Re: FW: YEC Destroying Faith

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 2004 - 00:18:49 EDT

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:10:37 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:21 PM
> > To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: FW: YEC Destroying Faith
>
> > To go back to what is basic in this discussion, Genesis 1, I
> > note that there is water above the firmament.
>
> You will scream that this is pedantic but there is water above the
> firmament(above the blue sky we see). That is a fact. It is in
> comets,
> it is in molecular clouds etc. It isn't in the form they or the
> YECs
> envisioned. And that is what I find so wrong with much of this
> discussion. The logic I see being displayed is illustrated by the
> following. We seem to think that if God communicated A, and the
> listener
> thinks they heard B, that because B isn't true, then A can't be
> true
> either or then God didn't mean A or couldn't do A. Thus, just
> because
> the Hebrews understood the Bible to mean B on all these issues and
> we
> understand A, it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to hold to A.
>
Glenn,
I know that you are off line, but I cannot let this partial answer pass.
I must ask: where are the sluice gates that were opened to produce the
Flood?
>
> To claim that God couldn't have meant anything other than what the
> Hebrews understood to be the case, is equivalent to ruling out ANY
> modern interpretation of Scripture. All modern interpretations would
> be
> wrong, including yours, because it isn't what the hebrews understood
> God
> to mean! This position leads to logical folly.
>
It is folly only when it is combined with the notion that God had to mean
what we today believe. Of course, we now have scientific TRUTH, which
will not change at any time in the future. So the current concordance is
the only correct interpretation. God could not have used any other
approach back before any human could understand general relativity and
its cosmological consequences, quantum or string or M theory, etc.

> > Glenn,
> > You're back with the notion that either everything has to be
> > factually true, or one has to sort out the true parts with
> > some infallible method.
>
> Sigh, No. No matter how many times I say it not every thing has to
> be
> factually true. I wish everyone here would listen for once to that
> statement and burn it into their minds. But the issue does concern
> whether or not Genesis is meant to be factual or not. I believe it
> was,
> you don't. If it isn't a fact that God created the heavens and the
> earth, then little can be trusted from the Bible.
>
> I would start with that statement. Is "In the Beginning, God created
> the
> Hevens and the earth," meant to be factually correct? Yes/No.
>
Sorry, I did not put in the qualifier: I find that you require everything
in scripture to the true. As to Genesis 1:1, I cannot answer that with an
unqualified yes because there is another translation equally supported by
the Hebrew original. Under either translation, God is the source of order
and, consequently, orders. That's a theological point, not a scientific
one.
>
> This will never work. We have instead
> > to recognize that the theological message is without flaw
> > (although that is not true of the human interpretations of
> > God's message), while other matters may include ancient
> > cosmologies, biological errors and other kinds of mistakes.
> > Others have pointed out that this was also Calvin's view. But
> > maybe he was influenced by Darwin and the Higher Criticism by
> > means of backward causation. Time, after all, is symmetrical
> > in the physical equations.
> >
> > Are you accepting Hebrews as part of the sacred text? If so,
> > read 9:2f and tell me where the altar of incense was located
> > in the Tabernacle. Don't use AV, for they substituted
> > "censer" for the clearly described altar. But even the AV
> > text does not have the altar of incense in the Holy Place,
> > which is where the Torah requires it to be. If I apply your
> > principle, Hebrews cannot be inspired because it clearly
> > contains a factual mistake, which God could not make or
> > allow. Do you suppose that the YEC doctrine of inspiration is
> > faulty? Dave
>
> You know, the real issue for me is that if such errors add up to a
> document so full of holes that the only way to save it is to say we
> can't really know what is and is not true in it(for the only errors
> we
> know of are the ones we can verify, what about the theological
> statements which can't be verified?), then I would see no reason to
> believe it.
>
> Why do those more 'progressive' than I seem to think it is alright
> to
> believe in the inspiration of a book so full of errors? It is
> errors
> that keep me from believing other religions.
>
> I am going to be offline for a few days so this will probably be my
> last
> post on this thread I didn't want to start.
>
>
>
Is it progressive to accept the /ipsima verba/ of scripture? to recognize
that God used fallible men, whose fallibility surfaces at times? Do these
matters detract from the purposes of scripture given in II Timothy 3:16f?
dilute the essential message of salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ? I once approached scripture with your view, absolute inerrancy. A
careful study of what scripture says forced me from that view. It was not
from reading liberal commentators. I just stumbled across Hebrews 9:2f
listening to a tape while undergoing therapy. The author's point is
right, even though he miswrote.

As to errors that keep one from believing other religions, Paul notes
clearly that, without the resurrection, we're pathetic. What is basic to
any faith must meet standards. Hinduism's eternal cycle can't be true if
the Big Bang occurred 13.7 Ga. Mormonism can't be right since Native
Americans have none of the genetic markers of Near Eastern populations.
Etc.
Dave
Received on Thu Apr 22 00:21:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 22 2004 - 00:21:29 EDT