Here it is! Creation debate to date

[velvetpage]

I've received permission to copy the posts/comments and continue the debate here. Welcom, vickimfox!


My original comment:
I must confess I've never understood creationists. To be more specific, I've never understood the point of trying to prove the Bible is one-hundred-percent accurate. Anyone who tries to do so has confused the notions of "accuracy" and "truth". They are not at all the same thing.

I'd be really interested to know what that guy thinks about accuracy vs. truth. :)

Their reply was:

That's okay. Those of us with a God-centric worldview do not understand evolutionists. We don't understand how anyone can look at the structure, organization, information, interconnection, and balance of the universe from the largest to the smallest and think that it came about by random events and by violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics to chemical bonding.

Even in academic circles many scientists are questioning the traditional evolution theories and embracing a hybrid called Intelligent Design. These scientists still do not acknowledge God, but they see that the current state of the evolution framework has more holes than swiss cheese.

Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact. It is a worldview - a mindset used to interpret observations. In academic circles, there is debate among scientists about which evolution framework is "correct". Do you believe in the punctuated equilabrium framework, neo-Darwinism framework, or catastrophy framework? Oh, let's not forget that there are about six or seven different proposed frameworks in academia just hypothesizing about how the original amino acids were formed.


Now, to the matter of "accuracy". The dictionary defines "accuracy" as "absolutely correct, making no mistakes" and "agreeing exactly with the truth".

The reason Bible-believing Christians take this matter of the inerrant nature of the Bible is simple - Jesus told us that is the measure of His Word! [John 3:12] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" What this means is that if God cannot record history and other earthly aspects correctly, then how in the world can we believe what God tells us in the Bible about spiritual, moral, and heavenly things?

Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.

Therefore, if there are errors in the original texts, then the Bible in essence tells us that we should reject it (the whole Bible). If the Bible is not accurate, then it does not tell the truth. Conversely, if the Bible is accurate, then it implies that it is telling the truth.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same "evidence" but interpret it differently. You may look at a fossil and think million of years. I look at the same fossil, the result of rapid burial, and think of Noah's Flood. You may look at radioactive material and think long dates. I look at the same radioactive measurements and think "Yeah, so what? The dating mathematics is invalid and nobody knows the initial conditions."

PS. I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science. When I was in college I believed in evolution. But, the more I studied, especially the mathematics of radioactive dating and information theory, the more I became convienced about the deception of evolution. This change did not occur until many years after I was saved and became a Christian.

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Um, prophecy and teaching are two different gifts. Look it up.

Second, re: women in the church: The teachings of Christ seem to conflict with the teachings of Paul in this matter. Christ gave women a lot more billing than the religions of his day. He ate with them, talked with them, permitted them into his inner circle on a regular basis. He commended Martha for wanting to listen to his teachings. Contrast this with Paul, who was a confirmed bachelor and avoided women as much as he could. Also, Paul was a student of Aristotle, who hated women and whose teachings were later used to leave women off the hierarchy of God's creatures almost entirely - putting them below the lowest animals. All of the teachings regarding the subordinate position of women in the New Testament come from Paul, not Christ. So my question is: do you believe that these teachings are still valid, in light of the facts that a) they did not come from Christ, b) they were heavily influenced by a non-Christian philosopher, and c) they do not fit today's moral standards?

I have to admit, this is a catch-22. If you say yes, you've effectively alienated half the population entirely and a large section of the other half (basically, every man who believes their wife should have access to their bank account or work outside the home.) You have also, incidentally, alienated nearly 70% of North America's professed born-again Christians - because women make up a much larger percentage of these than men. If you say no, then you've admitted that a few parts of scripture may have been valid at another time but not now, ergo, there are errors with the original text or with its modern applications or both.

So, which will it be?

[vickimfox.livejournal.com]

Correct. Prophecy and Teaching are different. However, in 1 Cor 14:31, it qualifies what it means by prophecy by adding "so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged". The common interpretation found in most commentaries is that this was a reference to the church's pastor or leader.

Jesus gave woman more recognition than was common in that culture. But, nowhere did Jesus violate the order of authority that God established from the beginning.

Most historians believe Paul was a widower. He also did not avoid women, because some of his best friends were woman; such as Pricilla and Claudia and Timothy's mother.

Paul was not a student of Aristotle. He was a student of the Jewish Sanhedran. He was a Pharasee. As he said, he was a Jew of Jews. As a result, he avoided all contact with Gentiles. He could not have been a student of Greek philosophers. This shows God's humour in that the man most likely to avoid Gentiles was made by God the missionary to the Gentiles.

I stand by what Scripture says because I believe

We do not have the option to pick and choose which Scripture we want to believe. (Likewise Deut 12:32, Rev 22:18)





Regarding risk of alienating some by proclaiming the truth.






Oh ... to answer your question on foxmagic's forum.
I believe that those who call themselves Christian and have not come to accept the literal Creation account is most likely a result of:
(1) They are not truly born again. See Matthew 7:21-23.
(2) They are immature. See Luke 8:14, Eph 4:13, Heb 5:14, Heb 6:1, James 1:4-8
(3) They are deceived. See James 1:16, 2 Tim 3:11-16, 2 Cor 11:3-6, Luke 21:8
(4) They are scoffers. See Jude 1:18-19, 2 Pet 3:3-7


Sola Scriptura! I believe ALL of the Bible. I'm not smart enough to pick and choose which portions I will believe. I believe that God is powerful enough to create the world and powerful enough to preserve His Word through history.


This will be my last note on this thread and on foxmagic's thread.