Re: Fwd: The firmament -- a solid barrier to concordism

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 07:18:00 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "Re: Ignorant antievolutionists"

    Below is my slightly modified reply to Paul. I was not aware
    that Paul had copied the list.

    Hi Paul,

    >You have called YECism cultic. Why?

    Thanks for the e-mail. I'm certainly not pretending to "know more"
    than you. And, I 'm certainly not pretending that I even went to
    seminary. But, I have spent A TON of time researching the issues.
    I will answer this specific question with, simply, my own opinion.

    YEC is cultic because it causes you to do weird things with your mind.
    I know! I was a YEC once. You watch TV and have to play mind-games
    every time that you watch the Discovery Channel. I'll leave it at
    that for now.

    >Is it not cultic because it has its own
    >private interpretations of public facts, interpretations which are contrary
    >to the consensus of qualified scholars in the various relevant areas of
    >astronomy, geology, etc?

    Generally speaking, I agree. VERY generally speaking.

    >It is of the essence of a cult to have a view which stands out against
    >the consensus.

    Now I begin to disagree. I'd like to see a poll of what the consensus is.
    I'm an accountant. I know a bit about statistics. Let me "rearrange" them
    for you.

    First question of poll

    1) Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
    THIS IS ONLY A GUESS 95% of Christians say yes.

    2) Do you believe Gen 1-11 is historical?

    3) How do you reconcile science with Gen 1, in particular?

    A) Science is wrong
    B) Day-Age

    I'll leave it here, for now.

    >The day-age interpretation with its various
    >"explanations" of what God did on the 6 days also has its own private
    >interpretations of public facts (what it says in Gen 1), which are contrary
    >to the consensus of qualified OT biblical scholars---including Evangelical
    >scholars. This does not mean you cannot find one or two qualified OT
    >who espouse day-age interpretations. You can also find one or two qualified
    >astronomers or geologists who support YECism. But, it is of the essence of
    >cult to claim that its interpretations, deviant though they are from the
    >consensus, are the "true" ones.

    Wrong! Qualified OT biblical scholars know darn well that the Hebrew "yom"
    can mean a long period of time, as well as 24 hours.

    >It is Christ who put the teachers in the Church. They are not there by
    >accident. They are there by his appointment. Unless one can make a
    >case for rejecting the consensus of the teachers Christ has put in the
    >Church, clinging to a "minority" opinion against that consensus is a
    >rejection of Christ's authority.

    Now this is a puzzling argument. What happens when church leaders disagree?
    Is Christ schizophrenic? Or, are some churches "dead" churches?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 11:47:23 EDT