationism assumes that the use of the term "inerrancy" does not necessarily create the problem. I would say that my experience teaching Bible survey leads to the opposite conclusion. When the concept of "no errors" is the presiding concept, then it is the hearer who determines the definition of error that is at work. Copies of the Chicago Statement are not issued to all who hear the term. If I say "Genesis is without error" to an audience of sharp, science-minded students, they will read Genesis and say, "Then there is water above the firmament and the earth is the unmovable center of the universe." The fact that you and I have interpretative moves to make at that point doesn't deter someone taking the shortest route from seeing inerrancy in the same way they see the concept of "without error" operating in their own view of truth. It is Christians--and especially the engineers of the broad use of the term "inerrant"--who have developed a special definition to relieve the interpretative tension. When we use the term, no asterisk is necessary. When the ordinary person hears it, a whole seminar on "errors that aren't really errors" is needed. When Dr. Horton says, "As a fully human book, the Bible exhibits the weaknesses, limitations, and cultural locations of each writer," I am wondering where it becomes apparent to the layperson that these things are true. The popular notion of inerrancy is used by literalists and young earth creationists every day to question the orthodoxy of people who believe the Bible. Inerrancy was the cry of the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by conservatives, primarily because the term immediately raised the question of "do you really believe the Bible?" Baptist moderates may have had a neo-orthodox view of Scripture, but they believed the Bible was true. It was the inerrancy debate that determined exactly how that answer would and wouldn't hold water, and it was along the lines I discussed above: literalism. Horton: It sounds again to me as if inerrancy is being confused with literalism, which is a category mistake. Inerrancy is a claim about the truth of the text and literalism is a way of misreading the Bible or any other text, inerrant or not. An audience of sharp, science-minded students should hopefully have had enough literature courses to be able to interpret genres other than science textbooks. Warfield labored the point that the Bible isn't a science textbook. In fact, he favored theistic evolution! Scope, purpose, and genre have to be considered. Then you have to distinguish views that finite and fallen people might have assumed in their worldview from what they actually teach. To be sure, these are complicated issues, but they aren't about inerrancy; they're about interpretation--and with or without inerrancy, everyone has to do that. Yes, there are extreme views of inspiration (such as dictation, which is basically denying the humanity of Scripture), and there are inerrantists who think of the Bible as a catalog of propositional descriptions of astronomy, geology, and math. But, again, those are interpretative flaws that lead people either to deny inerrancy or to develop extreme views of literal accuracy. Calvin spoke of Scripture as without error. Yet he also reminded us that Moses spoke not as an astronomer but that God condescended to accommodate his revelation to the finite capacity of his covenant people. It seems to me that critics of inerrancy sometimes share with fundamentalists a naive and modernistic set of assumptions about the way to read a series of covenantal documents. Regarding your other point, would you also say, "There is no Bible itself because we cannot in any way escape the need for interpretation"? Now, this sounds very modernist to me. If that is what you're saying, I'd wonder if we have differences larger than inerrancy. Of course, texts are interpreted, but are you sure you want to collapse text into interpretation without remainder? Would this also mean that there is no qualitative difference between Scripture and tradition? Richmond: My response about interpretation is tied specifically to the comment, "Chicago Statement itself" (my emphasis). That is, although the statement comes from and exists within a certain context, interpretation (which can be misinterpretation) is always required. As for the Bible, of course it is objective truth as spoken by God through his apostles and prophets. Tradition, based upon councils (for example), and specifically addressed in our Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, can be and have been wrong. We base our beliefs and behaviors upon the revealed text--not outside of it. Nevertheless, there is a critical role that interpretation plays in this process and, as you know better than I, this is a weighty issue. Quite frankly, our interpretation of the text can make the determination between life and death. And, although the written Word of God, Holy Scriptures also come to us as interpreted texts--unless one subscribes to the dictation theory of how we received our Bible. You stated earlier that God's Word carries with it a certain amount of the cultural baggage. Hermeneutics and homiletics are therefore interpretational exercises. Horton: Both of your responses seem to confuse inerrancy with interpretation. Nevertheless, you helpfully point out that this is also what a lot of preachers are doing. So are we stuck with having to jettison inerrancy simply because some misuse it? I just don't see the logical connection between "God's Word is entirely trustworthy" and "the earth is about 6,000 years old." Why don't we spend our time showing people that an inerrant Bible doesn't teach a young earth--in fact, doesn't address the age of the earth at all? Also, unless we follow Karl Barth in maintaining that error is intrinsic to humanness, is there a contradiction in your view between affirming the full involvement of the human authors (with their diverse cultural backgrounds, assumptions, and interpretations) along with the Spirit's preservation of the prophets and apostles from errors in all that they actually affirm? Richmond: Your point is well taken. The emphasis on covenant might be a useful tool for clarifying the boundaries and purposes of inerrancy. Second Timothy 3:16-17, a text familiar to us all, highlights the scope of inerrancy--if we must use the word at all. Scripture is inspired, and I might add inerrant, to accomplish the covenantal purposes of God: teaching, reproving, correcting, training, and equipping of the people of God. I think, however, that you may give far too much credit to the general population if you think they are aware of the practical implications of genre. I have two good friends, well educated and decidedly Christian, who recently told me that if I was not a biblical literalist, I was not a real Christian. Most people, both friends and enemies of the faith, have a similar perspective about inerrancy. As such, would we not be better served if we were to abandon this word altogether? I would far prefer proclaiming God's good news than having to educate others on the hair-splitting minutia of inerrancy. Spencer: You give too much credit in the area of interpreting genre. Do you really believe that the popular cry for inerrancy--which is heard in thousands of sermons in churches, youth groups, and conferences--is interpreted to mean, "You can even believe in evolution and be an inerrantist"? The problem may be fundamentalist literalism, but 90 percent of the people who use the term "inerrancy" in my denomination mean exactly that: literalism in every way possible. This is my complaint about its inefficiency and misuse. I agree with you completely about genre and interpretation, and I agree with you completely about all the diverse interpretation possible in the Chicago Statement. There may be room for a broad and safe use of the word in the academy; but here where evangelicalism rules the landscape, "inerrancy" is a test for "Do you believe the Bible literally, oppose evolution, oppose women in ministry?" and so on. The word is a lot of trouble. More trouble than it's worth, in my view. Richmond: I do apologize if I confuse inerrancy with interpretation. However, even if we assume the viability of inerrancy, we must also assume that the apostles and prophets, fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, engaged in some form of interpretational actions in their choice of words. Inerrancy does not necessarily assume dictation. We do not jettison inerrancy simply because of the possibility of misinterpretation. If that were the case, we might as well dispense with the word "Trinity" as well. We must discard the word "inerrancy" for a number of reasons, all of which were stated in my initial argument. You are, of course, correct: there is no logical connection between inerrancy and a 6,000-year-old earth. This, however, is how the general and even fairly educated population views it. I find absolutely no contradiction in affirming human authorship and divine inspiration. When we use the term "inerrant," however, many evangelicals play up the divine elements and play down the human elements. If we are to use the word "inerrancy," we must at all costs avoid overemphasizing or underemphasizing either the human or the divine nature of God's revealed Word. God did not superintend error; rather, by our insistence upon using the word "inerrant," we set the text up for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and (within the context of the word "inerrant" itself) charges of being inaccurate. Horton: You both have helped to frame up some of the complications involved with maintaining inerrancy in the present situation. However, I'm still left wondering how there's any real connection between the claim that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms and the commitment to post-Enlightenment epistemology and particular interpretations of the age of the earth. I don't find Arminianism a plausible interpretation of the relevant passages. Nevertheless, it would be ridiculous to say that an Arminian brother or sister denies inerrancy because we interpret the passages differently. So what if a lot of folks out there are confusing inerrancy with disputed interpretations of the text? Aren't you rejecting inerrancy for the same reasons? I haven't yet heard an argument (exegetical, theological, or historical) for why you think inerrancy is a flawed formula. Spencer: Of course, the assumption here is that I would have something to prove beyond the language of theWestminster Confession's chapter on Scripture. It was the Chicago Statement creators who took upon themselves the burden of mounting an exegetical, theological, and historical argument that previous confessions regarding Scripture were inadequate without this additional confessional document--a document that functions in a very different way from any church-sanctioned confession such as the WCF. So you are correct: I have no desire to be the two-millionth person to undertake an examination of passages discussing inspiration and authority, knowing those discussions have yielded nothing new. No, it is those who have run up the flag of inerrancy who owe the rest of the body of Christ an explanation for why previous formulations of Scripture's authority were not adequate and why an insistence on inerrancy reflects the meaning of Scripture's own teaching and the church's own confession better than the language of those upon whose shoulders we stand. Horton: I'm sure you would agree that confessions are historically conditioned. From the earliest days, the church was implicitly trinitarian in its baptism, prayers, liturgies, and hymns. The heretics pushed the church to formulate the dogma of the Trinity in clearer terms. Same with the christological debates, the Pelagian heresy, and on we could go. Yet even heretics either quoted Scripture as authoritative or (as in the case of the Gnostics) appealed to their own secret texts. Only with the advent of Socinianism and the Enlightenment did professing Christians begin to question whether divine inspiration preserved the scriptural canon from error. Clement of Rome, who died toward the end of the first century, wrote that in "the Holy Scriptures which are given through the Holy Spirit nothing iniquitous or falsified is written." Augustine added, "The evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit and that which is the result of forgetfulness." Luther declared, "I am profoundly convinced that none of the writers have erred." Same with Calvin, although he noted in detail apparent discrepancies, difficulties, and open questions concerning textual criticism. In modern times, papal encyclicals have insisted upon inerrancy, sometimes even falling into the exaggerated position of a dictation theory (which evangelical statements like the Chicago Statement reject), and both Vatican I and Vatican II affirm that the Bible is inerrant. So, further reflection on the nature of Scripture was precipitated by modernist criticism--and by a concern to distinguish the view from fundamentalism. To say, however, that inerrancy arose Phoenix-like from the ooze of modern epistemology is wide of the mark. While I affirm the Westminster Confession's statement on Scripture (viz., that it is "the only infallible rule for faith and life"), I also affirm inerrancy as a tragically necessary "further report." Infallible used to mean not only inerrant but incapable of erring. It was a stronger word than inerrancy. As we know, however, in the 1970s "infallible" became a weaker alternative to "inerrant." Sadly, we need to clarify what would in other centuries have been a perfectly obvious confession for believers. I wish we didn't need inerrancy, but we do. I wish we didn't need to qualify what we mean and don't mean by affirming the trustworthiness of Scripture, but we do. Things are a lot more complicated now, but it is not because inerrantists have too much time on their hands. It is because we are more aware than ever both of the challenges to scriptural authority and the necessity of defending it. With Warfield, I don't believe that denying inerrancy is a heresy, but I don't see how we can adjudicate truth and error at all when it is up to us to determine what in Scripture we will receive as divinely revealed canon. Richmond: You are correct that "confessions are historically conditioned." And yet it seems to me that you have a bit of difficulty acknowledging--in practice--that the word "inerrancy" is a minefield of historic conditioning. I fully embrace the three catholic creeds as far as they correspond with Holy Scripture. But, in spite of your historic quotes, I cannot afford the doctrine of inerrancy the same latitude. Socinianism and the Enlightenment have forever changed how we understand and discuss inspiration and inerrancy. I am pleased you listed Clement of Rome, St. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. They communicate historically important information relevant to this discussion--although both Luther and Calvin, as you pointed out regarding Calvin, "noted in detail apparent discrepancies, difficulties, and open questions." There are "discrepancies, difficulties, and open questions"--and all of the books on how to reconcile these apparent difficulties do very little to resolve the conflicts arising from the great philosophical shifts to which you make mention, or our evangelical response to them. Inerrancy in no way "arose Phoenix-like from the ooze of modern epistemology," as you have pointed out. This has been my point throughout this discussion. My concern is, in part, that in our seeking to mount a defense against the critics, we are appealing to the very system of thought we seek to combat. That is, as stated earlier, we have abandoned proclamation for proofs. The classic creeds sought to prove nothing, only to state what God has revealed in his written Word and to assert our belief in what God said: "I believe...we believe." You have written, "But I don't see how we can adjudicate truth and error at all when it is up to us to determine what in Scripture we will receive as divinely revealed canon." How very unfortunate that the apostles, prophets, Fathers, and Reformers did not have the doctrine of inerrancy to bolster their wavering faith in what God has said in Holy Scripture. You quote Clement, Augustine, and others, but fail to demonstrate how they understood their words regarding Scripture correlates with how we understand and apply the word "inerrancy." To say that, according to Luther, "none of the writers have erred" is not to say the same thing as the text is "inerrant." Five hundred years divide us from such a luxury. Along with your Westminster Confession, our Thirty-nine Articles of Religion assert, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation." This statement is found in Article VI, "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation." I affirm, embrace, and seek to conduct my life according to the full sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is true, trustworthy, and authoritative--and I do not need inerrancy to help me arrive at these positions. What is my "answer"? Pray, preach, and teach the good news of Jesus Christ. If we do these things and use the creeds as interpretational arbiters, we will be far better off than if we use the word "inerrant." In summary, biblically, the word "inerrant" (or related terms) is not found in Holy Scripture. We find the word "inspired," and I am more than willing to embrace this. We also find phrases such as "the word of the Lord" and "Scripture," both of which I have no hesitation about using. I assume you abide by, or seek to abide by, the "regulative principle." Those of us who are orthodox Anglicans also seek to abide by such a guideline when we read in the Sixth Article of Religion, "Nobody should be required to believe as an article of the Christian faith...anything that is not found in Scripture or cannot be proved from Scripture" (An Anglican Prayer Book, Anglican Mission in America; emphasis mine). While I concede that you can extrapolate from Scripture the doctrine of inerrancy, it is not central to it. Philosophically, inerrancy is tainted by the doctrines of the world. When we use the word "inerrant," we shift the balance of discussion and debate from proclamation to proof. When we examine, as two examples, the sermons of Peter or of Steven, we find no hint of trying to prove (as we use the term) what God has said. They proclaimed what they knew and had experienced. The proof, so to speak, was in the proclamation--lived in and among the community of God. Although the Fathers and Reformers used terms such as "without error," the term or statement cannot be the same as when we use the term "inerrant." One could say that when it is communicated that "St. George slew the dragon," both we and the ancients clearly understand what this means. Not so! We know there never were dragons. We understand the word, but the content has changed. The philosophical shifts you identified have forever limited how we can use the term (if we use it at all) "inerrant." Did St. George slay a dinosaur? Maybe. Was there ever a St. George? Literarily, the story of St. George is not lessened in its impact by appreciating that it may not be historic. Inerrancy, in spite of what anyone says, lends itself to a literal understanding of the text, especially in its general lay-level use. Psychologically, the use of the term sets up a certain game plan in many minds. "Inerrant" is a word that the world--and many in the church--understand literally as "without error." The word "literally" is crucial here. As you pointed out and cited Calvin in this regard, the Bible is full of difficulties and inconsistencies, but they could easily be navigated if we abandoned the term "inerrant." Emotionally, the tension between our insistence upon the word "inerrant" and the obvious inconsistencies found in the sacred text create a cognitive dissonance that in some cases leads to both criticisms from the world and crises of faith among our weaker brothers and sisters. I am sure you are aware that to some degree "post-evangelicalism" arose from the inerrancy debate. On the other side of this are my well-educated friends whose militancy about inerrancy makes me wonder whether this doctrine is for them little more than a crutch for a wavering faith in a fearful world. Those who shout the loudest are usually those who are most fearful. Inerrancy is a fear-based, not a faith-based, doctrine. Socially, the doctrine is divisive. As a "nonessential," we are majoring in a minor that divides faithful believers. Note Baxter's wisdom: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Horton: Once again I fail to see why the claim that "the Bible in its original autographs is without error in all that it affirms" is inextricably bound up with weird science and Descartes. Inerrancy isn't a proof; it's a claim. Yet why are proofs inherently a bad business? Do you mean a certain kind of Cartesian proof that dreams the impossible dream of finite and sinful creatures having invincible, incorrigible certainty? The idea that there is absolute truth (in God) Christians can affirm, but on theological grounds we cannot say that we have absolute truth. Our knowledge is ectypal, accommodated to our finite capacity as creatures, while God's is archetypal. Of course, "Jesus is Lord" is a claim, not a proof. Regardless of how Christians of different apologetic persuasions have gone on to argue (or not argue) for that claim, we shouldn't give up the claim because it's a historically conditioned minefield. I'm not equating inerrancy with "Jesus is Lord," just using it to make a point. I don't question at all that inerrancy is a minefield of historic conditioning, like any term in our Christian grammar such as the more central words: Trinity, hypostatic union, Word, and so forth. "This present age," whether pre-modern, modern, or postmodern, is a minefield through which Christians must always navigate, trying in their limited and fallen (but hopefully faithful) way to articulate clearly that to which (and to whom) they are giving testimony. It isn't "proofs" over "proclamation" simply to give reasons for the hope that we have (1 Pet. 3:15), answering objections and opponents (2 Tim. 2:24-25), and reasoning with people in the synagogues and markets (Acts 17:1-34). In fact, the refusal to stand over the Scriptures in judgment was the very thing that Enlightenment rationalists scorned. I am not saying that you stand over the Scriptures in judgment. At the same time, I don't know how you or I or anybody else can justify submission to Scripture while having to pick out the bits that one does find useful for faith and practice and therefore inspired. I have frequently lamented the fact that some conservative evangelical approaches share with their liberal nemeses a deep commitment to modern foundationalism. However, it's anachronistic to saddle pre-modern Christians such as Clement and Augustine with all of this baggage simply because they said the Bible is inerrant. May I say something in agreement though? Inerrancy in theory doesn't secure a high view of Scripture in practice. One should lead to the other, but often it does not. There is a lot of "hot air" preaching out there. Preachers say what they want to say and, waving their Bible, find a few verses to adorn their opinions and exhortations. The way the Bible is handled today by conservatives is often appalling. It's no wonder that especially younger generations are cynical about the power of Scripture and preaching when too often they encounter only the dogmatic assertions or moralism of their pastors rather than clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. I've been impressed with the way the Reformers and their successors argued that the inspiration and authority of Scripture depended not only on its form (as inspired) but also on its content. They thought about this in very trinitarian terms: Scripture is authoritative because it comes from the Father, with the Son as its content, and the Spirit as the one who not only inspires the text but illumines our hearts and minds to understand and receive it. Fundamentalists too easily reduce inspiration to the Father's act of speaking; progressives too easily reduce it to the Son as its content (a canon-within-a-canon), and enthusiasts too easily reduce inspiration to illumination or raise illumination to inspiration (separating the Spirit from the Word). Having said all of this, I don't think the answer is to put up with the inconsistency of fundamentalists, progressives, or enthusiasts, but to submit ourselves to the inerrant canon of our Covenant Lord. Inerrancy invites challenges, qualifications, and further explanation. But so does every other view on the spectrum. There's no way of evading this question simply because it is abused and misunderstood. Jesus regarded the words of Scripture as his Father's own Word (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:17-20; 19:4-6; 26:31, 52-54; Luke 4:16-21; 16:17; 18:31-33; 22:37; 24:25-27, 45-47; John 10:35). Peter insisted that the prophets did not speak from themselves but as they "were carried along by the Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21) and in 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters as "Scriptures" (graphas). Similarly, Paul refers to Luke's Gospel as "Scripture" in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7). Paul calls Scripture "the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus," and adds, "All Scripture is breathed out by God [theopneustos] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:15-17). The Scriptures accomplish what they do (making you wise for salvation/equipping ministers) not only insofar as they speak of Christ or insofar as the Spirit speaks through them, but because of what they are: namely, the Word of God. As early as his temptation in the desert, Jesus was quoting Scripture against Satan and the religious rulers, answering not with his own words but with the Scriptures, "It is written" (Matt. 4:1-11). Throughout his ministry, as John's Gospel especially emphasizes, Jesus claimed the Father as the source of his teaching. He was not bringing his own words. The Father always speaks in the Son and by the Spirit. It is the Father's word and work that he was bringing to the world. It's no wonder, then, that Jesus spoke as one having authority, unlike the scribes and Pharisees. He not only spoke the Father's words, he is the Father's Word. And yet, even he refused to turn inward and evaluate truth and error by his own lights. Even Jesus refused the path of autonomy--knowing good and evil apart from the Father's authority. He submitted to the Scriptures. This same Jesus spoke of the words of the prophets as the very word of God. He believed there was a historical Adam whose son Abel was slain by his brother Cain (Matt. 23:35). Jesus affirmed the historical events of Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, including Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt (vv. 28-32), and Jonah's having been swallowed by a whale (Matt. 12:40-41). Let fundamentalists and liberals fight over whether the mustard seed is the smallest seed; Jesus wasn't giving a lecture on botany but a sermon on his kingdom for people who were familiar with mustard trees. If indeed all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Jesus Christ, demonstrated by his resurrection from the dead, then it seems hardly appropriate for us to stand over the authoritative Word to which he, though God incarnate, so joyfully submitted. I don't doubt that much of what I have said here can be affirmed without endorsing inerrancy, but not without contradiction. Inerrancy is a lot of trouble, but given the alternatives, it's worth it. Richmond: Dr. Horton suggests that "inerrancy is not a proof; it is a claim." This may be true, but inevitably and invariably the assertion of inerrancy leads to proofs. If this is not the case, why are all of the books by inerrantists trying to reconcile texts? Proofs are, indeed, not bad business; it is entirely a matter of what platform we seek to establish and communicate those proofs upon. Inerrancy is the wrong platform in our current context. I fully endorse 1 Peter 3: 15, 2 Timothy 2: 24-25, and Acts 17: 1-34. I have an active coffeehouse ministry where I am able to share Christ's good news--and oddly with very little, if any, from the inerrantist position. I understand the reasoning from your perspective, about how abandoning inerrancy may appear to be picking out the "bits and pieces" of "faith and practice." It is a danger to us all, even for those who do embrace the inerrantist position. But again, it is a pitfall for every one of us. Are you willing to concede the full authority and inerrancy of Holy Scripture when our Lord said, "This is my body, this is my blood" as the real and viable presence of Christ in the Sacrament? In no way do I "saddle" Clement and Augustine and others with the baggage of foundationalism or any other modern or postmodern philosophy. What I do assert is that, although they used words similar to inerrant, they did not nor could not use the word in the same way we do. This is because they were entirely unfamiliar with such philosophical systems. My position is that inerrantists must interpret the Fathers and Reformers anachronistically if they are going to correlate the statements of the Fathers and Reformers with how we understand and use and apply the word "inerrant." Yes, a high view of Scripture is worth upholding. We are agreed. "Scripture is authoritative because it comes from [God.]" Well said. I'm good with this. Spencer: My initial observation upon the invitation to address this subject was that my grievance with inerrancy is relatively small and I am not in any way qualified to put forward a third position in the debate. I do represent, in my own theological training and in my ministry among Southern Baptists, an observer and a practitioner of the concept of biblical authority as it works out in teaching, in preaching, and most importantly in the development of disciples. The authority of the Bible does not reside in the words we use about it. All of us who are teachers and communicators are aware that any term or concept will be illustrated and tried in the real world of Christian practice and spiritual formation. How does the Bible affect, shape, and influence those who read and believe it? How does its proclamation communicate its relationship to God? How do individual Christians experience the authority, inerrancy, and divine nature of Scripture? Much of my current ministry is with international students. I learned long ago that a single concept, such as inspiration, could not be trusted to communicate completely across the cultural divide. Practice, reverence, and application spoke much more deeply to my students about the inspiration of the Bible than simply the acquisition of a word they hear in English classes and even in motivational talks. Understanding inspiration ultimately depends on connecting the Bible as we read it with the God we are reverencing, worshiping, and seeking to know. The concept of inspiration required me to relate more than a theological or historical sense of how the Bible is viewed. It required me to demonstrate, in practice, what it meant to hear Holy Scripture as the words of men carried along by the Holy Spirit so that they wrote the words of God. Again, it is my own practice in using the Bible that will speak to these internationals most clearly about the truthfulness of Scripture. Many of them come from cultures where the prosperity gospel uses biblical literalism and poor interpretation to distort the gospel. Others will see the Scriptures as a manual for spiritual warfare based upon their view of the truthfulness of texts. I do not wish to discourage their confidence in the truth of the Bible, but I do wish to center their concepts of the Bible's inspiration and authority in Jesus, in good interpretative practices, in listening to the wisdom of the larger church, and in avoiding extremes that "prove" the Bible's truthfulness at the expense of its gospel. ________________________________________ Related Articles Rate This Article No bio information available for this author. Issue: "Inspiration and Inerrancy" March/April 2010 Vol. 19 No. 2 Page number(s): 33-40 You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org). Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1606 Registered: 7-2003 |
Imagine that someone told you that the average 12" ruler used in most schools is so inaccurate as to be useless and completely unreliable. Suppose they showed you cold hard scientific data and figures conclusively demonstrating that a standard ruler can be off by a factor of more than 1000% and that in side by side trials measuring the same object the results will routinely vary wildly. Probably you would begin to lose faith in rulers because, hey, there's the data showing that they don't work. But what if you found out that the "data" you had been shown was based on someone's efforts to measure the circumference of the earth, by hand, using nothing but a 12" ruler. All of a sudden that so-called "data" would look pretty pathetic and unconvincing. As silly as all this sounds, I see this all the time when people try to discredit various dating methods. First they present data showing that the method is highly unreliable and gives wildly different results on various trials, then they go on to extrapolate from this that we have no reliable way of dating the earth or other artifacts. It sure looks convincing, but is this true? Not really. What you'll find in most of these cases is that they are using a particular method in a way it's not intended to be used, in a way that is already known to be unreliable (much like using the 12" ruler isn't an appropriate way to measure the circumference of the earth). So that method might be highly reliable used for the appropriate job, but unreliable in other circumstances, requiring the selection of another tool. Basically you need the right tool for the right job. To go back to our analogy, just because you can't get an accurate measurement of the earth of the earth using a 12" ruler, that doesn't mean you can't get a pretty accurate measurement of a match box car (within a certain margin of error). We just need to make sure that we're using the right tool for the right job and that means understanding how these tools work and why. Of course this brings up the question of why this "data" gets presented this way. One hypothesis is that the "scientist" involved lack knowledge or training. This seems unlikely as most people with a college level physics course under their belt can readily point out their errors. A second hypothesis is that they might rationalize just a little like I did when I was an Adventist. I used to have such a strong belief in what I had been taught, that when I got into discussions with others it seemed okay (for the sake of Truth) to sort of "arrange" the facts to portray my position in the best light. I didn't think of it as dishonest or deceptive. I just thought I was defending truth and should present my argument in the best way possible and didn't necessarily need to share everything I knew. I wonder sometimes if that's what's going on in this scientific debate at times....perhaps on both sides. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 370 Registered: 7-2010 |
For anyone interested in learning an overview of the radiometric dating methods, I recommend http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf There are also dozens of refutations of this document on the web which you should read also (just Google the author's name... they will come up). Paul- I never noticed the parallel groupings before. It probably is nothing, but it is an interesting perspective I had not considered. You also mentioned differences in Genesis 1 and 2... that is something I have been comparing perspectives on lately as well which I neglected to include in my book length post above. Michael | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 371 Registered: 7-2010 |
Seekinglight, You are correct that this discussion naturally leads into a discussion on inerrancy. The dialog you posted is a lot to digest and I need to go over it a few more times to absorb it all, but I did have to face this topic head on while working the chronologies. In the past I held that 2 Timothy 3:16 specifically outlined inerrancy (granted this means nothing to a non-Christian because without faith it is a circular argument). However, I did encounter peculiar things while figuring out the chronology and related passages. Every one of them has an "explanation" (or a dozen different favored explanations), but they all rely on multiple assumptions that are not found in the text. It winds up feeling like SDA extra-biblical mind games all over again. Here is a sampling from my notes beside me that list some things I want to study sometime soon: 1 Kings 22:50, 2 Kings 1:17, 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 8:16-17... trying to work out this timeline makes my head spin. 1 Samuel 16:10-11, 1 Chronicles 2:13... was David the 7th or 8th son? 2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21... why are the census facts so different? 1 Kings 16:6-8, 2 Chronicles 16:1... chronology? 2 Kings 18:5-6, 2 Kings 23:25... mutually exclusive? These are just a sampling. Every one I've previously studied so far (dozens now) has "explainations", but after a while I have to ask myself why I am spending so much time explaining things in the historic chronology. Just as some suggest the Bible isn't a science book, maybe it isn't intended as a history book either? Maybe the histories are just that... man recorded it as he understood it (gasp)? I used to dismiss the argument that oral histories went through a divided kingdom and were wrote down sometime after the reuniting and contain these merging artifacts, but maybe I should consider it more. Have I been superstitious about 2 Timothy 3:16? Having been immersed in SDA "thought inspiration" for so long, this really is a tough area to consider. I largely dislike the "inerrant in the original autographs" position because it is completely untestable... we have no original autographs and probably never will have any original autographs. It just feels like an argument to save face while holding the status quo. Plus, it has other problems when considering the explanation given for Luke 3:36 not matching Genesis 11. This was a simple typographical error in the Septuagint (the end of one line copied onto the end of another) which Luke then copied into his gospel. The problem is, that then makes his original autograph contain an error. That reduces the position down to the "inerrant in matters concerning salvation" stance. It still is a bit unsettling trying to sort it all out though, which is why I question if some stances are more superstitious than anything. Michael | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 558 Registered: 3-2009 |
I know it's a lot to digest, Michael. Take your time. The veracity of Christianity is solid with the resurrection evidence from both religious and secular sources. That's the litmus test, and it's comforting to me to go back to that when I see equally committed ppl come to all manner of differing conclusions on the peripheral matters. I think some or all of the inconsistencies you cited are dealt with in this book: http://www.amazon.com/New-International-Encyclopedia-Bible-Difficulties/dp/0310241464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314906045&sr=8-1 Lemme see if I have some time to dig it out and address them (don't recall the explanations off the top of my head). I firmly believe that churches need to start addressing some of the issues with Bible study/interpretation as a matter of regular practice. The "God says it, I believe it, that settles it!" attitude as a substitute for careful thought isn't gonna cut it anymore. With the exploding availability of information on the internet, we can do a whole lot better in educating and encouraging each other to defend truth intelligently. In the meantime, hang in there. Many of us are all on this journey together! Dana | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 372 Registered: 7-2010 |
Don't take this the wrong way, but why is a 480 page book on resolving difficulties necessary? It reminds me of the 200 or so page book someone gave me on resolving Ellen White difficulties. That book had the opposite efeect... showing me the problems were even more extensive than I had thought. Might this book on Biblical difficulties do the same thing for a non-Christian? Don't get me wrong... my faith is strong and I do have confidence in salvation and Christianity (I can make a case that the only logical saving paradigm that could exist is the one where it is not my self effort that saves me much like Paul does in explaining it to the Gentiles), but I am starting to realize that there are certain "sacred cows" within evangelical circles. The more I explore them, the more I realize they are the same things non-Christian skeptics point at when dismissing us. The sad thing is, a couple months ago I would have branded myself a heretic for the things I posted in this thread. Questioning YEC? Trying to sort out infallibility? Yikes... the heretic I am! Michael | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1607 Registered: 7-2003 |
By the way, just so no one gets the wrong impression regarding some of my comments above about the "science" involved in the debate: I do not think science trumps scripture nor do I think that scripture is in error. Ultimately, I believe that both the Bible and the record of nature are in harmony because they both reveal the creator accurately. I think the problem comes in our fallen understanding and interpretation of one or the other or both. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 559 Registered: 3-2009 |
LOL, Michael, welcome to Club Heresy! :D Well, I'm not sure an Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties is necessary or not. The reason it may be helpful, I'm thinking, is to assist modern readers in understanding a book that was written thousands of years ago in cultures we do not understand. It also contains multiple genres that can be confusing. I totally can understand your hesitation after the EGW book, though! The fact is that the Bible contains numerous ostensible contradictions to the untrained reader (like me!). So, we have a few choices: (1) ignore them, (2) deny they exist, (3) struggle through them alone w/ no help, or (4) take the lazy way out and see what Christian scholars say about them. [I vote for #4 ] Usually, for every apparent contradiction, there is a very easy explanation that I may never have thought of if I hadn't read what someone else had said about it. That's b/c the explanation usually has something to do with facts of Jewish culture, history, or how they document historical events. One more thing that just came to me. I don't think the Big Book of EGW Explanations is totally analogous to the Big Book of Bible Difficulties. Here's why. If the Bible is true and EGW is not, the Bible will stand up to the toughest scrutiny thrown at it, but EGW will not. Thus, the problem is not that we need books to explain difficulties, but which book explains the difficulties without resorting to inherent contradictions and fallacious reasoning? I saw much of those in the EGW apologists, but I cannot say I had that problem with Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. I would say most of the apparent Bible difficulties result from our lack of understanding of the culture/context in which the text was written. EGW apologists may try to apply that same tactic to her writings, but the challenge is that she wrote so much stuff that trying to determine the different contexts of everything she wrote is next to impossible. Anyway, that's my take, FWIW... | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 560 Registered: 3-2009 |
...and Michael, you're correct about the 'sacred cows' that aren't questioned. There's a LOT of bad thinking & ideas floating around in the evangelical world. Even if your position is technically correct, that doesn't excuse sloppy reasoning, IMO. I've learned something interesting since leaving SDA. You can technically be correct factually, but arrive at it through intellectually suspect means (i.e.,taking someone's word for it w/out investigating the evidence, etc). Likewise, you can be a logically sound thinker and arrive at factually wrong conclusions as well. In my limited experience, I've seen the former happen more often than the latter, and I think that's where lots of Christians are. They believe in Jesus and the Bible, but their thinking is muddled and their arguments unconvincing. It's wonderful that they're saved in the end; but unfortunately, they can potentially do damage to the Christian cause in this life as long as they keep talking :P You may find this site helpful: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer Stand to Reason is a ministry headed up by Greg Koukl that is dedicated to equipping Christians to be clear thinkers and making a persuasive case for Jesus in the marketplace of ideas. I've found it very helpful. There are very careful, nuanced Christian thinkers out there that have dealt with all the things we're talking about at much, much deeper levels than we probably ever will. That's comforting to me that there really is no new question under the sun... Caveat: I don't agree with all Greg Koukl's political views, which he cannot help but slip into some of his talks. Enough said on that Another book that helped me a lot is J.P. Moreland's book titled: Love God with All Your Mind. I'm currently reading Mark Noll's book: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. In fact, in the latter book, the first sentence is pretty indicting: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Noll, Mark A. (2010-03-30). The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (p. 3). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Kindle Edition. Well, I could go on and on about this, but I'll stop for now I don't want to be hard on my brothers and sisters. I think it's hard b/c in church, we're not given opportunities to cultivate our spiritual intellects. Many questions are off limits and dogma reigns. Ppl are leaving the faith b/c they lack the tools to combat the plethora of voices out there drowning the truth. Dana |
