All doubt about evolution will soon end

So says Richard Leakey, scion of the famed fossil-finding family.  From the Washington Post:

Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”

“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.” . .

Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed “much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.”

On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.

“If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you’ve got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena,” Leakey says. “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one.”

Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.

“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.

“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It’s not covered by Genesis. There’s no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any God.”

via Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey predicts end is near on debate over evolution – The Washington Post.

Well, what do you think?  You creationists, if enough evidence piled up in 15 years to support evolution, would you give up your doubting ways?  Is creationism falsifiable?  Then again, is evolution falsifiable?  What evidence would convince an evolutionist of creation?  Or do both sides form their beliefs on other bases?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Leakey’s own comments in that article indicate that he is operating under his own set of assumptions. His family has uncovered and discovered the evidence, he’s laid out the fossil evidence, and anyone who disagrees must be a fool. Sounds like a whole lot of self-justification for a rather inconclusive research program.

    I especially like the anti-evolution = anti-science, anti-medicine swipe.

    Couple that with the overwrought , unscientific statement “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena.” Really? Always? Even before Man existed, Man has been altering the climate/environment system? Where exactly is the evidence for every species extinction? Where is the evidence that associates every species extinction with an environmental change? Where is the evidence that every environmental change is associated with a change in climate? What exactly are environment and climate in this context? Is environment local and climate global? At what scale(s) do environment and climate interact and what, where, when and how are the directions of causality established? That statement by Leakey is an assertion, not science; the last part of that statement would imply that Man is responsible for accelerating, if not creating, the effects of volcanoes, earthquakes, violent weather, or even the sun.

  • SKPeterson

    Leakey’s own comments in that article indicate that he is operating under his own set of assumptions. His family has uncovered and discovered the evidence, he’s laid out the fossil evidence, and anyone who disagrees must be a fool. Sounds like a whole lot of self-justification for a rather inconclusive research program.

    I especially like the anti-evolution = anti-science, anti-medicine swipe.

    Couple that with the overwrought , unscientific statement “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena.” Really? Always? Even before Man existed, Man has been altering the climate/environment system? Where exactly is the evidence for every species extinction? Where is the evidence that associates every species extinction with an environmental change? Where is the evidence that every environmental change is associated with a change in climate? What exactly are environment and climate in this context? Is environment local and climate global? At what scale(s) do environment and climate interact and what, where, when and how are the directions of causality established? That statement by Leakey is an assertion, not science; the last part of that statement would imply that Man is responsible for accelerating, if not creating, the effects of volcanoes, earthquakes, violent weather, or even the sun.

  • Pete

    The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced it’s all about the presuppositions. On both sides of the argument. Do I assume a personal or an impersonal source for what we see as the natural world? In terms of science, I can’t say I’ve seen any compelling evidence in support of either camp. Proponents on either side are eager (understandably so) to interpret certain observations in light of their presuppositions. Witness the kerfuffle a few years back over human and dinosaur footprints supposedly superimposed – purportedly proving that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries. As best as I can tell, this has been discredited. Similarly, the failure on the evolutionary side to produce any firm fossil evidence of intermediate forms is a big problem. The answer to the creation/evolution debate has little or no bearing on my activities of daily living. For sure the size of the brouhaha relates to the clash of world views rather than the practical value of whichever explanation of how we got here is correct.

  • Pete

    The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced it’s all about the presuppositions. On both sides of the argument. Do I assume a personal or an impersonal source for what we see as the natural world? In terms of science, I can’t say I’ve seen any compelling evidence in support of either camp. Proponents on either side are eager (understandably so) to interpret certain observations in light of their presuppositions. Witness the kerfuffle a few years back over human and dinosaur footprints supposedly superimposed – purportedly proving that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries. As best as I can tell, this has been discredited. Similarly, the failure on the evolutionary side to produce any firm fossil evidence of intermediate forms is a big problem. The answer to the creation/evolution debate has little or no bearing on my activities of daily living. For sure the size of the brouhaha relates to the clash of world views rather than the practical value of whichever explanation of how we got here is correct.

  • larry

    Not in the least. As I’ve pointed out before creation, ex nihilo, is an article of faith and as an article of faith it is built on the Word alone, in this case Genesis 1 and as the confessions reflect (Apostles and Nicene Creeds). Just as we confess, teach and believe “This baptism saves you”, “This is My body”, “the church exists”, the Trinity, the two natures, the virgin birth, the ressurrection and so forth.

    To rain on his parade further, and his presuppositions, I’ll argue in the opposite direction: EVEN IF creation science could in the opposite direction “prove” creation via scientific inquiry, that would not be Christian or faith but a form of unbelief.

  • larry

    Not in the least. As I’ve pointed out before creation, ex nihilo, is an article of faith and as an article of faith it is built on the Word alone, in this case Genesis 1 and as the confessions reflect (Apostles and Nicene Creeds). Just as we confess, teach and believe “This baptism saves you”, “This is My body”, “the church exists”, the Trinity, the two natures, the virgin birth, the ressurrection and so forth.

    To rain on his parade further, and his presuppositions, I’ll argue in the opposite direction: EVEN IF creation science could in the opposite direction “prove” creation via scientific inquiry, that would not be Christian or faith but a form of unbelief.

  • WebMonk

    Don’t ever, Ever dismiss mankind’s ability to fool themselves and continue to walk blindly along denying reality. There are still real geocentrists out there – the sun circles the earth, as do all the planets, as does our galaxy, as does our entire universe, all in just one day.

    With that as the basis, there’s no way YEC will ever disappear entirely. It will shrink and shrink until in a few hundred years it will be in the same category as geocentrism, but I’m pretty sure it will take hundreds of years.

    Just look at the ‘adjustments’, redactions, revisions, and changes Answers in Genesis has gone through over time. There is very little similarity in the details of the earliest AiG materials compared to the latest.

    Their pattern over time has been to adjust their ideas more and more, twisting into every more convoluted explanations to either warp the evidence or adjust their theories to fit the evidence. Nothing suggests that will change, and so projecting this same pattern of behavior into the future suggests that the convoluted explanations will become ever more convoluted until it finally resembles today’s geocentrism.

    But, it will never go away entirely. There will always be Christians who hold to a YEC just like there are still Christians who hold to geocentrism today. I think it was less than 70 years ago when some Lutheran denomination finally bit the bullet and officially rejected geocentrism. That was what, moving on four hundred years after Galileo? And anyone expects evolution to be accepted by most Christians in any time less? Pfft!

  • WebMonk

    Don’t ever, Ever dismiss mankind’s ability to fool themselves and continue to walk blindly along denying reality. There are still real geocentrists out there – the sun circles the earth, as do all the planets, as does our galaxy, as does our entire universe, all in just one day.

    With that as the basis, there’s no way YEC will ever disappear entirely. It will shrink and shrink until in a few hundred years it will be in the same category as geocentrism, but I’m pretty sure it will take hundreds of years.

    Just look at the ‘adjustments’, redactions, revisions, and changes Answers in Genesis has gone through over time. There is very little similarity in the details of the earliest AiG materials compared to the latest.

    Their pattern over time has been to adjust their ideas more and more, twisting into every more convoluted explanations to either warp the evidence or adjust their theories to fit the evidence. Nothing suggests that will change, and so projecting this same pattern of behavior into the future suggests that the convoluted explanations will become ever more convoluted until it finally resembles today’s geocentrism.

    But, it will never go away entirely. There will always be Christians who hold to a YEC just like there are still Christians who hold to geocentrism today. I think it was less than 70 years ago when some Lutheran denomination finally bit the bullet and officially rejected geocentrism. That was what, moving on four hundred years after Galileo? And anyone expects evolution to be accepted by most Christians in any time less? Pfft!

  • WebMonk

    Pete – the failure of intermediate forms is a fake claim by YEC groups. Thousands have been found. But it’s an impossible thing to satisfy.

    Take two fossils scientists suggest developed into one another. On a timeline they fall something like:
    *____________*

    YEC groups say look at that gap! No intermediate fossils!!!

    Later another fossil is found so the timeline looks like:
    *___*________*

    The YEC claim has been that there are still gaps, and in fact there are even more of them than before!!!

    Just look at the horse series. It finally had to get to the point of looking like
    *__*_*_**_*__*
    before it was accepted by YEC organizations, and there are still some of the YEC groups that deny it.

    The same has been true of dinosaurs to birds development.

    It used to be
    dino__________archaeopt
    *________________*

    Now it’s closer to
    *__*___*____*_____*
    but it is still denied by AiG. You see there are still three gaps in there!

    There are hundred of examples of this. AiG (or other YEC group) says – “Look! No intermediate forms!” Intermediate forms are found. AiG responds with “Look how many gaps there are!”

    It has only been within the last five years that AiG finally broke down and admitted that the horse series of development is actually a real line of development. They used to say they were all individually made and that there were no intermediate forms between the fossils.

    The exact same pattern is playing out with bird evolution – AiG has been saying that all the intermediate forms aren’t really intermediates. Give them another thirty years and they’ll finally come around, but have some explanation. I can guess what it will be. (super-fast speciation before the Flood as well as after)

  • WebMonk

    Pete – the failure of intermediate forms is a fake claim by YEC groups. Thousands have been found. But it’s an impossible thing to satisfy.

    Take two fossils scientists suggest developed into one another. On a timeline they fall something like:
    *____________*

    YEC groups say look at that gap! No intermediate fossils!!!

    Later another fossil is found so the timeline looks like:
    *___*________*

    The YEC claim has been that there are still gaps, and in fact there are even more of them than before!!!

    Just look at the horse series. It finally had to get to the point of looking like
    *__*_*_**_*__*
    before it was accepted by YEC organizations, and there are still some of the YEC groups that deny it.

    The same has been true of dinosaurs to birds development.

    It used to be
    dino__________archaeopt
    *________________*

    Now it’s closer to
    *__*___*____*_____*
    but it is still denied by AiG. You see there are still three gaps in there!

    There are hundred of examples of this. AiG (or other YEC group) says – “Look! No intermediate forms!” Intermediate forms are found. AiG responds with “Look how many gaps there are!”

    It has only been within the last five years that AiG finally broke down and admitted that the horse series of development is actually a real line of development. They used to say they were all individually made and that there were no intermediate forms between the fossils.

    The exact same pattern is playing out with bird evolution – AiG has been saying that all the intermediate forms aren’t really intermediates. Give them another thirty years and they’ll finally come around, but have some explanation. I can guess what it will be. (super-fast speciation before the Flood as well as after)

  • WebMonk

    Pete – it’s the out and out dishonesty of some of the YEC groups that really gets my goat. I had gone through a phase of not caring much recently, but just last month ICR put out an article that I can’t imagine is anything but purposeful lying.

    The author claimed volcanoes are getting smaller over time, and to prove his point took four volcanoes over time to show a consistent downward trend. The thing is that in order to pick out just those four volcanoes, he MUST have had to search through hundreds of volcanoes looking for four that would show the desired trend. That takes a lot of effort because there is no such trend. The pattern of volcano size over time goes up and down, up and down, up and down.

    I can’t imagine it is possible to pick out just four volcanoes from the thousands of volcanoes to pick from without him knowing he was purposefully lying.

    That one article was enough to get me all irritated on the subject again.

    Which means I should probably stop. I think I’ve just posted three big comments in a row. That’s always a sign of mental derangement!

  • WebMonk

    Pete – it’s the out and out dishonesty of some of the YEC groups that really gets my goat. I had gone through a phase of not caring much recently, but just last month ICR put out an article that I can’t imagine is anything but purposeful lying.

    The author claimed volcanoes are getting smaller over time, and to prove his point took four volcanoes over time to show a consistent downward trend. The thing is that in order to pick out just those four volcanoes, he MUST have had to search through hundreds of volcanoes looking for four that would show the desired trend. That takes a lot of effort because there is no such trend. The pattern of volcano size over time goes up and down, up and down, up and down.

    I can’t imagine it is possible to pick out just four volcanoes from the thousands of volcanoes to pick from without him knowing he was purposefully lying.

    That one article was enough to get me all irritated on the subject again.

    Which means I should probably stop. I think I’ve just posted three big comments in a row. That’s always a sign of mental derangement!

  • larry

    As usual in a not so hidden at length ad homenem the attacker web monk re-confuses the issue. Geocentrism is not an article of faith (the inserted confusion), creation ex nihilo is. As an article of faith it is rooted in the Word and only in the Word, no less than “this is My body/blood”.

    Creation ex nihilo will never disappear because the Word will never disappear and endures forever even though heaven and earth will pass away, VDMA.

    It is no wonder that the sacraments in reality have fallen on hard times, because once one gives in on one part of the Word, another is surely to follow. And so if “is” is symbolic then its later easy to make “light be” symbolic and at length water becomes symbolic before long everything is symbolic, the church, the resurrection, forgiveness, etc…and then at last the entire Christian faith.

    But these things are predicted in Scritpure themselves that as punishment for rejecting the Word (the Gospel) God sends plagues of false teachers and luminaries and all sorts of high flying spirits, some with cowls, some with suites, some collars, some with lab coats to repeat the serpent’s words, “hath God really said” and many will believe them and fall. What should be most terrifying to this is that God allows such plethora of false teachings come as a judgment for the rejection of His Gospel, and that men WILL believe it in their deepest of thoughts and hearts.

    These things may vex the faithful, and false teaching though it vexes gives faith something to do as Luther said. Faith is always persecuted and tried by sword and laughter. Faith remains with the Word especially when such trials come. So at the end of the day let evolution come and let the whole entire world believe it, it matters none as Christ is risen and such vexations against faith are in reality nothing at all inspite all their apparent muster and force. As the Holy Spirit encourage us, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

  • larry

    As usual in a not so hidden at length ad homenem the attacker web monk re-confuses the issue. Geocentrism is not an article of faith (the inserted confusion), creation ex nihilo is. As an article of faith it is rooted in the Word and only in the Word, no less than “this is My body/blood”.

    Creation ex nihilo will never disappear because the Word will never disappear and endures forever even though heaven and earth will pass away, VDMA.

    It is no wonder that the sacraments in reality have fallen on hard times, because once one gives in on one part of the Word, another is surely to follow. And so if “is” is symbolic then its later easy to make “light be” symbolic and at length water becomes symbolic before long everything is symbolic, the church, the resurrection, forgiveness, etc…and then at last the entire Christian faith.

    But these things are predicted in Scritpure themselves that as punishment for rejecting the Word (the Gospel) God sends plagues of false teachers and luminaries and all sorts of high flying spirits, some with cowls, some with suites, some collars, some with lab coats to repeat the serpent’s words, “hath God really said” and many will believe them and fall. What should be most terrifying to this is that God allows such plethora of false teachings come as a judgment for the rejection of His Gospel, and that men WILL believe it in their deepest of thoughts and hearts.

    These things may vex the faithful, and false teaching though it vexes gives faith something to do as Luther said. Faith is always persecuted and tried by sword and laughter. Faith remains with the Word especially when such trials come. So at the end of the day let evolution come and let the whole entire world believe it, it matters none as Christ is risen and such vexations against faith are in reality nothing at all inspite all their apparent muster and force. As the Holy Spirit encourage us, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

  • larry

    It is interesting to note the parallel of the argument between the “young earth” scientist and “old earth” scientist, both at the end of the day forms of unbelief. They basically and fundamentally are positioned just like Rome with its transubstantiation argument (like young earth) and Geneva, et. al. with its sign/symbol arguments (like old earth). Both are attempting to bolster their (false) faith items with reason/sight, the former with arguments to prove bread and wine change into body and blood, and the later with arguments to prove their sign/symbol. In all cases they’ve left the Word and set faith aside in order to “resolve” it with wild eyed reason not subdued by faith and the Word. And so similarly the Genevans can easily point to reason and senses and say, “see just bread and wine, that’s what I see, feel and taste”. Rome having left the Word for reason in vain attempts to counter with a philosophical argument (another use of reason). Geneva uses the way of reason inductively and Rome the way of reason deductively, neither the way of faith Wordedly. When this happens they loose the revealed God and at last the hidden God, so too is the way with old earth/young earth machinations.

    What frustrates Genevans most in arguing with Lutherans, if they are on their game, is at the end of the day Lutherans believe the sacrament is very body and blood of Christ because the Word says so and not even our own counter arguments done purely to debate the Reformed (no article of faith is established on anything other than the Word of God, paraphrasing the confessions, nothing less than “this is the Word of the Lord”). This same frustration is mounted concerning the debate against creation ex nihilo. This is not surprising because it is the same alien spirit.

  • larry

    It is interesting to note the parallel of the argument between the “young earth” scientist and “old earth” scientist, both at the end of the day forms of unbelief. They basically and fundamentally are positioned just like Rome with its transubstantiation argument (like young earth) and Geneva, et. al. with its sign/symbol arguments (like old earth). Both are attempting to bolster their (false) faith items with reason/sight, the former with arguments to prove bread and wine change into body and blood, and the later with arguments to prove their sign/symbol. In all cases they’ve left the Word and set faith aside in order to “resolve” it with wild eyed reason not subdued by faith and the Word. And so similarly the Genevans can easily point to reason and senses and say, “see just bread and wine, that’s what I see, feel and taste”. Rome having left the Word for reason in vain attempts to counter with a philosophical argument (another use of reason). Geneva uses the way of reason inductively and Rome the way of reason deductively, neither the way of faith Wordedly. When this happens they loose the revealed God and at last the hidden God, so too is the way with old earth/young earth machinations.

    What frustrates Genevans most in arguing with Lutherans, if they are on their game, is at the end of the day Lutherans believe the sacrament is very body and blood of Christ because the Word says so and not even our own counter arguments done purely to debate the Reformed (no article of faith is established on anything other than the Word of God, paraphrasing the confessions, nothing less than “this is the Word of the Lord”). This same frustration is mounted concerning the debate against creation ex nihilo. This is not surprising because it is the same alien spirit.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Ok, this again.. :)

    I agree with SKP insofar as Leaky is putting a large emphasis on his own experience (must of us do, btw).

    Insofar as actual numbers are concerned – polls regarding the matters has shown the non-evolutionary creationist portion of the US population holding steady between 40% and 47% over the last 30 years.

    Of course, the question becomes what is meant by Creation (note Leaky doesn’t address this):

    There are a wide variety of viewpoints:

    1. Scientific Young Earth Creationism (SYEC), the belief that the current science is all wrong, part of an atheistic plot, and that science actually shows a young earth, that fulfills the requirements of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    2. The Omphalos Hypothesis, and variants of it. Also called Mature Earth Creationism, ie God created an old-looking earth and universe, with apparent histories inserted into the evidence.

    3. Theistic Evolution, namely that God creates by means of the Natural processes which He set in place.

    Now, as to SYEC, the evidence is simply not there, and time after time their theories have been shown to be fabrications. However, there is a new resurgence in SYEC not Western-based: In Turkey, for instance, Conservative Islamic movements and people are putting pressure on the teaching of evolution.

    As to the Omphalos argument – although, in my mind, this is distinct from the mythical Last Thursdayism only in a matter of degrees, and that there are significant theological, philosophical and epistemological problems with it, this specific group of people (of which there are a number here, hint hint nudge nudge :) ), are not going to be swayed by any evidence or argument, since increasing evidence for evolution lies entirely within their expectations.

    The last option, Theistic Evolutionists, like myself and Webmonk (although I do not like this label, but it comes closest, I guess), have no problem with either the evidence, nor the arguments. Thus the comments above are of no consequence to our position.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Ok, this again.. :)

    I agree with SKP insofar as Leaky is putting a large emphasis on his own experience (must of us do, btw).

    Insofar as actual numbers are concerned – polls regarding the matters has shown the non-evolutionary creationist portion of the US population holding steady between 40% and 47% over the last 30 years.

    Of course, the question becomes what is meant by Creation (note Leaky doesn’t address this):

    There are a wide variety of viewpoints:

    1. Scientific Young Earth Creationism (SYEC), the belief that the current science is all wrong, part of an atheistic plot, and that science actually shows a young earth, that fulfills the requirements of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    2. The Omphalos Hypothesis, and variants of it. Also called Mature Earth Creationism, ie God created an old-looking earth and universe, with apparent histories inserted into the evidence.

    3. Theistic Evolution, namely that God creates by means of the Natural processes which He set in place.

    Now, as to SYEC, the evidence is simply not there, and time after time their theories have been shown to be fabrications. However, there is a new resurgence in SYEC not Western-based: In Turkey, for instance, Conservative Islamic movements and people are putting pressure on the teaching of evolution.

    As to the Omphalos argument – although, in my mind, this is distinct from the mythical Last Thursdayism only in a matter of degrees, and that there are significant theological, philosophical and epistemological problems with it, this specific group of people (of which there are a number here, hint hint nudge nudge :) ), are not going to be swayed by any evidence or argument, since increasing evidence for evolution lies entirely within their expectations.

    The last option, Theistic Evolutionists, like myself and Webmonk (although I do not like this label, but it comes closest, I guess), have no problem with either the evidence, nor the arguments. Thus the comments above are of no consequence to our position.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, as much as I like you, you really deserve some sort of prize for connecting virtually any issue to your favourite hobby-horse, attacking the Calvinists! :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, as much as I like you, you really deserve some sort of prize for connecting virtually any issue to your favourite hobby-horse, attacking the Calvinists! :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Oh yes, Larry, there are a small but vocal number of Creationists of the YEC kind that agitate for a geocentrist view of the universe, calling everything else Pagan.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Oh yes, Larry, there are a small but vocal number of Creationists of the YEC kind that agitate for a geocentrist view of the universe, calling everything else Pagan.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Of course, I did not touch on ID (Intelligent Design). In spite of arguments to the contrary, ID is essentially a philosophical point of departure, and not science. It could fit with any theory though.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Of course, I did not touch on ID (Intelligent Design). In spite of arguments to the contrary, ID is essentially a philosophical point of departure, and not science. It could fit with any theory though.

  • Tom Hering

    I was struck by the religious quality of Leakey’s statements. A wide acceptance of evolution will save the world by transforming the mind of man. A transformed mind results in good behavior, and good behavior will have a final reward – a better, future place.

  • Tom Hering

    I was struck by the religious quality of Leakey’s statements. A wide acceptance of evolution will save the world by transforming the mind of man. A transformed mind results in good behavior, and good behavior will have a final reward – a better, future place.

  • Pete

    Some of you smart guys help me out here: I guess I’ve always thought of the vaunted “horse series” (you know, this-ohippus and that-ohippus) was just a bunch of horses – some big, some small – most now extinct. But nothing that exhibits anything like species transformation. Yes? No?

  • Pete

    Some of you smart guys help me out here: I guess I’ve always thought of the vaunted “horse series” (you know, this-ohippus and that-ohippus) was just a bunch of horses – some big, some small – most now extinct. But nothing that exhibits anything like species transformation. Yes? No?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom, that is a standard argument from atheism, and has no scientific traction at all. A cursory study of man himself, whether anthropological, psychological or sociological will disprove the point.

    This idea, however, is strongly pushed by the New Atheists, led by their prophet, Dawkins. In my opinion, New Atheism is as much a fundamentalistic, close-minded movement as any of their opposition they claim to be such.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom, that is a standard argument from atheism, and has no scientific traction at all. A cursory study of man himself, whether anthropological, psychological or sociological will disprove the point.

    This idea, however, is strongly pushed by the New Atheists, led by their prophet, Dawkins. In my opinion, New Atheism is as much a fundamentalistic, close-minded movement as any of their opposition they claim to be such.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Pete, what is a species? Think about that…..

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Pete, what is a species? Think about that…..

  • Pete

    KK @16

    Like, you know, a dog ain’t a fish.

  • Pete

    KK @16

    Like, you know, a dog ain’t a fish.

  • Pete

    I get it now – I’m getting old (don’t let the picture fool you) – back when I was in school they still had species. Genders, too. I get it – I’m going the way of the passenger pigeon.

  • Pete

    I get it now – I’m getting old (don’t let the picture fool you) – back when I was in school they still had species. Genders, too. I get it – I’m going the way of the passenger pigeon.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @webmonk, proof of said intermediate forms would be nice. I am not in my office at the moment so I don’t have access to my evolutionary biology papers. But as it stands all intermediate forms are inferred. Genetically speaking they actually haven’t found an intermediate form and when speaking evolution, genetics is the tell all. Before you accuse me of propagating AiG lies the papers I have on hand came from a legit evolutionary biology journal and not AiG or their related publications.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @webmonk, proof of said intermediate forms would be nice. I am not in my office at the moment so I don’t have access to my evolutionary biology papers. But as it stands all intermediate forms are inferred. Genetically speaking they actually haven’t found an intermediate form and when speaking evolution, genetics is the tell all. Before you accuse me of propagating AiG lies the papers I have on hand came from a legit evolutionary biology journal and not AiG or their related publications.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    There has been a trend among young-Earth creationists to advocate hyper-rapid biological evolution immediately after the flood. If there are millions of species on Earth today, and only thousands of species would fit on the Ark, then there must have been a post-Noachian explosion that rivals the Cambrian explosion of the evolutionists. Of course, this is all just “microevolution,” so it is OK. How this evolutionary burst happened in a few hundred years is a mystery, but it must have happened because the Bible says so. Perhaps Leaky is right, now that young-Earth creationists advocate evolution at a pace that would make most punctuated equilibrium advocates blush.

    Or maybe the Bible doesn’t say so, just like for many other young-Earth dogmas.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    There has been a trend among young-Earth creationists to advocate hyper-rapid biological evolution immediately after the flood. If there are millions of species on Earth today, and only thousands of species would fit on the Ark, then there must have been a post-Noachian explosion that rivals the Cambrian explosion of the evolutionists. Of course, this is all just “microevolution,” so it is OK. How this evolutionary burst happened in a few hundred years is a mystery, but it must have happened because the Bible says so. Perhaps Leaky is right, now that young-Earth creationists advocate evolution at a pace that would make most punctuated equilibrium advocates blush.

    Or maybe the Bible doesn’t say so, just like for many other young-Earth dogmas.

  • Pete

    Man, did Dr. Veith poke an intermediate skunk form here, or what!

  • Pete

    Man, did Dr. Veith poke an intermediate skunk form here, or what!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Pete, that is a description of Class. Species is still way down the line..

    (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Subspecies…)

    Is an ass a different species to a donkey, to a horse. What about a Zebra? You’ll quickly see where this is going….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Pete, that is a description of Class. Species is still way down the line..

    (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Subspecies…)

    Is an ass a different species to a donkey, to a horse. What about a Zebra? You’ll quickly see where this is going….

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I have yet to see a half fish/half lizard intermediary species, or a half-lizard/half-bird species, etc. That a fossil might (remember, this is speculative at best) possess two traits of two kinds means nothing; I would remind people that the duck-billed platypus looks like some sort of intermediary form of evolutionary process, yet the creature still retains its “crossover” traits without showing any signs of developing into anything else.

    There are no “intermediary species.” There are variations within a species, but that is not the same thing as one species becoming another. Nobody disputes microevolution (though I prefer the term adaptation), but microevolution is not the same as macroevolution.

    People need to be clear about what happens here if you accept evolution. If you do so, you essentially jettison the authority of Scripture. You label as fiction what the Bible states in plain language as fact (and I would think that Lutherans of all people would appreciate the appeal for running to the plain sense of the text, such as they themselves do with the language used by Jesus referring to the communion… right?). You undermine the origins of sin and death, as well as the uniqueness of man. In short, you meet the devil at the table of compromise, and he is the only one walking away with any gains made.

    BTW, John MacArthur’s book The Battle for the Beginning does a very good job with explaining the creation account and looking at the texts of Genesis in the Hebrew, showing how they point to a literal 24 hour day for each period of creation.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I have yet to see a half fish/half lizard intermediary species, or a half-lizard/half-bird species, etc. That a fossil might (remember, this is speculative at best) possess two traits of two kinds means nothing; I would remind people that the duck-billed platypus looks like some sort of intermediary form of evolutionary process, yet the creature still retains its “crossover” traits without showing any signs of developing into anything else.

    There are no “intermediary species.” There are variations within a species, but that is not the same thing as one species becoming another. Nobody disputes microevolution (though I prefer the term adaptation), but microevolution is not the same as macroevolution.

    People need to be clear about what happens here if you accept evolution. If you do so, you essentially jettison the authority of Scripture. You label as fiction what the Bible states in plain language as fact (and I would think that Lutherans of all people would appreciate the appeal for running to the plain sense of the text, such as they themselves do with the language used by Jesus referring to the communion… right?). You undermine the origins of sin and death, as well as the uniqueness of man. In short, you meet the devil at the table of compromise, and he is the only one walking away with any gains made.

    BTW, John MacArthur’s book The Battle for the Beginning does a very good job with explaining the creation account and looking at the texts of Genesis in the Hebrew, showing how they point to a literal 24 hour day for each period of creation.

  • http://www.redhatrob.com Rob Shearer

    Every culture / group / generation wrestles with an explanation for origins.

    The modernist creation myth is Evolution. And they are very intolerant of heretics.

  • http://www.redhatrob.com Rob Shearer

    Every culture / group / generation wrestles with an explanation for origins.

    The modernist creation myth is Evolution. And they are very intolerant of heretics.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    J. Dean (#23) said “People need to be clear about what happens here if you accept evolution. If you do so, you essentially jettison the authority of Scripture. You label as fiction what the Bible states in plain language as fact… You undermine the origins of sin and death.”

    Where does the Bible say that there was no animal death before the fall? None of the classic YEC texts that “prove” that animal death came as a result of Adam’s sin (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) actually say nothing at all about animals. This is an example of YECs reading something into the text that isn’t there, and then expecting the rest of us to play along.

    The same goes for biological evolution, except for that of humans. Where does the Bible place a limit on biological change? We are told that animals are to reproduce after their “kinds” but that does not preclude variation from generation to generation. If there is a bit of variation from generation to generation, and if over time that leads to a new species, then animals are still reproducing after their “kind” from generation to generation. At what point is this no longer variation within a “kind?” Genera? Subfamily? Family? Order? The Bible does not say. But again, young-Earth creationists think they know.

    Time for work.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    J. Dean (#23) said “People need to be clear about what happens here if you accept evolution. If you do so, you essentially jettison the authority of Scripture. You label as fiction what the Bible states in plain language as fact… You undermine the origins of sin and death.”

    Where does the Bible say that there was no animal death before the fall? None of the classic YEC texts that “prove” that animal death came as a result of Adam’s sin (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) actually say nothing at all about animals. This is an example of YECs reading something into the text that isn’t there, and then expecting the rest of us to play along.

    The same goes for biological evolution, except for that of humans. Where does the Bible place a limit on biological change? We are told that animals are to reproduce after their “kinds” but that does not preclude variation from generation to generation. If there is a bit of variation from generation to generation, and if over time that leads to a new species, then animals are still reproducing after their “kind” from generation to generation. At what point is this no longer variation within a “kind?” Genera? Subfamily? Family? Order? The Bible does not say. But again, young-Earth creationists think they know.

    Time for work.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Rob – you willingly ignore the fact that at least 3 of us in this discussion list do far are Theistic Evolutionists (plus or minus, the terminology is a bit fuzzy nowadays). Two of which are geologists.

    We are thus because we’ve seen, studied and mulled over the evidence. Also, we accept Scripture, but disagree with the anachronistic literalism required by the YEC crowd.

    Do not mistake the ravings of the New Atheists for real science.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Rob – you willingly ignore the fact that at least 3 of us in this discussion list do far are Theistic Evolutionists (plus or minus, the terminology is a bit fuzzy nowadays). Two of which are geologists.

    We are thus because we’ve seen, studied and mulled over the evidence. Also, we accept Scripture, but disagree with the anachronistic literalism required by the YEC crowd.

    Do not mistake the ravings of the New Atheists for real science.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    When we buy into the notion that we are highly evolved pieces of meat, it is only a matter of time before we begin treating each other as pieces of meat. History is rife with this kind of scenario. Leakey’s establishes science (and the self) as god. May God help us all.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    When we buy into the notion that we are highly evolved pieces of meat, it is only a matter of time before we begin treating each other as pieces of meat. History is rife with this kind of scenario. Leakey’s establishes science (and the self) as god. May God help us all.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    J Dean – you might work through the following page, that is a FAQ with respect to Vertebrate Transitional fossils. It should clear some things up:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    J Dean – you might work through the following page, that is a FAQ with respect to Vertebrate Transitional fossils. It should clear some things up:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    saddler – that is an old and phony argument. We will treat each other badly irrespective of what we believe, because we are sinful. A cursory glance at the history of the world, and man’s dealings with man, demonstrates this clearly.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    saddler – that is an old and phony argument. We will treat each other badly irrespective of what we believe, because we are sinful. A cursory glance at the history of the world, and man’s dealings with man, demonstrates this clearly.

  • WebMonk

    Pete – no, the horse series is a movement of development from one type of horse to the next.

    For a long time, groups like AiG insisted what you mentioned – they are all just different species of horses and they didn’t change one into another.

    However, within the last five years or so, AiG has finally come around to admit that yes, that is a series of horses, changing their shape/hooves/ribs/size/teeth/vertebrae/skull/etc from one to another.

    Obviously they say these are all changes within a “kind”, but they have finally admitted that it is a series of horses, not just different types of created horses. They hold that the series of horses developed all along that chain within a couple hundred years after the Flood.

    They are indeed links in a consistent chain of horse development.

    As to Larry – I think you’re a bit confused. Was I talking about creation ex-nihilo? No, I was talking about YEC. I specifically stated YEC several times.

  • WebMonk

    Pete – no, the horse series is a movement of development from one type of horse to the next.

    For a long time, groups like AiG insisted what you mentioned – they are all just different species of horses and they didn’t change one into another.

    However, within the last five years or so, AiG has finally come around to admit that yes, that is a series of horses, changing their shape/hooves/ribs/size/teeth/vertebrae/skull/etc from one to another.

    Obviously they say these are all changes within a “kind”, but they have finally admitted that it is a series of horses, not just different types of created horses. They hold that the series of horses developed all along that chain within a couple hundred years after the Flood.

    They are indeed links in a consistent chain of horse development.

    As to Larry – I think you’re a bit confused. Was I talking about creation ex-nihilo? No, I was talking about YEC. I specifically stated YEC several times.

  • WebMonk

    Question as to whether evolution is falsifiable – sure it is.

    Start finding some rabbit fossils down in the Permian layer. According to evolutionary theory that was a time of only early amphibians and reptiles – certainly no mammals of any sort.

  • WebMonk

    Question as to whether evolution is falsifiable – sure it is.

    Start finding some rabbit fossils down in the Permian layer. According to evolutionary theory that was a time of only early amphibians and reptiles – certainly no mammals of any sort.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    One other obervation about Leaky’s comments. In his last paragraph, he clearly demonstrates that his opposition, if you want to call it thus, are both Theistic and Literalistic, and therefore fall into the YEC camp. Comments by others in this very thread support this either/or, two options only view.

    This illustrates that in the current (and totally unnecessary) conflict, the extremes dominate, and it is in both their interests to keep it thus, facts, history and all that none withstanding.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    One other obervation about Leaky’s comments. In his last paragraph, he clearly demonstrates that his opposition, if you want to call it thus, are both Theistic and Literalistic, and therefore fall into the YEC camp. Comments by others in this very thread support this either/or, two options only view.

    This illustrates that in the current (and totally unnecessary) conflict, the extremes dominate, and it is in both their interests to keep it thus, facts, history and all that none withstanding.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Webmonk: Or some Archean Hominids, with tools.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Webmonk: Or some Archean Hominids, with tools.

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    Though Darwinian’s will continue to trumpet the necessity for belief in the theory of macro evolution, which for the life me I cannot figure out how it remains credible when it relies on utterly flawed logic, (i.e. mutation, not adaptation creates speciation), it is becoming a limiting field of study.

    By that I mean the rest of science (i.e. mathematics and physics) and their research continues to advance forward pursuing new discoveries and research. For you TED junkies out there take a look at some of the physics, mathematics and computer research presentations on the TED site. Fascinating stuff. In short, there is the underlying current that evolutionary biologists are holding back the field of science because they are utterly preoccupied with proving their theory. (Yes, TED does also feature some evolutionists, but the trend continues toward helpful scientific advancement, which physics, mathematics, and computer science continue to proliferate). So as to Leakey’s claim, I predict it will be just the opposite. Science will grow weary of the stagnate study of self validating macro evolutionists and finally demand they move on and contribute to the advancement of science rather than perpetuate the fascination of a aging theory.

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    Though Darwinian’s will continue to trumpet the necessity for belief in the theory of macro evolution, which for the life me I cannot figure out how it remains credible when it relies on utterly flawed logic, (i.e. mutation, not adaptation creates speciation), it is becoming a limiting field of study.

    By that I mean the rest of science (i.e. mathematics and physics) and their research continues to advance forward pursuing new discoveries and research. For you TED junkies out there take a look at some of the physics, mathematics and computer research presentations on the TED site. Fascinating stuff. In short, there is the underlying current that evolutionary biologists are holding back the field of science because they are utterly preoccupied with proving their theory. (Yes, TED does also feature some evolutionists, but the trend continues toward helpful scientific advancement, which physics, mathematics, and computer science continue to proliferate). So as to Leakey’s claim, I predict it will be just the opposite. Science will grow weary of the stagnate study of self validating macro evolutionists and finally demand they move on and contribute to the advancement of science rather than perpetuate the fascination of a aging theory.

  • WebMonk

    Evolution doesn’t provide any new insights and developments? ROTFLOL!

    I want you to go ask a YEC biologist about that. His name is Dr. Todd Wood and he works at Bryan College. He’s much nicer than I am. He won’t just laugh.

  • WebMonk

    Evolution doesn’t provide any new insights and developments? ROTFLOL!

    I want you to go ask a YEC biologist about that. His name is Dr. Todd Wood and he works at Bryan College. He’s much nicer than I am. He won’t just laugh.

  • Jon

    OK, So is the horse “line” on its way to being anything other than a horse?

    And, is there any solid evidence that the horse “line” came from anything other than a horse-like creature? Say, from a different sort of mammal like the rodent line?

  • Jon

    OK, So is the horse “line” on its way to being anything other than a horse?

    And, is there any solid evidence that the horse “line” came from anything other than a horse-like creature? Say, from a different sort of mammal like the rodent line?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Lucas, you have no idea what you are writing about.

    Physics support evolution (nuclear physics, astrophysics, etc etc).

    The mathematics of evolution is a serious field – look at the program of a conference starting next week: http://www.lirmm.fr/mceb2012/program.php

    Also, your assertion about mutation is a common, but experimentally dis proven assumption. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or negative.

    Geology confirms it, and wrt mining and exploration, creationist geology provide no help in the location and analysis of mineral deposits.

    In short, you really need to get off your little podium and learn something.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Lucas, you have no idea what you are writing about.

    Physics support evolution (nuclear physics, astrophysics, etc etc).

    The mathematics of evolution is a serious field – look at the program of a conference starting next week: http://www.lirmm.fr/mceb2012/program.php

    Also, your assertion about mutation is a common, but experimentally dis proven assumption. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or negative.

    Geology confirms it, and wrt mining and exploration, creationist geology provide no help in the location and analysis of mineral deposits.

    In short, you really need to get off your little podium and learn something.

  • SKPeterson

    Books 12 and 13 from Confessions by Augustine provides a very useful framework for the variations with which Creation may be apprehended.

  • SKPeterson

    Books 12 and 13 from Confessions by Augustine provides a very useful framework for the variations with which Creation may be apprehended.

  • Klasie Kraalogies
  • Klasie Kraalogies
  • Jon

    Is the e.coli on its way to being anything other than another strain of e coli bacteria? I mean 24 years of studying changes in e.coli and its still just e.coli, a single cell bacterium. Lots of mutations and variation and not much significant improvement in the development of the organism. There must be a real edge to this evolution stuff, at least.

  • Jon

    Is the e.coli on its way to being anything other than another strain of e coli bacteria? I mean 24 years of studying changes in e.coli and its still just e.coli, a single cell bacterium. Lots of mutations and variation and not much significant improvement in the development of the organism. There must be a real edge to this evolution stuff, at least.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, for a treatment of Equine evolution, see this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

    Note that the earliest example in that list looked very similar to the ancestors of the other perissodactyls (tapirs, rhino’s).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, for a treatment of Equine evolution, see this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

    Note that the earliest example in that list looked very similar to the ancestors of the other perissodactyls (tapirs, rhino’s).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, the study refutes the mutations-are-always-bad thing that Lucas referred to. Also, there is a common misunderstanding of evolution, namely that we always have evolution towards more complicated forms. Not necessarily – we still have the algal species that we have evidence for in the late Archean (more than 2.5 Ga ago) around. “Fittest” doesn’t always mean “bigger” or “smarter”. It is environmentally defined, with probabilistic operators involved.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, the study refutes the mutations-are-always-bad thing that Lucas referred to. Also, there is a common misunderstanding of evolution, namely that we always have evolution towards more complicated forms. Not necessarily – we still have the algal species that we have evidence for in the late Archean (more than 2.5 Ga ago) around. “Fittest” doesn’t always mean “bigger” or “smarter”. It is environmentally defined, with probabilistic operators involved.

  • WebMonk

    Jon, do you know what the horse line is?

    It “starts” with an animal about two feet long, multiple toes per foot with pads like a dog’s. It ate leaves, fruits, and nuts. That family of creatures also develops out into tapirs and rhinos.

    Depending on the environment in which it was living at the time, the line of animals that became modern horses (not talking about the lines that split off to become tapirs and rhinos) got bigger and smaller, added teeth, lost teeth, gained ribs, lost ribs, added toes, lost toes, developed hooves, lost hooves, etc, etc, etc. And that’s just within the line that eventually became the modern horse.

    The horse line goes back until it joins into the animals that split into different “species” (more like families) to eventually develop into things like the modern tapir and rhino. Horses, rhinos, and tapirs – those all have chains that join together in common ancestors.

    So, yes, we this is not an example of some variation of a horse developing into another variation of a horse.

  • WebMonk

    Jon, do you know what the horse line is?

    It “starts” with an animal about two feet long, multiple toes per foot with pads like a dog’s. It ate leaves, fruits, and nuts. That family of creatures also develops out into tapirs and rhinos.

    Depending on the environment in which it was living at the time, the line of animals that became modern horses (not talking about the lines that split off to become tapirs and rhinos) got bigger and smaller, added teeth, lost teeth, gained ribs, lost ribs, added toes, lost toes, developed hooves, lost hooves, etc, etc, etc. And that’s just within the line that eventually became the modern horse.

    The horse line goes back until it joins into the animals that split into different “species” (more like families) to eventually develop into things like the modern tapir and rhino. Horses, rhinos, and tapirs – those all have chains that join together in common ancestors.

    So, yes, we this is not an example of some variation of a horse developing into another variation of a horse.

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    @ Klasie
    Wow! Just lost respect for you my friend. But my guess is you don’t really care. Hopping off my podium…

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    @ Klasie
    Wow! Just lost respect for you my friend. But my guess is you don’t really care. Hopping off my podium…

  • Jon

    Yes, it’s that short-necked giraffe who just really wanted to reach the high leaves idea, sort of environmental “push” that makes me smirk. Probably the same for the single cell bacterium environmental push to leave the pond scum. “If only I could just become multicellular–one day I could leave this other scum behind!)

  • Jon

    Yes, it’s that short-necked giraffe who just really wanted to reach the high leaves idea, sort of environmental “push” that makes me smirk. Probably the same for the single cell bacterium environmental push to leave the pond scum. “If only I could just become multicellular–one day I could leave this other scum behind!)

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Ok, I finally was able to pull up a good example. (My filing system needs help.)

    Green, R., et al. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science v. 328 no.5979 May 2010.

    The genetic comparison uses an inferred chimp/human ancestor. Even the nucleotide differences between neandertal and human genomes are inferred. Until they ever find actual evidence of the inferred genomes, evolution will only ever be a possibility. The likelihood of finding such a genome is next to nil because DNA doesn’t survive to well outside of a living organism. The cited article notes as much. Their largest recovered chain was about 200 base pairs. So the article in the OP is nothing more than a pie in the sky dream.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Ok, I finally was able to pull up a good example. (My filing system needs help.)

    Green, R., et al. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science v. 328 no.5979 May 2010.

    The genetic comparison uses an inferred chimp/human ancestor. Even the nucleotide differences between neandertal and human genomes are inferred. Until they ever find actual evidence of the inferred genomes, evolution will only ever be a possibility. The likelihood of finding such a genome is next to nil because DNA doesn’t survive to well outside of a living organism. The cited article notes as much. Their largest recovered chain was about 200 base pairs. So the article in the OP is nothing more than a pie in the sky dream.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Lucas, I’m sorry you feel like that, but really, you need to know whereof you speak. I’m fine with debate, but do not equate easily disproven statements with any type of solid arguments. Would you then care to respond to my response?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Lucas, I’m sorry you feel like that, but really, you need to know whereof you speak. I’m fine with debate, but do not equate easily disproven statements with any type of solid arguments. Would you then care to respond to my response?

  • WebMonk

    Jon, no, I’m not sure where you got that little caricature, but it’s completely wrong. I suspect you don’t know the horse series.

    Just to respond to your initial question of “is there any solid evidence that the horse “line” came from anything other than a horse-like creature? Say, from a different sort of mammal like the rodent line?

    Yes – it came from a common set of ancestors that developed out into tapirs and rhinos as well as horses.

    Is that sufficiently different for you?

    Yes, the horse line did indeed come from some different sort of mammal “like the rodent line”. (it wasn’t the rodent line in particular, but it was the line that developed into rhinos and tapirs)

  • WebMonk

    Jon, no, I’m not sure where you got that little caricature, but it’s completely wrong. I suspect you don’t know the horse series.

    Just to respond to your initial question of “is there any solid evidence that the horse “line” came from anything other than a horse-like creature? Say, from a different sort of mammal like the rodent line?

    Yes – it came from a common set of ancestors that developed out into tapirs and rhinos as well as horses.

    Is that sufficiently different for you?

    Yes, the horse line did indeed come from some different sort of mammal “like the rodent line”. (it wasn’t the rodent line in particular, but it was the line that developed into rhinos and tapirs)

  • larry

    KK,

    Of course I like you too, but you have a penchant for falsely accusing me sometimes. My issue is not connecting the dots to “calvinism” but to the spirit that Luther foresaw at Marburg. Calvinism is just “a” monicker that this form of rationalism goes under. The bigger picture, which is connected, is the principle of articles of faith eroding from various directions because reason simply cannot stand to be offended. Now reason is a good creature subdued to the Word and faith as the first article of the Creed expounds, “I believe that God made me and all creatures, and also gave me…my reason”. But in articles of faith, Luther expounds its danger in the third article of the Creed (all which we preach, teach and confess) “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to Him…”. That’s a quite literally confession of absolute truth “this is most certainly true” we conclude our confession.

    Thus, it is not hard to see the principle false spirit, that Luther, pre-calvinist/ism (as a lable for the formalized principle), saw that when a single article of faith is given up, which creation is as is “this is My body”, eventually all are lost. This is what lead Zwingli to posit that Christ’s body, and Calvin, is located and could not be in the bread and wine among other things. At length, this has implications of the doctrine of the Trinity as well and Redemption itself.

    KK, I can appreciate a good debate, but spare me your false accusations as if you can “read my heart” as being driven by attacking “calvinism” and not the broader principle which I’ve labored MUCH to point out in more posts than I can count.

    It is as Luther said this enthusiam sticks to ALL the children of Adam, this alien spirit, this reason over the Word and faith because it is our root original sin. Now it manifest itself in individuals and we all battle it, and it manifest itself in official formal doctrines of differing parts that carry official names such as Trent, Rome, Calvin, Reformed, Pietism, Baptist, pagan, Islam, etc… But through all the names away and extract out the principle and one will find the same alien spirit in operation here. So its not an issue of “this denomination” hobby horse, but the principle of a false doctrine that is in essence the same though it manifest itself in many forms confessing itself against the Word and faith. Thus, it is the same that denies via offended reason that cannot stand the paradox of the Word such as grace alone, justification by faith alone, creation, the trinity, the two natures, the incarnation, the body and blood saving, that baptism saves, that absolution does something, that the ressurrection will happen, that the church invisible IS and so forth. Because it wishes to function on sight, feelings, other senses and so forth.

    This is nothing new to Lutheranism for Luther himself Sasse points out “prophetically” predicted this at Marburg, as have a number of Lutheran theologians who themselves made the connection of this principle exactly the way I’ve restated it that the same principle that caused the pope to deny justification by faith alone, causes Islam to deny the trinity, caused Calvin to deny the body and blood. All these are linked not because they are “that man’s or that groups” problem but that fallen man adheres to this and if the faithful are not careful they will variously fall prey to them and let reason Lord over the Word and thus murder faith because it cannot stand the paradox of the revelation via the Word alone. Which is ironic sense reason accepts many other paradoxs that are such they just are not articles of faith such as the paradox of light (particle vs wave). One has to ask “Why” the selectivity? The answer, the fallen nature driven by Satan, for it rejects the paradoxes of the Word but accepts plainly other paradoxes it sees.

  • larry

    KK,

    Of course I like you too, but you have a penchant for falsely accusing me sometimes. My issue is not connecting the dots to “calvinism” but to the spirit that Luther foresaw at Marburg. Calvinism is just “a” monicker that this form of rationalism goes under. The bigger picture, which is connected, is the principle of articles of faith eroding from various directions because reason simply cannot stand to be offended. Now reason is a good creature subdued to the Word and faith as the first article of the Creed expounds, “I believe that God made me and all creatures, and also gave me…my reason”. But in articles of faith, Luther expounds its danger in the third article of the Creed (all which we preach, teach and confess) “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to Him…”. That’s a quite literally confession of absolute truth “this is most certainly true” we conclude our confession.

    Thus, it is not hard to see the principle false spirit, that Luther, pre-calvinist/ism (as a lable for the formalized principle), saw that when a single article of faith is given up, which creation is as is “this is My body”, eventually all are lost. This is what lead Zwingli to posit that Christ’s body, and Calvin, is located and could not be in the bread and wine among other things. At length, this has implications of the doctrine of the Trinity as well and Redemption itself.

    KK, I can appreciate a good debate, but spare me your false accusations as if you can “read my heart” as being driven by attacking “calvinism” and not the broader principle which I’ve labored MUCH to point out in more posts than I can count.

    It is as Luther said this enthusiam sticks to ALL the children of Adam, this alien spirit, this reason over the Word and faith because it is our root original sin. Now it manifest itself in individuals and we all battle it, and it manifest itself in official formal doctrines of differing parts that carry official names such as Trent, Rome, Calvin, Reformed, Pietism, Baptist, pagan, Islam, etc… But through all the names away and extract out the principle and one will find the same alien spirit in operation here. So its not an issue of “this denomination” hobby horse, but the principle of a false doctrine that is in essence the same though it manifest itself in many forms confessing itself against the Word and faith. Thus, it is the same that denies via offended reason that cannot stand the paradox of the Word such as grace alone, justification by faith alone, creation, the trinity, the two natures, the incarnation, the body and blood saving, that baptism saves, that absolution does something, that the ressurrection will happen, that the church invisible IS and so forth. Because it wishes to function on sight, feelings, other senses and so forth.

    This is nothing new to Lutheranism for Luther himself Sasse points out “prophetically” predicted this at Marburg, as have a number of Lutheran theologians who themselves made the connection of this principle exactly the way I’ve restated it that the same principle that caused the pope to deny justification by faith alone, causes Islam to deny the trinity, caused Calvin to deny the body and blood. All these are linked not because they are “that man’s or that groups” problem but that fallen man adheres to this and if the faithful are not careful they will variously fall prey to them and let reason Lord over the Word and thus murder faith because it cannot stand the paradox of the revelation via the Word alone. Which is ironic sense reason accepts many other paradoxs that are such they just are not articles of faith such as the paradox of light (particle vs wave). One has to ask “Why” the selectivity? The answer, the fallen nature driven by Satan, for it rejects the paradoxes of the Word but accepts plainly other paradoxes it sees.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Of course, as a geologist, I have a slight advantage over the paleontologists, in that I have much more evidence to work with.

    But the geology backs up the paleontology, much as what Webmonk referred to when he talked about rabbit fossils in Permian beds.

    The geological tale of our planet provides a long and detailed history. Fossils are found as discrete occurrences against this back drop. But we find the earliest life forms in the late Archean and the Proterozoic, starting with algal mats (stromatolites). We can then follow the distribution upward all the way to the present. This is backed up both by relative ages (older lower, younger higher), and absolute ages (radiometric dating). The agreement between the data is substantial (good correlation coefficients, essentially).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Of course, as a geologist, I have a slight advantage over the paleontologists, in that I have much more evidence to work with.

    But the geology backs up the paleontology, much as what Webmonk referred to when he talked about rabbit fossils in Permian beds.

    The geological tale of our planet provides a long and detailed history. Fossils are found as discrete occurrences against this back drop. But we find the earliest life forms in the late Archean and the Proterozoic, starting with algal mats (stromatolites). We can then follow the distribution upward all the way to the present. This is backed up both by relative ages (older lower, younger higher), and absolute ages (radiometric dating). The agreement between the data is substantial (good correlation coefficients, essentially).

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Jon, until Webmonk starts providing sources you can pretty much ignore the posts. Also, the argumentation is based on comparative anatomy which is increasingly less important in classification, because it is based largely on “educated” guesses. The new means of classification is largely genetics based.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Jon, until Webmonk starts providing sources you can pretty much ignore the posts. Also, the argumentation is based on comparative anatomy which is increasingly less important in classification, because it is based largely on “educated” guesses. The new means of classification is largely genetics based.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DRL21C,

    Here is a link to the original data for that study: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERP000119

    Further study is described in a different 2010 paper – http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full

    Note the following regarding Genome comparison, from that publication:

    The draft Neanderthal genome sequence consists largely of 35- to 100-bp sequence reads that provide ∼1× coverage (Pennisi 2009). De novo sequence assembly is not possible with such data—in fact, it is a daunting computational challenge even with >40× coverage of a modern human genome (Simpson et al. 2009). Initial human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee sequence comparisons will thus involve tiling Neanderthal reads onto the human and chimpanzee reference genomes. These analyses will largely be limited to detecting lineage-specific substitutions and small insertions or deletions (indels). Some insight may be gained into segmental duplications or other large-scale genome rearrangements, but it is not clear how this can be achieved. The draft Neanderthal genome will thus provide three novel data sets: a genome-wide map of substitutions and indels that appear to be specific to the modern human reference genome relative to Neanderthal and chimpanzee; a map of Neanderthal-specific changes, which will be dominated by damage-induced errors; and a map of shared human–Neanderthal-derived changes relative to chimpanzee, which may include modern human contaminants (Fig. 1A). The most informative of these will be the map of apparent modern human-specific substitutions, which will complement existing maps of human-specific fixed sequence differences obtained from human–chimpanzee comparisons. Coupled with existing data sets of human polymorphisms and the large number of individual human genomes currently being sequenced, these maps will identify sequence differences arising since the modern human–Neanderthal divergence that are fixed in all humans.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DRL21C,

    Here is a link to the original data for that study: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERP000119

    Further study is described in a different 2010 paper – http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full

    Note the following regarding Genome comparison, from that publication:

    The draft Neanderthal genome sequence consists largely of 35- to 100-bp sequence reads that provide ∼1× coverage (Pennisi 2009). De novo sequence assembly is not possible with such data—in fact, it is a daunting computational challenge even with >40× coverage of a modern human genome (Simpson et al. 2009). Initial human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee sequence comparisons will thus involve tiling Neanderthal reads onto the human and chimpanzee reference genomes. These analyses will largely be limited to detecting lineage-specific substitutions and small insertions or deletions (indels). Some insight may be gained into segmental duplications or other large-scale genome rearrangements, but it is not clear how this can be achieved. The draft Neanderthal genome will thus provide three novel data sets: a genome-wide map of substitutions and indels that appear to be specific to the modern human reference genome relative to Neanderthal and chimpanzee; a map of Neanderthal-specific changes, which will be dominated by damage-induced errors; and a map of shared human–Neanderthal-derived changes relative to chimpanzee, which may include modern human contaminants (Fig. 1A). The most informative of these will be the map of apparent modern human-specific substitutions, which will complement existing maps of human-specific fixed sequence differences obtained from human–chimpanzee comparisons. Coupled with existing data sets of human polymorphisms and the large number of individual human genomes currently being sequenced, these maps will identify sequence differences arising since the modern human–Neanderthal divergence that are fixed in all humans.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, Time and Place.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, Time and Place.

  • Jon

    @DL21

    Yeah, that’s where I’m leaning. It’s a lot of constructing web of one’s own imagination, ultimately.

    You’d think that with all this observation going on that, at least just once, we would get a glimpse of something actually no-kidding on its way to something substantially more substantial than what it is, and not just variation. We manipulate the environment for 24 years, and still we have just various e.coli.

    What would be really impressive is to demonstrate life from non-life. If you can do that, then I might be convinced.

  • Jon

    @DL21

    Yeah, that’s where I’m leaning. It’s a lot of constructing web of one’s own imagination, ultimately.

    You’d think that with all this observation going on that, at least just once, we would get a glimpse of something actually no-kidding on its way to something substantially more substantial than what it is, and not just variation. We manipulate the environment for 24 years, and still we have just various e.coli.

    What would be really impressive is to demonstrate life from non-life. If you can do that, then I might be convinced.

  • kerner

    Webmonk @31 and Klassie @33:

    Well, I can’t point to any rabbit fossils. But I can find therapsids in the Permian fossil strata, which have been called “mammal-like” reptiles (an attempt to not upset the conventional evolutionary model?) but which may now be acknowledged to have not been reptiles at all.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-therapsids.htm

    http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/carnivorousdinosaurs/p/cynognathus.htm

    I’m not a geologist like you guys, and I really hate debating about a subject when I have to admit that I don’t know enough about it. But the existance of furry, warm-blooded animals in the mid-Permian era seems to me to indicate that maybe even the most knowledgeable among us have really know very little. Even if the most knowledgeable know a whole lot more than I do.

  • kerner

    Webmonk @31 and Klassie @33:

    Well, I can’t point to any rabbit fossils. But I can find therapsids in the Permian fossil strata, which have been called “mammal-like” reptiles (an attempt to not upset the conventional evolutionary model?) but which may now be acknowledged to have not been reptiles at all.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-therapsids.htm

    http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/carnivorousdinosaurs/p/cynognathus.htm

    I’m not a geologist like you guys, and I really hate debating about a subject when I have to admit that I don’t know enough about it. But the existance of furry, warm-blooded animals in the mid-Permian era seems to me to indicate that maybe even the most knowledgeable among us have really know very little. Even if the most knowledgeable know a whole lot more than I do.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What is often lacking in these debates is the big picture:

    Here we have DNA evidence (or the beginnings thereof). There we have the fossil record. Over there we have the (considerable) geological record. In another place we have astronomy and astrophysics. In another place we have nuclear physics (radioactive decay, cosmogenic isotopes etc). In another – anthropology, and even archaeology.

    And the agreement, or the growing agreement between all these, the more we discover, is remarkable. To walk away from all that evidence, is to walk away from reality, plain and simple. All based on a specific, literal understanding of a small part of Scripture, something that not even the Church Fathers agreed on, and something that would not change Theology at all, were it seen as allegorical/typological/alethemythopoeic. I smell something, and it ain’t good….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What is often lacking in these debates is the big picture:

    Here we have DNA evidence (or the beginnings thereof). There we have the fossil record. Over there we have the (considerable) geological record. In another place we have astronomy and astrophysics. In another place we have nuclear physics (radioactive decay, cosmogenic isotopes etc). In another – anthropology, and even archaeology.

    And the agreement, or the growing agreement between all these, the more we discover, is remarkable. To walk away from all that evidence, is to walk away from reality, plain and simple. All based on a specific, literal understanding of a small part of Scripture, something that not even the Church Fathers agreed on, and something that would not change Theology at all, were it seen as allegorical/typological/alethemythopoeic. I smell something, and it ain’t good….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – why do you find the therapsid presence a problem? The wikipedia article seems pretty good – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida.

    Nobody claims that mammals or proto-mammals only came after dinosaurs. Again, the populist view of evolution is maybe at fault here.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – why do you find the therapsid presence a problem? The wikipedia article seems pretty good – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida.

    Nobody claims that mammals or proto-mammals only came after dinosaurs. Again, the populist view of evolution is maybe at fault here.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon – the E coli experiment is a closed environment, with one species, and minimal environmental changes. Keeping the variables to the minimum in a controlled environment is how science experiments are done.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon – the E coli experiment is a closed environment, with one species, and minimal environmental changes. Keeping the variables to the minimum in a controlled environment is how science experiments are done.

  • BW

    KK,

    Question: where does the Genesis of Adam and Eve fit in your framework? What happens at the Fall?

  • BW

    KK,

    Question: where does the Genesis of Adam and Eve fit in your framework? What happens at the Fall?

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – sorry, I thought most of this was common knowledge.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=horse+evolution+series+wikipedia

    If you want the Answers article that agrees the horse series is a series and not just a random association of different horse-like creatures, check out
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090124233847/http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/horse-fossils

    (the page on AiG’s site is coming up blank at the moment for some reason, looks like a website problem)

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – sorry, I thought most of this was common knowledge.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=horse+evolution+series+wikipedia

    If you want the Answers article that agrees the horse series is a series and not just a random association of different horse-like creatures, check out
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090124233847/http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/horse-fossils

    (the page on AiG’s site is coming up blank at the moment for some reason, looks like a website problem)

  • WebMonk

    Jon (54) and DL21 (51)

    There, in AiG’s own article, they talk about the horse series of fossils being an actual series, not just some random collection.

  • WebMonk

    Jon (54) and DL21 (51)

    There, in AiG’s own article, they talk about the horse series of fossils being an actual series, not just some random collection.

  • kerner

    Klassie @57:

    Well, Webmonk’s comment @31 seemed to admit that the finding a rabbit fossil in the Permian strata (and his comment DOES use the words “mammals of any sort”) would show that evolution was “falsifiable”.

    So, if I find the fossils of animals that:

    1. have fur
    2. are warm-blooded
    3. bear their young alive
    4. lactate
    5. walk upright
    6. have differentiated teeth
    7. have a bulging brain case

    in other words, mammals of some sort…

    I thought that would present a problem.

    Did I misunderstand?

  • kerner

    Klassie @57:

    Well, Webmonk’s comment @31 seemed to admit that the finding a rabbit fossil in the Permian strata (and his comment DOES use the words “mammals of any sort”) would show that evolution was “falsifiable”.

    So, if I find the fossils of animals that:

    1. have fur
    2. are warm-blooded
    3. bear their young alive
    4. lactate
    5. walk upright
    6. have differentiated teeth
    7. have a bulging brain case

    in other words, mammals of some sort…

    I thought that would present a problem.

    Did I misunderstand?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW, Adam and Eve could either be real individuals, living at time X, being the Covenant head of Humanity (Kevin N believes this, btw, and that humans are non-evolved, but everything else is), or, they could be allegorical, representative humans, by which man’s sinful condition is explained/demonstrated. The point of the telling in Genesis is not the historic fact, but what is being told us (and more importantly, the prime audience, we being the secondary audience) THROUGH the story. This doesn’t make it false at all. The non-Western mind doesn’t work like that at all, btw. The facts are less important than the Point, essentially.

    And to ward of the next objection, Christ and Paul referring to them, if they are representative humans only, doesn’t invalidate what Christ and Paul is saying, at all. Again, focusing on the example instead of on the point, and taking the example literally, is missing the Point.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW, Adam and Eve could either be real individuals, living at time X, being the Covenant head of Humanity (Kevin N believes this, btw, and that humans are non-evolved, but everything else is), or, they could be allegorical, representative humans, by which man’s sinful condition is explained/demonstrated. The point of the telling in Genesis is not the historic fact, but what is being told us (and more importantly, the prime audience, we being the secondary audience) THROUGH the story. This doesn’t make it false at all. The non-Western mind doesn’t work like that at all, btw. The facts are less important than the Point, essentially.

    And to ward of the next objection, Christ and Paul referring to them, if they are representative humans only, doesn’t invalidate what Christ and Paul is saying, at all. Again, focusing on the example instead of on the point, and taking the example literally, is missing the Point.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – Webmonk was talking about a modern rabbit, I think. I changed his example to an Archean Homind, precisely because we know that some species are long lived, such as the aforementioned stromatolites, or crocodiles, or coelacanths.

    As to the therapsids themselves, they suffered a setback during the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, after which the Dinosaurs became the dominant animals till the end of the Cretaceous, and that extinction event. This event allowed the Mammalian descendants of the Therapsids to once again dominate the landscape.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – Webmonk was talking about a modern rabbit, I think. I changed his example to an Archean Homind, precisely because we know that some species are long lived, such as the aforementioned stromatolites, or crocodiles, or coelacanths.

    As to the therapsids themselves, they suffered a setback during the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, after which the Dinosaurs became the dominant animals till the end of the Cretaceous, and that extinction event. This event allowed the Mammalian descendants of the Therapsids to once again dominate the landscape.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note: I’m not a paleontologist, but I know some paleontology through my Geology.

    Geologically speaking, of course, as I indicated earlier, there is no case to be made for a young earth, period.

    Think of geology as a thick book, backed by physics etc., with paleontology as a series of discrete snapshots, scattered throughout the book.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note: I’m not a paleontologist, but I know some paleontology through my Geology.

    Geologically speaking, of course, as I indicated earlier, there is no case to be made for a young earth, period.

    Think of geology as a thick book, backed by physics etc., with paleontology as a series of discrete snapshots, scattered throughout the book.

  • larry

    KK,

    “Larry, Time and Place.”

    I’m afraid you lost me or I missed something?

  • larry

    KK,

    “Larry, Time and Place.”

    I’m afraid you lost me or I missed something?

  • DonS

    Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”

    “If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”

    Hmm. Tom @ 13 has nailed it, when he says

    I was struck by the religious quality of Leakey’s statements. A wide acceptance of evolution will save the world by transforming the mind of man. A transformed mind results in good behavior, and good behavior will have a final reward – a better, future place.

    Leakey’s statement is not one of a scientist, earnestly seeking the evidence for the purpose of objective analysis, willing to accept whatever it indicates, but rather that of a zealot.

  • DonS

    Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”

    “If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”

    Hmm. Tom @ 13 has nailed it, when he says

    I was struck by the religious quality of Leakey’s statements. A wide acceptance of evolution will save the world by transforming the mind of man. A transformed mind results in good behavior, and good behavior will have a final reward – a better, future place.

    Leakey’s statement is not one of a scientist, earnestly seeking the evidence for the purpose of objective analysis, willing to accept whatever it indicates, but rather that of a zealot.

  • Jon

    @58 Well, then perhaps we should get started running an experiement that really stresses out those little unicellular buggers to see what they’re capable of doing. Give them the environmental impetus to rise out of the scum-or not.

    Do you think we’d see any significant progress in that regard in Leakey’s predicted 15 years?

  • Jon

    @58 Well, then perhaps we should get started running an experiement that really stresses out those little unicellular buggers to see what they’re capable of doing. Give them the environmental impetus to rise out of the scum-or not.

    Do you think we’d see any significant progress in that regard in Leakey’s predicted 15 years?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon – there has been similar experiments with yeast, in which they managed to let the little fellows evolve into bicellular organisms, by constantly putting the lot through a centrifuge. But scientific experiments like this are difficult to control, and need time, money and people….

    As to Leaky’s prediction – read my analyses way back at #9. Also, noting the historical trends I highlighted, I think Leaky is given to some sort of wish-fulfillment…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon – there has been similar experiments with yeast, in which they managed to let the little fellows evolve into bicellular organisms, by constantly putting the lot through a centrifuge. But scientific experiments like this are difficult to control, and need time, money and people….

    As to Leaky’s prediction – read my analyses way back at #9. Also, noting the historical trends I highlighted, I think Leaky is given to some sort of wish-fulfillment…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, you read every topic through the same lens, and then insert it everywhere. Much as you find that important, not every venue is an appropriate venue.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, you read every topic through the same lens, and then insert it everywhere. Much as you find that important, not every venue is an appropriate venue.

  • WebMonk

    kerner, I think you’re reading a lot more into my comment than I intended. I picked Permian because that’s where mammals first began to develop from their reptilian ancestors. Some of the traits began to show up, but nothing like a full-blown mammal such as rabbits, cats, dogs, horses, etc.

    To make it especially clear, how about a rabbit in the Carboniferous. That way there’s no dickering around with the precise definition of exactly how many mammalian traits something needs to have in order to be a full mammal.

    If a rabbit were to show up in the Carboniferous, there would be no way for evolution to explain something like that.

    The Permian is the earliest time that mammalian traits began to show up in animals, but there weren’t any full-blown mammals – no rabbits. But if you want to argue over whether beginning mammalian traits qualifies animals for being mammals, let’s avoid that whole discussion.

    Pick the Devonian. A rabbit, human, fox, cow, or horse cannot be in the Devonian.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    AiG does now acknowledge the horse series, and this is an example of their post-flood hyper-rapid evolution scenario. We started with the proto-horse that walked off the Ark, and it differentiated into a number of species in the next few centuries. So the whole Hyracotherium–Mesohippus–Merychippus–Pliohippus–Equus series evolved quickly, and none of the pre-Equus (modern horse) species survived for more than a few years.

    It seems the YECs are trying to out-evolution the evolutionists!

  • WebMonk

    kerner, I think you’re reading a lot more into my comment than I intended. I picked Permian because that’s where mammals first began to develop from their reptilian ancestors. Some of the traits began to show up, but nothing like a full-blown mammal such as rabbits, cats, dogs, horses, etc.

    To make it especially clear, how about a rabbit in the Carboniferous. That way there’s no dickering around with the precise definition of exactly how many mammalian traits something needs to have in order to be a full mammal.

    If a rabbit were to show up in the Carboniferous, there would be no way for evolution to explain something like that.

    The Permian is the earliest time that mammalian traits began to show up in animals, but there weren’t any full-blown mammals – no rabbits. But if you want to argue over whether beginning mammalian traits qualifies animals for being mammals, let’s avoid that whole discussion.

    Pick the Devonian. A rabbit, human, fox, cow, or horse cannot be in the Devonian.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    AiG does now acknowledge the horse series, and this is an example of their post-flood hyper-rapid evolution scenario. We started with the proto-horse that walked off the Ark, and it differentiated into a number of species in the next few centuries. So the whole Hyracotherium–Mesohippus–Merychippus–Pliohippus–Equus series evolved quickly, and none of the pre-Equus (modern horse) species survived for more than a few years.

    It seems the YECs are trying to out-evolution the evolutionists!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Webmonk, it has nothing to do with common knowledge. And the means of classification that the “horse line” represents has largely been rejected since the advent of complete gene sequences, because they found genetically speaking animals that had similar features weren’t actually related. It is still taught because most textbooks are about 15 years behind and for some reason they still want to teach bad science. Essentially it is caught in a transition period.

    Also, I don’t find AiG to be remotely authoritative so quoting their articles to me is a waste of space.

    KK, the largest problem with the evidence is that it can actually speak both ways. People can look at the same evidence and see evolution or the principle of conservation. I usually stay out of these discussions because they largely boil down to what is the persons biases.

    I lean towards the Genesis testimony for I have no reason to doubt God, but I have every reason to doubt man.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Webmonk, it has nothing to do with common knowledge. And the means of classification that the “horse line” represents has largely been rejected since the advent of complete gene sequences, because they found genetically speaking animals that had similar features weren’t actually related. It is still taught because most textbooks are about 15 years behind and for some reason they still want to teach bad science. Essentially it is caught in a transition period.

    Also, I don’t find AiG to be remotely authoritative so quoting their articles to me is a waste of space.

    KK, the largest problem with the evidence is that it can actually speak both ways. People can look at the same evidence and see evolution or the principle of conservation. I usually stay out of these discussions because they largely boil down to what is the persons biases.

    I lean towards the Genesis testimony for I have no reason to doubt God, but I have every reason to doubt man.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Dr. Luther (#73) — As an old-Earth Christian, I also “lean towards the Genesis testimony for I have no reason to doubt God.” I believe the Bible from the very first verse. I just don’t believe the YEC-spin on it.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Dr. Luther (#73) — As an old-Earth Christian, I also “lean towards the Genesis testimony for I have no reason to doubt God.” I believe the Bible from the very first verse. I just don’t believe the YEC-spin on it.

  • SAL

    I’m skeptical of biologists and young earth creationists. Both are working in restrictive frameworks.

    In evolutionary biology two species with similar genes or characteristics can be ascribed the similarity because of either ancestory or convergent evolution. I’ve not seen a particularly compelling rationale to distinguish between ancestory and convergent evolution in most cases.

    YEC assume a very recently created Earth and Universe. All evidence is forced into this framework until the rationals reach the point of ridicule.

    I tend to think the Earth and Universe are old but I’m skeptical of the degree to which we understand natural history or the mechanisms that drive it.

  • SAL

    I’m skeptical of biologists and young earth creationists. Both are working in restrictive frameworks.

    In evolutionary biology two species with similar genes or characteristics can be ascribed the similarity because of either ancestory or convergent evolution. I’ve not seen a particularly compelling rationale to distinguish between ancestory and convergent evolution in most cases.

    YEC assume a very recently created Earth and Universe. All evidence is forced into this framework until the rationals reach the point of ridicule.

    I tend to think the Earth and Universe are old but I’m skeptical of the degree to which we understand natural history or the mechanisms that drive it.

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – ok, what the heck are you talking about? That AiG article had absolutely nothing to do with DNA. The standard evolution classification of the horse series has nothing to do with DNA. So what are you talking about??

    As to whether or not you accept AiG as authoritative, that’s up to you, but they are the biggest and best funded YEC organization with the most scientists doing research. They produce the vast majority of studies and literature in the YEC field. It’s ignoring the elephant in the room.

    Fine, you don’t accept the AiG acceptance of the horse series as an actual series. 90% of the YECs in the world DO accept AiG as an authority on the topic. Pardon me if I use a common source that (most)everyone accepts.

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – ok, what the heck are you talking about? That AiG article had absolutely nothing to do with DNA. The standard evolution classification of the horse series has nothing to do with DNA. So what are you talking about??

    As to whether or not you accept AiG as authoritative, that’s up to you, but they are the biggest and best funded YEC organization with the most scientists doing research. They produce the vast majority of studies and literature in the YEC field. It’s ignoring the elephant in the room.

    Fine, you don’t accept the AiG acceptance of the horse series as an actual series. 90% of the YECs in the world DO accept AiG as an authority on the topic. Pardon me if I use a common source that (most)everyone accepts.

  • The Jones

    If evolution is true, as Richard Leakey says, then it cannot be the case that “color is superficial,” as he also says. Color is genetic, and color may well be one of the visible indicators of the newest evolving superior human species.

    I wonder if there is historical precedint for societies that adopted this view……

  • The Jones

    If evolution is true, as Richard Leakey says, then it cannot be the case that “color is superficial,” as he also says. Color is genetic, and color may well be one of the visible indicators of the newest evolving superior human species.

    I wonder if there is historical precedint for societies that adopted this view……

  • Jon

    So it takes extreme centrifugal forces to coax a unicellular life into bi-cellular. That is some pretty harsh environment manipulation. No wonder the little buggers got confused! Is there any evidence that such an extreme environmental condition ever occurred naturally? Extreme gravitational forces perhaps during the primodial dawn of the earth? Or lunar gravitation over millions of years enough to cause the first bi-cell to transistion?

  • Jon

    So it takes extreme centrifugal forces to coax a unicellular life into bi-cellular. That is some pretty harsh environment manipulation. No wonder the little buggers got confused! Is there any evidence that such an extreme environmental condition ever occurred naturally? Extreme gravitational forces perhaps during the primodial dawn of the earth? Or lunar gravitation over millions of years enough to cause the first bi-cell to transistion?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Adam could be allegorical?!?! Seriously, KK!?! The fact that there are genealogies attached to Adam doesn’t strike you as odd?!? And the fact that Paul makes CLEAR reference to Adam as a physical being who once lived doesn’t make you rethink the “allegorical” position???

    Has it occurred to some of you that you’re putting more faith in man than in God?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Adam could be allegorical?!?! Seriously, KK!?! The fact that there are genealogies attached to Adam doesn’t strike you as odd?!? And the fact that Paul makes CLEAR reference to Adam as a physical being who once lived doesn’t make you rethink the “allegorical” position???

    Has it occurred to some of you that you’re putting more faith in man than in God?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Kevin N, I am neither young earth or old earth. Age of the earth is an open question as far as I am concerned. The math that backs Old earth has too many assumptions and there isn’t enough data in the OT to successfully calculate a date to back Young earth.

    Webmonk, just because a bunch of people eat at McDonalds doesn’t make it good food. The same for AiG, just because a bunch of people like them don’t make the right.

    The standard of classification as I mentioned is in flux. What you have posted and AiG has in their articles is the old school and on it’s way out. With the improvements in DNA tech classification is moving towards the use of DNA to determine relationship of species. That is what I am talking about. The move hasn’t completed because scientists for all their talk of objectivity are very biased and have trouble letting go once popular theories or methodologies.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Kevin N, I am neither young earth or old earth. Age of the earth is an open question as far as I am concerned. The math that backs Old earth has too many assumptions and there isn’t enough data in the OT to successfully calculate a date to back Young earth.

    Webmonk, just because a bunch of people eat at McDonalds doesn’t make it good food. The same for AiG, just because a bunch of people like them don’t make the right.

    The standard of classification as I mentioned is in flux. What you have posted and AiG has in their articles is the old school and on it’s way out. With the improvements in DNA tech classification is moving towards the use of DNA to determine relationship of species. That is what I am talking about. The move hasn’t completed because scientists for all their talk of objectivity are very biased and have trouble letting go once popular theories or methodologies.

  • larry

    KK, I appreciate you clearing that up but I assure you this is quite the “time and place”. This is precisely the time and place as is so very evident and proven since you have yourself brought into the discussion (the VERY ISSUE I’ve identified) when answering your version of Genesis: ,“being the Covenant head of Humanity (reformed language, I know it well), or, they could be allegorical, representative humans, by which man’s sinful condition is explained/demonstrated”

    But the point is that it is historical fact, that original sin so affected humanity and as such men historical and factually die and are so to this very day. The “non-western mind” wishes to emphasize the point over the facts for the very same reason general gnosticism does, create the distance between the material and the spirit (spiritualizing everything) so that works and free will may re-enter the realm of salvation. A short version of such “point of the story” is “and the moral of the story is (do/don’t do)”.

    And there it is, the Gnostic language, “representative”, “allegorical”, not “historical fact”, the “covenant head”, etc. Anything to dematerialize the material, fact and history. Just like when Zwingli and Calvin wished to ‘dematerialize’ the very body and blood of the Son of God actually, factually, historically (in the present) given to the believer put into their factual, real, historically time and space existing mouths. This is all very similar argumentation to “is means represents” and “don’t confound the sign with the thing signified”, which is another way of saying as you put it; The facts are less important than the Point, essentially.. Same arguments, same defenses against the word and faith.

    Yet, original sin does not affect people in allegory or representation. Proof, dies, your body (and mine, and ours) is dying as we speak as a matter of fact and history. But allegorical language wishes to eliminate the historicity and fact of the very historical and factual event(s). It does not then recognize that in the ensuing passages such as Gen. 3:15 that God has spoken of the historical fact of the Christ to come, the proto-gospel, supposedly to an allegorical or representative couple, which the patriarchs later believed as factual and allegorical in Genesis believing it as fact and history (e.g. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

    Furthermore, Paul’s point about sin being in the world before the law was given, because men died, is to show forth that original sin by the original Adam and Eve was quite the historic fact and reality. The law, then, came to magnify sin that men in their ever increasing blindness and darkness may see original sin by its effects of actual sin acts against the law. In fact the law increases sin, quite a statement since the law is holy and good, but seen when Paul says not because the law is sin but sin may be shown as sinful and the very reality, fact and historic reality issued forth from original sin committed by Adam and Eve. I.e. Paul is saying with great fervor it is quite factual and historical and not focusing on the non-western minds (which Paul was not) idea of “the point of the story”. In fact Paul is emphasizing the facts over the point.

    The Gnostic language always wishes to dematerialize reality, often with “representative” and “allegorical” or “the point of the story is” language, it then moves to spiritualize the Scriptures by creating that distance. It is that distance that must be bridged then, and therein comes the free will and works (even hidden works).

    So it’s quite apropos, KK.

  • larry

    KK, I appreciate you clearing that up but I assure you this is quite the “time and place”. This is precisely the time and place as is so very evident and proven since you have yourself brought into the discussion (the VERY ISSUE I’ve identified) when answering your version of Genesis: ,“being the Covenant head of Humanity (reformed language, I know it well), or, they could be allegorical, representative humans, by which man’s sinful condition is explained/demonstrated”

    But the point is that it is historical fact, that original sin so affected humanity and as such men historical and factually die and are so to this very day. The “non-western mind” wishes to emphasize the point over the facts for the very same reason general gnosticism does, create the distance between the material and the spirit (spiritualizing everything) so that works and free will may re-enter the realm of salvation. A short version of such “point of the story” is “and the moral of the story is (do/don’t do)”.

    And there it is, the Gnostic language, “representative”, “allegorical”, not “historical fact”, the “covenant head”, etc. Anything to dematerialize the material, fact and history. Just like when Zwingli and Calvin wished to ‘dematerialize’ the very body and blood of the Son of God actually, factually, historically (in the present) given to the believer put into their factual, real, historically time and space existing mouths. This is all very similar argumentation to “is means represents” and “don’t confound the sign with the thing signified”, which is another way of saying as you put it; The facts are less important than the Point, essentially.. Same arguments, same defenses against the word and faith.

    Yet, original sin does not affect people in allegory or representation. Proof, dies, your body (and mine, and ours) is dying as we speak as a matter of fact and history. But allegorical language wishes to eliminate the historicity and fact of the very historical and factual event(s). It does not then recognize that in the ensuing passages such as Gen. 3:15 that God has spoken of the historical fact of the Christ to come, the proto-gospel, supposedly to an allegorical or representative couple, which the patriarchs later believed as factual and allegorical in Genesis believing it as fact and history (e.g. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

    Furthermore, Paul’s point about sin being in the world before the law was given, because men died, is to show forth that original sin by the original Adam and Eve was quite the historic fact and reality. The law, then, came to magnify sin that men in their ever increasing blindness and darkness may see original sin by its effects of actual sin acts against the law. In fact the law increases sin, quite a statement since the law is holy and good, but seen when Paul says not because the law is sin but sin may be shown as sinful and the very reality, fact and historic reality issued forth from original sin committed by Adam and Eve. I.e. Paul is saying with great fervor it is quite factual and historical and not focusing on the non-western minds (which Paul was not) idea of “the point of the story”. In fact Paul is emphasizing the facts over the point.

    The Gnostic language always wishes to dematerialize reality, often with “representative” and “allegorical” or “the point of the story is” language, it then moves to spiritualize the Scriptures by creating that distance. It is that distance that must be bridged then, and therein comes the free will and works (even hidden works).

    So it’s quite apropos, KK.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DLit21,

    Of course, the evidence can sometimes be read in more than one way. But there is no way that the evidence, and here I am talking about the evidence I am most familiar with, the geological evidence, supports a young earth, or so-called Flood Geology, or anything of the kind. No matter how you twist and turn and squeeze the data, and stand on your head squint at it, will it fit such a scenario.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DLit21,

    Of course, the evidence can sometimes be read in more than one way. But there is no way that the evidence, and here I am talking about the evidence I am most familiar with, the geological evidence, supports a young earth, or so-called Flood Geology, or anything of the kind. No matter how you twist and turn and squeeze the data, and stand on your head squint at it, will it fit such a scenario.

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – I’m still not convinced you’ve actually read the article. They are using the “old school and on it’s way out”? You don’t have the foggiest clue what that article actually says or anything about the horse series of fossils, do you?

    None of it has anything to do with DNA. You disparage the DNA methods of classification, but DNA has nothing to do with the AiG article nor with the determination of the horse series.

    Jon, so were you satisfied that the horse series developed from an entirely different kind of animal? If not, on what basis do you reject that evidence?

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – I’m still not convinced you’ve actually read the article. They are using the “old school and on it’s way out”? You don’t have the foggiest clue what that article actually says or anything about the horse series of fossils, do you?

    None of it has anything to do with DNA. You disparage the DNA methods of classification, but DNA has nothing to do with the AiG article nor with the determination of the horse series.

    Jon, so were you satisfied that the horse series developed from an entirely different kind of animal? If not, on what basis do you reject that evidence?

  • Dust

    Glad someone smarter than me has begun to address the ideas in comment 63. Am not an expert on any theology but always thought that the christian faith was based on real historical events. if adam and eve and the garden of eden could be allegorical, because it’s the message or lesson that’s most important, then why not the virgin birth of christ? why not his resurrection? why not his whole life and death on a cross? after all, it’s not important that all this really did take place, what is important are the lessons and things we can learn from it. not saying that was the intent of the comments in 63, but on what basis do you accept certain things in the bible and exclude others?

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Glad someone smarter than me has begun to address the ideas in comment 63. Am not an expert on any theology but always thought that the christian faith was based on real historical events. if adam and eve and the garden of eden could be allegorical, because it’s the message or lesson that’s most important, then why not the virgin birth of christ? why not his resurrection? why not his whole life and death on a cross? after all, it’s not important that all this really did take place, what is important are the lessons and things we can learn from it. not saying that was the intent of the comments in 63, but on what basis do you accept certain things in the bible and exclude others?

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    J Dean, you are still reading Scripture like a 21st Century Westerner. Not like an someone from the Ancient Near East.

    Also, when you interpret Scripture as an individual, aren’t you placing a very large level of confidence in your own understanding ? And isn’t your understanding contextually to you? What I mean to show here is that, for all your claims, you still trust in man, namely yourself.

    As to a real vs representative Adam – I cannot see how the text in Romans and elsewhere requires a real, living, breathing Adam. Mind you, I do not preclude the possibility, but I also don’t exclude the possibility of a Representative Adam. That is not the point of the TEXT.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    J Dean, you are still reading Scripture like a 21st Century Westerner. Not like an someone from the Ancient Near East.

    Also, when you interpret Scripture as an individual, aren’t you placing a very large level of confidence in your own understanding ? And isn’t your understanding contextually to you? What I mean to show here is that, for all your claims, you still trust in man, namely yourself.

    As to a real vs representative Adam – I cannot see how the text in Romans and elsewhere requires a real, living, breathing Adam. Mind you, I do not preclude the possibility, but I also don’t exclude the possibility of a Representative Adam. That is not the point of the TEXT.

  • WebMonk

    Dust, I’m not sure about you, but here I always thought the Christian faith was based on the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

    If you want to base it on other stuff, I’m sorry for you. Whether the Flood covered the whole planet, stripping all the soil down several miles, and then re-laying it down, followed by a hundred years of hyper-rapid speciation …. well, that doesn’t sound like something upon which I think the Christian faith should be based.

  • WebMonk

    Dust, I’m not sure about you, but here I always thought the Christian faith was based on the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

    If you want to base it on other stuff, I’m sorry for you. Whether the Flood covered the whole planet, stripping all the soil down several miles, and then re-laying it down, followed by a hundred years of hyper-rapid speciation …. well, that doesn’t sound like something upon which I think the Christian faith should be based.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, the writing of the early chapters of Genesis is quite different in character. The folks knowledgeable in Hebrew tells us of repetitive patterns, which are not quite typical of Hebrew poetry, but is also very much not prose.

    Webmonk once wrote extensively about this, I’ll let him explain if he is so inclined.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, the writing of the early chapters of Genesis is quite different in character. The folks knowledgeable in Hebrew tells us of repetitive patterns, which are not quite typical of Hebrew poetry, but is also very much not prose.

    Webmonk once wrote extensively about this, I’ll let him explain if he is so inclined.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    The fear that seems to be underlying many of the anti-evolutionary comments here and elsewhere, is that if we were to approach Genesis more intellectually, allowing for typology, allegory etc., then very soon we will doubt everything, loose our faith, and abort babies!! Maybe even become Democrats!! :)

    My answer to that is that if your faith depends on the the literal vs figurative interpretation of a few passages in Genesis, you already have deep problems….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    The fear that seems to be underlying many of the anti-evolutionary comments here and elsewhere, is that if we were to approach Genesis more intellectually, allowing for typology, allegory etc., then very soon we will doubt everything, loose our faith, and abort babies!! Maybe even become Democrats!! :)

    My answer to that is that if your faith depends on the the literal vs figurative interpretation of a few passages in Genesis, you already have deep problems….

  • WebMonk

    Yech, again? :-)

    Condensed version, which is pretty basic stuff. Genesis 1 is not quite poetry in the form common in the Psalms, but is still highly stylized and patterned. One of the descriptions which has been around for a while is “epic prose”. It also has quite a bit of similarity to some prophetic passages.

    Look at Genesis 1. It has the largest structure of 7. Within that, it has two sets of three. The first three days are setting up the environments, and then the second set of three days is setting up the residents of those environments.

    1) light and dark . . . . 4) sun and moon
    2) water and air . . . . . 5) birds and fishes
    3) land and plants . . . . . 6) animals and man

    Then you start getting into the structure of the “sentences” themselves – highly repetitive use of identical words and phrases.

    And if you want to get into even further, there’s even more. Genesis 1 is very highly structured and quite poetic in its makeup – just as formulaic as the Psalms, but in a different way.

    We don’t interpret the Psalms as talking about literal pillars holding up the sky, or corners of the planet Earth. Neither should we assume Genesis 1 is intended as an I-was-there-with-a-video-camera sort of account.

  • WebMonk

    Yech, again? :-)

    Condensed version, which is pretty basic stuff. Genesis 1 is not quite poetry in the form common in the Psalms, but is still highly stylized and patterned. One of the descriptions which has been around for a while is “epic prose”. It also has quite a bit of similarity to some prophetic passages.

    Look at Genesis 1. It has the largest structure of 7. Within that, it has two sets of three. The first three days are setting up the environments, and then the second set of three days is setting up the residents of those environments.

    1) light and dark . . . . 4) sun and moon
    2) water and air . . . . . 5) birds and fishes
    3) land and plants . . . . . 6) animals and man

    Then you start getting into the structure of the “sentences” themselves – highly repetitive use of identical words and phrases.

    And if you want to get into even further, there’s even more. Genesis 1 is very highly structured and quite poetic in its makeup – just as formulaic as the Psalms, but in a different way.

    We don’t interpret the Psalms as talking about literal pillars holding up the sky, or corners of the planet Earth. Neither should we assume Genesis 1 is intended as an I-was-there-with-a-video-camera sort of account.

  • WebMonk

    This even happens when talking about the Flood – there are patterns to the numbers of days, and the patterns are put together to add up to significant numbers.

    The Flood passages also have some ritualized stylizing to them, though it isn’t as obvious or pervasive as that of earlier in Genesis.

  • WebMonk

    This even happens when talking about the Flood – there are patterns to the numbers of days, and the patterns are put together to add up to significant numbers.

    The Flood passages also have some ritualized stylizing to them, though it isn’t as obvious or pervasive as that of earlier in Genesis.

  • Dust

    ok thanks webmonk….but can’t one deconstruct all the miracles of the new testament too, not using these tools, but gee, just current modern ideas…how could water turn to wine, how could someone be born of a virgin, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven…gee, what is heaven? it all seems pretty far out and at best allegorical…

    cheers!

  • Dust

    ok thanks webmonk….but can’t one deconstruct all the miracles of the new testament too, not using these tools, but gee, just current modern ideas…how could water turn to wine, how could someone be born of a virgin, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven…gee, what is heaven? it all seems pretty far out and at best allegorical…

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, as far as I know, none of the elements Webmonk describe is present in the Greek NT. Especially considering the careful technique of an author like Luke.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, as far as I know, none of the elements Webmonk describe is present in the Greek NT. Especially considering the careful technique of an author like Luke.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @83 I thought I made it clear I won’t read AiG’s stuff. They aren’t worth my time, too much bad science. I am familiar with the “horse line” stuff from secular paleontology and evolutionary biology sources.

    Second, I have not disparaged DNA methods of classification. I said it is the wave of the future. How you got disparaging is beyond me.

    @82&88 I admit my knowledge of geology is lacking, no offense, but I find rocks boring. Biology was always more fascinating IMNSHO. But one of its key points of data, is a cause of doubt. The math underlying radioactive decay still has too many assumptions. This is the one part I am really familiar with thanks to the college I was in requiring physics and a passing interest in fossils. Also, I recall recent geological events causing doubt on the idea of slow but steady idea. So forgive me for not buying that our knowledge of geology is so extensive that we can rule out disruption by the flood. It could boil down to something as simple as digging in the wrong place. Which I recall happened when somebody claimed Jericho didn’t exist. Turned out they dug in the wrong spot.

    Your comment does not surprise me, everybody forgets the literal interpretation but only staying with what it says. The Genesis account only tells us that there is a creator, who worked in a defined period of time, created man unique, and man sinned bringing a curse on all mankind. We cannot treat genesis as an allegory because the New Testament does not. And typology does not take away from its historicity. David as an anointed king (messiah) of Israel is a type of The Messiah, Jesus; but he is no less a real person. Nor can we treat the genesis account as a science text because that is not what it trying to communicate.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @83 I thought I made it clear I won’t read AiG’s stuff. They aren’t worth my time, too much bad science. I am familiar with the “horse line” stuff from secular paleontology and evolutionary biology sources.

    Second, I have not disparaged DNA methods of classification. I said it is the wave of the future. How you got disparaging is beyond me.

    @82&88 I admit my knowledge of geology is lacking, no offense, but I find rocks boring. Biology was always more fascinating IMNSHO. But one of its key points of data, is a cause of doubt. The math underlying radioactive decay still has too many assumptions. This is the one part I am really familiar with thanks to the college I was in requiring physics and a passing interest in fossils. Also, I recall recent geological events causing doubt on the idea of slow but steady idea. So forgive me for not buying that our knowledge of geology is so extensive that we can rule out disruption by the flood. It could boil down to something as simple as digging in the wrong place. Which I recall happened when somebody claimed Jericho didn’t exist. Turned out they dug in the wrong spot.

    Your comment does not surprise me, everybody forgets the literal interpretation but only staying with what it says. The Genesis account only tells us that there is a creator, who worked in a defined period of time, created man unique, and man sinned bringing a curse on all mankind. We cannot treat genesis as an allegory because the New Testament does not. And typology does not take away from its historicity. David as an anointed king (messiah) of Israel is a type of The Messiah, Jesus; but he is no less a real person. Nor can we treat the genesis account as a science text because that is not what it trying to communicate.

  • Dust

    Thanks Klasie…but i am not talking about literary analysis, am talking about the miraculous claims of the NT standing up to modern scientific scrutiny….we have learned lots since the days of Luke and their kind of superstitious mind set, hopefully!

    it’s easy to make ascertains about miracles in the pre-scientific days of early christianity, but how can anyone today buy into them, especially those who have backgrounds in science and math, etc.? none of those miracles have any scientific explanations, do they? to me, it seems more honest and consistent to say they are just as allegorical as genesis.

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Thanks Klasie…but i am not talking about literary analysis, am talking about the miraculous claims of the NT standing up to modern scientific scrutiny….we have learned lots since the days of Luke and their kind of superstitious mind set, hopefully!

    it’s easy to make ascertains about miracles in the pre-scientific days of early christianity, but how can anyone today buy into them, especially those who have backgrounds in science and math, etc.? none of those miracles have any scientific explanations, do they? to me, it seems more honest and consistent to say they are just as allegorical as genesis.

    cheers!

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – fine, you proudly proclaim you won’t read something, but go ahead with critiquing it. Lovely. I think I’ll be dropping that line of conversation now.

    The New Testament doesn’t treat Genesis as an allegory? Well, neither does it treat it as historic fact. The way the NT treats Genesis works just fine with either an “allegorical” approach or a “literal” approach.

    Dust – Klasie is right on. The entire style of the NT is wildly different than that of early Genesis. You’re right that we can’t apply poetic-like interpretation to Luke like we should to Genesis – Luke is not written with poetic structure, stylized sentence structure, repetitive word use, etc. So it would be nonsense to apply the interpretation method of Genesis to Luke.

    Luke writes in a very distinctly historic, biographic method of reporting. He even prefaces his work with the statement that he has carefully investigated things and is giving an orderly account of events.

  • WebMonk

    DL21 – fine, you proudly proclaim you won’t read something, but go ahead with critiquing it. Lovely. I think I’ll be dropping that line of conversation now.

    The New Testament doesn’t treat Genesis as an allegory? Well, neither does it treat it as historic fact. The way the NT treats Genesis works just fine with either an “allegorical” approach or a “literal” approach.

    Dust – Klasie is right on. The entire style of the NT is wildly different than that of early Genesis. You’re right that we can’t apply poetic-like interpretation to Luke like we should to Genesis – Luke is not written with poetic structure, stylized sentence structure, repetitive word use, etc. So it would be nonsense to apply the interpretation method of Genesis to Luke.

    Luke writes in a very distinctly historic, biographic method of reporting. He even prefaces his work with the statement that he has carefully investigated things and is giving an orderly account of events.

  • Jon

    All doubt about evolution will soon end

    Well, what do you think? You creationists, if enough evidence piled up in 15 years to support evolution, would you give up your doubting ways?

    I think 15 years is way too short. I think it will take millions of years before everyone can be convinced. The same amount of time estimated by evolutionary standards required to actually witness the transformation of one life form into a completely different life form.

  • Jon

    All doubt about evolution will soon end

    Well, what do you think? You creationists, if enough evidence piled up in 15 years to support evolution, would you give up your doubting ways?

    I think 15 years is way too short. I think it will take millions of years before everyone can be convinced. The same amount of time estimated by evolutionary standards required to actually witness the transformation of one life form into a completely different life form.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C,

    What do you mean, there are too many assumptions underlying radioactive decay? Substantiate.

    The simplistic assumption that everything is always slow is a popular misconception. No geologist says that.

    There are many, many ways I can demonstrate to you why flood geology cannot work. The most simplistic is that if you take all the Cambrian and later sediments (ignoring the substantial amount of Precambrian rocks), all the water on the planet cannot carry the mass – it would be a very wet mud, not water carrying sediment.

    For a very brief tale of the geology in one corner of the globe: I posted the following on Kevin’s blog a long time ago – http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/creation-geology-society-2010-abstracts/

    See comment no 5.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C,

    What do you mean, there are too many assumptions underlying radioactive decay? Substantiate.

    The simplistic assumption that everything is always slow is a popular misconception. No geologist says that.

    There are many, many ways I can demonstrate to you why flood geology cannot work. The most simplistic is that if you take all the Cambrian and later sediments (ignoring the substantial amount of Precambrian rocks), all the water on the planet cannot carry the mass – it would be a very wet mud, not water carrying sediment.

    For a very brief tale of the geology in one corner of the globe: I posted the following on Kevin’s blog a long time ago – http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/creation-geology-society-2010-abstracts/

    See comment no 5.

  • WebMonk

    Dust – To go further – if we accept that God can do miracles (I think we all agree on that) then what we are talking about is a question of determining what miracles did God do?

    The Bible has lots of things mentioned in it. Some of those things are meant to be literal, carefully researched account (Luke for example). When it mentions miracles, we can take them as carefully researched accounts.

    We can’t do that with the poetic portions of the Bible. Does God miraculously store piles of snow and hail in heaven for snowing here on Earth? Did God make big doors to hold back the ocean’s water? Obviously not. But Job says He did!!! Ahhhhh!!!!!

    No, he’s writing in poetic form and that statement should be taken as such. The exact same is true of Genesis 1 – it is written in an epic poetic form that isn’t intended to be taken literally.

    It is only a farcical approach which takes the entirety of the Bible as a single type of text. Saying we can’t trust Luke’s account because the Psalms describe heaven being held up on pillars is nonsense. You don’t believe that. I don’t believe that. I doubt anyone on this blog believes that. There are a thousand extremely solid reasons none of us believe that.

  • WebMonk

    Dust – To go further – if we accept that God can do miracles (I think we all agree on that) then what we are talking about is a question of determining what miracles did God do?

    The Bible has lots of things mentioned in it. Some of those things are meant to be literal, carefully researched account (Luke for example). When it mentions miracles, we can take them as carefully researched accounts.

    We can’t do that with the poetic portions of the Bible. Does God miraculously store piles of snow and hail in heaven for snowing here on Earth? Did God make big doors to hold back the ocean’s water? Obviously not. But Job says He did!!! Ahhhhh!!!!!

    No, he’s writing in poetic form and that statement should be taken as such. The exact same is true of Genesis 1 – it is written in an epic poetic form that isn’t intended to be taken literally.

    It is only a farcical approach which takes the entirety of the Bible as a single type of text. Saying we can’t trust Luke’s account because the Psalms describe heaven being held up on pillars is nonsense. You don’t believe that. I don’t believe that. I doubt anyone on this blog believes that. There are a thousand extremely solid reasons none of us believe that.

  • WebMonk

    Jon 96 – well fortunately we just so happen to have a very nice record as you described laid out for us in the fossil record. We have a very nice, very complete, chain of fossils showing the development of the modern horse from an extremely non-horse creature.

  • WebMonk

    Jon 96 – well fortunately we just so happen to have a very nice record as you described laid out for us in the fossil record. We have a very nice, very complete, chain of fossils showing the development of the modern horse from an extremely non-horse creature.

  • Jon

    Jon, so were you satisfied that the horse series developed from an entirely different kind of animal? If not, on what basis do you reject that evidence?

    As I alluded to DL21, this evidence you offer is based on making interpretations about supposed similarities in body structures and estimations of times based on where its found in the ground (which by the way are found in many different locations to make up that tree–some with more vertebrae, then less, then more, same with toes, 3 and 1 being found at the same time). It’s one of Darwin’s “trees.” It’s interpretive. It doesn’t sit well with me.

    I think DL21′s point about genetics forensically linking ancestors is far more intriguing and believable. But it too has limits, because DNA is too fragile and hard to come by.

  • Jon

    Jon, so were you satisfied that the horse series developed from an entirely different kind of animal? If not, on what basis do you reject that evidence?

    As I alluded to DL21, this evidence you offer is based on making interpretations about supposed similarities in body structures and estimations of times based on where its found in the ground (which by the way are found in many different locations to make up that tree–some with more vertebrae, then less, then more, same with toes, 3 and 1 being found at the same time). It’s one of Darwin’s “trees.” It’s interpretive. It doesn’t sit well with me.

    I think DL21′s point about genetics forensically linking ancestors is far more intriguing and believable. But it too has limits, because DNA is too fragile and hard to come by.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.

    Talk about nonsense.

    There is exactly no need to “believe” either creationism or evolution to work in biological sciences. Both are rather irrelevant to the here and now. Oddly, those who embrace the not very aptly named “evolution” view seem less disposed to embrace the reality of selection and evolution and its implications in the here and now.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.

    Talk about nonsense.

    There is exactly no need to “believe” either creationism or evolution to work in biological sciences. Both are rather irrelevant to the here and now. Oddly, those who embrace the not very aptly named “evolution” view seem less disposed to embrace the reality of selection and evolution and its implications in the here and now.

  • Dust

    Thanks again Webmonk…..but what about the miracles of the NT standing up to strict modern scientific scrutiny? Those miracles will need a lot more window dressing than Luke’s nice writing style to overcome modern scientific skepticism, don’t they?

    Again, it just seems more honest and consistent to treat them all as allegorical, given what we know now….

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Thanks again Webmonk…..but what about the miracles of the NT standing up to strict modern scientific scrutiny? Those miracles will need a lot more window dressing than Luke’s nice writing style to overcome modern scientific skepticism, don’t they?

    Again, it just seems more honest and consistent to treat them all as allegorical, given what we know now….

    Cheers!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @95 If your argument is based solely around AiG, then well I guess you have a problem. More research maybe?

    Further unless you are willing to deny the fall you cannot say the NT does not treat Genesis as fact. Romans 5 put the events of the Fall on to the same plane as the crucifixion and resurrection treating them both as historic fact. If you want to continue with denying the historicity of Genesis you might as well deny the historicity of the resurrection.

    Who cares if the style of the NT is different than Genesis? Seriously, each author brought their own unique styles. Luke for all that he covers similar material as Matthew is a different style, but it makes them no less real than the other.

    Using psalms as guide for interpreting Genesis is an act of lunacy. One is narrative, the other is poetic. As there is obvious poetry in Genesis, it would be more accurate to compare the first chapters with those pieces. Stylistically there is no comparison. There is consistent emphatic parallelism in the other poems of Genesis. This is not something you see in the first chapter of Genesis. Yes it is repetitive in language but that doesn’t make it poetic. It just means on this day God created X, and considering the sparse nature of the genesis prose, one shouldn’t expect a lot of variation. So yeah not buying the allegory line.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @95 If your argument is based solely around AiG, then well I guess you have a problem. More research maybe?

    Further unless you are willing to deny the fall you cannot say the NT does not treat Genesis as fact. Romans 5 put the events of the Fall on to the same plane as the crucifixion and resurrection treating them both as historic fact. If you want to continue with denying the historicity of Genesis you might as well deny the historicity of the resurrection.

    Who cares if the style of the NT is different than Genesis? Seriously, each author brought their own unique styles. Luke for all that he covers similar material as Matthew is a different style, but it makes them no less real than the other.

    Using psalms as guide for interpreting Genesis is an act of lunacy. One is narrative, the other is poetic. As there is obvious poetry in Genesis, it would be more accurate to compare the first chapters with those pieces. Stylistically there is no comparison. There is consistent emphatic parallelism in the other poems of Genesis. This is not something you see in the first chapter of Genesis. Yes it is repetitive in language but that doesn’t make it poetic. It just means on this day God created X, and considering the sparse nature of the genesis prose, one shouldn’t expect a lot of variation. So yeah not buying the allegory line.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Recommended reading for Richard Leakey:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-000-Year-Explosion-Civilization/dp/0465002218

    Examines the last 10,000 years of human development by means of of selection.

    No need to believe that life originated spontaneously in order to understand the last 10,000 years of human development and its relevance to our current state.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Recommended reading for Richard Leakey:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-000-Year-Explosion-Civilization/dp/0465002218

    Examines the last 10,000 years of human development by means of of selection.

    No need to believe that life originated spontaneously in order to understand the last 10,000 years of human development and its relevance to our current state.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Tom Hering @ 13

    you got that right.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Tom Hering @ 13

    you got that right.

  • WebMonk

    Well, Jon, you can go ahead and deny that it’s an actual series if you want. You just happen to be disagreeing with nearly every scientist today who has dealt with the topic, both evolutionary and young earth creationist.

    If you insist that every expert in the world is wrong, including the YEC ones, then there’s not much of anything I or anyone else can do to change your mind. So why should I bother?

    The Dwarves are for the Dwarves!

  • WebMonk

    Well, Jon, you can go ahead and deny that it’s an actual series if you want. You just happen to be disagreeing with nearly every scientist today who has dealt with the topic, both evolutionary and young earth creationist.

    If you insist that every expert in the world is wrong, including the YEC ones, then there’s not much of anything I or anyone else can do to change your mind. So why should I bother?

    The Dwarves are for the Dwarves!

  • WebMonk

    Dust 102 – I’m not following you. Are you suggesting that the only honest way to view miracles is to only accept them if they can be scientifically proven to be miracles? We can’t accept something as a miracle unless it was witnessed by modern people? We can’t … huh?

    Serious, I’m pretty solidly lost as to what your point/question/thought is.

  • WebMonk

    Dust 102 – I’m not following you. Are you suggesting that the only honest way to view miracles is to only accept them if they can be scientifically proven to be miracles? We can’t accept something as a miracle unless it was witnessed by modern people? We can’t … huh?

    Serious, I’m pretty solidly lost as to what your point/question/thought is.

  • WebMonk

    DR21 103, if there was something in my posts that suggested that a metaphorical/poetic/non-literal approach should be taken to all of Genesis, then allow me to retract it. That was not my intent at all.

    I thought everyone realized we were talking about Genesis 1 in particular. I said Genesis, but I was just being sloppy. I should have stated “Genesis 1″ instead of “Genesis”.

    Does your outrage still stand?

  • WebMonk

    DR21 103, if there was something in my posts that suggested that a metaphorical/poetic/non-literal approach should be taken to all of Genesis, then allow me to retract it. That was not my intent at all.

    I thought everyone realized we were talking about Genesis 1 in particular. I said Genesis, but I was just being sloppy. I should have stated “Genesis 1″ instead of “Genesis”.

    Does your outrage still stand?

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and just in case you didn’t notice that DL21, I didn’t bother to read your comment in 103. I noted some outraged words and a couple key words here and there, and then crafted my response.

    That works very nicely! I’m sure I have a long ways to go before I reach your level of expertise, but I shall endeavor to take your example to heart.

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and just in case you didn’t notice that DL21, I didn’t bother to read your comment in 103. I noted some outraged words and a couple key words here and there, and then crafted my response.

    That works very nicely! I’m sure I have a long ways to go before I reach your level of expertise, but I shall endeavor to take your example to heart.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @97 Our pure observational data for radioactive decay only goes back about 150 years? My history is a little rusty and I am too lazy at the moment to go look up some dates, forgive me on that, and I can’t remember exactly when the first studies started. It is this observational data that underlies the math that we use to formulate half-life and radioactive decay. This is good, but it has limits.

    Namely beyond that set of observational data it does need outside verification. We get this to some extent with carbon dating (I only mention as a frame of reference, I know there are other elements used in dating) because we can to some extent link it with historical events. Using historical events, however, brings in a margin of error. With calendar dating of events, the farther back we get the greater the degree of uncertainty and that effects our ability to narrow the margin of error that comes with radioactive dating.

    Now, if I recall correctly radioactive decay is presented in a straightforward logarithmic formula which yes does fit our observational data. However, it is too great an assumption to really claim as fact an age beyond that observational data without outside collaboration and our ability to do that stops with any date beyond approximately 4000 years ago with the end of written records. So for the most part I only trust dating attempts that are limited to the past 4000 so years and even then there is a margin of error. I don’t trust dating that estimates the age of the earth because it goes beyond our ability to verify and it makes an assumption as to the initial mass. And we have no way of verifying what mass we start with, at least until somebody finally mounts a flux capacitor onto a Delorean.

    Logically we could assume that the rate of decay is constant, but we have no proof. I am just not willing to put a whole lot on something we think is logical. History has shown our logic is flawed.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @97 Our pure observational data for radioactive decay only goes back about 150 years? My history is a little rusty and I am too lazy at the moment to go look up some dates, forgive me on that, and I can’t remember exactly when the first studies started. It is this observational data that underlies the math that we use to formulate half-life and radioactive decay. This is good, but it has limits.

    Namely beyond that set of observational data it does need outside verification. We get this to some extent with carbon dating (I only mention as a frame of reference, I know there are other elements used in dating) because we can to some extent link it with historical events. Using historical events, however, brings in a margin of error. With calendar dating of events, the farther back we get the greater the degree of uncertainty and that effects our ability to narrow the margin of error that comes with radioactive dating.

    Now, if I recall correctly radioactive decay is presented in a straightforward logarithmic formula which yes does fit our observational data. However, it is too great an assumption to really claim as fact an age beyond that observational data without outside collaboration and our ability to do that stops with any date beyond approximately 4000 years ago with the end of written records. So for the most part I only trust dating attempts that are limited to the past 4000 so years and even then there is a margin of error. I don’t trust dating that estimates the age of the earth because it goes beyond our ability to verify and it makes an assumption as to the initial mass. And we have no way of verifying what mass we start with, at least until somebody finally mounts a flux capacitor onto a Delorean.

    Logically we could assume that the rate of decay is constant, but we have no proof. I am just not willing to put a whole lot on something we think is logical. History has shown our logic is flawed.

  • Dust

    Webmonk…sorry, was actually saying the opposite…sort of?

    Am pretty sure you cannot prove a miracle, scientifically, by definition, in my opinion.

    but it seems evolutionists want to disprove creation by saying all the facts argue against it.

    so in my humble opinion (ahem) is just seems to be that a modern person, well educated in science and such, could say it’s just as easy to disprove all the miracles in the NT, because modern science cannot explain how they could have happened. more radical folks might say they did not happen, because science has shown it to be impossible, or our scientific understanding of how things happen make it impossible to have a miracle happen. for example, water into wine. it takes quite a while for water to get into the little grapes and then to press the grape and ferment it and age it so that it turns into fine wine. how could that have happened in an instant at the wedding? impossible by modern standards! the virgin birth. we know what it takes to make a baby and it can’t happen any other way (well, cloning excepted). another miracle, impossible by scientific implication. and on and on…..manna from above, the parting of the red sea….books have been written to try and find a rational and material explanation for these and other miracles….but really they are very weak….much easier to believe in miracles than do the mental gymnastics required to explain!

    so my thoughts….hope it helps? at least you have things you can now tear down to shreds :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Webmonk…sorry, was actually saying the opposite…sort of?

    Am pretty sure you cannot prove a miracle, scientifically, by definition, in my opinion.

    but it seems evolutionists want to disprove creation by saying all the facts argue against it.

    so in my humble opinion (ahem) is just seems to be that a modern person, well educated in science and such, could say it’s just as easy to disprove all the miracles in the NT, because modern science cannot explain how they could have happened. more radical folks might say they did not happen, because science has shown it to be impossible, or our scientific understanding of how things happen make it impossible to have a miracle happen. for example, water into wine. it takes quite a while for water to get into the little grapes and then to press the grape and ferment it and age it so that it turns into fine wine. how could that have happened in an instant at the wedding? impossible by modern standards! the virgin birth. we know what it takes to make a baby and it can’t happen any other way (well, cloning excepted). another miracle, impossible by scientific implication. and on and on…..manna from above, the parting of the red sea….books have been written to try and find a rational and material explanation for these and other miracles….but really they are very weak….much easier to believe in miracles than do the mental gymnastics required to explain!

    so my thoughts….hope it helps? at least you have things you can now tear down to shreds :)

    cheers!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @110 Eh, whatever, If you want to read it or not doesn’t matter to me. By the way, I was talking about Genesis 1 too.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @110 Eh, whatever, If you want to read it or not doesn’t matter to me. By the way, I was talking about Genesis 1 too.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I mean 109, /embarrassed.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I mean 109, /embarrassed.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, here is an interesting discussion of Genesis 1.

    http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Hummel_Gen1_JASA.pdf

    Note that it is quite apparent that one of the main thrusts of Genesis 1 was the demythologizing of Creation for the Hebrews, and subverting the then accepted pagan order of man on the bottom, Creation over him, by placing man as the crown and ruler over the rest of Creation. I think the author makes a number of very valid points.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, here is an interesting discussion of Genesis 1.

    http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Hummel_Gen1_JASA.pdf

    Note that it is quite apparent that one of the main thrusts of Genesis 1 was the demythologizing of Creation for the Hebrews, and subverting the then accepted pagan order of man on the bottom, Creation over him, by placing man as the crown and ruler over the rest of Creation. I think the author makes a number of very valid points.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Klasie (@37) said:

    The mathematics of evolution is a serious field – look at the program of a conference starting next week: http://www.lirmm.fr/mceb2012/program.php

    Well, as it happens, I did look at that program and … oh, crap! I need some help!

    D.BRYANT – Efficient lying with simulations.
    T.STADLER – How much do species limit each other?
    S.WHELAN – The effect of multiple sequence alignment methodology on downstream evolutionary analyses.
    C.SCORNAVACCA – Constructing minimal phylogenetic networks from softwired clusters is fixed parameter tractable.
    M.FISCHER – Phylogenetically decisive taxon coverage.

    Klasie, can you, um, help me with my presentation? I am not ready for it! Also, anybody have any intercontinental frequent-flier miles they want to lend a guy?

    Okay, ha ha. Now I want to ask you a serious question. You said “Physics support evolution”. I don’t know what that means. Can you expound on that a little bit? NB: if you just send me a link, I’m less likely to read it.

    As to whether evolution “provide[s] any new insights and developments”, I suppose it depends on what we mean by evolution.

    But, somewhat reluctantly putting my cards on the table, if we assume that I am sympathetic to the “Omphalos hypothesis” assuming a relatively young earth, but also assuming all the ongoing evolutionary/biological processes that modern science holds to, then exactly what would I be missing out on, scientifically? That is to say, how would my unpopular theory hold me back as to “new insights and developments”? Okay, sure, it would preclude new insights into the past, but I’m talking about truly new developments.

    That is to say, I have no problem believing in evolution happening (exactly like scientists understand it) since the world was created. So I don’t think my theory would preclude any useful understanding of, say, antibiotic resistance or things like that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Klasie (@37) said:

    The mathematics of evolution is a serious field – look at the program of a conference starting next week: http://www.lirmm.fr/mceb2012/program.php

    Well, as it happens, I did look at that program and … oh, crap! I need some help!

    D.BRYANT – Efficient lying with simulations.
    T.STADLER – How much do species limit each other?
    S.WHELAN – The effect of multiple sequence alignment methodology on downstream evolutionary analyses.
    C.SCORNAVACCA – Constructing minimal phylogenetic networks from softwired clusters is fixed parameter tractable.
    M.FISCHER – Phylogenetically decisive taxon coverage.

    Klasie, can you, um, help me with my presentation? I am not ready for it! Also, anybody have any intercontinental frequent-flier miles they want to lend a guy?

    Okay, ha ha. Now I want to ask you a serious question. You said “Physics support evolution”. I don’t know what that means. Can you expound on that a little bit? NB: if you just send me a link, I’m less likely to read it.

    As to whether evolution “provide[s] any new insights and developments”, I suppose it depends on what we mean by evolution.

    But, somewhat reluctantly putting my cards on the table, if we assume that I am sympathetic to the “Omphalos hypothesis” assuming a relatively young earth, but also assuming all the ongoing evolutionary/biological processes that modern science holds to, then exactly what would I be missing out on, scientifically? That is to say, how would my unpopular theory hold me back as to “new insights and developments”? Okay, sure, it would preclude new insights into the past, but I’m talking about truly new developments.

    That is to say, I have no problem believing in evolution happening (exactly like scientists understand it) since the world was created. So I don’t think my theory would preclude any useful understanding of, say, antibiotic resistance or things like that.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C, You are smuggling in the change in the rate of radioactive decay theory. It is a well known theory, and has been quite thoroughly debunked. For one thing, radioactive decay is one of the major sources of heat inside the earth. Changing that rate of decay to fit into 6000 – 10000 Years would have fried everything a long time ago. More on that here – http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
    and here – http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C, You are smuggling in the change in the rate of radioactive decay theory. It is a well known theory, and has been quite thoroughly debunked. For one thing, radioactive decay is one of the major sources of heat inside the earth. Changing that rate of decay to fit into 6000 – 10000 Years would have fried everything a long time ago. More on that here – http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
    and here – http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – radioactive decay for one.

    As to Omphalos – I am not going to debate that again. But in an apparent age world, everything pointing to an old age will of course fit in. As to your attitudes towards further developments – new ones, I am not sure what you mean there. Omphalos is weird in that sense in that anything is theoretically possible, so I can’t say what could happen. My objections against Omphalos are more philosophical/theological/epistemological, in the line of our previous discussions.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – radioactive decay for one.

    As to Omphalos – I am not going to debate that again. But in an apparent age world, everything pointing to an old age will of course fit in. As to your attitudes towards further developments – new ones, I am not sure what you mean there. Omphalos is weird in that sense in that anything is theoretically possible, so I can’t say what could happen. My objections against Omphalos are more philosophical/theological/epistemological, in the line of our previous discussions.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, Dr, did you read my link in #97? That will give you a fuller picture of the geological evidence (Only a medium length comment on a blog post, less than the average Larry/FWS comments here :) ).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, Dr, did you read my link in #97? That will give you a fuller picture of the geological evidence (Only a medium length comment on a blog post, less than the average Larry/FWS comments here :) ).

  • WebMonk

    Dust, perhaps there’s some confusion over the very definition of miracle?

    There are different ways to state it, but most of definitions of miracles have some form of “an event which cannot happen through natural means”.

    The fact that a miracle (“rising from the dead”) can’t happen through natural means is a tautology. That is not evidence for or against the existence of a miracle. Just saying we know that miracles can’t happen through natural means has zero impact on whether or not miracles exist or should(n’t) be believed. It’s a tautology – it’s like saying “miracles are miracles”.

    Zero impact on whether or not miracles can happen or whether we should believe accounts of them. So, your statement that miracles can be disproved by saying “modern science cannot explain how they could have happened” is an empty statement.

    It’s just like saying “miracles are miracles”. “Modern science cannot explain how they could have happened” has exactly zero effect on whether miracles exist. It’s just restating the definition of a miracle – something that happens without any natural means.

    I’m still a bit fuzzy on where you’re going, so I’ll stop there and let you follow on from that. Am I still missing your point/question/concept?

  • WebMonk

    Dust, perhaps there’s some confusion over the very definition of miracle?

    There are different ways to state it, but most of definitions of miracles have some form of “an event which cannot happen through natural means”.

    The fact that a miracle (“rising from the dead”) can’t happen through natural means is a tautology. That is not evidence for or against the existence of a miracle. Just saying we know that miracles can’t happen through natural means has zero impact on whether or not miracles exist or should(n’t) be believed. It’s a tautology – it’s like saying “miracles are miracles”.

    Zero impact on whether or not miracles can happen or whether we should believe accounts of them. So, your statement that miracles can be disproved by saying “modern science cannot explain how they could have happened” is an empty statement.

    It’s just like saying “miracles are miracles”. “Modern science cannot explain how they could have happened” has exactly zero effect on whether miracles exist. It’s just restating the definition of a miracle – something that happens without any natural means.

    I’m still a bit fuzzy on where you’re going, so I’ll stop there and let you follow on from that. Am I still missing your point/question/concept?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, regarding decay rates. It has been a long time since I took Astronomy, but back then there was a discussion the variability of decay rates. Since the rate of the increase in acceleration of the expansion of the universe is small but still positive, does a larger universe with the same mass affect particle decay rate?

    Does anyone remember this?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, regarding decay rates. It has been a long time since I took Astronomy, but back then there was a discussion the variability of decay rates. Since the rate of the increase in acceleration of the expansion of the universe is small but still positive, does a larger universe with the same mass affect particle decay rate?

    Does anyone remember this?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @116 Interesting articles But it doesn’t address initial mass which I believe is needed in order to determine the age of the Earth. To accurately date the earth we would need to know that initial mass. I realize that folks have tried to extrapolate initial mass through various mathematical means but they have no way to prove it. So even if there isn’t much variation in rate of decay, we still have no way of determining an accurate age. We can only guess.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @116 Interesting articles But it doesn’t address initial mass which I believe is needed in order to determine the age of the Earth. To accurately date the earth we would need to know that initial mass. I realize that folks have tried to extrapolate initial mass through various mathematical means but they have no way to prove it. So even if there isn’t much variation in rate of decay, we still have no way of determining an accurate age. We can only guess.

  • Dust

    Webmonk…sorry, but to follow up on my feeble explanation:

    seems to me that since there is much more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened, that’s why i think it’s much more honest and consistent to say they are allegorical things. the authors knew they didn’t happen, but put them in anyway in order to get across a much larger and important truth, about god or love or the meaning of the universe….who knows, but a truth that is so hard to explain in human terms that they needed to resort to fables and stories. no evil intentions of course, afterall, it was all done to the glory of god? never mind that that begs the question of whose god, what kind of god needs made up glory, etc.

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Webmonk…sorry, but to follow up on my feeble explanation:

    seems to me that since there is much more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened, that’s why i think it’s much more honest and consistent to say they are allegorical things. the authors knew they didn’t happen, but put them in anyway in order to get across a much larger and important truth, about god or love or the meaning of the universe….who knows, but a truth that is so hard to explain in human terms that they needed to resort to fables and stories. no evil intentions of course, afterall, it was all done to the glory of god? never mind that that begs the question of whose god, what kind of god needs made up glory, etc.

    cheers!

  • WebMonk

    sg – “decay rate” in astronomy terms can mean few different things, and once you start talking about an acceleration of spacetime expansion, there start to be way too many possible meanings for me to guess at.

    I can’t think of any off the top of my head that would have anything to do with strong or weak nuclear forces, though. At least not until you start getting back to the theorizing on the nature of the early, early moments of the Big Bang.

    Can you be more precise?

  • WebMonk

    sg – “decay rate” in astronomy terms can mean few different things, and once you start talking about an acceleration of spacetime expansion, there start to be way too many possible meanings for me to guess at.

    I can’t think of any off the top of my head that would have anything to do with strong or weak nuclear forces, though. At least not until you start getting back to the theorizing on the nature of the early, early moments of the Big Bang.

    Can you be more precise?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    sg – are you referring to this type of thing(http://phys.org/news202456660.html)? Small changes only (0.1%), and this result has not been repeated, insofar as I could ascertain. Especially in physics, you only accept repeatable results / analyses (in radiometric dating too, btw).
    Again I refer you to my response to Dr @ #116, regarding decay rates.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    sg – are you referring to this type of thing(http://phys.org/news202456660.html)? Small changes only (0.1%), and this result has not been repeated, insofar as I could ascertain. Especially in physics, you only accept repeatable results / analyses (in radiometric dating too, btw).
    Again I refer you to my response to Dr @ #116, regarding decay rates.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dr, the age of the earth is at least older than the oldest rocks, which is to say, even allowing for fluctiations in decay as sg wants, a lot older than 6000-10000 years – yes, even a lot older than 1Ga. Have you read that piece I asked you about?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dr, the age of the earth is at least older than the oldest rocks, which is to say, even allowing for fluctiations in decay as sg wants, a lot older than 6000-10000 years – yes, even a lot older than 1Ga. Have you read that piece I asked you about?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @125 Yes, I did, it doesn’t address my concern about initial mass. We don’t know initial mass. So even with a constant rate of decay we cannot accurately determine age.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @125 Yes, I did, it doesn’t address my concern about initial mass. We don’t know initial mass. So even with a constant rate of decay we cannot accurately determine age.

  • kerner

    WebMonk:

    Try to relax a little. I again admit that I don’t know enough about this to argue it in detail, and I have to concede that you and Klassie are convincing me that it is possible that the Earth may be older that I thought and that, if it is, all Christian theology need not collapse as a result. This does not meant I am convinced. It means I am not utterly convinced otherwise.

    But anyway, it troubles me that you do not perceive that evolutionists behave the same way that YEC’s do. @4 you decry the way YEC’s change their theory every time some factual foundation for it is proven false.

    Yet, evolutionists do the same. I was taught in school that amphibians preceded reptiled which preceded birds and mammals; period, the end. Mammals that existed before the dinosaurs??? Preposterous!!! Mythology!!! Cue the patronizing laughter.

    So, then scientists (not YEC scientists, but “real” scientists) discover therapsids, at least some of which possess characteristics that would get them classifed as mammals if they existed today. And the evolutionists do exactly what the YEC’s do. First, the start calling therapsids “mammal like reptiles”. But that can’t last very long, so they eventually have to modify their whole theory to allow for the existance of these animals in the Permian age, and now theorize that the evolutionary tree I grew up with has to be pruned and modified to allow for a parallel branch that begins with the therapsids, somehow survives the Triassic extinctions and ends up with the mammals we see today. Maybe. Or maybe the whole tree is wrong. But God forbid that the evolutionists would admit that nobody really knows with any certainty.

    You do the same thing @71. @31 you suggested I couldn’t find mammals in the Permian fossil record. Then I did. So you just move the goal posts. Now you want me to find a fox or a rabbit in the Carboniferous fossil record. Well, what if scientists do,/i></b? find something in the Carboniferous fossil record that was previously thought to be impossible? Will evolutionists just move the goal posts again? "Well…if you can't find a hominid with a driver's license, it doesn't prove anything…"

    I know that finding facts that were previously considered impossible doesn't prove very much. But what it DOES prove, is that the so called "real" scientists of evolutionism do not know enough to be even remotely certain of the things they teach as certain.

    I realize that the preachy tone of some of your opponents in this debate can be irritating. But it doesn't help your case to get carried away yourself.

  • kerner

    WebMonk:

    Try to relax a little. I again admit that I don’t know enough about this to argue it in detail, and I have to concede that you and Klassie are convincing me that it is possible that the Earth may be older that I thought and that, if it is, all Christian theology need not collapse as a result. This does not meant I am convinced. It means I am not utterly convinced otherwise.

    But anyway, it troubles me that you do not perceive that evolutionists behave the same way that YEC’s do. @4 you decry the way YEC’s change their theory every time some factual foundation for it is proven false.

    Yet, evolutionists do the same. I was taught in school that amphibians preceded reptiled which preceded birds and mammals; period, the end. Mammals that existed before the dinosaurs??? Preposterous!!! Mythology!!! Cue the patronizing laughter.

    So, then scientists (not YEC scientists, but “real” scientists) discover therapsids, at least some of which possess characteristics that would get them classifed as mammals if they existed today. And the evolutionists do exactly what the YEC’s do. First, the start calling therapsids “mammal like reptiles”. But that can’t last very long, so they eventually have to modify their whole theory to allow for the existance of these animals in the Permian age, and now theorize that the evolutionary tree I grew up with has to be pruned and modified to allow for a parallel branch that begins with the therapsids, somehow survives the Triassic extinctions and ends up with the mammals we see today. Maybe. Or maybe the whole tree is wrong. But God forbid that the evolutionists would admit that nobody really knows with any certainty.

    You do the same thing @71. @31 you suggested I couldn’t find mammals in the Permian fossil record. Then I did. So you just move the goal posts. Now you want me to find a fox or a rabbit in the Carboniferous fossil record. Well, what if scientists do,/i></b? find something in the Carboniferous fossil record that was previously thought to be impossible? Will evolutionists just move the goal posts again? "Well…if you can't find a hominid with a driver's license, it doesn't prove anything…"

    I know that finding facts that were previously considered impossible doesn't prove very much. But what it DOES prove, is that the so called "real" scientists of evolutionism do not know enough to be even remotely certain of the things they teach as certain.

    I realize that the preachy tone of some of your opponents in this debate can be irritating. But it doesn't help your case to get carried away yourself.

  • SKPeterson

    KK -Quick question: What is 1Ga? I’ve seen estimates of 14 to 15 billion years for the universe (recent galaxy found that is about 12.9 billion apparently). What is the Ga unit?

  • SKPeterson

    KK -Quick question: What is 1Ga? I’ve seen estimates of 14 to 15 billion years for the universe (recent galaxy found that is about 12.9 billion apparently). What is the Ga unit?

  • WebMonk

    Dust – I’m not sure what you mean by “seems to me that since there is much more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened….”

    Seriously, I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. We have exactly zero “more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened”.

    It is fundamentally impossible to have ANY scientific evidence that a miracle can’t happen.

    You can have scientific evidence for or against the effects of a miracle, but it’s impossible to have scientific evidence against the occurrence of miracles. By its very definition a miracle is outside of science.

  • WebMonk

    Dust – I’m not sure what you mean by “seems to me that since there is much more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened….”

    Seriously, I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. We have exactly zero “more scientific basis for saying that the miracles of the NT could not have happened”.

    It is fundamentally impossible to have ANY scientific evidence that a miracle can’t happen.

    You can have scientific evidence for or against the effects of a miracle, but it’s impossible to have scientific evidence against the occurrence of miracles. By its very definition a miracle is outside of science.

  • WebMonk

    SKPeterson, Ga is “giga annums” which is a billion years. 14 Ga equals 14 billion years.

  • WebMonk

    SKPeterson, Ga is “giga annums” which is a billion years. 14 Ga equals 14 billion years.

  • Dust

    Webmonk….thanks and forgive my gross explanations, as have not much training in theology or these other topics….probably like most folks, very few of us are highly trained in science, logic, rhetoric, etc.

    but here goes one more feeble attempt anyway….always thought that the philosophy behind evolution was something called materialism, and that it sort of denies miracles or anything that can happen without a rational explanation. that is, everything that happens has a reason, just not a supernatural reason, a natural and materialistic explanation. so in that sense, seems to me, a strict materialistic would by definition have to deny miracles. it cannot be that something happens for no cause, right? and certainly it would be a cop out to say a super natural cause counts? is that a tautology of some kind? or some other kind of logical error?

    so, just like water could not have gotten here instantaneously, so neither could this earth and universe and life and all that…it just didn’t get here without a reason, but each and every little step was the result of some previous thing and on and on until we have the world we see today. isn’t that the essence of evolution and it’s main difference with creation? to accept one and not the other just seems inconsistent, dishonest and convenient, for some unknown reason.

    but perhaps folks want their cake and eat it too? they want evolution and a materialist explanation of everything, but then want a god to have kicked it all off? well, that’s what i mean by convenient.

    again, it just my opinion, but it seems dishonest and convenient and inconsistent to say these things cannot be miracles (because of the poetic style in the writing and the scientific knowledge we have now of how things work in this universe), but they can be allegories of bigger truths (why do we need bigger truths anyway? whose idea is that and how does that fit into evolutionary progress?), but these other things (like in the NT) are miracles because the author was careful and didn’t use poetry, and there is no scientific evidence to disprove them (again, how convenient). why not just be more honest and say they could not have happened but they have deep allegorical meaning that justifies making them up?

    So I find it hard to see how someone can buy the science to deny a miracle like creation, but then deny the science to buy the miracles of the NT.

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Webmonk….thanks and forgive my gross explanations, as have not much training in theology or these other topics….probably like most folks, very few of us are highly trained in science, logic, rhetoric, etc.

    but here goes one more feeble attempt anyway….always thought that the philosophy behind evolution was something called materialism, and that it sort of denies miracles or anything that can happen without a rational explanation. that is, everything that happens has a reason, just not a supernatural reason, a natural and materialistic explanation. so in that sense, seems to me, a strict materialistic would by definition have to deny miracles. it cannot be that something happens for no cause, right? and certainly it would be a cop out to say a super natural cause counts? is that a tautology of some kind? or some other kind of logical error?

    so, just like water could not have gotten here instantaneously, so neither could this earth and universe and life and all that…it just didn’t get here without a reason, but each and every little step was the result of some previous thing and on and on until we have the world we see today. isn’t that the essence of evolution and it’s main difference with creation? to accept one and not the other just seems inconsistent, dishonest and convenient, for some unknown reason.

    but perhaps folks want their cake and eat it too? they want evolution and a materialist explanation of everything, but then want a god to have kicked it all off? well, that’s what i mean by convenient.

    again, it just my opinion, but it seems dishonest and convenient and inconsistent to say these things cannot be miracles (because of the poetic style in the writing and the scientific knowledge we have now of how things work in this universe), but they can be allegories of bigger truths (why do we need bigger truths anyway? whose idea is that and how does that fit into evolutionary progress?), but these other things (like in the NT) are miracles because the author was careful and didn’t use poetry, and there is no scientific evidence to disprove them (again, how convenient). why not just be more honest and say they could not have happened but they have deep allegorical meaning that justifies making them up?

    So I find it hard to see how someone can buy the science to deny a miracle like creation, but then deny the science to buy the miracles of the NT.

    Cheers!

  • kerner

    KK @117:

    by which you mean that you don’t think God would create a world that was so misleading intentionally? I remember your objections that way. A yes or no will do, assuming that you don’t want to reopen that issue.

    I have another question for you. Never mind the age of the Earth for the moment. Why do old Earth guys like yourself also deny that there could have been a flood that literally swept over the entire surface of he Earth? I do not see why belief in an old Earth and denying the possibility of a literally world wide flood must be tied together. Or, do you arrive at the latter conclusion independently?

  • kerner

    KK @117:

    by which you mean that you don’t think God would create a world that was so misleading intentionally? I remember your objections that way. A yes or no will do, assuming that you don’t want to reopen that issue.

    I have another question for you. Never mind the age of the Earth for the moment. Why do old Earth guys like yourself also deny that there could have been a flood that literally swept over the entire surface of he Earth? I do not see why belief in an old Earth and denying the possibility of a literally world wide flood must be tied together. Or, do you arrive at the latter conclusion independently?

  • kerner

    Oh and KK, while we may do all those other things @88, some of us will NEVER become democrats. :D

  • kerner

    Oh and KK, while we may do all those other things @88, some of us will NEVER become democrats. :D

  • WebMonk

    Warning Kerner: big one. I divided into sections.
    Scientists’ theories change (and are expected to change) because they are investigating with imperfect ability the limited part of the world they can access. As their abilities improve, investigation delves further, and the parts of the world they can examine expands, they fully expect their theories to change.

    Some theories have mountains of evidence and cannot conceivably be overturned (the non-flat nature of the earth, for example). Other theories such as evolution have mountains of evidence as a whole, but some details are still in flux. Some theories (superstring theory) are tenuous at best.

    It is the YEC position which claims to have the interpretation which gives them the ultimate insight into the fundamental Truth of the beginning of the universe. And yet, the YEC theories of the beginning continually change and morph along with the science over which they say they have such an advantage.

    One quick example of this is modern petrology. You’d think that YEC geologists would have a HUGE advantage over evolutionary geologists. After all, they know the “truth” that all the planet’s surface for miles down was laid by a global Flood. They should be totally dominating the job of finding oil.

    Are they? No. There isn’t ONE SINGLE company anywhere that is using Flood geology to find oil. Not one. When it comes to the money, the theory that gives accurate results is the traditional, old earth. Flood geology falls flat on its face in this regard.

    But how can that be?!? They have the TRUTH that the world is only six thousand years old and the top several miles of Earth’s crust was laid down by the FLOOD!!!!

    Whatever.

  • WebMonk

    Warning Kerner: big one. I divided into sections.
    Scientists’ theories change (and are expected to change) because they are investigating with imperfect ability the limited part of the world they can access. As their abilities improve, investigation delves further, and the parts of the world they can examine expands, they fully expect their theories to change.

    Some theories have mountains of evidence and cannot conceivably be overturned (the non-flat nature of the earth, for example). Other theories such as evolution have mountains of evidence as a whole, but some details are still in flux. Some theories (superstring theory) are tenuous at best.

    It is the YEC position which claims to have the interpretation which gives them the ultimate insight into the fundamental Truth of the beginning of the universe. And yet, the YEC theories of the beginning continually change and morph along with the science over which they say they have such an advantage.

    One quick example of this is modern petrology. You’d think that YEC geologists would have a HUGE advantage over evolutionary geologists. After all, they know the “truth” that all the planet’s surface for miles down was laid by a global Flood. They should be totally dominating the job of finding oil.

    Are they? No. There isn’t ONE SINGLE company anywhere that is using Flood geology to find oil. Not one. When it comes to the money, the theory that gives accurate results is the traditional, old earth. Flood geology falls flat on its face in this regard.

    But how can that be?!? They have the TRUTH that the world is only six thousand years old and the top several miles of Earth’s crust was laid down by the FLOOD!!!!

    Whatever.

  • WebMonk

    I was taught in school that amphibians preceded reptiled which preceded birds and mammals; period, the end. Mammals that existed before the dinosaurs??? Preposterous!!! Mythology!!!
    All that demonstrates is that you had a sloppy teacher. Amphibians didn’t suddenly disappear when reptiles appeared, and dinosaurs didn’t suddenly disappear when birds and mammals began to form. Imprecise teacher.

    As for your story of the development of mammals, I suspect it has the same root as your misapprehension of amphibs/lizards/mammals. It doesn’t represent reality. Maybe you’re just hearing about this, but it’s been long-known by scientists.

    Many times the caricatures evolution get passed along – that mammals came “after” the dinosaurs. That is a false impression that you might have picked up. Mammals didn’t suddenly pop into the scene, and evolutionary theory has never suggested they did. It has always held that mammalian features developed slowly over time.

    I’m not sure why this would come as a shock to you – “slowly over time” is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary development. :-)

    I’m sorry I didn’t give all the details of what the Permian layer means as far as the development of mammals means. I was trying to give a short one-liner.

    Allow me to clarify how I should have phrased it. Ahem.

    A fully developed mammal such as a modern rabbit, fox, or cow in the Permian layer or in one of the lower layers such as the Carboniferous or Devonian would indeed disprove evolution. The Permian layer marked the beginning of mammalian traits, but only the beginning. Evolution would have no explanation for how a fully-developed modern mammal such as the ones mentioned above could be found in the Permian layers.

    I’m sorry for being breezy and imprecise because you seem to feel that I am now “moving the goalposts”. No, I am not moving the goal posts, I was just sloppy in how I stuck them up there.

    No, maybe you’ve always been told that scientists are always “moving the goal posts”. I’ve certainly seen the articles that make such claims. But, those are gross misrepresentations.

    Like I said, there will almost certainly be plenty of discoveries that OMGZ!! Evolution turned upside down!!! Earlier beginning to humans than scientists thought!!!!! OMFG!!!

    Most of that is sensationalist reporting, and scientists who love to get their name in the news. Big whoop. So humans developed tools a whole 20,000 years earlier than we thought. That would be about 3% off of previous estimates. Shrug.

    If you want a serious goal to look at, use one of the ones we mentioned – rabbits in the Devonian or humans in the Archean. According to the Flood idea, they should be there. According to evolution they shouldn’t.

    Nice and straightforward.

  • WebMonk

    I was taught in school that amphibians preceded reptiled which preceded birds and mammals; period, the end. Mammals that existed before the dinosaurs??? Preposterous!!! Mythology!!!
    All that demonstrates is that you had a sloppy teacher. Amphibians didn’t suddenly disappear when reptiles appeared, and dinosaurs didn’t suddenly disappear when birds and mammals began to form. Imprecise teacher.

    As for your story of the development of mammals, I suspect it has the same root as your misapprehension of amphibs/lizards/mammals. It doesn’t represent reality. Maybe you’re just hearing about this, but it’s been long-known by scientists.

    Many times the caricatures evolution get passed along – that mammals came “after” the dinosaurs. That is a false impression that you might have picked up. Mammals didn’t suddenly pop into the scene, and evolutionary theory has never suggested they did. It has always held that mammalian features developed slowly over time.

    I’m not sure why this would come as a shock to you – “slowly over time” is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary development. :-)

    I’m sorry I didn’t give all the details of what the Permian layer means as far as the development of mammals means. I was trying to give a short one-liner.

    Allow me to clarify how I should have phrased it. Ahem.

    A fully developed mammal such as a modern rabbit, fox, or cow in the Permian layer or in one of the lower layers such as the Carboniferous or Devonian would indeed disprove evolution. The Permian layer marked the beginning of mammalian traits, but only the beginning. Evolution would have no explanation for how a fully-developed modern mammal such as the ones mentioned above could be found in the Permian layers.

    I’m sorry for being breezy and imprecise because you seem to feel that I am now “moving the goalposts”. No, I am not moving the goal posts, I was just sloppy in how I stuck them up there.

    No, maybe you’ve always been told that scientists are always “moving the goal posts”. I’ve certainly seen the articles that make such claims. But, those are gross misrepresentations.

    Like I said, there will almost certainly be plenty of discoveries that OMGZ!! Evolution turned upside down!!! Earlier beginning to humans than scientists thought!!!!! OMFG!!!

    Most of that is sensationalist reporting, and scientists who love to get their name in the news. Big whoop. So humans developed tools a whole 20,000 years earlier than we thought. That would be about 3% off of previous estimates. Shrug.

    If you want a serious goal to look at, use one of the ones we mentioned – rabbits in the Devonian or humans in the Archean. According to the Flood idea, they should be there. According to evolution they shouldn’t.

    Nice and straightforward.

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    Yes, I know this is off the wall and completely unprovable, but then both OE and YE are unprovable. What if we are burning up the evidence of the flood in our cars?

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    Yes, I know this is off the wall and completely unprovable, but then both OE and YE are unprovable. What if we are burning up the evidence of the flood in our cars?

  • WebMonk

    Dust 131 – ah the “philosophy behind evolution”.

    coughbullcoughpuckycough

    No such thing exists. People have philosophies. They may include evolution in their philosophies. Evolution itself is philosophy-less. It’s like saying the philosophy behind nuclear physics.

    Materialism is, as you stated, the precept that nothing exists except the natural laws of the universe. A materialist must deny the existence of miracles. Evolution has as much to do with materialism as chemistry does.

    A person can believe that nothing happens without a natural cause. They can’t then validly say that miracles can’t exist because science proves nothing can happen without a cause. That’s a perfect example of circular reasoning.

    So, I’m not sure where the problem is. A naturalistic view says that miracles (things without natural causes) can’t happen. Why? Because science (investigation of natural causes) “proves” nothing can happen without a cause.

    Circular reasoning. And a false statement – science fundamentally cannot prove nothing can happen without a cause.

    So, given that, do you still see a problem?

    Genesis 1 is not intended to be literal, and should not be taken literally, because it is written in a poetic form.

    Luke was intended to be literal, and so should be taken literally, because it is written in a historic narrative form.

    Whether you believe miracles are possible is a separate question from how you should approach those texts.

    If you believe miracles are possible, you take Genesis as a poetic text not intending to give scientific details about a miracle, and you take Luke as a historic narrative intending to give specific details about miracles.

    If you don’t believe miracles are possible, you take Genesis as a poetic text of an ancient writer, and you take Luke to be either a liar or a gullible idiot.

  • WebMonk

    Dust 131 – ah the “philosophy behind evolution”.

    coughbullcoughpuckycough

    No such thing exists. People have philosophies. They may include evolution in their philosophies. Evolution itself is philosophy-less. It’s like saying the philosophy behind nuclear physics.

    Materialism is, as you stated, the precept that nothing exists except the natural laws of the universe. A materialist must deny the existence of miracles. Evolution has as much to do with materialism as chemistry does.

    A person can believe that nothing happens without a natural cause. They can’t then validly say that miracles can’t exist because science proves nothing can happen without a cause. That’s a perfect example of circular reasoning.

    So, I’m not sure where the problem is. A naturalistic view says that miracles (things without natural causes) can’t happen. Why? Because science (investigation of natural causes) “proves” nothing can happen without a cause.

    Circular reasoning. And a false statement – science fundamentally cannot prove nothing can happen without a cause.

    So, given that, do you still see a problem?

    Genesis 1 is not intended to be literal, and should not be taken literally, because it is written in a poetic form.

    Luke was intended to be literal, and so should be taken literally, because it is written in a historic narrative form.

    Whether you believe miracles are possible is a separate question from how you should approach those texts.

    If you believe miracles are possible, you take Genesis as a poetic text not intending to give scientific details about a miracle, and you take Luke as a historic narrative intending to give specific details about miracles.

    If you don’t believe miracles are possible, you take Genesis as a poetic text of an ancient writer, and you take Luke to be either a liar or a gullible idiot.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C, I think you misread: My link #97 is to a 2 paragraph summation of Southern African geological history, indicating the lack of evidence, and the impossibility of YEC’sm.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DrLit21C, I think you misread: My link #97 is to a 2 paragraph summation of Southern African geological history, indicating the lack of evidence, and the impossibility of YEC’sm.

  • Grace

    So __________________ all the wisdom here points trashing the account of Genesis, because little man cannot understand the power of Almighty God? God is limited because you cannot take HIM at HIS Word.

    “even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”

    Can any of you answer the question below, when God was asking Job:

    Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Job 38:4

    And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
    Exodus 4:11

    Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
    Job 35:11

    Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
    Psalms 104:3

    Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
    Psalms 104:4

    Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.
    Psalms 147:8

  • Grace

    So __________________ all the wisdom here points trashing the account of Genesis, because little man cannot understand the power of Almighty God? God is limited because you cannot take HIM at HIS Word.

    “even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”

    Can any of you answer the question below, when God was asking Job:

    Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Job 38:4

    And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
    Exodus 4:11

    Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
    Job 35:11

    Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
    Psalms 104:3

    Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
    Psalms 104:4

    Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.
    Psalms 147:8

  • Dust

    Webmonk….yes have noticed that you and KK don’t like philosophy and can only imagine why not…so, why not? Well the boogey man doesn’t go away because you close your eyes, you know and similarly behind every human thought lies some kind of philosophy and/or principle, whether you like it or not, sorry.

    It’s better that you know the truth, and it will set you free…you are a material girl and you are living in a material world :)

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Webmonk….yes have noticed that you and KK don’t like philosophy and can only imagine why not…so, why not? Well the boogey man doesn’t go away because you close your eyes, you know and similarly behind every human thought lies some kind of philosophy and/or principle, whether you like it or not, sorry.

    It’s better that you know the truth, and it will set you free…you are a material girl and you are living in a material world :)

    Cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner @ 132: first question, yes among other things.

    Second question: Because there is no evidence. Because it is a physically impossibility. Because the flood account fits in with geological, archeological and anthropological accounts of catastrophic, but localised (ie regional) flood events – the flooding of the Persian gulf about 8000 years ago at the draining of Lake Aggasiz, and the possible multi-event flooding of the Black Sea, over a period of time. Flooding on a catastrophic scale was still recent memory in the ancient Near East (ANE). Furthermore, the Text itself uses the term whole world, which can (and have) been interpreted from the Hebrew in many different ways.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner @ 132: first question, yes among other things.

    Second question: Because there is no evidence. Because it is a physically impossibility. Because the flood account fits in with geological, archeological and anthropological accounts of catastrophic, but localised (ie regional) flood events – the flooding of the Persian gulf about 8000 years ago at the draining of Lake Aggasiz, and the possible multi-event flooding of the Black Sea, over a period of time. Flooding on a catastrophic scale was still recent memory in the ancient Near East (ANE). Furthermore, the Text itself uses the term whole world, which can (and have) been interpreted from the Hebrew in many different ways.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#139) — As an old-Earth Christian, I am not “trashing the account of Genesis” nor questioning the power of God. I believe in the Bible from the very first verse, and I believe in the power of God in both creation and redemption. I just don’t believe Answers in Genesis.

    I am criticizing the young-Earth creationist movement for a number of things:
    –really bad science
    –reading things into the text that are not there, such as “no animal death before the fall” (see comment 25)
    –accusing anyone who does not agree with them with compromise or heresy

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#139) — As an old-Earth Christian, I am not “trashing the account of Genesis” nor questioning the power of God. I believe in the Bible from the very first verse, and I believe in the power of God in both creation and redemption. I just don’t believe Answers in Genesis.

    I am criticizing the young-Earth creationist movement for a number of things:
    –really bad science
    –reading things into the text that are not there, such as “no animal death before the fall” (see comment 25)
    –accusing anyone who does not agree with them with compromise or heresy

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, I don’t know how on earth you got the idea that I don’t like philosophy. Please explain that to me.

    Grace – what Kevin said. We fully believe and admire Genesis. We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, I don’t know how on earth you got the idea that I don’t like philosophy. Please explain that to me.

    Grace – what Kevin said. We fully believe and admire Genesis. We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    OE has been proved by mountains of evidence (sorry, bad pun). And Resource Geology is a very sophisticated science. We would not use crappy theories, or ignore any possible relevant evidence. We would loose our jobs, licences, and possibly our freedom if we did that. Billions are on the line. Mining and exploration is not cowboy science.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    OE has been proved by mountains of evidence (sorry, bad pun). And Resource Geology is a very sophisticated science. We would not use crappy theories, or ignore any possible relevant evidence. We would loose our jobs, licences, and possibly our freedom if we did that. Billions are on the line. Mining and exploration is not cowboy science.

  • kerner

    KK:

    What kind of evidence would you expect to see if the “whole world” (if that term were to mean all or most of the inhabited area of the planet) were to be washed over by water for a short period?

    Why is a world wide flood event a physical impossibility?

    Was not catastrophic flooding a recent memory in ancient places other than the near east? Granted there could have been many localized events.

  • kerner

    KK:

    What kind of evidence would you expect to see if the “whole world” (if that term were to mean all or most of the inhabited area of the planet) were to be washed over by water for a short period?

    Why is a world wide flood event a physical impossibility?

    Was not catastrophic flooding a recent memory in ancient places other than the near east? Granted there could have been many localized events.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    In response to Kerner (#132), I would like to make a brief Biblical case for a local flood.

    My first point is about translation decisions. Hebrew does not have as large of a vocabulary as many other languages, such as Greek. There are a number of words that can be translated in more than one way. For example:
    –”earth” can be translated as “land”
    –”heavens” can be translated as “sky”
    –”mountain” can be translated as “hill”

    If you make these perfectly legitimate substitutions into the text of Genesis 6-8, the account of the flood reads very differently. For example, 7:17-24 reads:

    “For forty days the flood kept coming on the land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the land. The waters rose and increased greatly on the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the land, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than twenty feet, and the hills were covered. Every living thing that moved on the land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the land, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the land was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the land. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the land for a hundred and fifty days.” (NIV1984, with footnote)

    The flood account, when read this way, no longer sounds quite so global. You all should go back and read the entire flood account with these substitutions in mind.

    Second, there are a number of places in the Old Testament where “all the earth” does not mean “all the earth.” For example, I don’t know of conservative Biblical scholars believe that Eskimos and Zulus came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, even though Genesis 41:57 says people came to him “all the earth.” Likewise, when the flood covered all the earth, it easily could have been from Noah’s perspective, not from God’s perspective of seeing the planet from space.

    There is more to the local flood interpretation that this, but I hope I have shown that one can make a Biblical case for a local flood, based on the text itself, and not based on some sort of “reading science into the Bible.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    In response to Kerner (#132), I would like to make a brief Biblical case for a local flood.

    My first point is about translation decisions. Hebrew does not have as large of a vocabulary as many other languages, such as Greek. There are a number of words that can be translated in more than one way. For example:
    –”earth” can be translated as “land”
    –”heavens” can be translated as “sky”
    –”mountain” can be translated as “hill”

    If you make these perfectly legitimate substitutions into the text of Genesis 6-8, the account of the flood reads very differently. For example, 7:17-24 reads:

    “For forty days the flood kept coming on the land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the land. The waters rose and increased greatly on the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the land, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than twenty feet, and the hills were covered. Every living thing that moved on the land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the land, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the land was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the land. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the land for a hundred and fifty days.” (NIV1984, with footnote)

    The flood account, when read this way, no longer sounds quite so global. You all should go back and read the entire flood account with these substitutions in mind.

    Second, there are a number of places in the Old Testament where “all the earth” does not mean “all the earth.” For example, I don’t know of conservative Biblical scholars believe that Eskimos and Zulus came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, even though Genesis 41:57 says people came to him “all the earth.” Likewise, when the flood covered all the earth, it easily could have been from Noah’s perspective, not from God’s perspective of seeing the planet from space.

    There is more to the local flood interpretation that this, but I hope I have shown that one can make a Biblical case for a local flood, based on the text itself, and not based on some sort of “reading science into the Bible.”

  • Grace

    Kevin N @142

    I doubt many of us understand the POWER of God ALMIGHTY. That is at the root of 6 day creation.

    Christians can understand that there is a heaven, but they cannot understand God’s power when it comes to creating the earth. It then boggles the mind that little man can trust, that Heaven exists.

    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    Job 26:7

    Then there are those who consider themselves wise, WHO, if they cannot prove that it took God only 6 days to create, it’s doesn’t have a place on their map of intellect.

  • Grace

    Kevin N @142

    I doubt many of us understand the POWER of God ALMIGHTY. That is at the root of 6 day creation.

    Christians can understand that there is a heaven, but they cannot understand God’s power when it comes to creating the earth. It then boggles the mind that little man can trust, that Heaven exists.

    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    Job 26:7

    Then there are those who consider themselves wise, WHO, if they cannot prove that it took God only 6 days to create, it’s doesn’t have a place on their map of intellect.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner, because all the water on the planet does not have the carrying capacity to carry all the Cambrian and younger sediments. It will be a mud. Also, an enourmous amount of sediments are carbonates, that generally form in clear seas. Here in SK, for instance, about 1200m below me, are thick salt layers, capping off a carbonate sequence of Devonian age. These salt layers contain the worlds biggest potash deposits. These things precipitated in a clear inland sea, without much clastic sedimentation, during several dry events. After this came about 1100 m of clastic sedimentation, (sandstone and shale), some of it marine, some of it fluvial. During the last ice age, what came after this was scraped off by glaciers. Subsequently, when the glaciers retreated , about 100 m og glacial sediment was dumped. These are quite recogniseable. This is but 1 example…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner, because all the water on the planet does not have the carrying capacity to carry all the Cambrian and younger sediments. It will be a mud. Also, an enourmous amount of sediments are carbonates, that generally form in clear seas. Here in SK, for instance, about 1200m below me, are thick salt layers, capping off a carbonate sequence of Devonian age. These salt layers contain the worlds biggest potash deposits. These things precipitated in a clear inland sea, without much clastic sedimentation, during several dry events. After this came about 1100 m of clastic sedimentation, (sandstone and shale), some of it marine, some of it fluvial. During the last ice age, what came after this was scraped off by glaciers. Subsequently, when the glaciers retreated , about 100 m og glacial sediment was dumped. These are quite recogniseable. This is but 1 example…

  • Grace

    It’s incredibly foolish when man believes he must understand how the world was formed, how the sea and sediment, move about – in order to believe that God is powerful to have done anything, and leave little man in a quandary, with an unsolved mystery.

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    The passage above is told unto Moses, as he received the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God. God made it all very clear in Exodus 20.

    If the account regarding, “six days the LORD made heaven and earth” is incorrect – would you believe the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God on Mount Sinai? – can you prove or disprove this HOLY Scripture as well, or is it just parts, that your mind cannot comprehend.

    Read Exodus 19 and 20

  • Grace

    It’s incredibly foolish when man believes he must understand how the world was formed, how the sea and sediment, move about – in order to believe that God is powerful to have done anything, and leave little man in a quandary, with an unsolved mystery.

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    The passage above is told unto Moses, as he received the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God. God made it all very clear in Exodus 20.

    If the account regarding, “six days the LORD made heaven and earth” is incorrect – would you believe the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God on Mount Sinai? – can you prove or disprove this HOLY Scripture as well, or is it just parts, that your mind cannot comprehend.

    Read Exodus 19 and 20

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#147) — So, if I point out that YEC science is really bad, if I make a Biblical case against YEC-ism, and if it bothers me that many YECs call me a compromiser or heretic for differing from them on a secondary issue, then I am a fool?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#147) — So, if I point out that YEC science is really bad, if I make a Biblical case against YEC-ism, and if it bothers me that many YECs call me a compromiser or heretic for differing from them on a secondary issue, then I am a fool?

  • paul

    Oh dear!
    Why are we arguing about this?
    Jesus – true man true god,
    God – one and three,
    Baptism – water and God,
    Communion – bread and God,
    Life – creation and evolution.
    Church – visible and invisible.
    Welcome to paradox!

  • paul

    Oh dear!
    Why are we arguing about this?
    Jesus – true man true god,
    God – one and three,
    Baptism – water and God,
    Communion – bread and God,
    Life – creation and evolution.
    Church – visible and invisible.
    Welcome to paradox!

  • Grace

    Kevin @ 150

    If you wish to think of yourself as a fool, that’s your prerogative. I wouldn’t call anyone a fool. However I do find many beliefs to be foolish.

    You didn’t make a viable case against six day creation. It’s stated by God in Exodus 20 right in the middle of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, to Moses on Mount Sinai. If the statement of six days is wrong, then you can rework the TEN COMMANDMENTS themselves – would you be in favor of that?

  • Grace

    Kevin @ 150

    If you wish to think of yourself as a fool, that’s your prerogative. I wouldn’t call anyone a fool. However I do find many beliefs to be foolish.

    You didn’t make a viable case against six day creation. It’s stated by God in Exodus 20 right in the middle of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, to Moses on Mount Sinai. If the statement of six days is wrong, then you can rework the TEN COMMANDMENTS themselves – would you be in favor of that?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, what Kevin said. Also, how do you think geologists find mineral deposits? If you don’t understand how something is formed, you can’t hope to find it, explore it, see if it is feasible, develop it, mine it. Think of that next time you turn the key in your car, or using anything made from plastic, iron, manganese, copper, gold, silver, platinum, graphite, potash, titanium, lithium, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, etc etc etc.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, what Kevin said. Also, how do you think geologists find mineral deposits? If you don’t understand how something is formed, you can’t hope to find it, explore it, see if it is feasible, develop it, mine it. Think of that next time you turn the key in your car, or using anything made from plastic, iron, manganese, copper, gold, silver, platinum, graphite, potash, titanium, lithium, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, etc etc etc.

  • Grace

    KK,

    God’s Word is not a science project, nor is it something that you or I, or anyone else can understand when it comes to creation. You don’t have the intellect, nor does anyone else. To even think you could unravel time and space is a farce. It has nothing to do with the “the key in your car” or anything else.

    God hasn’t begun to reveal the mysteries of the heavens or earth.

    Either you believe what God stated in Genesis and Exodus, when giving Moses the TEN COMMANDMENTS from Mount Sinai, or you don’t – it’s your loss. God doesn’t owe you nor I, or anyone else the answers to HIS power and GLORY.

  • Grace

    KK,

    God’s Word is not a science project, nor is it something that you or I, or anyone else can understand when it comes to creation. You don’t have the intellect, nor does anyone else. To even think you could unravel time and space is a farce. It has nothing to do with the “the key in your car” or anything else.

    God hasn’t begun to reveal the mysteries of the heavens or earth.

    Either you believe what God stated in Genesis and Exodus, when giving Moses the TEN COMMANDMENTS from Mount Sinai, or you don’t – it’s your loss. God doesn’t owe you nor I, or anyone else the answers to HIS power and GLORY.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#149):

    In Genesis 2:4, the word day (Hebrew yom) is clearly used figuratively. “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (ESV). “Day,” in this case, refers to the entire creation period, not to a literal 24-hour day.

    If “day” is used figuratively in one place in the passage, we should at least consider whether or not it was used figuratively in other places in the passage, especially if there are other things in the passage that point to something other than a “literal” interpretation. And in the case of the opening chapters of Genesis, there are additional clues that perhaps “day” is used in a broader sense.

    Consider the actions of God in the creation account. God performs his work over a period of six days. Is God’s work like our work? Yes and no. It is like our work because it accomplishes something. It is not like our work because of how he does it. At the end of the week he rests. Is it because he is tired? No, it is because he has completed his work. We rest at the end of the week, or at the end of the day, because we are tired. God’s work is analogous to, but not identical to, our work. God’s rest is analogous to, but not identical to, our rest. Similarly, God’s day is similar to, but not necessarily identical to, our day. As it says in Ps 90:4, “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by.” (NIV). Psalm 90 was also penned by Moses, and the immediate context of verse 4 is creation.

    Furthermore, if you look at the way a day is described in Genesis 1, it does not match the Hebrew concept of a complete 24-hour day. “There was evening, and there was morning, the nth day.” Evening and morning do not make a whole day; they make a break between work days. These are pauses in the narrative.

    In addition, one should wonder if “day” must be literal before the appearance of the sun and moon. YEC insistance that it must be is not necessarily required by the text.

    In Exodus 20:11, which you quoted, “day” means whatever it means in Genesis 1. If it means a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1, then it means a literal 24-hour day in Exodus 20. If it means something other than a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1, then it means the same thing in Exodus 20. In Exodus 20, the seven-day creation and rest cycle is used as a pattern for our week of work and rest. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch the creation week is used as a pattern for the Sabbatical year, in which the land would get a rest every seven years. And elsewhere, it is part of the pattern for the year of Jubilee, where debts were forgiven and slaves set free after 49 years — Seven times seven years. The most important thing is the pattern that is being set, not whether or not the seven days were literal rotations of the Earth.

    There is more that could be written about the Biblical case for an old Earth; obviously many books have been written on the topic. The key point, like what I wrote earlier about the case for a local flood, is that it is a Biblical case.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#149):

    In Genesis 2:4, the word day (Hebrew yom) is clearly used figuratively. “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (ESV). “Day,” in this case, refers to the entire creation period, not to a literal 24-hour day.

    If “day” is used figuratively in one place in the passage, we should at least consider whether or not it was used figuratively in other places in the passage, especially if there are other things in the passage that point to something other than a “literal” interpretation. And in the case of the opening chapters of Genesis, there are additional clues that perhaps “day” is used in a broader sense.

    Consider the actions of God in the creation account. God performs his work over a period of six days. Is God’s work like our work? Yes and no. It is like our work because it accomplishes something. It is not like our work because of how he does it. At the end of the week he rests. Is it because he is tired? No, it is because he has completed his work. We rest at the end of the week, or at the end of the day, because we are tired. God’s work is analogous to, but not identical to, our work. God’s rest is analogous to, but not identical to, our rest. Similarly, God’s day is similar to, but not necessarily identical to, our day. As it says in Ps 90:4, “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by.” (NIV). Psalm 90 was also penned by Moses, and the immediate context of verse 4 is creation.

    Furthermore, if you look at the way a day is described in Genesis 1, it does not match the Hebrew concept of a complete 24-hour day. “There was evening, and there was morning, the nth day.” Evening and morning do not make a whole day; they make a break between work days. These are pauses in the narrative.

    In addition, one should wonder if “day” must be literal before the appearance of the sun and moon. YEC insistance that it must be is not necessarily required by the text.

    In Exodus 20:11, which you quoted, “day” means whatever it means in Genesis 1. If it means a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1, then it means a literal 24-hour day in Exodus 20. If it means something other than a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1, then it means the same thing in Exodus 20. In Exodus 20, the seven-day creation and rest cycle is used as a pattern for our week of work and rest. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch the creation week is used as a pattern for the Sabbatical year, in which the land would get a rest every seven years. And elsewhere, it is part of the pattern for the year of Jubilee, where debts were forgiven and slaves set free after 49 years — Seven times seven years. The most important thing is the pattern that is being set, not whether or not the seven days were literal rotations of the Earth.

    There is more that could be written about the Biblical case for an old Earth; obviously many books have been written on the topic. The key point, like what I wrote earlier about the case for a local flood, is that it is a Biblical case.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, so in your view, all of science is pretty much a wash-out since we can’t understand creation. So all technology, medicine, oil and mineral deposits etc etc came from….?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, so in your view, all of science is pretty much a wash-out since we can’t understand creation. So all technology, medicine, oil and mineral deposits etc etc came from….?

  • Grace

    God made it so simple to understand Kevin. It’s man who tears apart that which God made simple, just because he can’t understand it. In essence you’re saying God could not have created the earth in 6 days, are you suggesting that HE had not the power? – only because you can’t make it fit/

    This reminds me of the kids who begin a puzzle. They are well on their way to the finish, but alas, there are 20 plus pieces left, and their tired and annoyed. SO, they cut the pieces to make them fit, …. but then, after their handwork, the picture doesn’t make sense. That’s what you are doing with God’s Word. You cannot understand it, neither can the scientist, so the Bible isn’t right, you need to rework it.

    There are a whole lot of people who don’t believe in hell as well. They can’t see it, they don’t think God would do such a thing, etc., but it’s true all the same.

  • Grace

    God made it so simple to understand Kevin. It’s man who tears apart that which God made simple, just because he can’t understand it. In essence you’re saying God could not have created the earth in 6 days, are you suggesting that HE had not the power? – only because you can’t make it fit/

    This reminds me of the kids who begin a puzzle. They are well on their way to the finish, but alas, there are 20 plus pieces left, and their tired and annoyed. SO, they cut the pieces to make them fit, …. but then, after their handwork, the picture doesn’t make sense. That’s what you are doing with God’s Word. You cannot understand it, neither can the scientist, so the Bible isn’t right, you need to rework it.

    There are a whole lot of people who don’t believe in hell as well. They can’t see it, they don’t think God would do such a thing, etc., but it’s true all the same.

  • Grace

    KK @156

    “Grace, so in your view, all of science is pretty much a wash-out since we can’t understand creation. So all technology, medicine, oil and mineral deposits etc etc came from….?”

    GOD! It all comes from God, even those parts you can’t understand, and most likely won’t until the LORD comes. God doesn’t owe us the answers. No matter how much you wish you knew.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. My career in the medical field, most certainly doesn’t trump the Word of God, nor does anyone elses, that includes all science degrees. Your comments are childish.

    God’s Word is HOLY, HIS power is above the puffed up confidence little man places upon himself, like a guilded crown, when it comes to intelligence.

  • Grace

    KK @156

    “Grace, so in your view, all of science is pretty much a wash-out since we can’t understand creation. So all technology, medicine, oil and mineral deposits etc etc came from….?”

    GOD! It all comes from God, even those parts you can’t understand, and most likely won’t until the LORD comes. God doesn’t owe us the answers. No matter how much you wish you knew.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. My career in the medical field, most certainly doesn’t trump the Word of God, nor does anyone elses, that includes all science degrees. Your comments are childish.

    God’s Word is HOLY, HIS power is above the puffed up confidence little man places upon himself, like a guilded crown, when it comes to intelligence.

  • Michael B.

    ” And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2)

    Could all this evidence of evolution that is found be meant as a delusion for the damned?

    Also, any reasonable person will probably laugh at the creationist science shown in places like the creation museum, but creationists have some good points about reconciling scripture with evolution. How does one explain the Fall with evolution? And evolution involves death — doesn’t Genesis say that the world was initially created “good”, and that death was a result of Adam’s sin? Finally, if Genesis is a symbolic account, what else in the Bible is symbolic? What do we do when some Christians want to call the Resurrection a symbolic account?

  • Michael B.

    ” And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2)

    Could all this evidence of evolution that is found be meant as a delusion for the damned?

    Also, any reasonable person will probably laugh at the creationist science shown in places like the creation museum, but creationists have some good points about reconciling scripture with evolution. How does one explain the Fall with evolution? And evolution involves death — doesn’t Genesis say that the world was initially created “good”, and that death was a result of Adam’s sin? Finally, if Genesis is a symbolic account, what else in the Bible is symbolic? What do we do when some Christians want to call the Resurrection a symbolic account?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @155 As always, the problem is. There is no grammatical reason to assume “yom” is figurative. Also, in this case it is refering to a specific day. The day God created Adam, not some undefined time. Plus you know the whole there was evening and morning. So no not buying the nonliteral meaning.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @155 As always, the problem is. There is no grammatical reason to assume “yom” is figurative. Also, in this case it is refering to a specific day. The day God created Adam, not some undefined time. Plus you know the whole there was evening and morning. So no not buying the nonliteral meaning.

  • kerner

    KK @ 148:

    You misunderstand me. I asked you to consider the possibility of a “great flood” sepatate from the issue of an old earth.

    That is, say I concede that all that salt and potash got to SK just as you believe it did. Is it possible that SK was under water 10,000 years ago? I think maybe it was, excepy the water was ice, correct?

  • kerner

    KK @ 148:

    You misunderstand me. I asked you to consider the possibility of a “great flood” sepatate from the issue of an old earth.

    That is, say I concede that all that salt and potash got to SK just as you believe it did. Is it possible that SK was under water 10,000 years ago? I think maybe it was, excepy the water was ice, correct?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#157):

    Nowhere did I say that God could not have created the entire universe in six literal days. He could have done it in six nanoseconds if he had wanted to, and that still would have seemed like a long time.

    What I am saying is that the Bible is more ambiguous on certain topics—the age of the earth or the extent and work of Noah’s flood—than YECs admit to.

    I am not cutting the Scripture into pieces to make it fit my preconceived notions; I started out as a YEC and would gladdly have stayed that way. In everything I have written here, I have used solid principles for interpreting the Word, such as looking at meanings of words, examining the context, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#157):

    Nowhere did I say that God could not have created the entire universe in six literal days. He could have done it in six nanoseconds if he had wanted to, and that still would have seemed like a long time.

    What I am saying is that the Bible is more ambiguous on certain topics—the age of the earth or the extent and work of Noah’s flood—than YECs admit to.

    I am not cutting the Scripture into pieces to make it fit my preconceived notions; I started out as a YEC and would gladdly have stayed that way. In everything I have written here, I have used solid principles for interpreting the Word, such as looking at meanings of words, examining the context, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Michael B (#159):

    I addressed the Biblical issues surrounding “no death before the fall” back in #25. Basically, the Bible nowhere teaches that animals did not die before the fall. Biblically speaking, maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. But for someone to assert that the Bible teaches that they didn’t die before the fall is putting words into Gods’ mouth.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Michael B (#159):

    I addressed the Biblical issues surrounding “no death before the fall” back in #25. Basically, the Bible nowhere teaches that animals did not die before the fall. Biblically speaking, maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. But for someone to assert that the Bible teaches that they didn’t die before the fall is putting words into Gods’ mouth.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – there have been many floods in earth’s history. You have evidence for one of the most devistating ones in Washington State – the scablands, formed by the catastophic collapse of Lake Missoula in Montana, a glacial lake at the end of the last ice age.

    As to SK – 10000 years ago was towards the end of the last ice age. A very large lake, of which the great lakes and lake Winnipeg are remnants, covered parts of SK, most of Manitoba, parts of ND, Minnesota etc etc under water. This glacial lake, now called Lake Aggasiz after a famous geologist, drained twice, filling back in between, both times catastropically. The last time it drained it causes sea level fluctiations world wide, and it is thought that this event correlates with the flooding of what is today the Persian gulf (for a long time, that are was mostly above the sea level). This would coincide quite nicely with Flood histories and myths in that area…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner – there have been many floods in earth’s history. You have evidence for one of the most devistating ones in Washington State – the scablands, formed by the catastophic collapse of Lake Missoula in Montana, a glacial lake at the end of the last ice age.

    As to SK – 10000 years ago was towards the end of the last ice age. A very large lake, of which the great lakes and lake Winnipeg are remnants, covered parts of SK, most of Manitoba, parts of ND, Minnesota etc etc under water. This glacial lake, now called Lake Aggasiz after a famous geologist, drained twice, filling back in between, both times catastropically. The last time it drained it causes sea level fluctiations world wide, and it is thought that this event correlates with the flooding of what is today the Persian gulf (for a long time, that are was mostly above the sea level). This would coincide quite nicely with Flood histories and myths in that area…

  • Grace

    KK,

    You either believe the Bible, accepting the passages in Exodus 20:11, right in the middle of the TEN COMMANDMENTS – or- you can dismantle the SIX DAYS literally, and do as you wish with the other TEN COMMANDMENTS, breaking them down as literal or figurative, or anything else.

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    The passage above is told to Moses, as he received the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God. Do you think Moses questioned God on Mount Sinai? – because he couldn’t wrape his mind around the LORD’s Word?

    Science can be the devils tool, and often is, as man tries to distort what God has stated in the Bible, using every excuse, with his finite mind, which is LIMITED!!!!

  • Grace

    KK,

    You either believe the Bible, accepting the passages in Exodus 20:11, right in the middle of the TEN COMMANDMENTS – or- you can dismantle the SIX DAYS literally, and do as you wish with the other TEN COMMANDMENTS, breaking them down as literal or figurative, or anything else.

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    The passage above is told to Moses, as he received the TEN COMMANDMENTS from God. Do you think Moses questioned God on Mount Sinai? – because he couldn’t wrape his mind around the LORD’s Word?

    Science can be the devils tool, and often is, as man tries to distort what God has stated in the Bible, using every excuse, with his finite mind, which is LIMITED!!!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oooh, wheee, we gots lots of comments since I last checked.

    Okay,

    “decay rate” in astronomy terms can mean few different things,

    Yeah, that is the problem and why I can’t just easily look it up.

    I can’t think of any off the top of my head that would have anything to do with strong or weak nuclear forces, though.

    Yeah, it was so long ago, I can’t clearly remember whether it was just kind of an idea or whether anyone had devised a way to test it.

    KK @ 124, thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

    KK @ 125, really, I don’t “want” any decay rate change. I was just wondering whether there was anything to that or not, and if it had been tested. Actually the creation story and Revelation are two aspects of theology that I find particularly uninteresting because they seem so distant. I do find it really amazing how much emotional investment people put into them. Rarely do you hear someone who basically thinks that life evolved from inorganic stuff just take a sort of blase attitude towards it like, “Well, it seems pretty certain that is how it worked, but hey, if it is disproved someday, hell, I don’t care.” Similarly, there are those who are so enamored of the book of Revelation that they think it is central to theology and spend ridiculous amount of time and attention to reading all manner of stuff into it. That is why I thought Tom @13 was spot on.

    Creation and Revelation really seem to stir passions, but why? I don’t get it. I don’t know. I can’t know. I don’t care. What if we did know? Then what? We would still have all the same day to day issues we have now. It would’t fix a thing.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oooh, wheee, we gots lots of comments since I last checked.

    Okay,

    “decay rate” in astronomy terms can mean few different things,

    Yeah, that is the problem and why I can’t just easily look it up.

    I can’t think of any off the top of my head that would have anything to do with strong or weak nuclear forces, though.

    Yeah, it was so long ago, I can’t clearly remember whether it was just kind of an idea or whether anyone had devised a way to test it.

    KK @ 124, thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

    KK @ 125, really, I don’t “want” any decay rate change. I was just wondering whether there was anything to that or not, and if it had been tested. Actually the creation story and Revelation are two aspects of theology that I find particularly uninteresting because they seem so distant. I do find it really amazing how much emotional investment people put into them. Rarely do you hear someone who basically thinks that life evolved from inorganic stuff just take a sort of blase attitude towards it like, “Well, it seems pretty certain that is how it worked, but hey, if it is disproved someday, hell, I don’t care.” Similarly, there are those who are so enamored of the book of Revelation that they think it is central to theology and spend ridiculous amount of time and attention to reading all manner of stuff into it. That is why I thought Tom @13 was spot on.

    Creation and Revelation really seem to stir passions, but why? I don’t get it. I don’t know. I can’t know. I don’t care. What if we did know? Then what? We would still have all the same day to day issues we have now. It would’t fix a thing.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#165),

    I already addressed Exodus 20:11 in #155, and your response didn’t say anything about my analysis. Now you are simply repeating yourself, and saying that if one doesn’t understand the Scriptures the way you do, they are being deceived by Satan.

    The question is “What does the Bible say?” A companion question is “What does the Bible not say?” I’ve tried to show that the Genesis 1-2 (and Ex 20:11) have some complexities to them that YECs are ignoring. Am I a tool of the devil if I question the AiG/ICR pseudo-orthodoxy?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#165),

    I already addressed Exodus 20:11 in #155, and your response didn’t say anything about my analysis. Now you are simply repeating yourself, and saying that if one doesn’t understand the Scriptures the way you do, they are being deceived by Satan.

    The question is “What does the Bible say?” A companion question is “What does the Bible not say?” I’ve tried to show that the Genesis 1-2 (and Ex 20:11) have some complexities to them that YECs are ignoring. Am I a tool of the devil if I question the AiG/ICR pseudo-orthodoxy?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@165):

    …man tries to distort what God has stated in the Bible, using every excuse, with his finite mind, which is LIMITED!!!!

    Indeed, that is true. Sometimes, people will not accept what God has written plainly, but instead will use their own fallible reason (“the devil’s tool”, as you rightly note) to explain why what God did say plainly could not possibly mean what it obviously means.

    For instance, when Jesus said to his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,” well, … you know, Grace. (Shoe’s on the other foot now, isn’t it?)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@165):

    …man tries to distort what God has stated in the Bible, using every excuse, with his finite mind, which is LIMITED!!!!

    Indeed, that is true. Sometimes, people will not accept what God has written plainly, but instead will use their own fallible reason (“the devil’s tool”, as you rightly note) to explain why what God did say plainly could not possibly mean what it obviously means.

    For instance, when Jesus said to his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,” well, … you know, Grace. (Shoe’s on the other foot now, isn’t it?)

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Fallible people misunderstand God’s Word.

    Fallible people misunderstand God’s world.

    Therefore great humility is required as we study the Word and the world, and great humility is required as we interact with those with whom we disagree.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Fallible people misunderstand God’s Word.

    Fallible people misunderstand God’s world.

    Therefore great humility is required as we study the Word and the world, and great humility is required as we interact with those with whom we disagree.

  • Grace

    Regarding days according to Scripture:

    There are those who continue to debate – literal days, or figurative. What’s the answer?

    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    Genesis 1:31

    1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

    2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

    3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    We have gone over lots of Scripture speaking of “sixth day” – “seventh day” – “sabbath day” … but yet something is wrong here, IF you don’t believe there are literal days.

    Here is the problem:

    If the 7th day is the “Sabbath day” but is figurative – then this could be 70 weeks, 49 days, or any other number as you multiply 7. So, with that in mind, it’s only logical, that the “Sabbath day” is not just the REGULAR seven (7) days we understand, but could be, seven (7) years, or any other equation, used as long as it’s seven (7) – OR you can use the number six which is the number days God used to create.

    Mixing it all up, that is what happens when you can’t understand the mysteries of God. HE hasn’t chosen to share them with us.

    .
    Here’s a new one for you:

    And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    Genesis 1:14

    Do we have seasons like summer, fall, winter and spring that last for two thousand years? Or “day from the night” that last for thousands of years? How do you divide up the “seasons” days and years?

    You who don’t believe that God created in six days have a problem, and it’s not math, or science, it’s your sight, it’s not believing what the LORD did so long ago. You’re stuck IN man’s little mind, and his inability to trust the LORD.

  • Grace

    Regarding days according to Scripture:

    There are those who continue to debate – literal days, or figurative. What’s the answer?

    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    Genesis 1:31

    1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

    2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

    3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    We have gone over lots of Scripture speaking of “sixth day” – “seventh day” – “sabbath day” … but yet something is wrong here, IF you don’t believe there are literal days.

    Here is the problem:

    If the 7th day is the “Sabbath day” but is figurative – then this could be 70 weeks, 49 days, or any other number as you multiply 7. So, with that in mind, it’s only logical, that the “Sabbath day” is not just the REGULAR seven (7) days we understand, but could be, seven (7) years, or any other equation, used as long as it’s seven (7) – OR you can use the number six which is the number days God used to create.

    Mixing it all up, that is what happens when you can’t understand the mysteries of God. HE hasn’t chosen to share them with us.

    .
    Here’s a new one for you:

    And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    Genesis 1:14

    Do we have seasons like summer, fall, winter and spring that last for two thousand years? Or “day from the night” that last for thousands of years? How do you divide up the “seasons” days and years?

    You who don’t believe that God created in six days have a problem, and it’s not math, or science, it’s your sight, it’s not believing what the LORD did so long ago. You’re stuck IN man’s little mind, and his inability to trust the LORD.

  • Grace

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    Can you imagine the LORD God resting for millions of years? The Word of God doesn’t say anything of the kind, but if you claim that a day could be a million years, then what do you do with the 7th day, which is the Sabbath?

    Did the LORD rest for ________ how many months, years, decades, centuries? Mans mind cannot fathom God ALMIGHTY creating the world in 6 days, they NEED PROOF, but it isn’t there, it’s hidden, it’s a mystery. If it were not, we would all know the answer.

    Trusting the LORD is the only answer.

  • Grace

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 20:11

    Can you imagine the LORD God resting for millions of years? The Word of God doesn’t say anything of the kind, but if you claim that a day could be a million years, then what do you do with the 7th day, which is the Sabbath?

    Did the LORD rest for ________ how many months, years, decades, centuries? Mans mind cannot fathom God ALMIGHTY creating the world in 6 days, they NEED PROOF, but it isn’t there, it’s hidden, it’s a mystery. If it were not, we would all know the answer.

    Trusting the LORD is the only answer.

  • kerner

    KK:

    OK, so there were geolgical events, supported by evidence you believe, that supports the idea of an at least locally catastrophic flood. But not one that woud have literally flooded the whole world.

    And, I assume it would not have wiped out the entrire human population except for a very few people? Or is that possible in your opinion?

    So, another question. Modern anthopologists believe there was a relatively small population of hominids, making tools of some kind, for millions of years. However, the Neolithic period, the rise of what we would call the beginnings of human civilization, seems to correspond very roughly with the Biblical timeline of creation. And Genesis describes activity that modern anthropologists associate with the Neolithic revolution (e.g. agriculture, domestication of animals, building villages or cities). My question is where, in your view, do the important parts of Genesis fit into all this? By “important parts” I mean things like original sin, the Fall, the promise of a Redeemer, etc. If there was no first Adam, how could there be a point to Christ being our “Second Adam”?

    You might have said that you believe that Adam and Eve were real people; I think you did (correct me if I’m wrong). But if you do believe they were real, what, in the context of the old earth you believe theistically evolved, do you believe about adam and eve? Where did they come from, and what happened to them? Were they the first “in God’s image” people? As opposed to earlier hominids that were basically animals? But I’m just guessing. You tell me.

  • kerner

    KK:

    OK, so there were geolgical events, supported by evidence you believe, that supports the idea of an at least locally catastrophic flood. But not one that woud have literally flooded the whole world.

    And, I assume it would not have wiped out the entrire human population except for a very few people? Or is that possible in your opinion?

    So, another question. Modern anthopologists believe there was a relatively small population of hominids, making tools of some kind, for millions of years. However, the Neolithic period, the rise of what we would call the beginnings of human civilization, seems to correspond very roughly with the Biblical timeline of creation. And Genesis describes activity that modern anthropologists associate with the Neolithic revolution (e.g. agriculture, domestication of animals, building villages or cities). My question is where, in your view, do the important parts of Genesis fit into all this? By “important parts” I mean things like original sin, the Fall, the promise of a Redeemer, etc. If there was no first Adam, how could there be a point to Christ being our “Second Adam”?

    You might have said that you believe that Adam and Eve were real people; I think you did (correct me if I’m wrong). But if you do believe they were real, what, in the context of the old earth you believe theistically evolved, do you believe about adam and eve? Where did they come from, and what happened to them? Were they the first “in God’s image” people? As opposed to earlier hominids that were basically animals? But I’m just guessing. You tell me.

  • Eric Brown

    Wait… you mean, we all come from one common ancestor… never heard that before. Or that mass extinctions arise because of environmental changes brought about by mankind… almost like a giant flood or something. No, couldn’t be.

    See – I am a Creationist, and I whole heartedly acknowledge that there is evolution going on right now, right this instant – that we see new pathogens develop all the time. It’s just that I don’t buy your constructs for what must have happened over around 5000 years ago. There, I’ll follow the Scriptures… nice try though.

  • Eric Brown

    Wait… you mean, we all come from one common ancestor… never heard that before. Or that mass extinctions arise because of environmental changes brought about by mankind… almost like a giant flood or something. No, couldn’t be.

    See – I am a Creationist, and I whole heartedly acknowledge that there is evolution going on right now, right this instant – that we see new pathogens develop all the time. It’s just that I don’t buy your constructs for what must have happened over around 5000 years ago. There, I’ll follow the Scriptures… nice try though.

  • larry

    The dragging of young earth SCIENCE in opposition to old earth SCIENCE into this is simply a red herring, “Squirrel” to distract and pretend to hide behind. Young earth science is just as much unbelief as is old earth science. This is why we say in our confessions “I believe not “I’ve observed and thus concluded”. A non-confessional “Christian” is simply a non-christian, there is no such thing.

    KK to Grace: We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    And KK fantasizes that what I’ve been saying is in the wrong “time and place”. Yet that is all he continues to bring up, this same principle to patch that Word into his science. This of course is the same argument sacramentarians in various ways have used against the confessions from day one, e.g. Zwingli’s asinine “I am the door” defense. Yet why did Zwingli and later Calvin deny the literal Words of Christ in the supper? Foolish reason, the presupposition that “the finite cannot be contained by the infinite” (which is of course “good” science and mathematics), same here, squeeze the scriptures into tropes and allegories to fit the philosophical presuppositions.

    Again the same principle alien spirit occurring. Where reason is offended concerning articles of faith suddenly scripture is “metaphor”, “allegory”, “poetry”, “symbolic”, “non-western mind (more on that in a minute), more interested in the point rather than the facts, etc… All kinds of excuses and explanations all over the maps that as a whole prove they’ve lost the revealed God and the hidden God, as Luther predicts we do, and now grope in darkness saying “here is God, there is God, no over there is God, here is His Word, there is His Word, no over there is His Word”. But much like Luther’s astute observation on the sacrament of the altar in which he observed that the sacramentarians do not agree at all on what the sacrament is but only agree on one point. That point? What it is not. And thus in order to fit the Word of God to their liking they do not settle on what Genesis says and do not agree on what it says, some say allegory, others poetry, still others half evolution half creation, but they all agree on one thing, like the sacrament, what it does not say. They make the Word of God uncertain and repeat the original sin of enthusiasm that started with a simple “hath God really said”, then have faith in themselves.

    Again, KK to Grace: We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    Grace with all our disagreements and strong debate with each other you know very well I have ALWAYS defended one thing about you, that you take the Word of God seriously and do not believe it to be malleable. You may at times turn me over to Satan in what I confess as coming from Satan (mostly the sacraments) and for that I thank you. The very disrespect and false spirit that the Lutherans saw in the Zwinglians was that they were not willing to turn them (the Lutherans) over to Satan but rather in essence would say that God’s word could mean multiple things and both doctrines could stand. To that Luther condemned Zwingli as having another spirit. And so does Sasse point out that the serious baptist, serious reformed, serious RC, serious Lutheran, etc… who does not think God’s Word so malleable are closer to each other than those that mingle doctrines as if it can mean many things. You have never done this, and to that end, you grasp the Word of God in principle correctly.

    So, interesting. Here we have two sacramentarian confessors and suddenly one of them, Grace, is faced up with defending creation via the Word of God (an article of faith) just the way that and feel it similarly that a Lutheran must defend the sacraments. Of course KK in his chosen blindness does not see wish to see the connection. Here we have Grace reading and taking God’s Word as He spoke it on an article of faith and then KK with his reason offended saying, “too literal”. In essence he is saying to Grace a repetition of the serpent “hath God really said”.

    Yet this is the same principle argument and alien spirit that Zwingli brought forth on “this is My body” that Luther chalked on the table. We might paraphrase and fit it to KK’s statement thus, We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    Also, like KK appealing to “those that know Hebrew and the original language, Zwingli appealed to his superb knowledge of Greek of Luther’s. Amazing parallels or as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, “Nothing new under the sun”.
    Grace I know you do not agree with me concerning the sacraments, that’s fine for now, but surely as faithful believer, one who does not lend one’s self as to Scripture being malleable as KK and such do, you at least in all honesty see this same principle issue do you not? I’m not asking you to say I’m right, just ponder it if you might.

    But really to see the Words of Genesis as emphasizing “point” rather than “fact” or even “fact” is to really miss the faith and rob everyone of Christ. Because the words of Genesis are not even just to emphasize “facts”, though they clearly do. Rather as Luther points out that God’s Words are “do” words as oppose to our words that merely label a thing, even label only a fact. I can label a dog a “dog” but that doesn’t “do” anything. But in the Genesis account, its less strong in English as many point out, the account is not really to even label “the facts” of what happened, but to proclaim that when God speaks it happens…i.e. His Word IS the action. And thus for example “let there be light” is better understood thus: God spoke, “Light be”, and light was. Implication to Gospel and the sacraments and holy absolution? Absolutely, for when in the present today the pastor is to give the sacrament and the absolution (the forgiveness of sin = Gospel) it is not just ‘information’ being conveyed (this is the understanding of sacramentarian doctrine) but that these are God’s Words He is speaking through the mouths of pastors and they don’t just give information about forgiveness, the DO forgiveness. Pastor Weedon points this out.

    So there is more robbery of Christ and the Gospel going on here over Genesis than meets the eye, that’s why KK wishes to disconnect this discussion from the sacraments and hide the other spirit, i.e. Satanic, principle at play, and then go off in other directions. The Word of God is about Christ, every bit of it, yet KK wishes to make it about science, this crystal clear from the above discussion to anyone who reads through it. So the issue of “non-western” mind Vs. “western mind” with its “point” over “fact” is really just another red herring and trick. Because the point is in Genesis, which is Christ too, is that when God speaks it is the action, it is done. And just as much as He spoke, “Light be” and “light was” so is “This is My body/blood….given/shed….for the forgiveness of your sins” and “In the stead of Christ I forgive you all your sins” and “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” or in executive summary form “forgiveness to you be” and “forgiveness to you is”.

  • larry

    The dragging of young earth SCIENCE in opposition to old earth SCIENCE into this is simply a red herring, “Squirrel” to distract and pretend to hide behind. Young earth science is just as much unbelief as is old earth science. This is why we say in our confessions “I believe not “I’ve observed and thus concluded”. A non-confessional “Christian” is simply a non-christian, there is no such thing.

    KK to Grace: We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    And KK fantasizes that what I’ve been saying is in the wrong “time and place”. Yet that is all he continues to bring up, this same principle to patch that Word into his science. This of course is the same argument sacramentarians in various ways have used against the confessions from day one, e.g. Zwingli’s asinine “I am the door” defense. Yet why did Zwingli and later Calvin deny the literal Words of Christ in the supper? Foolish reason, the presupposition that “the finite cannot be contained by the infinite” (which is of course “good” science and mathematics), same here, squeeze the scriptures into tropes and allegories to fit the philosophical presuppositions.

    Again the same principle alien spirit occurring. Where reason is offended concerning articles of faith suddenly scripture is “metaphor”, “allegory”, “poetry”, “symbolic”, “non-western mind (more on that in a minute), more interested in the point rather than the facts, etc… All kinds of excuses and explanations all over the maps that as a whole prove they’ve lost the revealed God and the hidden God, as Luther predicts we do, and now grope in darkness saying “here is God, there is God, no over there is God, here is His Word, there is His Word, no over there is His Word”. But much like Luther’s astute observation on the sacrament of the altar in which he observed that the sacramentarians do not agree at all on what the sacrament is but only agree on one point. That point? What it is not. And thus in order to fit the Word of God to their liking they do not settle on what Genesis says and do not agree on what it says, some say allegory, others poetry, still others half evolution half creation, but they all agree on one thing, like the sacrament, what it does not say. They make the Word of God uncertain and repeat the original sin of enthusiasm that started with a simple “hath God really said”, then have faith in themselves.

    Again, KK to Grace: We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    Grace with all our disagreements and strong debate with each other you know very well I have ALWAYS defended one thing about you, that you take the Word of God seriously and do not believe it to be malleable. You may at times turn me over to Satan in what I confess as coming from Satan (mostly the sacraments) and for that I thank you. The very disrespect and false spirit that the Lutherans saw in the Zwinglians was that they were not willing to turn them (the Lutherans) over to Satan but rather in essence would say that God’s word could mean multiple things and both doctrines could stand. To that Luther condemned Zwingli as having another spirit. And so does Sasse point out that the serious baptist, serious reformed, serious RC, serious Lutheran, etc… who does not think God’s Word so malleable are closer to each other than those that mingle doctrines as if it can mean many things. You have never done this, and to that end, you grasp the Word of God in principle correctly.

    So, interesting. Here we have two sacramentarian confessors and suddenly one of them, Grace, is faced up with defending creation via the Word of God (an article of faith) just the way that and feel it similarly that a Lutheran must defend the sacraments. Of course KK in his chosen blindness does not see wish to see the connection. Here we have Grace reading and taking God’s Word as He spoke it on an article of faith and then KK with his reason offended saying, “too literal”. In essence he is saying to Grace a repetition of the serpent “hath God really said”.

    Yet this is the same principle argument and alien spirit that Zwingli brought forth on “this is My body” that Luther chalked on the table. We might paraphrase and fit it to KK’s statement thus, We just don’t read it in the same overt literalist way. We believe the Text itself indicates that. Other observations indicate that. And the teachings of many of the Church fathers, those who were instrumental in defining the Canon of Scripture, also share that approach.

    Also, like KK appealing to “those that know Hebrew and the original language, Zwingli appealed to his superb knowledge of Greek of Luther’s. Amazing parallels or as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, “Nothing new under the sun”.
    Grace I know you do not agree with me concerning the sacraments, that’s fine for now, but surely as faithful believer, one who does not lend one’s self as to Scripture being malleable as KK and such do, you at least in all honesty see this same principle issue do you not? I’m not asking you to say I’m right, just ponder it if you might.

    But really to see the Words of Genesis as emphasizing “point” rather than “fact” or even “fact” is to really miss the faith and rob everyone of Christ. Because the words of Genesis are not even just to emphasize “facts”, though they clearly do. Rather as Luther points out that God’s Words are “do” words as oppose to our words that merely label a thing, even label only a fact. I can label a dog a “dog” but that doesn’t “do” anything. But in the Genesis account, its less strong in English as many point out, the account is not really to even label “the facts” of what happened, but to proclaim that when God speaks it happens…i.e. His Word IS the action. And thus for example “let there be light” is better understood thus: God spoke, “Light be”, and light was. Implication to Gospel and the sacraments and holy absolution? Absolutely, for when in the present today the pastor is to give the sacrament and the absolution (the forgiveness of sin = Gospel) it is not just ‘information’ being conveyed (this is the understanding of sacramentarian doctrine) but that these are God’s Words He is speaking through the mouths of pastors and they don’t just give information about forgiveness, the DO forgiveness. Pastor Weedon points this out.

    So there is more robbery of Christ and the Gospel going on here over Genesis than meets the eye, that’s why KK wishes to disconnect this discussion from the sacraments and hide the other spirit, i.e. Satanic, principle at play, and then go off in other directions. The Word of God is about Christ, every bit of it, yet KK wishes to make it about science, this crystal clear from the above discussion to anyone who reads through it. So the issue of “non-western” mind Vs. “western mind” with its “point” over “fact” is really just another red herring and trick. Because the point is in Genesis, which is Christ too, is that when God speaks it is the action, it is done. And just as much as He spoke, “Light be” and “light was” so is “This is My body/blood….given/shed….for the forgiveness of your sins” and “In the stead of Christ I forgive you all your sins” and “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” or in executive summary form “forgiveness to you be” and “forgiveness to you is”.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I love you too Larry.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I love you too Larry.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner,

    Worldwide flood: Not physically possible, lack of evidence, etc.

    Neolithic: Yes there is a broad correspondence, in that Abraham is post-neolithic, ie Bronze Age. Therefore what happened before is broadly Neolithic. Culturally and technologically the Neolithic essentially started with the introduction of agriculture. Geologically this coincided with the end of the Last Ice Age, which was a time of great environmental change, sea-level rises etc. Humans had already migrated to this continent during the latter part of the ice age – lower sea levels opened up a non-glaciated, coastal route. But with the retreat of the glaciers, a lot of stuff started happening.

    I mentioned agriculture. Interestingly, we now also have the first evidence of brewing (from North Eastern China), set around 10000 BC. And, as some archaeologists noted, not without a tinge of humour, that the first signs of definite religious practices coincide with the introduction of agriculture, and brewing. You are starting to see some parallels, aren’t you? That is why, given the nature of the text of Early Genesis (which has an almost mythopoeic feel to it, but by myth I don’t mean invention) one could infer the drawing on pre- to early history in the writings of Genesis. If you were to read the other link I posted (@114), ansdet it within this cultural and environmental background, a lot of things start jumping out at you.

    As to Adam: I replied to BW on that subject back at #63.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kerner,

    Worldwide flood: Not physically possible, lack of evidence, etc.

    Neolithic: Yes there is a broad correspondence, in that Abraham is post-neolithic, ie Bronze Age. Therefore what happened before is broadly Neolithic. Culturally and technologically the Neolithic essentially started with the introduction of agriculture. Geologically this coincided with the end of the Last Ice Age, which was a time of great environmental change, sea-level rises etc. Humans had already migrated to this continent during the latter part of the ice age – lower sea levels opened up a non-glaciated, coastal route. But with the retreat of the glaciers, a lot of stuff started happening.

    I mentioned agriculture. Interestingly, we now also have the first evidence of brewing (from North Eastern China), set around 10000 BC. And, as some archaeologists noted, not without a tinge of humour, that the first signs of definite religious practices coincide with the introduction of agriculture, and brewing. You are starting to see some parallels, aren’t you? That is why, given the nature of the text of Early Genesis (which has an almost mythopoeic feel to it, but by myth I don’t mean invention) one could infer the drawing on pre- to early history in the writings of Genesis. If you were to read the other link I posted (@114), ansdet it within this cultural and environmental background, a lot of things start jumping out at you.

    As to Adam: I replied to BW on that subject back at #63.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Postscript to Larry:

    You commit a very obvious fallacy – the one some call “me and my bible all alone”. Except you are never alone – reading and comprehension are culturally determined. Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity.

    If we want to honour Scripture, we must take this into account. The style of writing (poetry, prose, law, something else) is important. So is the cultural and linguistic context. And so is our own philosophical baggage and lenses. While we cannot be absolutely neutral (such a thing does not exist), we can take our own predispositions into account.

    So to say (or imply) the “plain Words of Scripture” is a red herring. Plain to you, and plain to an uneducated Third World individual, and plain to Chinese factory worker, and plain to one of the lost tribes in the Amazon, and plain to an Oxford academic, are never going to be the same.

    Such is the folly of the fundamentalist who worships the Text, and not the Author of the Text.

    Nay, if we honour Scripture, we cannot be simplistic with it, and we ought to be very circumspect about interpreting it, keeping the above in mind. Otherwise we essentially treat Scripture as the Muslims treat the Koran, or the Mormons their Book of Mormon.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Postscript to Larry:

    You commit a very obvious fallacy – the one some call “me and my bible all alone”. Except you are never alone – reading and comprehension are culturally determined. Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity.

    If we want to honour Scripture, we must take this into account. The style of writing (poetry, prose, law, something else) is important. So is the cultural and linguistic context. And so is our own philosophical baggage and lenses. While we cannot be absolutely neutral (such a thing does not exist), we can take our own predispositions into account.

    So to say (or imply) the “plain Words of Scripture” is a red herring. Plain to you, and plain to an uneducated Third World individual, and plain to Chinese factory worker, and plain to one of the lost tribes in the Amazon, and plain to an Oxford academic, are never going to be the same.

    Such is the folly of the fundamentalist who worships the Text, and not the Author of the Text.

    Nay, if we honour Scripture, we cannot be simplistic with it, and we ought to be very circumspect about interpreting it, keeping the above in mind. Otherwise we essentially treat Scripture as the Muslims treat the Koran, or the Mormons their Book of Mormon.

  • Booklover

    And the wonderful thing is, we are free to ponder truth wherever we find it. These words of Leakey’s appear to have biblical truth:

    “that we are all African, that color is superficial”

    We are also free to ponder untruth, as Tom @13 pointed out.

  • Booklover

    And the wonderful thing is, we are free to ponder truth wherever we find it. These words of Leakey’s appear to have biblical truth:

    “that we are all African, that color is superficial”

    We are also free to ponder untruth, as Tom @13 pointed out.

  • larry

    And AGAIN KK resorts to basically “you are stupid” ad homenims.

    Has nothing to do with love KK, but faith. As Luther says, love gives all, if you need help and I can, I’ll give it. Faith surrenders nothing and draws its sword and thus we don’t worship the same and as far as you remain where you are never shall.

    But thanks, you basically made my point for me with your pliable scripture, pliable god and pliable other jesus and pliable other gospel:

    “Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity”.

    Basically your arguments boil down to “the truth is there is no truth” or “the truth is all truths are true”.

    Let’s apply KK’s genius:

    Bob hands his needy friend some money and writes in a journal to record the event later, “Today before work I gave my best friend a thousand dollars and said, “this is money for you” and he recieved it.”

    KK the brilliant exegete later using his genious ,q>Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity exegetical method then expounds the letter found decades later thus:

    Bob means to say “this represents money” or maybe Bob means to be making a point rather than stating the facts of what happened and we “learn a lesson by it”.

    Given your exegetical method I suppose I could expound all your writing on evolution and say, “Well KK really means to say by evolution he is using a metaphor or allegory and really means to say created.” Since words don’t really mean anything objective.

    KK, you wreak of subjectivity and enthusiam and find yourself no different than the enthusiam of the Pope in which the interpretation of the objective Word of God is given from within your own heart…whether you know it or not THAT is original sin.

    The Bible of course predicts this in the false teachings and false teachers.

  • larry

    And AGAIN KK resorts to basically “you are stupid” ad homenims.

    Has nothing to do with love KK, but faith. As Luther says, love gives all, if you need help and I can, I’ll give it. Faith surrenders nothing and draws its sword and thus we don’t worship the same and as far as you remain where you are never shall.

    But thanks, you basically made my point for me with your pliable scripture, pliable god and pliable other jesus and pliable other gospel:

    “Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity”.

    Basically your arguments boil down to “the truth is there is no truth” or “the truth is all truths are true”.

    Let’s apply KK’s genius:

    Bob hands his needy friend some money and writes in a journal to record the event later, “Today before work I gave my best friend a thousand dollars and said, “this is money for you” and he recieved it.”

    KK the brilliant exegete later using his genious ,q>Two folks can read the same line, and depending on their own frame of references, come to diametrically opposite results. To ignore this fact is to give in to a simple, modernist, mechanistic view of the worlds, and of humanity exegetical method then expounds the letter found decades later thus:

    Bob means to say “this represents money” or maybe Bob means to be making a point rather than stating the facts of what happened and we “learn a lesson by it”.

    Given your exegetical method I suppose I could expound all your writing on evolution and say, “Well KK really means to say by evolution he is using a metaphor or allegory and really means to say created.” Since words don’t really mean anything objective.

    KK, you wreak of subjectivity and enthusiam and find yourself no different than the enthusiam of the Pope in which the interpretation of the objective Word of God is given from within your own heart…whether you know it or not THAT is original sin.

    The Bible of course predicts this in the false teachings and false teachers.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    You YEC are hypocrites unless you also take the Bible literally and accept that the Sun revolves around the Earth as is plainly revealed in scripture.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    You YEC are hypocrites unless you also take the Bible literally and accept that the Sun revolves around the Earth as is plainly revealed in scripture.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, let me put it nicely to you:

    You have placed your faith not in God, but in correct doctrine, according to Master Larry, without even willing to consider anything else but your bloated sense of self importance. No debate, just infallible announcements from pope Larry.

    Get off my case!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, let me put it nicely to you:

    You have placed your faith not in God, but in correct doctrine, according to Master Larry, without even willing to consider anything else but your bloated sense of self importance. No debate, just infallible announcements from pope Larry.

    Get off my case!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, Larry, it appeared in past debates that of the Lutheran clergy frequenting this site, some are literalists, some are non-literalists, and some are in between. Are you going to stand up and accuse those pastors disagreeing with you of gross heresy??

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, Larry, it appeared in past debates that of the Lutheran clergy frequenting this site, some are literalists, some are non-literalists, and some are in between. Are you going to stand up and accuse those pastors disagreeing with you of gross heresy??

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SAL, not to forget the fact that the earth is standing on pillars, too.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SAL, not to forget the fact that the earth is standing on pillars, too.

  • larry

    KK,

    No I put my faith in the Word of God, which is God. To be like the pope I’d have to be like you and interpret the scriptures out of the pit of my subjective heart and establish articles of faith upon that. This was the common link between the Pope and the enthusiasts that Luther noted. It shifted from the Pope’s ex cathedra declaration to the “peasant’s” out of the heart. The peasant became the new pope, just many of them.

    But doctrine places articles of faith ONLY on the Word of God, the very essence of sola fide and sola scriptura. Thus, when Christ, i.e. God, i.e. the Word, said, “This is My body” (the Word of God) an article of faith is established that faith alone looks to and “sees” (reason cannot it must be subdued by the Word and faith on such, things above, as Luther put it). Same with the Trinity, the two natures, creation, the virgin birth, justification, the ressurrection and the like. That’s what you fail to see and excuse as “literalism”.

    And yes, even if a Lutheran pastor rejects the articles of faith, he is not to be listened to. Luther and the confessions establish this based upon Christ’s command that “you will know them (false teachers) by their fruits (the fruits of their teaching) and the sheep will not listen to them”.

    I have plainly said on articles of faith for example “this is My body”, these are the Words of God, not mine. Your problem is really not with me but the Word itself that you reject. “Represents” or similar does not exist there nor in Genesis, that’s an INSERTION you make.

    Now if I had doctrinally insisted upon “represents” or “allegory” or “symbol” or “sign” on an article of faith established on the Word of God, THEN your accusation would be true. But I have not.

  • larry

    KK,

    No I put my faith in the Word of God, which is God. To be like the pope I’d have to be like you and interpret the scriptures out of the pit of my subjective heart and establish articles of faith upon that. This was the common link between the Pope and the enthusiasts that Luther noted. It shifted from the Pope’s ex cathedra declaration to the “peasant’s” out of the heart. The peasant became the new pope, just many of them.

    But doctrine places articles of faith ONLY on the Word of God, the very essence of sola fide and sola scriptura. Thus, when Christ, i.e. God, i.e. the Word, said, “This is My body” (the Word of God) an article of faith is established that faith alone looks to and “sees” (reason cannot it must be subdued by the Word and faith on such, things above, as Luther put it). Same with the Trinity, the two natures, creation, the virgin birth, justification, the ressurrection and the like. That’s what you fail to see and excuse as “literalism”.

    And yes, even if a Lutheran pastor rejects the articles of faith, he is not to be listened to. Luther and the confessions establish this based upon Christ’s command that “you will know them (false teachers) by their fruits (the fruits of their teaching) and the sheep will not listen to them”.

    I have plainly said on articles of faith for example “this is My body”, these are the Words of God, not mine. Your problem is really not with me but the Word itself that you reject. “Represents” or similar does not exist there nor in Genesis, that’s an INSERTION you make.

    Now if I had doctrinally insisted upon “represents” or “allegory” or “symbol” or “sign” on an article of faith established on the Word of God, THEN your accusation would be true. But I have not.

  • larry

    And out goes the red herring again, the orbital of the earth is NOT an article of faith. It must be an article of faith established on the Word. Not common perspective language that even modern weathermen still use, ironically Baptist seem to miss this with the whole “going down and coming up” in baptism, since water by the laws of physics flows down hill.

    In anycase red herring, the orbit of the earth is not an article of faith (that’s conveniently forgotten) so no hypocrisy at all.

  • larry

    And out goes the red herring again, the orbital of the earth is NOT an article of faith. It must be an article of faith established on the Word. Not common perspective language that even modern weathermen still use, ironically Baptist seem to miss this with the whole “going down and coming up” in baptism, since water by the laws of physics flows down hill.

    In anycase red herring, the orbit of the earth is not an article of faith (that’s conveniently forgotten) so no hypocrisy at all.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sigh. Time for a coffee. If I was home, I’d upgrade that to beer, or something a little more potent.

    Anybody else?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sigh. Time for a coffee. If I was home, I’d upgrade that to beer, or something a little more potent.

    Anybody else?

  • DonS

    Well, maybe this thread has hopelessly gone off the rails with the invective and personal attacks I’ve seen in the past few comments. But I did want to raise one issue — I saw it raised above by someone, but no one on the evolutionary side of this argument noted or addressed it.

    I’m kind of with the position I saw Kerner expressed above — I am a literal six-day creationist because that’s what Genesis says, and I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. I’m not smart enough to parse out where a Scriptural account is literal and where it is simply poetic. However, I will allow, and accept, that a good many wonderful and God fearing Christians believe otherwise, on the basis of the scientific evidence at hand, concerning the geologic age of the earth and the universe.

    My real difficulty comes with those who do not believe that man was created in his present form, but rather evolved from other life forms. The issue is that Scripture is very clear that original sin brought physical death to this world, and Genesis is also very clear that man, namely Adam, in God’s image, committed that sin. Since the evolutionary process necessarily requires physical death, how could man have been created in anything other than his present form if there was no physical death prior to original sin?

  • DonS

    Well, maybe this thread has hopelessly gone off the rails with the invective and personal attacks I’ve seen in the past few comments. But I did want to raise one issue — I saw it raised above by someone, but no one on the evolutionary side of this argument noted or addressed it.

    I’m kind of with the position I saw Kerner expressed above — I am a literal six-day creationist because that’s what Genesis says, and I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. I’m not smart enough to parse out where a Scriptural account is literal and where it is simply poetic. However, I will allow, and accept, that a good many wonderful and God fearing Christians believe otherwise, on the basis of the scientific evidence at hand, concerning the geologic age of the earth and the universe.

    My real difficulty comes with those who do not believe that man was created in his present form, but rather evolved from other life forms. The issue is that Scripture is very clear that original sin brought physical death to this world, and Genesis is also very clear that man, namely Adam, in God’s image, committed that sin. Since the evolutionary process necessarily requires physical death, how could man have been created in anything other than his present form if there was no physical death prior to original sin?

  • Dust

    What Larry says :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    What Larry says :)

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DonS – consider this question:

    Christ defeated death, right? So, why do we still die? So the question becomes which death did He defeat, and by extension, which death was introduced by Adam’s sin, be he (Adam) real or representative?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    DonS – consider this question:

    Christ defeated death, right? So, why do we still die? So the question becomes which death did He defeat, and by extension, which death was introduced by Adam’s sin, be he (Adam) real or representative?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, I said what I said in #181, due to being continually anathemitzed (is that a word?) by Larry, and accused of heresy left right and center.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BTW, I said what I said in #181, due to being continually anathemitzed (is that a word?) by Larry, and accused of heresy left right and center.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And, another btw, thanks for not calling me a hopeless heretic too. Appreciated ;)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And, another btw, thanks for not calling me a hopeless heretic too. Appreciated ;)

  • BW

    KK @189

    We are mortal sinners. Christ defeated both the spiritual death and the death of the mortal body. Adam introduced both forms of death.

  • BW

    KK @189

    We are mortal sinners. Christ defeated both the spiritual death and the death of the mortal body. Adam introduced both forms of death.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW – so why do we still die? Even when we partake of the Eucharist, which brings spiritual life, being the True Body and blood?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW – so why do we still die? Even when we partake of the Eucharist, which brings spiritual life, being the True Body and blood?

  • BW

    God takes the horrible thing called death and uses it for good. Through death now, we end our trials and toils in this life and go to be with the Almighty. Christ has not yet returned to reverse the effects of the death of mortals, like He did with His own death.

  • BW

    God takes the horrible thing called death and uses it for good. Through death now, we end our trials and toils in this life and go to be with the Almighty. Christ has not yet returned to reverse the effects of the death of mortals, like He did with His own death.

  • Klasie Kraalogies
  • Klasie Kraalogies
  • LT

    KK

    The Eucharist preserves us in Christ and keeps us in the one true religion. We still die because we still have sin. Jesus did not remove our sin, but died for it.

    It amazed me how many people commented that are not creationists the question was for them not for the evolutionists or the theistic evolutionists. It does not surprise me they would come out though since no evidence will convince them that evolution is false. Both views require an authority one view (theistic evolution and evolution) depends on fallible man, the other is based on the God-man, the conquerer of death and the graves, Jesus Christ. He says that the creation story is literal so I’m listening to him. Plus The evolutionists never can show that their theory is actually based upon a verifiable scientific experiment and it surely is not axiomatic. We don’t live that long to test it, therefore it’s speculation and fallacioud since it would commit the hasty generalization fallacy.

  • LT

    KK

    The Eucharist preserves us in Christ and keeps us in the one true religion. We still die because we still have sin. Jesus did not remove our sin, but died for it.

    It amazed me how many people commented that are not creationists the question was for them not for the evolutionists or the theistic evolutionists. It does not surprise me they would come out though since no evidence will convince them that evolution is false. Both views require an authority one view (theistic evolution and evolution) depends on fallible man, the other is based on the God-man, the conquerer of death and the graves, Jesus Christ. He says that the creation story is literal so I’m listening to him. Plus The evolutionists never can show that their theory is actually based upon a verifiable scientific experiment and it surely is not axiomatic. We don’t live that long to test it, therefore it’s speculation and fallacioud since it would commit the hasty generalization fallacy.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW:

    The requirement here seems to be absolute symmetry then: Adam brought death, and since Christ brings spiritual life now, and then, immortal life at the Eschaton (which you then interpret as immortal physical life – but Paul goes into a lot of detail about physical bodies, and spiritual bodies, see the whole passage in I Cor 15), therefore Adam had to bring physical death.

    I think this requirement of absolute symmetry goes beyond the intention of the author, and could be construed as a supra-textual homoletical construct – ie not deriving from the Text, but from a specific interpretive philosophy.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BW:

    The requirement here seems to be absolute symmetry then: Adam brought death, and since Christ brings spiritual life now, and then, immortal life at the Eschaton (which you then interpret as immortal physical life – but Paul goes into a lot of detail about physical bodies, and spiritual bodies, see the whole passage in I Cor 15), therefore Adam had to bring physical death.

    I think this requirement of absolute symmetry goes beyond the intention of the author, and could be construed as a supra-textual homoletical construct – ie not deriving from the Text, but from a specific interpretive philosophy.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    LT – the epistemological constraints you introduce will effectively take away all knowledge prior to your own coming to reason. It is quite artificial, and differs from postmodernist critiques of all knowledge only by degree.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    LT – the epistemological constraints you introduce will effectively take away all knowledge prior to your own coming to reason. It is quite artificial, and differs from postmodernist critiques of all knowledge only by degree.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Here’s the deal though. If we strip away the debate about issues, and get to the heart of it, (and here I actually need to commend Larry, because he sort of touched on it), we are down to epistemology.

    The Creationists here essentially say – do not trust man’s reason, trust God’s reason! OK, but when you read Scripture, do you not use Reason at all? I mean, the action of reading depends very much on reason, logic and a priori knowledge, doesn’t it? You need to know what the words mean, and that you had to learn from somewhere, within a context. You probably already know how to distinguish poetry from prose, right? That is a priori knowledge isn’t it? And you apply reason by taking the words that you read, yes, and applying the concepts you have to those words, right?

    Thus, there is no “reason-less” comprehension of God’s Word, is there? Thus, there is also the possibility that your reason could be faulty, yes? Or your knowledge limited (say you have never seen horses, sheep or goats, and thus would be at a loss to understand a lot of things).

    Thus an attack on Reason is an attack on yourself. And an attack on God, because He gave us a book, not some mystic knowledge that can just be faultlessly absorbed.

    See the irony? Attacks on Reason is in effect proto-gnosticism.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Here’s the deal though. If we strip away the debate about issues, and get to the heart of it, (and here I actually need to commend Larry, because he sort of touched on it), we are down to epistemology.

    The Creationists here essentially say – do not trust man’s reason, trust God’s reason! OK, but when you read Scripture, do you not use Reason at all? I mean, the action of reading depends very much on reason, logic and a priori knowledge, doesn’t it? You need to know what the words mean, and that you had to learn from somewhere, within a context. You probably already know how to distinguish poetry from prose, right? That is a priori knowledge isn’t it? And you apply reason by taking the words that you read, yes, and applying the concepts you have to those words, right?

    Thus, there is no “reason-less” comprehension of God’s Word, is there? Thus, there is also the possibility that your reason could be faulty, yes? Or your knowledge limited (say you have never seen horses, sheep or goats, and thus would be at a loss to understand a lot of things).

    Thus an attack on Reason is an attack on yourself. And an attack on God, because He gave us a book, not some mystic knowledge that can just be faultlessly absorbed.

    See the irony? Attacks on Reason is in effect proto-gnosticism.

  • Grace

    Larry @ 174

    I just read your post. I’m stunned by your comments and humbled. I want to read it again, and then make a few remarks regarding the sacraments.

    God’s blessings to you

  • Grace

    Larry @ 174

    I just read your post. I’m stunned by your comments and humbled. I want to read it again, and then make a few remarks regarding the sacraments.

    God’s blessings to you

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Continued from#199: I am reminded of the common meme one finds from Protestant converts to Rome or Orthodoxy! See, they say, Sola Scriptura brings chaos. You cannot trust yourself or Reason, you must just accept some higher authority!

    Except that taking up that challenge, and deciding to trust in some other authority, is as much an act of individual reason than just reading Scripture. It really is quite ridiculous…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Continued from#199: I am reminded of the common meme one finds from Protestant converts to Rome or Orthodoxy! See, they say, Sola Scriptura brings chaos. You cannot trust yourself or Reason, you must just accept some higher authority!

    Except that taking up that challenge, and deciding to trust in some other authority, is as much an act of individual reason than just reading Scripture. It really is quite ridiculous…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    LT, btw, Theistic Evolution is in essence also a form of Creationism. It is just not Young Earth Creationism. So your cheap shots miss the mark….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    LT, btw, Theistic Evolution is in essence also a form of Creationism. It is just not Young Earth Creationism. So your cheap shots miss the mark….

  • Dust

    yes KK, ridiculous…..perhaps foolish! but it’s god’s foolishness and it beats man’s wisdom every time :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    yes KK, ridiculous…..perhaps foolish! but it’s god’s foolishness and it beats man’s wisdom every time :)

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, it appears that you are confused. Ridiculous applied to the Rome/Orthodoxy story. And you apparently bypassed my whole comment at #199.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Dust, it appears that you are confused. Ridiculous applied to the Rome/Orthodoxy story. And you apparently bypassed my whole comment at #199.

  • Grace

    8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

    11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
    Isaiah 55

  • Grace

    8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

    11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
    Isaiah 55

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And just to confuse everybody, I’ll quote Chesterton here, from the Story “The Blue Cross”:

    But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.”

    “What?” asked the thief, almost gaping.

    “You attacked reason,” said Father Brown. “It’s bad theology.”

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And just to confuse everybody, I’ll quote Chesterton here, from the Story “The Blue Cross”:

    But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.”

    “What?” asked the thief, almost gaping.

    “You attacked reason,” said Father Brown. “It’s bad theology.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I appreciate that DonS (#187) started off with “However, I will allow, and accept, that a good many wonderful and God fearing Christians believe otherwise” regarding the age of the earth. Thank you.

    DonS continued by saying “Scripture is very clear that original sin brought physical death to this world,” and I’d like to point out again that this is nowhere taught in Scripture. As I pointed out back in comment #25, none of the passages used to “prove” that animals did not die before the fall (e.g. Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) actually say anything at all about animals.

    I’ve developed this a little further at http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/death-before-the-fall-an-old-earth-biblical-perspective/

    So, did animals die before Adam sinned? The Bible does not say.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I appreciate that DonS (#187) started off with “However, I will allow, and accept, that a good many wonderful and God fearing Christians believe otherwise” regarding the age of the earth. Thank you.

    DonS continued by saying “Scripture is very clear that original sin brought physical death to this world,” and I’d like to point out again that this is nowhere taught in Scripture. As I pointed out back in comment #25, none of the passages used to “prove” that animals did not die before the fall (e.g. Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) actually say anything at all about animals.

    I’ve developed this a little further at http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/death-before-the-fall-an-old-earth-biblical-perspective/

    So, did animals die before Adam sinned? The Bible does not say.

  • Grace

    KK @206

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1 Corinthians 1:21

  • Grace

    KK @206

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1 Corinthians 1:21

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And before someone throws that sharp-worded quote of Luther on reason about, let me remind you of the context. Luther was speaking of the tendency of humans to want to work for their salvation. He wasn’t holding forth on rationality as a whole.

    And as to Grace’s Isaiah quote at 205, much of the same could be said there. While the nation’s leaders were pursuing “the good life” (Isaiah 56), God ‘d holds forth abetter life by offering them salvation, a return to Him. Those are, in effect, radical different thoughts. This is, once again, not an attack on Reason as such.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And before someone throws that sharp-worded quote of Luther on reason about, let me remind you of the context. Luther was speaking of the tendency of humans to want to work for their salvation. He wasn’t holding forth on rationality as a whole.

    And as to Grace’s Isaiah quote at 205, much of the same could be said there. While the nation’s leaders were pursuing “the good life” (Isaiah 56), God ‘d holds forth abetter life by offering them salvation, a return to Him. Those are, in effect, radical different thoughts. This is, once again, not an attack on Reason as such.

  • Jon

    DonS @187,

    Not to mention that Genesis clearly says that God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living person.

    Read that literally, poetically, ancient near-eastern, whatever, but there is no room in that description for millions of years of molecules, to ape, to man.

    Unless you take Kevin N’s position of theistic evolution that conjectures a devine intervention at the point of Adam’s specific creation.

  • Jon

    DonS @187,

    Not to mention that Genesis clearly says that God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living person.

    Read that literally, poetically, ancient near-eastern, whatever, but there is no room in that description for millions of years of molecules, to ape, to man.

    Unless you take Kevin N’s position of theistic evolution that conjectures a devine intervention at the point of Adam’s specific creation.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace – the 1 Corinthians text again is taken out of context. Paul is speaking first of the difference between the pagan mind, who accepted the words of someone based on the societal status (See the previous chapter). Paganism then was a religion of immense pride. Christ’s message cuts across this, because it comes in humility, offering salvation to everyone, irrespective of who they are (a truly radical notion back then, and seen as quite foolish). God’s messge is based on faith, not achievement or status, is what Paul says.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace – the 1 Corinthians text again is taken out of context. Paul is speaking first of the difference between the pagan mind, who accepted the words of someone based on the societal status (See the previous chapter). Paganism then was a religion of immense pride. Christ’s message cuts across this, because it comes in humility, offering salvation to everyone, irrespective of who they are (a truly radical notion back then, and seen as quite foolish). God’s messge is based on faith, not achievement or status, is what Paul says.

  • larry

    Thank you Grace and God’s blessing to you as well!

  • larry

    Thank you Grace and God’s blessing to you as well!

  • larry

    KK,

    First, as I’ve said, none of this is personal. You should not equate calling false false with a personal attack like “I think you stink because you are ugly” (example only for clarity). I always make that clear.

    To that end, I’d have beer or stronger with you anytime and thoroughly enjoy the conversation. I’m enjoying this and not in a negative way.

    Now, in your last few posts, I do commend you as hitting on the issues rather than just saying literalist. Two really stood out to me and we can talk about these I think. And these two that I will discuss will directly connect.

    First, the use of reason. I thought I had cleared this up, Lutherans constantly have to do this because others seem to rightly or wrongly “hear” something else (sometimes its due to lack of information). Simple enough to clarify from a number of directions. First, confessionally. In the Sm. Cat. On the Apostle’s Creed (one of our confession with the church universal) and by extension the Nicene Creed, also a confession of ours Luther lays out “what these articles mean”. These confession break down into three parts being Trinitarian by structure. “I believe in God the Father, almighty maker of heaven and earth” (1st Article) on God the Father and Creation. Here we see how Luther lauds reason when he states that this article means: “I believe that God made me and all creatures, that he has given me my body and soul, eye, ears and all my member, my reason and all my senses and still takes care of them. Then concerning reason as to the faith in article 3 on the Holy Spirit, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel (Word), enlightened me with His gifts (Word and Sacraments) and kept me in the one true faith….” Like ALL the gifts of creation they are good, indeed the benediction of God says, “very good”. But like all these same gifts, fallen man, now uses them in the service of Satan and his fallen nature. The higher and greater the gift as “very good” in creation, the more evil it is in service to Satan. E.g. A parent is one of the highest trusted good treasures of a child. A parent that betrays their child is a far greater evil than a complete stranger doing the same thing. So that in one sense we can laud the parent and in the other condemn them as most egregiously evil. Just like men abuse the other gifts such as food and drink, marriage and intimacy – wonderfully good gifts turned to evil. In the same way is reason. In fact Luther, and Lutherans, including myself say that reason is the HIGHEST and greatest of God’s gifts to His creature in creation. But as the highest it becomes most dangerous and evil, usurping the very Word of God Himself. In fact for reason to be good and of the highest it must come underneath the Word and faith (faith is what man lost because he lost the Word of God for other words, i.e. Satan’s). Which brings us to the second point you well alluded to, death.

    We are far too given over to think of death in shear mechanistic bodily terms. This is not correct. Adam and Eve DID die immediately, then died again physically, the damned die yet again eternally. Death is not mere cessation of the physical properties, that is paganism. Death in all of its forms is the separation from the blessings of God. There is the death of the body which separates us from the physical blessings of God, our bodies and the created things. These are in the dying constant continuation. Adam and Eve did not immediately consummate this death, it came later as it does for most of us after birth, but we are born dying, i.e. being ever more separated from the earthly/physical blessings of God. We start to see it more, for most of us as we age and hit around 40 or 50. Slowly one cannot even enjoy certain blessings from God due to our dying bodies so separating from His earthly blessings. From the most simple, can’t eat pizza like I use to, to worse, lying in bed with months to go dying of cancer. But Adam and Eve did die immediately, the died the death and lost immediately upon the very original sin itself the spiritual blessings of God and no longer retained the knowledge of God (this is what we get back in Christ, and why it is constantly referenced as spiritual versus flesh, e.g. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood, HAS eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day…the flesh is good for nothing, these words are spirit”. The knowledge of God regained in Christ, the forgiveness of sins actually, blessed is this man says David whom Paul quotes. The spiritual blessing regained, spiritual LIFE gained again in Christ as opposed to the spiritual death in the fall of original sin (exchanging God’s Word for other words/Satan’s). Thus, immediately upon the very original sin did Adam and Eve die and all mankind with them, spiritual death (the loss of the spiritual blessings of God) to which physical death (the loss of the earthly/physical blessings) follows. Then there is the final death, eternal, the loss of the eternal blessings of God into hell forever Vs. the gaining of eternal life, the eternal blessings of God forever. It is in the loss of the spiritual blessings of God (= the knowledge of God, His will, etc…=spiritual death) that man’s fallen reason, if not subdued by the Spirit via the Word of God (the 3rd Article Confession) that reason becomes the famous “devil’s mistress” and the devil’s greatest ally.

    Thus, in the simplest example I can put forth when the Word of God said, “this is My body…etc…” He is giving us the spiritual blessing, literally and through the Word the Spirit creates faith and these inform and rule over reason. Reason then becomes, again, the greatest ally of Christ and the finest gift of God again. But the Word is God and faith is next, then reason. If Satan’s words enter again into the mix and reason is drawn to them like a man to a prostitutes leg, then reason is the ally of Satan and will war against faith and the Word saying, “represents” thus usurping, just like in original sin faith and finally its goal the Word itself (and literally Christ who as Word IS King of Kings). Thus, remaining in spiritual death having literally just rejected the spiritual blessing, literally rejected it out right.

    So you hit on two HUGE and I mean HUGE connected and key elements in the discussion.

  • larry

    KK,

    First, as I’ve said, none of this is personal. You should not equate calling false false with a personal attack like “I think you stink because you are ugly” (example only for clarity). I always make that clear.

    To that end, I’d have beer or stronger with you anytime and thoroughly enjoy the conversation. I’m enjoying this and not in a negative way.

    Now, in your last few posts, I do commend you as hitting on the issues rather than just saying literalist. Two really stood out to me and we can talk about these I think. And these two that I will discuss will directly connect.

    First, the use of reason. I thought I had cleared this up, Lutherans constantly have to do this because others seem to rightly or wrongly “hear” something else (sometimes its due to lack of information). Simple enough to clarify from a number of directions. First, confessionally. In the Sm. Cat. On the Apostle’s Creed (one of our confession with the church universal) and by extension the Nicene Creed, also a confession of ours Luther lays out “what these articles mean”. These confession break down into three parts being Trinitarian by structure. “I believe in God the Father, almighty maker of heaven and earth” (1st Article) on God the Father and Creation. Here we see how Luther lauds reason when he states that this article means: “I believe that God made me and all creatures, that he has given me my body and soul, eye, ears and all my member, my reason and all my senses and still takes care of them. Then concerning reason as to the faith in article 3 on the Holy Spirit, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel (Word), enlightened me with His gifts (Word and Sacraments) and kept me in the one true faith….” Like ALL the gifts of creation they are good, indeed the benediction of God says, “very good”. But like all these same gifts, fallen man, now uses them in the service of Satan and his fallen nature. The higher and greater the gift as “very good” in creation, the more evil it is in service to Satan. E.g. A parent is one of the highest trusted good treasures of a child. A parent that betrays their child is a far greater evil than a complete stranger doing the same thing. So that in one sense we can laud the parent and in the other condemn them as most egregiously evil. Just like men abuse the other gifts such as food and drink, marriage and intimacy – wonderfully good gifts turned to evil. In the same way is reason. In fact Luther, and Lutherans, including myself say that reason is the HIGHEST and greatest of God’s gifts to His creature in creation. But as the highest it becomes most dangerous and evil, usurping the very Word of God Himself. In fact for reason to be good and of the highest it must come underneath the Word and faith (faith is what man lost because he lost the Word of God for other words, i.e. Satan’s). Which brings us to the second point you well alluded to, death.

    We are far too given over to think of death in shear mechanistic bodily terms. This is not correct. Adam and Eve DID die immediately, then died again physically, the damned die yet again eternally. Death is not mere cessation of the physical properties, that is paganism. Death in all of its forms is the separation from the blessings of God. There is the death of the body which separates us from the physical blessings of God, our bodies and the created things. These are in the dying constant continuation. Adam and Eve did not immediately consummate this death, it came later as it does for most of us after birth, but we are born dying, i.e. being ever more separated from the earthly/physical blessings of God. We start to see it more, for most of us as we age and hit around 40 or 50. Slowly one cannot even enjoy certain blessings from God due to our dying bodies so separating from His earthly blessings. From the most simple, can’t eat pizza like I use to, to worse, lying in bed with months to go dying of cancer. But Adam and Eve did die immediately, the died the death and lost immediately upon the very original sin itself the spiritual blessings of God and no longer retained the knowledge of God (this is what we get back in Christ, and why it is constantly referenced as spiritual versus flesh, e.g. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood, HAS eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day…the flesh is good for nothing, these words are spirit”. The knowledge of God regained in Christ, the forgiveness of sins actually, blessed is this man says David whom Paul quotes. The spiritual blessing regained, spiritual LIFE gained again in Christ as opposed to the spiritual death in the fall of original sin (exchanging God’s Word for other words/Satan’s). Thus, immediately upon the very original sin did Adam and Eve die and all mankind with them, spiritual death (the loss of the spiritual blessings of God) to which physical death (the loss of the earthly/physical blessings) follows. Then there is the final death, eternal, the loss of the eternal blessings of God into hell forever Vs. the gaining of eternal life, the eternal blessings of God forever. It is in the loss of the spiritual blessings of God (= the knowledge of God, His will, etc…=spiritual death) that man’s fallen reason, if not subdued by the Spirit via the Word of God (the 3rd Article Confession) that reason becomes the famous “devil’s mistress” and the devil’s greatest ally.

    Thus, in the simplest example I can put forth when the Word of God said, “this is My body…etc…” He is giving us the spiritual blessing, literally and through the Word the Spirit creates faith and these inform and rule over reason. Reason then becomes, again, the greatest ally of Christ and the finest gift of God again. But the Word is God and faith is next, then reason. If Satan’s words enter again into the mix and reason is drawn to them like a man to a prostitutes leg, then reason is the ally of Satan and will war against faith and the Word saying, “represents” thus usurping, just like in original sin faith and finally its goal the Word itself (and literally Christ who as Word IS King of Kings). Thus, remaining in spiritual death having literally just rejected the spiritual blessing, literally rejected it out right.

    So you hit on two HUGE and I mean HUGE connected and key elements in the discussion.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    But Larry, you cannot comprehend, understand, absorb the Word of God without reason – I’ll refer you to my comment at 199. Luther’s comments regarding Reason in the SC is to be seen in context, namely that we cannot earn our salvation – for mental understanding is taken by many (especially Baptists, and some Calvinists) as a prerequisite for salvation, and thus becomes a work. I think you are decontextualizing here, similar to my comment at #209.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    But Larry, you cannot comprehend, understand, absorb the Word of God without reason – I’ll refer you to my comment at 199. Luther’s comments regarding Reason in the SC is to be seen in context, namely that we cannot earn our salvation – for mental understanding is taken by many (especially Baptists, and some Calvinists) as a prerequisite for salvation, and thus becomes a work. I think you are decontextualizing here, similar to my comment at #209.

  • Grace

    KK,

    No I have not taken the passage out of context.

    RE: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1 Corinthians 1:21

    Man believes in his wisdom, his rationale, rather than God’s Word, be it in Genesis regarding Eve and Satan, or when Christ was preaching – that’s the whole problem.

    Eve accepted the lie from Satan, because she wanted to taste the fruit, and she was interested in what eating the fruit might bring to her – she bought the lie, just like man buys the lie today. He can’t accept the POWER of ALMIGHTY God.

    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

    8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

    9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

    10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
    Genesis 3

    KK, how much there is to be learned by this passage – it represents a command by God unto man – Eve wanting to taste that which was forbidden, with the lure of her “eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” – - that’s a terrifying wish, to be as a god, knowing the true ALMIIGHTY God. But she ate it anyway, and then offered it to Adam.

    In the same way, God sent HIS Son to earth to give his life a ransom for all who would believe. Man still mocks, cannot believe this could be true, cannot understand there is a real hell.

    Mans so called WISDOM, is foolish, the deciever (Satan) continues to lure man to disbelieve God’s Word. Even to the point of the very beginning, found in Genesis. There are millions upon millions of Eve’s and Adam’s who continue to turn their back on the truth.

    Taking you back to the passage in 1 Corinthians:

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God

    Those who disobey God do not know HIM. They can’t take HIM at HIS Word, but rather use their little man minds to contort Scripture, and argue with God’s mighty power.

    HE is from EVERLASTING.

  • Grace

    KK,

    No I have not taken the passage out of context.

    RE: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1 Corinthians 1:21

    Man believes in his wisdom, his rationale, rather than God’s Word, be it in Genesis regarding Eve and Satan, or when Christ was preaching – that’s the whole problem.

    Eve accepted the lie from Satan, because she wanted to taste the fruit, and she was interested in what eating the fruit might bring to her – she bought the lie, just like man buys the lie today. He can’t accept the POWER of ALMIGHTY God.

    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

    8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

    9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

    10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
    Genesis 3

    KK, how much there is to be learned by this passage – it represents a command by God unto man – Eve wanting to taste that which was forbidden, with the lure of her “eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” – - that’s a terrifying wish, to be as a god, knowing the true ALMIIGHTY God. But she ate it anyway, and then offered it to Adam.

    In the same way, God sent HIS Son to earth to give his life a ransom for all who would believe. Man still mocks, cannot believe this could be true, cannot understand there is a real hell.

    Mans so called WISDOM, is foolish, the deciever (Satan) continues to lure man to disbelieve God’s Word. Even to the point of the very beginning, found in Genesis. There are millions upon millions of Eve’s and Adam’s who continue to turn their back on the truth.

    Taking you back to the passage in 1 Corinthians:

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God

    Those who disobey God do not know HIM. They can’t take HIM at HIS Word, but rather use their little man minds to contort Scripture, and argue with God’s mighty power.

    HE is from EVERLASTING.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, you are inserting things into the passages that aren’t there. The serpent’s appeal to Eve centers around power (be like God), though he uses “understanding” as the example. This is the sin of Lucifer.

    As to I Corinthians, notice the preceding passage. Paul is addressing divisions in the Church, divisions which are centered around Personality Cults – common then, common now. He counters this by saying that he came and preached a simple message – understandable by all (not just elite followers – think Plato or even better, the Pythagoreans), and not putting the spotlight on him as Paul, but rather on the Gospel.

    The World back then placed a lot of emphasis on status – think how often Paul and others (like James) had to berate the Churches for that, something Paul does there in verse 26, quite specifically, which leads into verse 27.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, you are inserting things into the passages that aren’t there. The serpent’s appeal to Eve centers around power (be like God), though he uses “understanding” as the example. This is the sin of Lucifer.

    As to I Corinthians, notice the preceding passage. Paul is addressing divisions in the Church, divisions which are centered around Personality Cults – common then, common now. He counters this by saying that he came and preached a simple message – understandable by all (not just elite followers – think Plato or even better, the Pythagoreans), and not putting the spotlight on him as Paul, but rather on the Gospel.

    The World back then placed a lot of emphasis on status – think how often Paul and others (like James) had to berate the Churches for that, something Paul does there in verse 26, quite specifically, which leads into verse 27.

  • Grace

    KK, @216

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, you are inserting things into the passages that aren’t there. The serpent’s appeal to Eve centers around power (be like God), though he uses “understanding” as the example.”

    The word “UNDERSTANDING” is not in the text. The word “KNOWING” is in the text.

    For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5

    Taken from the Hebrew, applied to the passage above regarding “gods”

    gods Strong’s Hebrew
    ‘elohiym – el-o-heem’

    of the supreme God; angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

    My post stands as written.

    God states clearly in his word. Man wants PROOF, if he can’t find it with his wee bitty mind, he tosses it out, and finds another solution.

  • Grace

    KK, @216

    YOU WROTE: “Grace, you are inserting things into the passages that aren’t there. The serpent’s appeal to Eve centers around power (be like God), though he uses “understanding” as the example.”

    The word “UNDERSTANDING” is not in the text. The word “KNOWING” is in the text.

    For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5

    Taken from the Hebrew, applied to the passage above regarding “gods”

    gods Strong’s Hebrew
    ‘elohiym – el-o-heem’

    of the supreme God; angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

    My post stands as written.

    God states clearly in his word. Man wants PROOF, if he can’t find it with his wee bitty mind, he tosses it out, and finds another solution.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, your last post actually strengthened my argument in #216, thanks!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, your last post actually strengthened my argument in #216, thanks!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I’m ceasing activity on this thread now, unless asked a clear, directed and specific question.

    Thanks all. While at times stormy, it was a good one nonetheless!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I’m ceasing activity on this thread now, unless asked a clear, directed and specific question.

    Thanks all. While at times stormy, it was a good one nonetheless!

  • Grace

    KK @ 218

    Don’t flatter yourself, your argument is bogus. :lol:

  • Grace

    KK @ 218

    Don’t flatter yourself, your argument is bogus. :lol:

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    The foolishness of the cross will drive men away from Christ because they are blinded by Satan.

    We should not add our own foolishness.

    Much of young-Earth creationism is composed of additions to Scripture, or extrapolations from Scripture that are not certain. Death before the fall is one of them. The flood laying down the geological rock record is another. Much foolishness has come from these errors, and this drives people away from Christ. Again, let it be the cross that drives them away, not our own foolishness.

    It is not foolish to take a second look at the Scriptures to see what they really say in regards to creation. Most of us accept that the sun is the center of the solar system, but Luther thought this was nonsense. Why? Because he took some passages literally that were not meant to be taken literally. In this case, he did not do the hard work of exegesis that he should have done.

    What I have tried to do in my comments in this thread is to show that the Bible is ambiguous on the issues of the age of the Earth, the extent of the Flood, and animal death before the fall. I haven’t read any substantial refutations of any of my arguments. Re-typing some passages in bold is not a refutation. I believe all of those verses. I just don’t think they are saying everything some people think they are.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    The foolishness of the cross will drive men away from Christ because they are blinded by Satan.

    We should not add our own foolishness.

    Much of young-Earth creationism is composed of additions to Scripture, or extrapolations from Scripture that are not certain. Death before the fall is one of them. The flood laying down the geological rock record is another. Much foolishness has come from these errors, and this drives people away from Christ. Again, let it be the cross that drives them away, not our own foolishness.

    It is not foolish to take a second look at the Scriptures to see what they really say in regards to creation. Most of us accept that the sun is the center of the solar system, but Luther thought this was nonsense. Why? Because he took some passages literally that were not meant to be taken literally. In this case, he did not do the hard work of exegesis that he should have done.

    What I have tried to do in my comments in this thread is to show that the Bible is ambiguous on the issues of the age of the Earth, the extent of the Flood, and animal death before the fall. I haven’t read any substantial refutations of any of my arguments. Re-typing some passages in bold is not a refutation. I believe all of those verses. I just don’t think they are saying everything some people think they are.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I don’t see how Young Earth-Six Day Creationism is an article of faith.

    Apostles Creed
    “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.”

    Nicene Creed
    “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.”

    Now I’m not aware of anything in the Book of Concord that defines Six Day-Young Earth Creationism as an article of faith.

    So one someone tells me I as a Lutheran have to believe their exact interpretation of Genesis1-11, I don’t see any justification for why these beliefs aren’t just matters of adiaphora.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I don’t see how Young Earth-Six Day Creationism is an article of faith.

    Apostles Creed
    “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.”

    Nicene Creed
    “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.”

    Now I’m not aware of anything in the Book of Concord that defines Six Day-Young Earth Creationism as an article of faith.

    So one someone tells me I as a Lutheran have to believe their exact interpretation of Genesis1-11, I don’t see any justification for why these beliefs aren’t just matters of adiaphora.

  • larry

    KK, no, did you even bother to read anything? I didn’t say reason disappeared, nor did Luther and you immediately jumped to that because that’s your false argument. Reason doesn’t disappear it rebels, it why men are guilty and not innocent. Did you even bother to read the explanation of the confession, “I believe that created me and all creatures…and gave me…my reason”. Which is plain as day saying and I went to GREAT lengths explain that reason is a creature gift, not just gift, the highest gift given us IN CREATION that heard the WORD OF GOD say, “Don’t eat the tree…” and then heard the other words of the devil (which presupposes its there to grasp all this) attacked with the devil’s words faith. It “put faith on trial” as Luther states, this was the serpents craftiness, to attack the object of faith, the Word of God, then reason became its mistress and served the devil (still existing by the way, reason). And thus was lost the knowledge of God. You ignore that fact, the spiritual death immediately occurred and reason blinded itself thus becoming the enemy of the Word (and faith).

    Now indirectly you are beginning to grasp or at least tickle the edges of what bondage of the will really means and its not the same total depravity.

    That’s very offense of the Cross, on purpose with His Word God offends reason so that “room may be made for faith” upon the Word. Every single article of faith without exception offends fallen reason and shows it to be a fool.

    When then the Word rules again and faith follows to rule reason, then reason is restored to its place. Then reason understands, ruled by the Word and faith, the escatological reality though it is blind to it (faith informs it, e.g. “Yes you do not “get it” or “see it” but this is in fact Christ’s body because the Word said so”). By reason usurping the Word and faith men perished in the flood, nothing was more absurd than building that Ark until the flood came at last and judgment. But faith believed the foolishness of God against the wisdom of reason and thus 8 were saved.

    A fool stands in the corner without the Word and thinks he has and hears the Spirit, said Luther, but he will only be listening to a 1000 devils and demons that are not the Spirit.

  • larry

    KK, no, did you even bother to read anything? I didn’t say reason disappeared, nor did Luther and you immediately jumped to that because that’s your false argument. Reason doesn’t disappear it rebels, it why men are guilty and not innocent. Did you even bother to read the explanation of the confession, “I believe that created me and all creatures…and gave me…my reason”. Which is plain as day saying and I went to GREAT lengths explain that reason is a creature gift, not just gift, the highest gift given us IN CREATION that heard the WORD OF GOD say, “Don’t eat the tree…” and then heard the other words of the devil (which presupposes its there to grasp all this) attacked with the devil’s words faith. It “put faith on trial” as Luther states, this was the serpents craftiness, to attack the object of faith, the Word of God, then reason became its mistress and served the devil (still existing by the way, reason). And thus was lost the knowledge of God. You ignore that fact, the spiritual death immediately occurred and reason blinded itself thus becoming the enemy of the Word (and faith).

    Now indirectly you are beginning to grasp or at least tickle the edges of what bondage of the will really means and its not the same total depravity.

    That’s very offense of the Cross, on purpose with His Word God offends reason so that “room may be made for faith” upon the Word. Every single article of faith without exception offends fallen reason and shows it to be a fool.

    When then the Word rules again and faith follows to rule reason, then reason is restored to its place. Then reason understands, ruled by the Word and faith, the escatological reality though it is blind to it (faith informs it, e.g. “Yes you do not “get it” or “see it” but this is in fact Christ’s body because the Word said so”). By reason usurping the Word and faith men perished in the flood, nothing was more absurd than building that Ark until the flood came at last and judgment. But faith believed the foolishness of God against the wisdom of reason and thus 8 were saved.

    A fool stands in the corner without the Word and thinks he has and hears the Spirit, said Luther, but he will only be listening to a 1000 devils and demons that are not the Spirit.

  • larry

    SAL its in the very essence of the confessions that explain creation as creation out of nothing and we don’t convenently slip metaphore in “just part of Genesis”. It’s rooted in the fact that we confess the geneologies of Christ as true and fact and not “allegories” or partial allegories. It’s rooted in the very fact that we confess as Paul writes that yes sin did come through one factual man Adam and from him to all just as from Christ all were redeemed. It’s rooted in the very heart of Lutheranism that confesses plainly that God’s words are more than information but that they do what they say, hence, “I absolve you”, “take eat…My blood…for your forgiveness” actually convey this very forgiveness (you can never possess forgiveness). Thus, it is rooted in the fact that we confess that God as creator is the giver always, creation then redemption and as creatures made us receivers (the fall inverts that). The position of Creator to creature is giver to receiver, pre-fall, post-fall (we rebelled against) and eternity for the believers. You can no more possess forgivness than you can possess a single breath of air but must always RECEIVE from God. This is to be a creature that HAS a God. That’s rooted in the first and second commandments and our catechism explanation.

    One could go on and on.

  • larry

    SAL its in the very essence of the confessions that explain creation as creation out of nothing and we don’t convenently slip metaphore in “just part of Genesis”. It’s rooted in the fact that we confess the geneologies of Christ as true and fact and not “allegories” or partial allegories. It’s rooted in the very fact that we confess as Paul writes that yes sin did come through one factual man Adam and from him to all just as from Christ all were redeemed. It’s rooted in the very heart of Lutheranism that confesses plainly that God’s words are more than information but that they do what they say, hence, “I absolve you”, “take eat…My blood…for your forgiveness” actually convey this very forgiveness (you can never possess forgiveness). Thus, it is rooted in the fact that we confess that God as creator is the giver always, creation then redemption and as creatures made us receivers (the fall inverts that). The position of Creator to creature is giver to receiver, pre-fall, post-fall (we rebelled against) and eternity for the believers. You can no more possess forgivness than you can possess a single breath of air but must always RECEIVE from God. This is to be a creature that HAS a God. That’s rooted in the first and second commandments and our catechism explanation.

    One could go on and on.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #224 But I agree with all the doctrines you mention. I simply don’t find warrant for a literal six-day creation and a 6,000 year old Universe.

    I believe the genealogies of Christ however probably not complete. I do believe in literal Adam and Eve. I believe sin entered the world through Adam and that spiritual and physical death for humanity entered through Adam.

    Absent the isolated case of Six Day YECism I’m not certain where I’d disagree with you larry.

    I work in technical field and I must either believe God created a Universe full of faked evidence to deceive us or that he created this one very long ago.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #224 But I agree with all the doctrines you mention. I simply don’t find warrant for a literal six-day creation and a 6,000 year old Universe.

    I believe the genealogies of Christ however probably not complete. I do believe in literal Adam and Eve. I believe sin entered the world through Adam and that spiritual and physical death for humanity entered through Adam.

    Absent the isolated case of Six Day YECism I’m not certain where I’d disagree with you larry.

    I work in technical field and I must either believe God created a Universe full of faked evidence to deceive us or that he created this one very long ago.

  • Dust

    Larry very good…too bad KK took his keyboard and went home :(

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Larry very good…too bad KK took his keyboard and went home :(

    cheers!

  • Grace

    I wrote this some time ago, and posted it on this blog later on – I want to post it again.

    HOW LONG were Adam and Eve in the Garden ? We don’t know, no one knows.

    And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Genesis 2:8

    Not until Genesis 2:8 is it mentioned God planted a garden, until this time was there a garden? it appears there wasn’t. This verse also says God put the man (Adam) in the garden. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Genesis 2:15

    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 1:3

    Adam and Eve had been in the Garden HOW LONG? None of us know the answer to that question, in fact we aren’t even given a clue. It could have been hundreds or thousands of years. It would make sense that in the beginning when they were in the Garden, they didn’t go even close to the tree they were forbidden to eat, but as time passed the woman was tempted, and as we all know disobeyed God. Could that have been thousands of years, maybe more?

    So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

    The Garden of Eden is obviously a ‘PLACE’ we can see this as God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden. The whole earth was not covered by the garden. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they were were driven out? This question, and the length of time they were in the garden is very mind provoking, there is no answer, we don’t know.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    Genesis 1

    What was going on in the world at large while Adam and Eve were in the garden? there obviously were life forms, God had made them – how many different things could have taken place OUTSIDE the garden while Adam and Eve enjoyed Paradise before the fall?

    The length of time Adam and Eve were in the garden could have been thousands of years, maybe a million, or LONGER? GOD doesn’t put a time limit on how long they were in the garden, nor should we.

    For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
    Isaiah 55:8

  • Grace

    I wrote this some time ago, and posted it on this blog later on – I want to post it again.

    HOW LONG were Adam and Eve in the Garden ? We don’t know, no one knows.

    And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Genesis 2:8

    Not until Genesis 2:8 is it mentioned God planted a garden, until this time was there a garden? it appears there wasn’t. This verse also says God put the man (Adam) in the garden. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Genesis 2:15

    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 1:3

    Adam and Eve had been in the Garden HOW LONG? None of us know the answer to that question, in fact we aren’t even given a clue. It could have been hundreds or thousands of years. It would make sense that in the beginning when they were in the Garden, they didn’t go even close to the tree they were forbidden to eat, but as time passed the woman was tempted, and as we all know disobeyed God. Could that have been thousands of years, maybe more?

    So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

    The Garden of Eden is obviously a ‘PLACE’ we can see this as God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden. The whole earth was not covered by the garden. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they were were driven out? This question, and the length of time they were in the garden is very mind provoking, there is no answer, we don’t know.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    Genesis 1

    What was going on in the world at large while Adam and Eve were in the garden? there obviously were life forms, God had made them – how many different things could have taken place OUTSIDE the garden while Adam and Eve enjoyed Paradise before the fall?

    The length of time Adam and Eve were in the garden could have been thousands of years, maybe a million, or LONGER? GOD doesn’t put a time limit on how long they were in the garden, nor should we.

    For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
    Isaiah 55:8

  • Larry

    Sal,

    I too work in a technical field, in fact I’m a geologist by profession. So I do understand the tempting dilemma, I really do. First, you have to realize that at least as to form your same argument can be said of the sacraments. Sure that’s not proving anything yet but to realize the form of the argument is the same, after all you do not taste or smell blood. Even more this evidence of the bread and wine is more intimate and right in front of you, i.e. you don’t even need a lot of scientific theory, in fact none, to have to deal with this. So we must recognize that the issue is not a matter of technical but one of faith.

    Let’s look at your root problem, and I say that because I dealt with it, so I’m extremely sympathetic to it.

    I must either believe God created a universe full of faked evidence to deceive us and etc…

    But that’s a false dilemma. First, see how our fallen nature operates. If we cannot figure God out, it must be his deception. Or it could be that we are so immersed in our sin that we cannot see through our self deception. The body and blood are hidden from this same reason and fallen eyes, only faith sees is (again based on the Word) but nonetheless we all admit it is utterly invisible to our senses and reason. Put a GC/MS on the wine and it will reveal wine. Put all of science to test it and it will only show bread and wine. So ask yourself must you either believe Christ in His Word proclaims the bread and wine to be His very body and blood full of faked bread and wine evidence to deceive us or must you default and at last say Zwingli and Calvin were right. See, same argument. Same false dilemma. It takes a “faithmouth” as its been put to know the reality. We know that God hides articles of faith from senses and reason to shame them (the negative aspect) and to make room for faith alone to perceive them (the positive aspect). That alone is the reason for articles of faith, not deception. He shames that which fallen man thinks is his wisdom and weakens that which man thinks is his strength and makes faith alone see the folly of God, true wisdom, and the weakness of God, true strength – to put to nothing the wisdom and strength of man.

    So the choice is not reduced to the false dilemma of “believe God created a universe full of faked evidence to deceive us” but rather believe God created a universe such that only faith perceives it as it is via the Word”. Realize we are so sunk in sin and trespasses that we cannot at all see our situation as if from an observational point saying, “Yep there I am dead in sin and trespass”. That would be God, the very problem, we want to be. That’s why both the wrath of God and the righteousness of God MUST be revealed to us, in Word, or we can in no way even see it. Like trying to imagine a new color, utterly blind and dead to it, not “in it so much” where we can from an observational view point say, “Ah, yes I see”.

    Analogy: analogies have their limits so we have to be careful but certain aspects can help. If an analogy were correct in all aspects it would not be an analogy but the thing itself. Recall the movie, if you saw, Matrix the first episode. Remember the main character, Neo, I believe his name was. In the beginning he was immersed in the cyber/virtual world of the computer. The computer was his and every humans capture, they were in bondage to it. So much so that all he and people sensed was the virtual world around them, much like our own. No other reality existed and to all their senses and reason this was the truth any contrary thing to this they scoffed at. Then Neo is taken out in his mind and is revealed his and all humans real state, as human batteries in utter slavery and decay to the cpu/machines, in this post apocalyptic scene in these embryonic cocoons. In fact they are born into this utter bondage (the parallels are quite stunning for a non-christian movie). Then he knows the reality.

    The bondage to the falsehood for us is both from Satan, the ruler of this world, his demons and self inflicted, our flesh. It literally takes a Word, the Word, the Incarnate Word from God to break IN on us and reveal the wrath of God (Rom. 1) and the Grace of God (Rom. 3). Without that word in no way can we see our bondage, situation or otherwise.

    If reason is the monster and enemy of God, then God must put it to folly, weakness and death so that He can by His Word raise up faith. This world is passing and temporary, the eternal is coming. So that we do not loose hope we fix our eyes on the Word, because even though we see the decay of ourselves now, this is temporary and passing and ultimately not the reality as it passes away to the eternal things. We see these passing away things, but faith hopes in the things unseen. (2 Cor. 4:16-18 paraphrased).

    I hope that helps some.

  • Larry

    Sal,

    I too work in a technical field, in fact I’m a geologist by profession. So I do understand the tempting dilemma, I really do. First, you have to realize that at least as to form your same argument can be said of the sacraments. Sure that’s not proving anything yet but to realize the form of the argument is the same, after all you do not taste or smell blood. Even more this evidence of the bread and wine is more intimate and right in front of you, i.e. you don’t even need a lot of scientific theory, in fact none, to have to deal with this. So we must recognize that the issue is not a matter of technical but one of faith.

    Let’s look at your root problem, and I say that because I dealt with it, so I’m extremely sympathetic to it.

    I must either believe God created a universe full of faked evidence to deceive us and etc…

    But that’s a false dilemma. First, see how our fallen nature operates. If we cannot figure God out, it must be his deception. Or it could be that we are so immersed in our sin that we cannot see through our self deception. The body and blood are hidden from this same reason and fallen eyes, only faith sees is (again based on the Word) but nonetheless we all admit it is utterly invisible to our senses and reason. Put a GC/MS on the wine and it will reveal wine. Put all of science to test it and it will only show bread and wine. So ask yourself must you either believe Christ in His Word proclaims the bread and wine to be His very body and blood full of faked bread and wine evidence to deceive us or must you default and at last say Zwingli and Calvin were right. See, same argument. Same false dilemma. It takes a “faithmouth” as its been put to know the reality. We know that God hides articles of faith from senses and reason to shame them (the negative aspect) and to make room for faith alone to perceive them (the positive aspect). That alone is the reason for articles of faith, not deception. He shames that which fallen man thinks is his wisdom and weakens that which man thinks is his strength and makes faith alone see the folly of God, true wisdom, and the weakness of God, true strength – to put to nothing the wisdom and strength of man.

    So the choice is not reduced to the false dilemma of “believe God created a universe full of faked evidence to deceive us” but rather believe God created a universe such that only faith perceives it as it is via the Word”. Realize we are so sunk in sin and trespasses that we cannot at all see our situation as if from an observational point saying, “Yep there I am dead in sin and trespass”. That would be God, the very problem, we want to be. That’s why both the wrath of God and the righteousness of God MUST be revealed to us, in Word, or we can in no way even see it. Like trying to imagine a new color, utterly blind and dead to it, not “in it so much” where we can from an observational view point say, “Ah, yes I see”.

    Analogy: analogies have their limits so we have to be careful but certain aspects can help. If an analogy were correct in all aspects it would not be an analogy but the thing itself. Recall the movie, if you saw, Matrix the first episode. Remember the main character, Neo, I believe his name was. In the beginning he was immersed in the cyber/virtual world of the computer. The computer was his and every humans capture, they were in bondage to it. So much so that all he and people sensed was the virtual world around them, much like our own. No other reality existed and to all their senses and reason this was the truth any contrary thing to this they scoffed at. Then Neo is taken out in his mind and is revealed his and all humans real state, as human batteries in utter slavery and decay to the cpu/machines, in this post apocalyptic scene in these embryonic cocoons. In fact they are born into this utter bondage (the parallels are quite stunning for a non-christian movie). Then he knows the reality.

    The bondage to the falsehood for us is both from Satan, the ruler of this world, his demons and self inflicted, our flesh. It literally takes a Word, the Word, the Incarnate Word from God to break IN on us and reveal the wrath of God (Rom. 1) and the Grace of God (Rom. 3). Without that word in no way can we see our bondage, situation or otherwise.

    If reason is the monster and enemy of God, then God must put it to folly, weakness and death so that He can by His Word raise up faith. This world is passing and temporary, the eternal is coming. So that we do not loose hope we fix our eyes on the Word, because even though we see the decay of ourselves now, this is temporary and passing and ultimately not the reality as it passes away to the eternal things. We see these passing away things, but faith hopes in the things unseen. (2 Cor. 4:16-18 paraphrased).

    I hope that helps some.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    If I believe incorrectly regarding the sacraments I have committed a grave error perhaps one that deprives me of their benefit.

    If I believe Genesis is unclear on the literalness of “Day” and I end up wrong I don’t see the significance in either practice or doctrine. In other words it seems to me that we are taking a rather minor issue of Biblical interpretation and turning it into an article of the faith.

    Larry do you think folks who differ with you on YECism should be denied the sacrament?

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    If I believe incorrectly regarding the sacraments I have committed a grave error perhaps one that deprives me of their benefit.

    If I believe Genesis is unclear on the literalness of “Day” and I end up wrong I don’t see the significance in either practice or doctrine. In other words it seems to me that we are taking a rather minor issue of Biblical interpretation and turning it into an article of the faith.

    Larry do you think folks who differ with you on YECism should be denied the sacrament?

  • Tom Hering

    I work in technical field and I must either believe God created a Universe full of faked evidence to deceive us or that he created this one very long ago. (SAL @ 225)

    If you approach the problem apart from faith – the problem of what science tells us about the world – then those are indeed the only two choices. But even an unbeliever has the clear testimony of God’s Word that God is not a liar – a deceiver. So you’re really only left with an old Earth and evolution. Apart from faith.

    In other words it seems to me that we are taking a rather minor issue of Biblical interpretation and turning it into an article of the faith. (SAL @ 229)

    No, we’re dealing with scientific statements about the world. Statements that have nothing to do with faith.

    One side wants to reconcile God’s Word to those statements (not the other way around) and in doing so they place the Word under the authority of science. They argue that some parts of the Word are poetry – as if poetry never contains or expresses literal things.

    The other side wants to discredit those scientific statements by any means possible.

    Neither side serves Truth very well. Neither side just accepts the fact that we can’t know why the Word and science contradict one another in the matter of origins. Neither side just accepts the fact that we have to live with this radical contradiction. If nothing else, it’s a clear sign to us of how fallen our condition is. How unlike God we are – especially our minds. Which is a good thing in itself when grasped by faith.

  • Tom Hering

    I work in technical field and I must either believe God created a Universe full of faked evidence to deceive us or that he created this one very long ago. (SAL @ 225)

    If you approach the problem apart from faith – the problem of what science tells us about the world – then those are indeed the only two choices. But even an unbeliever has the clear testimony of God’s Word that God is not a liar – a deceiver. So you’re really only left with an old Earth and evolution. Apart from faith.

    In other words it seems to me that we are taking a rather minor issue of Biblical interpretation and turning it into an article of the faith. (SAL @ 229)

    No, we’re dealing with scientific statements about the world. Statements that have nothing to do with faith.

    One side wants to reconcile God’s Word to those statements (not the other way around) and in doing so they place the Word under the authority of science. They argue that some parts of the Word are poetry – as if poetry never contains or expresses literal things.

    The other side wants to discredit those scientific statements by any means possible.

    Neither side serves Truth very well. Neither side just accepts the fact that we can’t know why the Word and science contradict one another in the matter of origins. Neither side just accepts the fact that we have to live with this radical contradiction. If nothing else, it’s a clear sign to us of how fallen our condition is. How unlike God we are – especially our minds. Which is a good thing in itself when grasped by faith.

  • Larry

    Very good Tom, all of it.

    Especially: “If nothing else, it’s a clear sign to us of how fallen our condition is. How unlike God we are – especially our minds. Which is a good thing in itself when grasped by faith.”

    It’s quite a humbling reality, truly!

  • Larry

    Very good Tom, all of it.

    Especially: “If nothing else, it’s a clear sign to us of how fallen our condition is. How unlike God we are – especially our minds. Which is a good thing in itself when grasped by faith.”

    It’s quite a humbling reality, truly!

  • Tom Hering

    As it ought to be. It would just be too ironic if, in trying to grasp the work of the Creator, we became like the first man and woman who wanted to know what it was like to know everything. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    As it ought to be. It would just be too ironic if, in trying to grasp the work of the Creator, we became like the first man and woman who wanted to know what it was like to know everything. :-)

  • kerner

    Good comments, Tom. I mean, really good.

  • kerner

    Good comments, Tom. I mean, really good.

  • Dust

    Ditto kerner at 233 Tom, thanks….they were “purr”fect :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Ditto kerner at 233 Tom, thanks….they were “purr”fect :)

    cheers!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much? For a bunch of nice, intelligent guys, you really talk a lot of crap.

    But I still like y’all, in case you wondered. :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much? For a bunch of nice, intelligent guys, you really talk a lot of crap.

    But I still like y’all, in case you wondered. :)

  • Grace

    KK

    The mind of God ALMIGHTY, HIS creation is so big, so powerful there is no way to understand. IF, the LORD wanted us to know, HE would have told us.

    Most of the world doesn’t believe in God – because they can’t prove God exists in their finite mind. It’s no different then 6 day creation for some Christians.

    Why does it mean so much to you, to try and prove to us that 6 literal days were false, coming straight from the Bible?

    Why do you believe that Christ died and arose from the grave?

    Do you believe in a Heaven or Hell? If so, why? What proof do you have?

    Do you believe in Christ’s Deity or the Trinity? If so why?

    How many parts of the Bible do you think are false?

    Science isn’t bad. The problem is, man is evil, when he distorts God’s Word because he can’t understand it.

  • Grace

    KK

    The mind of God ALMIGHTY, HIS creation is so big, so powerful there is no way to understand. IF, the LORD wanted us to know, HE would have told us.

    Most of the world doesn’t believe in God – because they can’t prove God exists in their finite mind. It’s no different then 6 day creation for some Christians.

    Why does it mean so much to you, to try and prove to us that 6 literal days were false, coming straight from the Bible?

    Why do you believe that Christ died and arose from the grave?

    Do you believe in a Heaven or Hell? If so, why? What proof do you have?

    Do you believe in Christ’s Deity or the Trinity? If so why?

    How many parts of the Bible do you think are false?

    Science isn’t bad. The problem is, man is evil, when he distorts God’s Word because he can’t understand it.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie

    “So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much?”

    It’s another conversation, but it’s debated whether there are truths that humanity is better off not knowing.

  • Michael B.

    @Klasie

    “So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much?”

    It’s another conversation, but it’s debated whether there are truths that humanity is better off not knowing.

  • Larry

    Tom, again excellent comments and summary.

    I can see how an enthusiastic giddy spirit could respond “so what is science bad”, when nothing is has been made more clear about the place of reason. The reality of this is that reason and its tool, science, will always bow down to faith in the Word, here and time, and forever in eternity. When reason/science attempts to usurp faith and the Word, then it is put in its place with the Law.

    In this way Lutherans, if true to their confessions, make use of reason in its best way, subserviant to the Word and faith and not in its perverted way attempting to rule the Word and faith.

    SAL, I would add one thing here to Tom’s excellent statements so you do not think “am I alone”. Truth be known we all struggle with this and Luther himself even did and advised that we have to FORCE reason into its place over articles of faith. We have to bind it just like we force ourselves to not commit other sins that we “feel” ourselves desiring. This is what Christ meant when he said you would be better to put one eye out or cut one hand off to enter into heaven then go with both in tact into hell. This statement of Christ’s is not as the sacramentarians and pope have taught meaning basically all the immoral sins or “negative” sin list, but in fact even this “high” and pious thing we call reason.

    Remember the ROOT of sin and the fall was to not trust God’s Words and adhere to other words.

  • Larry

    Tom, again excellent comments and summary.

    I can see how an enthusiastic giddy spirit could respond “so what is science bad”, when nothing is has been made more clear about the place of reason. The reality of this is that reason and its tool, science, will always bow down to faith in the Word, here and time, and forever in eternity. When reason/science attempts to usurp faith and the Word, then it is put in its place with the Law.

    In this way Lutherans, if true to their confessions, make use of reason in its best way, subserviant to the Word and faith and not in its perverted way attempting to rule the Word and faith.

    SAL, I would add one thing here to Tom’s excellent statements so you do not think “am I alone”. Truth be known we all struggle with this and Luther himself even did and advised that we have to FORCE reason into its place over articles of faith. We have to bind it just like we force ourselves to not commit other sins that we “feel” ourselves desiring. This is what Christ meant when he said you would be better to put one eye out or cut one hand off to enter into heaven then go with both in tact into hell. This statement of Christ’s is not as the sacramentarians and pope have taught meaning basically all the immoral sins or “negative” sin list, but in fact even this “high” and pious thing we call reason.

    Remember the ROOT of sin and the fall was to not trust God’s Words and adhere to other words.

  • Tom Hering

    So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much? (Klasie @ 235)

    Not sure if you’re responding to my comments, but if you are, I said nothing about science being bad. Kind of weird that’s what you heard me saying. And I said nothing about crossing a line in the pursuit of knowledge. I said we’re faced with truths that contradict each other, and we just have to live with this. And I added that humility is a good thing in the pursuit of Truth. Otherwise, we either ridicule faith or cripple science.

  • Tom Hering

    So science is bad then? Or do we just practice it till we cross some imaginery line of knowing too much? (Klasie @ 235)

    Not sure if you’re responding to my comments, but if you are, I said nothing about science being bad. Kind of weird that’s what you heard me saying. And I said nothing about crossing a line in the pursuit of knowledge. I said we’re faced with truths that contradict each other, and we just have to live with this. And I added that humility is a good thing in the pursuit of Truth. Otherwise, we either ridicule faith or cripple science.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, of course I believe God, and His word. And I’d be a fool to suggest that we can prove the existence of God. We live by faith, not by sight.

    But I also believe, in agreement with St Paul and others that Creation is also part of His Revelation. And I also believe that we ought to study Scripture on its own terms, and within its own context, and not according to what we want it to say or not say.

    And I also believe that a loving God wouldn’t give us a command (the Creation mandate), and then make it wrong for us to fulfill that command, or to fool us to make that task futile.

    Furthermore, a gnostic epistemology is not an option given the God of the Bible. It is tautological to say so, but if we did not live in a rational universe, we would live in an irrational universe. And if we lived in an irrational universe, well, we could discuss nothing with any certainty now, could we? Actually, we would not be discussing anything at all. Such a universe is precluded by the existence of a Saviour who is the Logos.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, of course I believe God, and His word. And I’d be a fool to suggest that we can prove the existence of God. We live by faith, not by sight.

    But I also believe, in agreement with St Paul and others that Creation is also part of His Revelation. And I also believe that we ought to study Scripture on its own terms, and within its own context, and not according to what we want it to say or not say.

    And I also believe that a loving God wouldn’t give us a command (the Creation mandate), and then make it wrong for us to fulfill that command, or to fool us to make that task futile.

    Furthermore, a gnostic epistemology is not an option given the God of the Bible. It is tautological to say so, but if we did not live in a rational universe, we would live in an irrational universe. And if we lived in an irrational universe, well, we could discuss nothing with any certainty now, could we? Actually, we would not be discussing anything at all. Such a universe is precluded by the existence of a Saviour who is the Logos.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Tom, if it contradicts the Word, what else is it?

    This comment thread clearly shows how far into the sophist pit those fall who want to hold onto overt literalism. This is so ironic given the accusation of gnosticism from the likes of Larry. I fear for Larry, obecause being a geologist, he knows what the evidence says. Therefore, if the evidence clearly contradicts HIS INTERPRETATION of Scripture, he has to almost literally stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and shout no-no-no-no, I believe that is actually different!! Of course, he misses the crucioal point, namely that the decision to believe or not believe is an act of will. The will cannot act without Reason, even imperfect reason. Thus the circularity of the sophist argument bis laid bare. And the net result is a slow move to denialism, or insanity.

    Come out of it Larry. There is peace beyond.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Tom, if it contradicts the Word, what else is it?

    This comment thread clearly shows how far into the sophist pit those fall who want to hold onto overt literalism. This is so ironic given the accusation of gnosticism from the likes of Larry. I fear for Larry, obecause being a geologist, he knows what the evidence says. Therefore, if the evidence clearly contradicts HIS INTERPRETATION of Scripture, he has to almost literally stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and shout no-no-no-no, I believe that is actually different!! Of course, he misses the crucioal point, namely that the decision to believe or not believe is an act of will. The will cannot act without Reason, even imperfect reason. Thus the circularity of the sophist argument bis laid bare. And the net result is a slow move to denialism, or insanity.

    Come out of it Larry. There is peace beyond.

  • Tom Hering

    Tom, if [science] contradicts the Word, what else is it [besides bad]? (Klasie @ 241)

    Just a contradicting belief about origins. I believe what I believe based upon revelation. You believe what you believe based upon evidence. No threat to my faith. Carry on. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Tom, if [science] contradicts the Word, what else is it [besides bad]? (Klasie @ 241)

    Just a contradicting belief about origins. I believe what I believe based upon revelation. You believe what you believe based upon evidence. No threat to my faith. Carry on. :-D

  • fws

    Tom @ 239
    Tell us more. I am not really understanding what you are saying.

    I understand that for KK the proof for him that an old earth is manifold. I am impressed when he says that the geologists use these theories to accurately and successfully predict where oil and other minerals will be found. Larry. I didn’t know you were a geologist. interesting.

    I am not seeing your overlay of the sacraments and real presence on what KK is saying . try approaching it starting with geology maybe to make it more clear to me?

    Great conversation. You are all leaving me in your dust. Nice when that happens.

  • fws

    Tom @ 239
    Tell us more. I am not really understanding what you are saying.

    I understand that for KK the proof for him that an old earth is manifold. I am impressed when he says that the geologists use these theories to accurately and successfully predict where oil and other minerals will be found. Larry. I didn’t know you were a geologist. interesting.

    I am not seeing your overlay of the sacraments and real presence on what KK is saying . try approaching it starting with geology maybe to make it more clear to me?

    Great conversation. You are all leaving me in your dust. Nice when that happens.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, it’s as if I were lying by the side of the road, badly injured, and a Hindu comes along and helps me. Do I care what he believes? Are the motives he operates from important to me? Not in the least. I only care that I’m helped. Same with scientists. As long as they produce helpful, practical results, what do I care about their beliefs? Though I admit I find science interesting, just as I find Hinduism interesting.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, it’s as if I were lying by the side of the road, badly injured, and a Hindu comes along and helps me. Do I care what he believes? Are the motives he operates from important to me? Not in the least. I only care that I’m helped. Same with scientists. As long as they produce helpful, practical results, what do I care about their beliefs? Though I admit I find science interesting, just as I find Hinduism interesting.

  • fws

    tom @ 244

    Yeah I can see that, and that is pretty much where I am at.
    But I am not a scientist.

    Klassie seems to be making the same point you are from a different direction.
    As a scientist he only finds theories valuable if they are useful in the sense of being predictive.

    He says that theories based on a young earth are worthless in predicting what is found to be true in his field.

    Theories based on an old earth presumption are indeed very useful in that they predict what is actually found to be true.

    The “problem” is that to embrace an old earth assumption seems to him to require a poetic and non literal understanding of Genesis 1. And he feels that to do otherwise would be not just dishonest, it would require him to be literally psychotic as a scientist.

    I put problem in quotes because it is that for some and not for others such as KK.

    If I am mischaracterizing where KK is at, I hope he will correct me. I am not see how what you say fits into all this Tom. Larry , another scientist/geologist seems to say that what you say somehow is how he puts all this together in his mind.

    I would like to hear more. I am still not connecting all the dots here.

  • fws

    tom @ 244

    Yeah I can see that, and that is pretty much where I am at.
    But I am not a scientist.

    Klassie seems to be making the same point you are from a different direction.
    As a scientist he only finds theories valuable if they are useful in the sense of being predictive.

    He says that theories based on a young earth are worthless in predicting what is found to be true in his field.

    Theories based on an old earth presumption are indeed very useful in that they predict what is actually found to be true.

    The “problem” is that to embrace an old earth assumption seems to him to require a poetic and non literal understanding of Genesis 1. And he feels that to do otherwise would be not just dishonest, it would require him to be literally psychotic as a scientist.

    I put problem in quotes because it is that for some and not for others such as KK.

    If I am mischaracterizing where KK is at, I hope he will correct me. I am not see how what you say fits into all this Tom. Larry , another scientist/geologist seems to say that what you say somehow is how he puts all this together in his mind.

    I would like to hear more. I am still not connecting all the dots here.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, again, if a scientist doesn’t take Genesis 1-3 literally, but instead believes in an old Earth and evolution, and his belief works, i.e., it gets things done that are helpful to people, then it’s okay by me that he believes what he believes, and proceeds how he proceeds, and accomplishes what he accomplishes. Does God insist shoemakers be Christians before he gives them their vocation, or aids them in it?

  • Tom Hering

    Well, again, if a scientist doesn’t take Genesis 1-3 literally, but instead believes in an old Earth and evolution, and his belief works, i.e., it gets things done that are helpful to people, then it’s okay by me that he believes what he believes, and proceeds how he proceeds, and accomplishes what he accomplishes. Does God insist shoemakers be Christians before he gives them their vocation, or aids them in it?

  • fws

    KK @ 241

    This is helpful KK:

    Of course, he misses the crucioal point, namely that the decision to believe or not believe is an act of will. The will cannot act without Reason , even imperfect reason.

    Let me come back to this.

    I am seeing two sides lining up this way:

    Here is what I am seeing :
    TRUTH: The Confessions are clear that faith is not “historical faith” or the intellectually affirmation of what happened or did not in history. This is not what Lutherans mean by the word “faith. (KK and others)

    TRUTH: At the same time, the Promise that is the Object of that faith can’t ever be even slightly separated from the Bible or history. This Faith is not a Kierkegaardian leap of faith that calls faith believe in the presence of doubt. Faith allows for no doubt. (Dr Luther and Kerner and others.)

    So now back to two assertions you seem to assume as fact KK:

    1) Let me reverse what you say: “Reason cannot ever act without the will.” Changing the order here changes alot of stuff.

    2) How is Reason “imperfect” KK? In what sense is a functioning eyeball “imperfect” or “fallen”? I know Calvin, Rome and many Lutherans also take your assertion for granted.

    Point (1) is a lynchpin argument as to why natural law, that the Confessions deny (contra Thomas) as Reason + will cannot get us back to God and his Image and original innocence. Why not? The problem is not a lack of Law or knowledge thereof.
    It is not that the Law of God written in Reason is faulty or incomplete (rom 2:15). Sorry St Thomas!
    It is that we have a heart/will that is at war what Reason, the Divine Law of God demands. It is our Will and heart that is the Problem.
    Our heart and will is devoid of Faith which is the Image of God.

    Heart justifies its autonomy by asserting it is un-reasonable to demand that our heart aligns perfectly with Reason in our actions. The best we can do is civil law obedience. We do without our heart being in it. Letter-of-the-law morality.

    That is why we need a new , ex-nihilo will created in our hearts.

    And that is why Klassie, with our confessions also at the same time confirms this to also be true:

    I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength (ie will) believe that Jesus is my Lord nor come to him

    To the point at hand now:
    So what does any of that have to do with whether we follow what Reason screams at us looking at the fossil record bolstered by the other scientific” disciplines” ie the Divine Law, vs faith?

    Faith is always about faith in the Gospel, in the historical Second Adam. Can there be a historical second Adam if there was not a historical First Adam?

    Lutherans affirm that Reason is completely capable of knowing and doing all in the sphere of the evidential and sense-ible. Free will here applies even. And Lutherans do not demand faith therefore as a requirement of ethics or scientific inquiry. We are told that Reason=the complete Divine Law written in the Mind. Complete. No faith required that means.

    So now for Larry’s point. As with the Real Presence, we don’t claim to know HOW bread and wine ARE body and blood. We just affirm, by faith alone… WHAT.

    So I guess we could accept with KK and the Webmonk that whatever they say is true in any way that would not remove the force, in any way , of a natural reading of those words “Second Adam”.

    We are arguing about what that would look like?

  • fws

    KK @ 241

    This is helpful KK:

    Of course, he misses the crucioal point, namely that the decision to believe or not believe is an act of will. The will cannot act without Reason , even imperfect reason.

    Let me come back to this.

    I am seeing two sides lining up this way:

    Here is what I am seeing :
    TRUTH: The Confessions are clear that faith is not “historical faith” or the intellectually affirmation of what happened or did not in history. This is not what Lutherans mean by the word “faith. (KK and others)

    TRUTH: At the same time, the Promise that is the Object of that faith can’t ever be even slightly separated from the Bible or history. This Faith is not a Kierkegaardian leap of faith that calls faith believe in the presence of doubt. Faith allows for no doubt. (Dr Luther and Kerner and others.)

    So now back to two assertions you seem to assume as fact KK:

    1) Let me reverse what you say: “Reason cannot ever act without the will.” Changing the order here changes alot of stuff.

    2) How is Reason “imperfect” KK? In what sense is a functioning eyeball “imperfect” or “fallen”? I know Calvin, Rome and many Lutherans also take your assertion for granted.

    Point (1) is a lynchpin argument as to why natural law, that the Confessions deny (contra Thomas) as Reason + will cannot get us back to God and his Image and original innocence. Why not? The problem is not a lack of Law or knowledge thereof.
    It is not that the Law of God written in Reason is faulty or incomplete (rom 2:15). Sorry St Thomas!
    It is that we have a heart/will that is at war what Reason, the Divine Law of God demands. It is our Will and heart that is the Problem.
    Our heart and will is devoid of Faith which is the Image of God.

    Heart justifies its autonomy by asserting it is un-reasonable to demand that our heart aligns perfectly with Reason in our actions. The best we can do is civil law obedience. We do without our heart being in it. Letter-of-the-law morality.

    That is why we need a new , ex-nihilo will created in our hearts.

    And that is why Klassie, with our confessions also at the same time confirms this to also be true:

    I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength (ie will) believe that Jesus is my Lord nor come to him

    To the point at hand now:
    So what does any of that have to do with whether we follow what Reason screams at us looking at the fossil record bolstered by the other scientific” disciplines” ie the Divine Law, vs faith?

    Faith is always about faith in the Gospel, in the historical Second Adam. Can there be a historical second Adam if there was not a historical First Adam?

    Lutherans affirm that Reason is completely capable of knowing and doing all in the sphere of the evidential and sense-ible. Free will here applies even. And Lutherans do not demand faith therefore as a requirement of ethics or scientific inquiry. We are told that Reason=the complete Divine Law written in the Mind. Complete. No faith required that means.

    So now for Larry’s point. As with the Real Presence, we don’t claim to know HOW bread and wine ARE body and blood. We just affirm, by faith alone… WHAT.

    So I guess we could accept with KK and the Webmonk that whatever they say is true in any way that would not remove the force, in any way , of a natural reading of those words “Second Adam”.

    We are arguing about what that would look like?

  • fws

    I am suggesting we can puzzle through this together as Lutheran Christians . I benight Kevin N and Webmonk as honorary Luthruns for this discussion.

    I suggest that Lutherans have a unique set of theological tools that allow us not to feel the Foundation of our faith threatened by all this , as it is for Grace. Whom I, for that reason, propose to exclude from this conversation.

  • fws

    I am suggesting we can puzzle through this together as Lutheran Christians . I benight Kevin N and Webmonk as honorary Luthruns for this discussion.

    I suggest that Lutherans have a unique set of theological tools that allow us not to feel the Foundation of our faith threatened by all this , as it is for Grace. Whom I, for that reason, propose to exclude from this conversation.

  • fws

    tom @ 249

    Ouch! I agree with what you are saying but it implies those who take Gen 1 figuratively/poetically are not christian.

    Can you rephrase please? Your observation is really important. It is Law/Gospel Two Kingdoms distinction that spot on. Except for that one lil glitch…

    .

  • fws

    tom @ 249

    Ouch! I agree with what you are saying but it implies those who take Gen 1 figuratively/poetically are not christian.

    Can you rephrase please? Your observation is really important. It is Law/Gospel Two Kingdoms distinction that spot on. Except for that one lil glitch…

    .

  • fws

    er that was Tom @ 246

  • fws

    er that was Tom @ 246

  • fws

    Could the first adam and eve have been less than sentient? I am thinking of infant faith. Would it be crossing a line to say man too evolved. Or would we need to assert that man could not have evolved even if we have proof that animals have.

    Or would Larry say this is looking at things backwards and letting reason drive faith?

  • fws

    Could the first adam and eve have been less than sentient? I am thinking of infant faith. Would it be crossing a line to say man too evolved. Or would we need to assert that man could not have evolved even if we have proof that animals have.

    Or would Larry say this is looking at things backwards and letting reason drive faith?

  • fws

    Why is no one picking up a point that someone here made:

    Luther and Franz Pieper both asserted that the earth was the literal center of the universe. which is to say that the entire universe revolves around the earth once every 24 hours. give or take.

    What is a scientist to say when he observes the relational movements of the planets and stars and knows , evidentially, that this is not true?

    Is this identical to the issue of the Real Presence? Are you suggesting this Larry?

  • fws

    Why is no one picking up a point that someone here made:

    Luther and Franz Pieper both asserted that the earth was the literal center of the universe. which is to say that the entire universe revolves around the earth once every 24 hours. give or take.

    What is a scientist to say when he observes the relational movements of the planets and stars and knows , evidentially, that this is not true?

    Is this identical to the issue of the Real Presence? Are you suggesting this Larry?

  • fws

    Aren’t Lutheran christians also “moving the goalposts” by ignoring what Luther and Pieper were certain was the ONLY way to read Scriptures?

  • fws

    Aren’t Lutheran christians also “moving the goalposts” by ignoring what Luther and Pieper were certain was the ONLY way to read Scriptures?

  • Grace

    16 When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)

    17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
    Ecclesiastes 8

    20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
    1 Timothy 6

    “That learning which opposes the truth of the gospel, is not true science, or real knowledge, or it would approve the gospel, and consent to it. Those who advance reason above faith, are in danger of leaving faith. Grace includes all that is good, and grace is an earnest, a beginning of glory; wherever God gives grace, he will give glory. “
    Matthew Henry

  • Grace

    16 When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)

    17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
    Ecclesiastes 8

    20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
    1 Timothy 6

    “That learning which opposes the truth of the gospel, is not true science, or real knowledge, or it would approve the gospel, and consent to it. Those who advance reason above faith, are in danger of leaving faith. Grace includes all that is good, and grace is an earnest, a beginning of glory; wherever God gives grace, he will give glory. “
    Matthew Henry

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 249, of course that’s not what I meant. It was just a clear example to make the point. The only thing I have a real problem with is Klasie’s reduction (or so it seems) of physical death – in the Fall, and in Christ’s victory, and in relation to the Resurrection – to “spiritual” death. Though I’m not surprised an evolutionist would go down that path. (Cf. Don on death/evolution @ 187.)

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 249, of course that’s not what I meant. It was just a clear example to make the point. The only thing I have a real problem with is Klasie’s reduction (or so it seems) of physical death – in the Fall, and in Christ’s victory, and in relation to the Resurrection – to “spiritual” death. Though I’m not surprised an evolutionist would go down that path. (Cf. Don on death/evolution @ 187.)

  • fws

    tom @ 255

    fair enough. I didnt know either what quite to do with that comment of KK.

  • fws

    tom @ 255

    fair enough. I didnt know either what quite to do with that comment of KK.

  • Larry

    Frank,

    Let me address the simplest question first Luther and Pieper on geocentrism, it’s not an article of faith period. They took a simple observational point of view statement, the weathermen by the way every day to this date, and took a position on it. Ironic because it’s the same kind of argument the Baptist use to defend immersion only as real baptism only in their observation of the language about “going down and coming up”.

    Can a geologist function as a geologist if he/she believes the scriptures in Genesis? Yes. That is as absurd as saying a wine maker cannot make wine because he communes as a Lutheran every Sunday and believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Just like the prophet Daniel functioned within the heathen astrology system and served the pagan king well, but drew the line when they asked him to worship other gods (same here).

    Yes, Frank, in that case where the Word has spoken that would precisely letting reason drive the boat. Also keep in mind that the root concept or philosophy behind evolution is nothing new at all, epicureans posited its seed long before Darwin.

    Also, it only on articles of faith, this cannot be lost. Part of the reason we Lutherans believe that when we eat and drink, as we did today by the way, the very flesh and blood, and we mean the blood that was shed by nails, thorns, whips and spears and the very body that suckled at the breast of Mary, walked the earth, hung on the cross, and rose again (KK denies all these too keep in mind, all gross and essential heresies even before we get to evolution Vs. Genesis, he’s logically consistent that I give him. Which is why too he does not understand in the least Gnosticism because he’s steeped in it. That is to say enthusiasm.) – that body and blood we ate and drank and received the forgiveness of sins…the very reason we believe and receive FROM GOD via the pastor’s mouth the “ego te absolve” and KNOW WE DID RECEIVE IT FROM GOD is we confess, teach and believe as Luther did that God’s Words are DO words, that His Words are the action. Unlike ours that can only “name a thing” (note that difference too in Genesis when Adam only names/classifies things as opposed to God Who spoke them into being). So that just as God said, I repeat, “Light be” and “light was”, is to what you and I just ate and drank mere hours ago at the altar, “Take eat this is the true body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ given into death for your sin”, Take drink this is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ given shed for the forgiveness of your sin”, “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you to life everlasting. Go in peace.”

    All of Scripture is about Christ, every word of it, and the point about Genesis is that God speaks and it is done. Out of nothing came all things. If in a hypothetical imaginary world we could pose a situation to make the argument where there was a handful of lets use angels pre-creation hanging around and they observe in the nothingness the nothing they too could posit theories about the absurdity of “creating out of nothing” and chortle together at the idea. Save one thing, that God can speak and His speech does out of nothing. They would have to not believe this to be true.

    Here we see reason using science, as its god, to usurp the Word and faith, just like original sin (for truly how could a man die just for eating a piece of fruit?).

    Here too we ignore the eschatological reality, do you see how deeply Reformed theology has infiltrated Lutheran (Christian) doctrine, you already know you possess eternal life, “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day”. Yet, unless the Lord comes before, I will die and be buried, Frank will die and be buried, SAL, Tom, etc…grave yards are the only pieces of real estate that continually grow. Yet you and I HAVE eternal life. Note also in the Nicene Creed how it confesses more that “I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and INVISIBLE”. We tend to forget that last part. We are daily surrounded by the invisible realm, invisible to us and all our arts, by the angels and demons, and the devil is closer than our skin as Luther put it. But we largely ignore it. The devil’s reality is all but entirely not believed, which is why false doctrine pervades today. A point Paul makes about fighting.

    A couple of closing points from a good book I’m working through totally incidental to this discussion that help, I cannot improve upon them so I’ll quote them (he’s making the point that a Christian is in reality a skeptic, many atheist are not really skeptics in the true sense of the word and that in fact melancholy and skepticism far from opposing faith go along with it. That faith is not this fluffy puffy, lovey dovey American idea but very gritty and down in the dirt getting dirty all the time and fighting in the mud:

    Skepticism is a word that has to do with intellect, not with attitude. Anyone can be grouchy, but not everyone can be truly skeptical. Skepticism requires effort, it involves labor; it isn’t lazy or sloppy.

    A working definition of skepticism must go back to the Greek word from which it is derived, skptesthai. The word means “to fix one’s gaze on,” “to look into,” “to examine,” “to observe.” It has to do with inquiry, consideration, investigation. It isn’t synonymous with “doub,” and it isn’t the antithesis of “faith”…

    The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, and it means rather more than the opposite of falsehood or error. It can justifiably be translated as “reality”, since the word essentially means “not oblivion.” In other words, “truth” is that which is “not empty,” “not void,” “not shadowy,” “not vanity”; in other words, it refers to that which is substantial, lasting, enduring and real. When Ecclesiastes assigns all things under the sun to the windy and transient, the futile and vain, he is lamenting the absence of the true and firm in his experience.

    When Christ on the other hand, speaks of “truth” in John’s Gospel, he is referring to that which will endure when all that is vanity has disappeared for good. Pilate, it might be said, is someone who represents precisely the opposite. He is the spokesman for the transient and empty. He is a representative of the Roman Empire, the dominant and allegedly “eternal” kingdom of his own long-gone, blown-away age. He occupies his small, short-lived place, doubtful of the existence of truth. If he had at least been a skeptic, he would have known that he was ignorant, that human knowledge is puny and severely limited. He might not so quickly have walked away thinking he knew more about reality and life than Jesus.

    Skepticism, unlike doubt, looks for truth, but it also perceives that human knowledge alone is inadequate for the task of discovering it. The great lie of the modern world is that “science” can discover the truth through empirical research. No one should deny the value and grandeur revealed since the scientific revolution began, nor make an attempt to contradict the scientific quest with the religious one. But science uncovers facts, not truth. Truth includes the facticity of facts, but transcends mere facts. Facts are fluid, come and gone; truth is greater than the sum of all facts. Philosophy and religion deal with truth; science is not equipped to do this, even if it adds to the philosophical and religious questions that are asked.

    But human knowledge at its best knows that it doesn’t know; it knows that it can only know what it knows surrounded by a “cloud of unknowing.” In fact, it strongly suggests that any human pursuit for what might be real and lasting requires help from outside itself. The doubter immediately concludes that the search is therefore meaningless and futile. He walks away. The skeptic, ever the optimist in the face of such close-mindedness, isn’t so sure.

    The first thing, then, that a real skeptic is skeptical of is unaided human thought and knowledge. This is absolutely necessary for us to get clear and sharp in our minds if we’re going to go any further in our appreciation of skepticism. Skepticism is firstly self-critical…We might wish, in reductionist style, that truth were simple (as atheist do), that faith was more cut-and-dried than it is (as many believers do); but skeptics know better than that. That’s not to say they occasionally are not tempted themselves to wish for “a simpler faith” or a more easily digestible “truth”. Human knowledge falters before truth, and must always see its gains as an incomplete grasp of some infinitesimally small portion of it. It must have the humility and maturity to accept ambiguity, gray areas, and paradox. “Sight” may be “blindness”, “knowledge” may be “ignorance”, a purported “good” may turn out to be a monstrous “evil”, a “known fact” may prove “false”, and so on. –Knowing Darkness – On Skepticism, Melancholy, Friendship, and God, Addison Hodges Hart.

    One is reminded of Paul’s adulation in Acts when they “looked into these things” in the Scriptures to see if they were true or not. This is the skepticism that is an aid to faith. My own journey in the faith and before in atheism has been wrought with this. Even coming into confessing Lutheranism, it was not that one day suddenly I said, “I believe it”, I examined it to death with Scripture and the same of other confessions. That I would advise of anyone “sitting on the fence” coming into our confessions, don’t just take “my words for it” or “Frank’s” or anyone else, not even Luther. Take it in bites, digest it, look it up into Scripture, etc…

    This is why the deadliest, and that is not hyperbole, problem is all these forms of “we can just get together on the “gospel” and leave aside these ‘side issues’ of the articles of faith such as sacraments and so forth. That kind of “ecumenical” spirit is the very opposite of this kind of faith aiding skepticism, a variety of Pilate’s “what is truth” shoulders in the air. Take your time and examine your confession on these things and Lutheran confessions (like the sacraments and other articles of faith, be the skeptic), don’t just assume its “eh six one way, half a dozen another”, that’s a true (non-skeptical) atheist. A true skeptic, atheistic or believer, finds such a position utterly absurd and knows even if he/she is wrestling with it that there is singular truth not unknowable truth and that he/she is limited in their ability to find it out, i.e. humbled. The one who shrugs his/her shoulders and says, “eh not essential, eh ‘what is truth’”, who looks upon the true skeptic and sees them as “dogmatic” and arrogant for asserting truth or that there is a truth to be found is the very epitome of dogmatic and arrogance.

  • Larry

    Frank,

    Let me address the simplest question first Luther and Pieper on geocentrism, it’s not an article of faith period. They took a simple observational point of view statement, the weathermen by the way every day to this date, and took a position on it. Ironic because it’s the same kind of argument the Baptist use to defend immersion only as real baptism only in their observation of the language about “going down and coming up”.

    Can a geologist function as a geologist if he/she believes the scriptures in Genesis? Yes. That is as absurd as saying a wine maker cannot make wine because he communes as a Lutheran every Sunday and believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Just like the prophet Daniel functioned within the heathen astrology system and served the pagan king well, but drew the line when they asked him to worship other gods (same here).

    Yes, Frank, in that case where the Word has spoken that would precisely letting reason drive the boat. Also keep in mind that the root concept or philosophy behind evolution is nothing new at all, epicureans posited its seed long before Darwin.

    Also, it only on articles of faith, this cannot be lost. Part of the reason we Lutherans believe that when we eat and drink, as we did today by the way, the very flesh and blood, and we mean the blood that was shed by nails, thorns, whips and spears and the very body that suckled at the breast of Mary, walked the earth, hung on the cross, and rose again (KK denies all these too keep in mind, all gross and essential heresies even before we get to evolution Vs. Genesis, he’s logically consistent that I give him. Which is why too he does not understand in the least Gnosticism because he’s steeped in it. That is to say enthusiasm.) – that body and blood we ate and drank and received the forgiveness of sins…the very reason we believe and receive FROM GOD via the pastor’s mouth the “ego te absolve” and KNOW WE DID RECEIVE IT FROM GOD is we confess, teach and believe as Luther did that God’s Words are DO words, that His Words are the action. Unlike ours that can only “name a thing” (note that difference too in Genesis when Adam only names/classifies things as opposed to God Who spoke them into being). So that just as God said, I repeat, “Light be” and “light was”, is to what you and I just ate and drank mere hours ago at the altar, “Take eat this is the true body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ given into death for your sin”, Take drink this is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ given shed for the forgiveness of your sin”, “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you to life everlasting. Go in peace.”

    All of Scripture is about Christ, every word of it, and the point about Genesis is that God speaks and it is done. Out of nothing came all things. If in a hypothetical imaginary world we could pose a situation to make the argument where there was a handful of lets use angels pre-creation hanging around and they observe in the nothingness the nothing they too could posit theories about the absurdity of “creating out of nothing” and chortle together at the idea. Save one thing, that God can speak and His speech does out of nothing. They would have to not believe this to be true.

    Here we see reason using science, as its god, to usurp the Word and faith, just like original sin (for truly how could a man die just for eating a piece of fruit?).

    Here too we ignore the eschatological reality, do you see how deeply Reformed theology has infiltrated Lutheran (Christian) doctrine, you already know you possess eternal life, “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day”. Yet, unless the Lord comes before, I will die and be buried, Frank will die and be buried, SAL, Tom, etc…grave yards are the only pieces of real estate that continually grow. Yet you and I HAVE eternal life. Note also in the Nicene Creed how it confesses more that “I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and INVISIBLE”. We tend to forget that last part. We are daily surrounded by the invisible realm, invisible to us and all our arts, by the angels and demons, and the devil is closer than our skin as Luther put it. But we largely ignore it. The devil’s reality is all but entirely not believed, which is why false doctrine pervades today. A point Paul makes about fighting.

    A couple of closing points from a good book I’m working through totally incidental to this discussion that help, I cannot improve upon them so I’ll quote them (he’s making the point that a Christian is in reality a skeptic, many atheist are not really skeptics in the true sense of the word and that in fact melancholy and skepticism far from opposing faith go along with it. That faith is not this fluffy puffy, lovey dovey American idea but very gritty and down in the dirt getting dirty all the time and fighting in the mud:

    Skepticism is a word that has to do with intellect, not with attitude. Anyone can be grouchy, but not everyone can be truly skeptical. Skepticism requires effort, it involves labor; it isn’t lazy or sloppy.

    A working definition of skepticism must go back to the Greek word from which it is derived, skptesthai. The word means “to fix one’s gaze on,” “to look into,” “to examine,” “to observe.” It has to do with inquiry, consideration, investigation. It isn’t synonymous with “doub,” and it isn’t the antithesis of “faith”…

    The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, and it means rather more than the opposite of falsehood or error. It can justifiably be translated as “reality”, since the word essentially means “not oblivion.” In other words, “truth” is that which is “not empty,” “not void,” “not shadowy,” “not vanity”; in other words, it refers to that which is substantial, lasting, enduring and real. When Ecclesiastes assigns all things under the sun to the windy and transient, the futile and vain, he is lamenting the absence of the true and firm in his experience.

    When Christ on the other hand, speaks of “truth” in John’s Gospel, he is referring to that which will endure when all that is vanity has disappeared for good. Pilate, it might be said, is someone who represents precisely the opposite. He is the spokesman for the transient and empty. He is a representative of the Roman Empire, the dominant and allegedly “eternal” kingdom of his own long-gone, blown-away age. He occupies his small, short-lived place, doubtful of the existence of truth. If he had at least been a skeptic, he would have known that he was ignorant, that human knowledge is puny and severely limited. He might not so quickly have walked away thinking he knew more about reality and life than Jesus.

    Skepticism, unlike doubt, looks for truth, but it also perceives that human knowledge alone is inadequate for the task of discovering it. The great lie of the modern world is that “science” can discover the truth through empirical research. No one should deny the value and grandeur revealed since the scientific revolution began, nor make an attempt to contradict the scientific quest with the religious one. But science uncovers facts, not truth. Truth includes the facticity of facts, but transcends mere facts. Facts are fluid, come and gone; truth is greater than the sum of all facts. Philosophy and religion deal with truth; science is not equipped to do this, even if it adds to the philosophical and religious questions that are asked.

    But human knowledge at its best knows that it doesn’t know; it knows that it can only know what it knows surrounded by a “cloud of unknowing.” In fact, it strongly suggests that any human pursuit for what might be real and lasting requires help from outside itself. The doubter immediately concludes that the search is therefore meaningless and futile. He walks away. The skeptic, ever the optimist in the face of such close-mindedness, isn’t so sure.

    The first thing, then, that a real skeptic is skeptical of is unaided human thought and knowledge. This is absolutely necessary for us to get clear and sharp in our minds if we’re going to go any further in our appreciation of skepticism. Skepticism is firstly self-critical…We might wish, in reductionist style, that truth were simple (as atheist do), that faith was more cut-and-dried than it is (as many believers do); but skeptics know better than that. That’s not to say they occasionally are not tempted themselves to wish for “a simpler faith” or a more easily digestible “truth”. Human knowledge falters before truth, and must always see its gains as an incomplete grasp of some infinitesimally small portion of it. It must have the humility and maturity to accept ambiguity, gray areas, and paradox. “Sight” may be “blindness”, “knowledge” may be “ignorance”, a purported “good” may turn out to be a monstrous “evil”, a “known fact” may prove “false”, and so on. –Knowing Darkness – On Skepticism, Melancholy, Friendship, and God, Addison Hodges Hart.

    One is reminded of Paul’s adulation in Acts when they “looked into these things” in the Scriptures to see if they were true or not. This is the skepticism that is an aid to faith. My own journey in the faith and before in atheism has been wrought with this. Even coming into confessing Lutheranism, it was not that one day suddenly I said, “I believe it”, I examined it to death with Scripture and the same of other confessions. That I would advise of anyone “sitting on the fence” coming into our confessions, don’t just take “my words for it” or “Frank’s” or anyone else, not even Luther. Take it in bites, digest it, look it up into Scripture, etc…

    This is why the deadliest, and that is not hyperbole, problem is all these forms of “we can just get together on the “gospel” and leave aside these ‘side issues’ of the articles of faith such as sacraments and so forth. That kind of “ecumenical” spirit is the very opposite of this kind of faith aiding skepticism, a variety of Pilate’s “what is truth” shoulders in the air. Take your time and examine your confession on these things and Lutheran confessions (like the sacraments and other articles of faith, be the skeptic), don’t just assume its “eh six one way, half a dozen another”, that’s a true (non-skeptical) atheist. A true skeptic, atheistic or believer, finds such a position utterly absurd and knows even if he/she is wrestling with it that there is singular truth not unknowable truth and that he/she is limited in their ability to find it out, i.e. humbled. The one who shrugs his/her shoulders and says, “eh not essential, eh ‘what is truth’”, who looks upon the true skeptic and sees them as “dogmatic” and arrogant for asserting truth or that there is a truth to be found is the very epitome of dogmatic and arrogance.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Frank, I will answer you – I think we use the word Reason differently.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Frank, I will answer you – I think we use the word Reason differently.

  • Larry

    Take some of these assertions to their full extent. For example the conveniently selective nature of centering in on the account of the creation of Adam and Eve and then asserting, to sustain evolution, that this would be “allegorical”. Note how this spiritualizing of the text is precisely the same insertions into the text made over the sacraments to defend the same denials of the articles of faith. E.g. we are to believe according to the Baptist in Acts 2 that “…and the promise is to you and your children and all who are far off…” is “…and the promise is to you and your spiritual children and all who are far off…”. Then, “This is My body…” and the like are to be read “This is (=represents) My body…”. Same concept of inserting into the Word of God in order to spiritualize the text in order to establish the gnosistic way. This is the same technique the Arians used, all deniers of the Trinity, the two nature, justification, etc…

    If that’s true then lets run it through the Scriptures, on Adam:

    Gen. 5:5, “Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.” We are to take that to mean “Altogether, ,the allegorical Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. And that in the midst of genealogies of real men and women, this sudden “allegorical”.

    Luke 3:38, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” Again as, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of the allegorical Adam, the son of God. From verses 24 through 38 in the midst of real flesh and blood men. Even more, which of the real flesh and blood men transitioned from having an allegorical father? And was the Son of God allegorical? These genealogies are also linked to the other genealogies in the synoptic Gospels.

    Romans 5:14, “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ,the allegorical Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did ,the allegoricalAdam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” So that we have “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ,the allegoricalAdam to the time of real Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did ,the allegoricalAdam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

    Or worse Romans 5:15, “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one allegoricalman, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” Are we to take Jesus as allegorical? Then we have no salvation. And this is by the way an indirect assault on the communication of the two natures so absolutely critical as Chemnitz points out (and Luther foresaw).
    How about the very obvious and unambiguous language of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:45, “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the lastAdam, a life-giving spirit.” Is that to be read, “So it is written: “The first man allegorical Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Similar to “spiritual children” in baptism and “represents in “is My body”?

    Or 1 Timothy 2, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Allegedly “first formed” means “allegorically”.

    What about Jude 1:14, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones”, he even numbers Enoch as the seventh from Adam. Supposedly it should read “Enoch the real, the seventh from Adam the allegory”.

    What about needing someone to WORK the ground, supposedly an allegorical Adam could do that, or was the ground and work allegorical, then by extension “let there be light”.

    Such is obvious, obvious as “This is My body”. As one Lutheran has put it, “If Jesus would have only said plainly, “this is My body”, that would settle it. Similarly if the Holy Spirit through Moses, a real man I hope, had only said plainly, “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”, that would settle it.

  • Larry

    Take some of these assertions to their full extent. For example the conveniently selective nature of centering in on the account of the creation of Adam and Eve and then asserting, to sustain evolution, that this would be “allegorical”. Note how this spiritualizing of the text is precisely the same insertions into the text made over the sacraments to defend the same denials of the articles of faith. E.g. we are to believe according to the Baptist in Acts 2 that “…and the promise is to you and your children and all who are far off…” is “…and the promise is to you and your spiritual children and all who are far off…”. Then, “This is My body…” and the like are to be read “This is (=represents) My body…”. Same concept of inserting into the Word of God in order to spiritualize the text in order to establish the gnosistic way. This is the same technique the Arians used, all deniers of the Trinity, the two nature, justification, etc…

    If that’s true then lets run it through the Scriptures, on Adam:

    Gen. 5:5, “Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.” We are to take that to mean “Altogether, ,the allegorical Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. And that in the midst of genealogies of real men and women, this sudden “allegorical”.

    Luke 3:38, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” Again as, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of the allegorical Adam, the son of God. From verses 24 through 38 in the midst of real flesh and blood men. Even more, which of the real flesh and blood men transitioned from having an allegorical father? And was the Son of God allegorical? These genealogies are also linked to the other genealogies in the synoptic Gospels.

    Romans 5:14, “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ,the allegorical Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did ,the allegoricalAdam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” So that we have “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ,the allegoricalAdam to the time of real Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did ,the allegoricalAdam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

    Or worse Romans 5:15, “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one allegoricalman, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” Are we to take Jesus as allegorical? Then we have no salvation. And this is by the way an indirect assault on the communication of the two natures so absolutely critical as Chemnitz points out (and Luther foresaw).
    How about the very obvious and unambiguous language of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:45, “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the lastAdam, a life-giving spirit.” Is that to be read, “So it is written: “The first man allegorical Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Similar to “spiritual children” in baptism and “represents in “is My body”?

    Or 1 Timothy 2, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Allegedly “first formed” means “allegorically”.

    What about Jude 1:14, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones”, he even numbers Enoch as the seventh from Adam. Supposedly it should read “Enoch the real, the seventh from Adam the allegory”.

    What about needing someone to WORK the ground, supposedly an allegorical Adam could do that, or was the ground and work allegorical, then by extension “let there be light”.

    Such is obvious, obvious as “This is My body”. As one Lutheran has put it, “If Jesus would have only said plainly, “this is My body”, that would settle it. Similarly if the Holy Spirit through Moses, a real man I hope, had only said plainly, “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”, that would settle it.

  • fws

    larry @ 257

    That is pretty persuasive exegesis you got there Larry. I don’t know how anyone could argue against it.

    At the same time a poetic reading of Genesis 1 does not seem to do violence to the text t0 a certain extent. I am thinking of the fact that morning and evening come before sun and moon and details like that. It does seem like the text is begging us to read it that way. Would you agree with that Larry?

  • fws

    larry @ 257

    That is pretty persuasive exegesis you got there Larry. I don’t know how anyone could argue against it.

    At the same time a poetic reading of Genesis 1 does not seem to do violence to the text t0 a certain extent. I am thinking of the fact that morning and evening come before sun and moon and details like that. It does seem like the text is begging us to read it that way. Would you agree with that Larry?

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Larry @ 257: where the hell did you get the idea that I deny the Real Presence?? In your convulated little mind, everything has to be Larry’s way, according to Larry’s understanding, or he is a hell-bound heretic. God have mercy on your soul. I’m finished with you.

    Frank, regarding Reason and Faith: Do we have free will or not? If we have, that implies that we can choose to reject. And choosing implies a measure of Reason. If we do not have free will, then are you a full, predestination and all Calvinist? Also, think about the logic of my answer to Grace @240. Any comments?

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Larry @ 257: where the hell did you get the idea that I deny the Real Presence?? In your convulated little mind, everything has to be Larry’s way, according to Larry’s understanding, or he is a hell-bound heretic. God have mercy on your soul. I’m finished with you.

    Frank, regarding Reason and Faith: Do we have free will or not? If we have, that implies that we can choose to reject. And choosing implies a measure of Reason. If we do not have free will, then are you a full, predestination and all Calvinist? Also, think about the logic of my answer to Grace @240. Any comments?

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Note: Larry nowhere deals with our (mine, Webmonk’s, Kevin’s) exegesis, scientific evidence, or logical arguments. Instead, he has some weird, quasi-gnostic (go read the definition of the word) , van Tillian presuppositionalist argument. He took the ultra-Calvinist hard-ass ‘logic’, replaced Calvinism with some mystic version of Lutheranism, draped a mantle of faith over it, and called it orthodoxy. The trajectory is different, but the steps is straight out Van Till, Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, Wilson etc.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Note: Larry nowhere deals with our (mine, Webmonk’s, Kevin’s) exegesis, scientific evidence, or logical arguments. Instead, he has some weird, quasi-gnostic (go read the definition of the word) , van Tillian presuppositionalist argument. He took the ultra-Calvinist hard-ass ‘logic’, replaced Calvinism with some mystic version of Lutheranism, draped a mantle of faith over it, and called it orthodoxy. The trajectory is different, but the steps is straight out Van Till, Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, Wilson etc.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws — thank you for the honor (#248).

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws — thank you for the honor (#248).

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 260, “yom” can mean something other than a 24-hour period (from 12 hours to a year), but the point of the poetic expression “there was evening and there was morning” is to make it clear that a 24-hour period is what’s meant.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 260, “yom” can mean something other than a 24-hour period (from 12 hours to a year), but the point of the poetic expression “there was evening and there was morning” is to make it clear that a 24-hour period is what’s meant.

  • fws

    KK @ 261

    I read carefully through the whole thread KK.
    I reread your post @ 240. It sounds honest.

    What about my post 247? Is this your response?

    Free Will. Does anyone, even a Calvinist, completely deny that free will exists? I didnt think so. 247 was my attempt to flag a couple of your comments that I felt were not to be simply assumed. Interesting where you landed!

    I am not sure what your question is to be honest. So I will recite what the Apology says about reason, will , the Law and Divine Revelation hoping that the recitation will answer your questions.

    Suffer me here KK. I have never seen what the Apology teaches summarized in this form anywhere. So I think lots of Lutherans miss it. They assume with rome and geneva that we teach that law written in reason and conscience is deficient. We dont teach that. This matters in epistomology alot I suggest.

    Lutherans agree with Aritotle here. There are two powers within man called ruled Reason and an unruly Will or Heart. And there is a third element at play called Natural Appetites.
    Reason/Mind is at war with the Will/Heart.
    Virtue is the exercising of Reason to rule over Will in it’s nourishment of natural appetites.

    Rome adds a substance called “grace” to this aristotelian practice and says we are completely free to perfect ourselves in this practice also in spiritual matters with grace added. This is a necessary preparation to being justified

    Geneva places this exercise after Justification and as a result of it and says that that substance called “grace” give believers now the free will to perfect ourselves in this practice also in spiritual matters.For a Calvinist, free will juiced up by the HS rocks and rules! We can avoid “willful” sinning! Many Lutherans teach this as well.

    Lutherans call this bullshit. Why? This will tale a bit more to explain.

    1) Divine Law=Natural Law:
    We declare that the Divine Law of God is completely revealed in the Reason of all men (rom 2:15).
    Reason agrees with the Decalog because it is the SAME Law.
    2)The Divine Law is not: the revelation of the Mind or Will of God or his Image or even of Righeousness.
    3) even though the complete Divine Law is written in Reason, there is a part of it that is “veiled by the veil of moses”. This veil is the opinion the blinds reason that says that the Law can be kept by an outward doing even if the heart is not in it. Ex Opere Operato. or as we keep Civil Law. Reason assumes that a Divine Command to do implies the ability to do what is demanded. Reason says this is only fair.
    4) The part of the Divine Law that is veiled to Reason is uniquely found only in the First Commandment of the Decalog that deals with movements of the heart. Ie The Will. This Law, alone, can only be known clearly by Divine Supernatural Revelation. Ie: the Bible, even though it too is written in Reason .
    5) “Natural” are whatever attributes of man exist both before and after the fall. As opposed to: “supernatural” defined as things that fall under the category of faith. So this Supernatural Law can only be known by faith. All other Law can be known without faith, by reason.
    6) Man has free will to both know and do the natural Law from God. So why doesn’t he do it? Tbe problem is the heart.In the Will. The will is “bound” to rebel against reason. no amount of exercise can fix this this says. The war between reason and bound will will never end. And it takes that Supernatural Revelation of the Law for man to see this clearly. Reason can’t know this because of the Veil of Moses, the Opinio Legis.
    7) The will is in prison. It can only flee from the judgement of God it hears in Reason. And it can only hate God for demanding what it is not able to do. which is to love. no moses can make us love. Moses can only make us do. So the will flees God’s judgement either by becoming pharisee or by becoming despairing judas.
    8)The war between reason and the will can only be ended by giving man a NEW will in regeneration. This is something that alone the HS and Christ can do. It is outside of man’s”natural” powers to do this. For man to receive this new will is to receive true fear love and trust in the heart, in the will . new emotions. And Lutherans say this is to restore the very Image of God. faith alone =Image of God.
    as a consequence of Image that is faith restored, the law is also then written in the heart in fulfillment of Jer 31. Law is now written in both mind and heart.

    So you see, the Apology treats of all this in the context of Aritotelian Virtue Ethics. Why The Scholastics took Aristotle too far into theology. he is to remain in the realm of the “natural”. there is is good and useful.

    I hope that helps. You can read the first parts of Apology art III and IV to see how they develop all this in detail there at http://www.bookofconcord.org

    The Confessions define free will as to movements of the heathe free will and ability to have the spontaneous emotions in the heart of true fear, love and trust in God above all things as the first commandment demands? Ie to have saving faith in God? To have a heart that spontaneously agrees with the Law in Reason? Of course I don’t believe that.

    But do I believe that we DO have free will in EVERY other respect. You bet I do.

  • fws

    KK @ 261

    I read carefully through the whole thread KK.
    I reread your post @ 240. It sounds honest.

    What about my post 247? Is this your response?

    Free Will. Does anyone, even a Calvinist, completely deny that free will exists? I didnt think so. 247 was my attempt to flag a couple of your comments that I felt were not to be simply assumed. Interesting where you landed!

    I am not sure what your question is to be honest. So I will recite what the Apology says about reason, will , the Law and Divine Revelation hoping that the recitation will answer your questions.

    Suffer me here KK. I have never seen what the Apology teaches summarized in this form anywhere. So I think lots of Lutherans miss it. They assume with rome and geneva that we teach that law written in reason and conscience is deficient. We dont teach that. This matters in epistomology alot I suggest.

    Lutherans agree with Aritotle here. There are two powers within man called ruled Reason and an unruly Will or Heart. And there is a third element at play called Natural Appetites.
    Reason/Mind is at war with the Will/Heart.
    Virtue is the exercising of Reason to rule over Will in it’s nourishment of natural appetites.

    Rome adds a substance called “grace” to this aristotelian practice and says we are completely free to perfect ourselves in this practice also in spiritual matters with grace added. This is a necessary preparation to being justified

    Geneva places this exercise after Justification and as a result of it and says that that substance called “grace” give believers now the free will to perfect ourselves in this practice also in spiritual matters.For a Calvinist, free will juiced up by the HS rocks and rules! We can avoid “willful” sinning! Many Lutherans teach this as well.

    Lutherans call this bullshit. Why? This will tale a bit more to explain.

    1) Divine Law=Natural Law:
    We declare that the Divine Law of God is completely revealed in the Reason of all men (rom 2:15).
    Reason agrees with the Decalog because it is the SAME Law.
    2)The Divine Law is not: the revelation of the Mind or Will of God or his Image or even of Righeousness.
    3) even though the complete Divine Law is written in Reason, there is a part of it that is “veiled by the veil of moses”. This veil is the opinion the blinds reason that says that the Law can be kept by an outward doing even if the heart is not in it. Ex Opere Operato. or as we keep Civil Law. Reason assumes that a Divine Command to do implies the ability to do what is demanded. Reason says this is only fair.
    4) The part of the Divine Law that is veiled to Reason is uniquely found only in the First Commandment of the Decalog that deals with movements of the heart. Ie The Will. This Law, alone, can only be known clearly by Divine Supernatural Revelation. Ie: the Bible, even though it too is written in Reason .
    5) “Natural” are whatever attributes of man exist both before and after the fall. As opposed to: “supernatural” defined as things that fall under the category of faith. So this Supernatural Law can only be known by faith. All other Law can be known without faith, by reason.
    6) Man has free will to both know and do the natural Law from God. So why doesn’t he do it? Tbe problem is the heart.In the Will. The will is “bound” to rebel against reason. no amount of exercise can fix this this says. The war between reason and bound will will never end. And it takes that Supernatural Revelation of the Law for man to see this clearly. Reason can’t know this because of the Veil of Moses, the Opinio Legis.
    7) The will is in prison. It can only flee from the judgement of God it hears in Reason. And it can only hate God for demanding what it is not able to do. which is to love. no moses can make us love. Moses can only make us do. So the will flees God’s judgement either by becoming pharisee or by becoming despairing judas.
    8)The war between reason and the will can only be ended by giving man a NEW will in regeneration. This is something that alone the HS and Christ can do. It is outside of man’s”natural” powers to do this. For man to receive this new will is to receive true fear love and trust in the heart, in the will . new emotions. And Lutherans say this is to restore the very Image of God. faith alone =Image of God.
    as a consequence of Image that is faith restored, the law is also then written in the heart in fulfillment of Jer 31. Law is now written in both mind and heart.

    So you see, the Apology treats of all this in the context of Aritotelian Virtue Ethics. Why The Scholastics took Aristotle too far into theology. he is to remain in the realm of the “natural”. there is is good and useful.

    I hope that helps. You can read the first parts of Apology art III and IV to see how they develop all this in detail there at http://www.bookofconcord.org

    The Confessions define free will as to movements of the heathe free will and ability to have the spontaneous emotions in the heart of true fear, love and trust in God above all things as the first commandment demands? Ie to have saving faith in God? To have a heart that spontaneously agrees with the Law in Reason? Of course I don’t believe that.

    But do I believe that we DO have free will in EVERY other respect. You bet I do.

  • fws

    kevin n @ 263
    dont mention it!

    increasingly I am thinking you need to just come outta the closet. you seem really lutheran kevin. maybe check with your therapist on this? but for now we will give a wink and nod to “honorary” luthrun for ya.

  • fws

    kevin n @ 263
    dont mention it!

    increasingly I am thinking you need to just come outta the closet. you seem really lutheran kevin. maybe check with your therapist on this? but for now we will give a wink and nod to “honorary” luthrun for ya.

  • fws

    tom @ 264

    I like kevin’s presentation of the pairings in gen 1. enviroment paired with something to fill it.

    how can there be evening and morning without sun and moon? Moses would have seen that. The were closer observers of nature than I ever will be. I am not saying they are more primitive than me in their understanding.

    I dont need to. And there are other details like that.
    Are you SURE the text demands the reading you have, or is the text instead resistant to such a reading Tom?

  • fws

    tom @ 264

    I like kevin’s presentation of the pairings in gen 1. enviroment paired with something to fill it.

    how can there be evening and morning without sun and moon? Moses would have seen that. The were closer observers of nature than I ever will be. I am not saying they are more primitive than me in their understanding.

    I dont need to. And there are other details like that.
    Are you SURE the text demands the reading you have, or is the text instead resistant to such a reading Tom?

  • fws

    Klassie, if I understand your basic argument right it is that God would not make a universe with facts that are designed to deliberately mislead us.

    And you are saying that the facts all overwhelmingly point to the conclusion that the earth is very old indeed.

    Ok. So a person of faith would then need to wrestle honestly with what Larry presents in his post 259.

    Cut Larry some slack KK. He is not channeling van till there. That post of his is precisely where my mind takes me as well.

    We can take our discussion of free will up in private emails or as a side discussion later on ok?

  • fws

    Klassie, if I understand your basic argument right it is that God would not make a universe with facts that are designed to deliberately mislead us.

    And you are saying that the facts all overwhelmingly point to the conclusion that the earth is very old indeed.

    Ok. So a person of faith would then need to wrestle honestly with what Larry presents in his post 259.

    Cut Larry some slack KK. He is not channeling van till there. That post of his is precisely where my mind takes me as well.

    We can take our discussion of free will up in private emails or as a side discussion later on ok?

  • fws

    tom @ 264

    I am an eskimo. 24 day? what do you mean by that dear sunday school teacher.

    And the arguments such as ‘the whole world was in famine” in the story of Joseph. The bible is known to deal in such hyperbole. I am not sure it is outta bounds to push that way.

    But still… what Larry presents in 259 needs to be dealt with I am thinking. It is what troubles me in reading this thread actually. I simply cannot imagine an alegorical moses for exactly the reasons Larry outlines. How would that work , honoring the text of the Bible and not reading into it?

  • fws

    tom @ 264

    I am an eskimo. 24 day? what do you mean by that dear sunday school teacher.

    And the arguments such as ‘the whole world was in famine” in the story of Joseph. The bible is known to deal in such hyperbole. I am not sure it is outta bounds to push that way.

    But still… what Larry presents in 259 needs to be dealt with I am thinking. It is what troubles me in reading this thread actually. I simply cannot imagine an alegorical moses for exactly the reasons Larry outlines. How would that work , honoring the text of the Bible and not reading into it?

  • fws

    i meant adam and not moses….

  • fws

    i meant adam and not moses….

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws (#266) — I attend a PCA church that has a lot of Luther influence. The pastor likes to say “remember your baptism,” which you don’t hear too often in Reformed settings. I believe that baptism and communion actually do something, so perhaps I am along the lines of what some have called crypto-lutheran reformed theology.

    I grew up in the ALC/ELCA, came to a good understanding of justification by grace through faith through Campus Crusade for Christ, attended a fundamentalist Baptist church for a time (and got re-baptized, though now I consider my infant baptism to be my real baptism), was in the Evangelical Free Church for 27 years, and am now in a PCA church.

    I might end up back in the Lutheran church some day, but right now it wouldn’t be a perfect fit either. I won’t bring up the issues now (except perhaps lutefisk), as this comment thread would jump up to 500 comments and wander even further from the topic of “all doubt about evolution will soon end.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws (#266) — I attend a PCA church that has a lot of Luther influence. The pastor likes to say “remember your baptism,” which you don’t hear too often in Reformed settings. I believe that baptism and communion actually do something, so perhaps I am along the lines of what some have called crypto-lutheran reformed theology.

    I grew up in the ALC/ELCA, came to a good understanding of justification by grace through faith through Campus Crusade for Christ, attended a fundamentalist Baptist church for a time (and got re-baptized, though now I consider my infant baptism to be my real baptism), was in the Evangelical Free Church for 27 years, and am now in a PCA church.

    I might end up back in the Lutheran church some day, but right now it wouldn’t be a perfect fit either. I won’t bring up the issues now (except perhaps lutefisk), as this comment thread would jump up to 500 comments and wander even further from the topic of “all doubt about evolution will soon end.”

  • fws

    Kevin N @ 271

    You probably more Lutheran in fact than lots of Lutherans are in name only from what I am hearing. That’s not such a bad place to be. I have lots of Anglican friends who are completely Lutheran. The Anglican structure allows for that possibility.

    Some have suggested that I would be a better fit in the ELCA being gay and all. Not so. The ELCA confuses mercy with Mercy.
    I agree with lots of the mercy they do but not with why.
    Welcoming gays, inclusion, social justice, IS the Gospel for them. And Gays are welcomed then into what?

    I would rather suffer the very few LCMS Lutherans who would rather have me go away. And yes. Legalistic implementations of Closed Communion and such are problems. But they just need to be taught patiently out of us. Like the PCA, the pastor makes a huge difference. there is even wider variation in a larger body like the LCMS.

    Here in Brasil we have 300,000 members and the clergy run the gamut. I have a very good pastor. I got lucky. But my last pastor here was pure moses. “jesus in your heart” is how he would put it…..

    Kevin, I would really urge you to get Steven Paulson’s book “Lutheran Theology”. It really gets past the Calvinist vs Lutheran polemics you hear here (from me included). I downloaded it to my ipad. I am a pretty critical reader . Especially of things Lutheran. I havent found even a single offnote. It’s the real deal. The book is Catholic. It isnt parochially Lutheran even though it’s intent is to be an introduction to Lutheran Theology.

    From what I read in your thoughtful comments here, I think you will resonate to what the book says and how it is presented.

    It is an amazing book. It follows the the Epistle to Romans as it’s organizing outline. I am up to chapter 7. I find myself highlighting lots and lots. He turns some amazing phrases and is very accessable.

    And he doesnt just bash away at anyone. He gets to the stuff that really matters.

    Get the book. It will clear away lots of stuff that isn’t really Lutheran that you probably have been exposed to as being Lutheran.

  • fws

    Kevin N @ 271

    You probably more Lutheran in fact than lots of Lutherans are in name only from what I am hearing. That’s not such a bad place to be. I have lots of Anglican friends who are completely Lutheran. The Anglican structure allows for that possibility.

    Some have suggested that I would be a better fit in the ELCA being gay and all. Not so. The ELCA confuses mercy with Mercy.
    I agree with lots of the mercy they do but not with why.
    Welcoming gays, inclusion, social justice, IS the Gospel for them. And Gays are welcomed then into what?

    I would rather suffer the very few LCMS Lutherans who would rather have me go away. And yes. Legalistic implementations of Closed Communion and such are problems. But they just need to be taught patiently out of us. Like the PCA, the pastor makes a huge difference. there is even wider variation in a larger body like the LCMS.

    Here in Brasil we have 300,000 members and the clergy run the gamut. I have a very good pastor. I got lucky. But my last pastor here was pure moses. “jesus in your heart” is how he would put it…..

    Kevin, I would really urge you to get Steven Paulson’s book “Lutheran Theology”. It really gets past the Calvinist vs Lutheran polemics you hear here (from me included). I downloaded it to my ipad. I am a pretty critical reader . Especially of things Lutheran. I havent found even a single offnote. It’s the real deal. The book is Catholic. It isnt parochially Lutheran even though it’s intent is to be an introduction to Lutheran Theology.

    From what I read in your thoughtful comments here, I think you will resonate to what the book says and how it is presented.

    It is an amazing book. It follows the the Epistle to Romans as it’s organizing outline. I am up to chapter 7. I find myself highlighting lots and lots. He turns some amazing phrases and is very accessable.

    And he doesnt just bash away at anyone. He gets to the stuff that really matters.

    Get the book. It will clear away lots of stuff that isn’t really Lutheran that you probably have been exposed to as being Lutheran.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws,

    I read Paulson’s >Luther for Armchair Theologians a while back and liked it a lot.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws,

    I read Paulson’s >Luther for Armchair Theologians a while back and liked it a lot.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, I think you missed my point. Yes, the text says “there was evening and there was morning” before there was a Sun and a Moon, but it’s a poetic expression meant to indicate a 24-hour period. (Note, however, that there was light of some kind before there was a Sun and a Moon. Darkness too, and a separation of light and darkness. Which amounted to same thing as the sort of day that’s existed since the creation of the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day.)

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, I think you missed my point. Yes, the text says “there was evening and there was morning” before there was a Sun and a Moon, but it’s a poetic expression meant to indicate a 24-hour period. (Note, however, that there was light of some kind before there was a Sun and a Moon. Darkness too, and a separation of light and darkness. Which amounted to same thing as the sort of day that’s existed since the creation of the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day.)

  • Fws

    No less than the good dr Veith made me get this book! I didnt read armchair. I am told this book is far better and more accessable. I find it to be simply amazing. Best thing i have read in years next to the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.

    It is a thick book but doesnt feel like a chore to read. Very fluid style and memorable turns of phrase on almost every page.

    And like i said. He positively states the truth without bashing or beating up other views. There is no them vs us in it. That is great.

  • Fws

    No less than the good dr Veith made me get this book! I didnt read armchair. I am told this book is far better and more accessable. I find it to be simply amazing. Best thing i have read in years next to the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.

    It is a thick book but doesnt feel like a chore to read. Very fluid style and memorable turns of phrase on almost every page.

    And like i said. He positively states the truth without bashing or beating up other views. There is no them vs us in it. That is great.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Tom Hering (#274),

    “Evening and morning” do not make a complete day in Hebrew thought. “Evening and morning” is a break between the daytime work hours, not a 24-hour time period.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Tom Hering (#274),

    “Evening and morning” do not make a complete day in Hebrew thought. “Evening and morning” is a break between the daytime work hours, not a 24-hour time period.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws,

    No “them vs us?” How can this be?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws,

    No “them vs us?” How can this be?

  • Fws

    I am not sure that a 24 hour period is meant. But on the other hand millions of years feels like a shoehorned idea into the text once we get to adam.

  • Fws

    I am not sure that a 24 hour period is meant. But on the other hand millions of years feels like a shoehorned idea into the text once we get to adam.

  • Fws

    Kevin n @ 277

    Yeah. That does sorta take the fun outta it. Doesnt feel like a REAL Lutheran book. i still recommend it. Even with that glaring flaw.

  • Fws

    Kevin n @ 277

    Yeah. That does sorta take the fun outta it. Doesnt feel like a REAL Lutheran book. i still recommend it. Even with that glaring flaw.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank you touch on something that I’d like to explore more.

    After my last post, I spent an hour on a plane, thinking things over. But before I continued, a brief remark regarding Larry: I understand quite well what he says, because a couple of years ago, I was exactly there. But once he starts spreading anathema’s around faster than a sixteenth century pope, a man’s patience wears a bit thin.

    Now that I’ve dealt with that, we need to explore some key issues here, and bear with me, this might take long, more than one post, possibly:

    (Part 1)

    When we say “Reason”, what do we mean?

    The Oxford states –

    2 [mass noun] the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically:

    there is a close connection between reason and emotion
    what is right, practical, or possible; common sense:
    people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling
    (one’s reason) one’s sanity: she is in danger of losing her reason

    …amongst other definitions.

    Wikipedia gives an interesting defintion:

    Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]
    Reason or “reasoning” is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.
    In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event, phenomenon or behaviour.[4] The ways in which human beings reason through argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic.
    Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[5]

    Plato had an elevated opinion of Reason, stating that is the Monarch over the rest of Man. Aristotle calls man the “Rational animal”, believing that the life ruled by Reason is a happy life.

    In the beginning of the modern era, we have Descartes with his description of existence as being defined by thought (only?). And Hobbes, who went so far as to disdain metaphor, poetry, theology and (traditional) moral philosophy. Richard Dawkins, being a Hobbesian, echoes this. Indeed he would break the organism down to irrelevance, choosing instead to place the “selfish gene” on the throne. Away with all imagination, yells Dawkins, in a way.

    And then to jump back to the Ancients, we have the Phytagoreans, with their belief in Reason being a characteristic of the Cosmos. Now the Phytagoreans had a certain mystic bent to them as well.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank you touch on something that I’d like to explore more.

    After my last post, I spent an hour on a plane, thinking things over. But before I continued, a brief remark regarding Larry: I understand quite well what he says, because a couple of years ago, I was exactly there. But once he starts spreading anathema’s around faster than a sixteenth century pope, a man’s patience wears a bit thin.

    Now that I’ve dealt with that, we need to explore some key issues here, and bear with me, this might take long, more than one post, possibly:

    (Part 1)

    When we say “Reason”, what do we mean?

    The Oxford states –

    2 [mass noun] the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically:

    there is a close connection between reason and emotion
    what is right, practical, or possible; common sense:
    people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling
    (one’s reason) one’s sanity: she is in danger of losing her reason

    …amongst other definitions.

    Wikipedia gives an interesting defintion:

    Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]
    Reason or “reasoning” is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.
    In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event, phenomenon or behaviour.[4] The ways in which human beings reason through argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic.
    Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[5]

    Plato had an elevated opinion of Reason, stating that is the Monarch over the rest of Man. Aristotle calls man the “Rational animal”, believing that the life ruled by Reason is a happy life.

    In the beginning of the modern era, we have Descartes with his description of existence as being defined by thought (only?). And Hobbes, who went so far as to disdain metaphor, poetry, theology and (traditional) moral philosophy. Richard Dawkins, being a Hobbesian, echoes this. Indeed he would break the organism down to irrelevance, choosing instead to place the “selfish gene” on the throne. Away with all imagination, yells Dawkins, in a way.

    And then to jump back to the Ancients, we have the Phytagoreans, with their belief in Reason being a characteristic of the Cosmos. Now the Phytagoreans had a certain mystic bent to them as well.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    (Part 2)

    Before I go any further, I should just caution all to take the context of any use of the word “Reason” in to mind. It can be used in many different ways, and sometimes it prefers to the simple machinations of the mind to justify itself (probably the most common use in the Bible, and in Luther). Other times it refers to logic, and its application to facts/observations. And so forth – look at the definitions I gave.

    But a big part of the problem is how to relate faith to reason. I still maintain that when we use those two terms together, most people immediately apply the first use in my previous paragraph. That is NOT, repeat NOT, what I am doing. But what I am doing is referring to the second, and in a way that disdains the extreme tendencies of Hobbes, Descartes and Dawkins, precisely because observations and careful consideration indicates them falling flat on their faces. The trio disdains the body, the organic. It sounds really strange to accuse the evolutionary biologist Dawkins of that, and he most likely offer a yowl of protest. But his argument indicates that. And at exactly this moment I’d like to introduce another protagonist, one revered for the wrong reasons, and forgotten for the wrong Reasons too. CS Lewis, the philologist, author and sometime apologist, is more often remembered for apologetic works, and Narnia. But in my mind his greatest work was an oft forgotten sci-fi trilogy, The planetary trilogy. In it he develops a strong philosophy of the mind and body in relation to truth and reality. Sure, he is a neoplatonist, but it serves him well in this case. Why? Because he breaks down the tendencies to overt mysticism & Gnosticism that we so offer suffer from. He attacks the mistaken pure-intellect of the Hobbesians, showing that it is indeed the opposite. And, importantly, he glories in Creation.

    Now, that all being said as background, wallpaper even, let us turn to the issue of faith and reason. I use reason as logic acting on information, but, I would add, this logic is not always a strict mental process.

    For instance, we have all had the experience that someone describes a wonderful meal, and then we start feeling hungry. The reminder of good, pleasurable food brings forth the desire thereof. There is nothing strange about this. It is “reasonable”. same with the reaction a man would have to the presence of a very beautiful woman (well, most men ;) ). This is quite reasonable. The sin comes in when we want to act on that desire or feeling in a way that does us harm – gluttony (unreasonable, shortened lifespan, ill health etc etc), or sexual sin (hurting people, destroying relationships, unplanned children, even abortion). I am not including the obvious and relevant biblical commands here.

    At that moment, the individual obviously chooses – reason, actin within reasonable circumstances weighing the evidence and making a decision. There is likely some mental, logical process going on, whether the result is correct or incorrect. Fine.

    But what the when the individual is confronted with faith. Again (and you missed part of my earlier statements here, Frank), the hyper-Calvinist wants us to believe that essentially, you have it, or you don’t, and that’s all there is to it. Apart from the violence it does to God’s character, and Scriptures, it also implies – zero reason. But, from our individual experiences, can we really say that we never chose? That our minds either worked on real facts, logical arguments presented to us, even emotional appeals? Or that we were driven to acknowledge that we have to jump into the unknown void, desperately believing that Someone will catch us, because that is the only option (this is also Reason, acting on fact/argument)?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    (Part 2)

    Before I go any further, I should just caution all to take the context of any use of the word “Reason” in to mind. It can be used in many different ways, and sometimes it prefers to the simple machinations of the mind to justify itself (probably the most common use in the Bible, and in Luther). Other times it refers to logic, and its application to facts/observations. And so forth – look at the definitions I gave.

    But a big part of the problem is how to relate faith to reason. I still maintain that when we use those two terms together, most people immediately apply the first use in my previous paragraph. That is NOT, repeat NOT, what I am doing. But what I am doing is referring to the second, and in a way that disdains the extreme tendencies of Hobbes, Descartes and Dawkins, precisely because observations and careful consideration indicates them falling flat on their faces. The trio disdains the body, the organic. It sounds really strange to accuse the evolutionary biologist Dawkins of that, and he most likely offer a yowl of protest. But his argument indicates that. And at exactly this moment I’d like to introduce another protagonist, one revered for the wrong reasons, and forgotten for the wrong Reasons too. CS Lewis, the philologist, author and sometime apologist, is more often remembered for apologetic works, and Narnia. But in my mind his greatest work was an oft forgotten sci-fi trilogy, The planetary trilogy. In it he develops a strong philosophy of the mind and body in relation to truth and reality. Sure, he is a neoplatonist, but it serves him well in this case. Why? Because he breaks down the tendencies to overt mysticism & Gnosticism that we so offer suffer from. He attacks the mistaken pure-intellect of the Hobbesians, showing that it is indeed the opposite. And, importantly, he glories in Creation.

    Now, that all being said as background, wallpaper even, let us turn to the issue of faith and reason. I use reason as logic acting on information, but, I would add, this logic is not always a strict mental process.

    For instance, we have all had the experience that someone describes a wonderful meal, and then we start feeling hungry. The reminder of good, pleasurable food brings forth the desire thereof. There is nothing strange about this. It is “reasonable”. same with the reaction a man would have to the presence of a very beautiful woman (well, most men ;) ). This is quite reasonable. The sin comes in when we want to act on that desire or feeling in a way that does us harm – gluttony (unreasonable, shortened lifespan, ill health etc etc), or sexual sin (hurting people, destroying relationships, unplanned children, even abortion). I am not including the obvious and relevant biblical commands here.

    At that moment, the individual obviously chooses – reason, actin within reasonable circumstances weighing the evidence and making a decision. There is likely some mental, logical process going on, whether the result is correct or incorrect. Fine.

    But what the when the individual is confronted with faith. Again (and you missed part of my earlier statements here, Frank), the hyper-Calvinist wants us to believe that essentially, you have it, or you don’t, and that’s all there is to it. Apart from the violence it does to God’s character, and Scriptures, it also implies – zero reason. But, from our individual experiences, can we really say that we never chose? That our minds either worked on real facts, logical arguments presented to us, even emotional appeals? Or that we were driven to acknowledge that we have to jump into the unknown void, desperately believing that Someone will catch us, because that is the only option (this is also Reason, acting on fact/argument)?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    (Part 3)

    How can we then deny that there is a strong link between reason, and faith? If one reads another of Lewis’ works, the Pilgrim’s Regress, one finds how the character drives him to surrender to Mother Kirk, after he went from romanticism to sophism (Gnosticism) to Freudian captivity eventually all the way to the Hobbesian extremes, ending in Marxist materialism.
    I share a lot of that experience.
    In these debates then, shall we echo Pilate and say – “What is truth??”
    If the cosmic adversary id the father of lies, then all truth is God’s truth. And reason, acting on argument and fact, examining, casting out and re-observing: Will it continue to lead us astray? As I have often observed, and none here seem to understand, if we take reason away, we take the ability to speak, communicate and even understand God’s word away. Because knowledge and understanding do not drift into us like some gnostic secret. No, it comes by observing, doing, and understanding what has been given to us.

    So what has been given to us?
    - Scripture
    - Nature (Romans 1)
    - The Church
    -The Sacraments
    But the Church bring Scripture and the Sacraments. Without the Church, Scripture has no carrier, and sacraments no-one to deliver them. So, in a way, we have Church and Nature – Creation, the Cosmos.
    To posit that these two stand in opposition to each other, is to deny common grace. It is to deny that reason works at all, because there is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that reason would work in the one realm, and not in the other.

    Thus, when most of you here read me saying what reason has clearly shown about the Cosmos, and then hear how I illustrate that it does not violate the Church, and how one reasons about Scripture, you jump out and say – it cannot be, because I believe… Really? I mean, really? No one examines the scriptural argument. No one examines the Cosmic argument. Everyone harks back to a fundamentally held belief, and instead, choose to attack reason?

    But I should maybe not be so amazed, as I myself was in that position – till I realised two things: My objection to Reason was a last-ditch effort of a soul who should have realised that the battle is lost. My tidy, comfortable, well-defined fundamentalist world had been turned on its head. And my reaction to it was psychological: I feared to acknowledge it, because what would the other Christians say? (Indeed, this thread proves damn well what they would say – heretic, gnostic, denier of the truth, and and and). And because Theistic evolutionists was always painted as evil compromisers, my tender conscience balked at the idea – similar, but much more intense than when I took the step to break with prohibitionism, and drink alcohol. The psychological process was remarkably similar!
    Acknowledging that you have stuck your head in the sand was, and always will be, a painful process.
    But all truth is God’s truth. We may try to sound wise with silly arguments about worldviews, or we may try to attack reason, conflating it with that other type of reason, aka excuses, while we hold onto a tidy little universes of our own making. But when we do that, we do not realise that we make God a liar, we force our constructs and comfort zones onto His Word, and we retreat into the morass of sophism. And that morass sucks you in….
    How then to look at things?
    If we see what Aristotle did, but we “baptise” him thoroughly, together with the Phytagoreans (stripping them of their mysticism, and telling them the Cosmos is ReasonABLE, because its’ Originator is the fountainhead of truth, and we kick Hobbes in the backside, we might make some progress. Accept the many fruits of common Grace, and proceed without fear. Rejoice in the organic and the abstract, knowing us to be the glorious meeting place of the two. Yet, be humble, because we need, and have, a Saviour. And stop looking like silly little fools, not because of the Gospel (for, as St Paul says, many think it foolishness), but because of our own ignorant stubbornness in the face of clear evidence – linguistic, cultural, historic, scientific (in that order, btw).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    (Part 3)

    How can we then deny that there is a strong link between reason, and faith? If one reads another of Lewis’ works, the Pilgrim’s Regress, one finds how the character drives him to surrender to Mother Kirk, after he went from romanticism to sophism (Gnosticism) to Freudian captivity eventually all the way to the Hobbesian extremes, ending in Marxist materialism.
    I share a lot of that experience.
    In these debates then, shall we echo Pilate and say – “What is truth??”
    If the cosmic adversary id the father of lies, then all truth is God’s truth. And reason, acting on argument and fact, examining, casting out and re-observing: Will it continue to lead us astray? As I have often observed, and none here seem to understand, if we take reason away, we take the ability to speak, communicate and even understand God’s word away. Because knowledge and understanding do not drift into us like some gnostic secret. No, it comes by observing, doing, and understanding what has been given to us.

    So what has been given to us?
    - Scripture
    - Nature (Romans 1)
    - The Church
    -The Sacraments
    But the Church bring Scripture and the Sacraments. Without the Church, Scripture has no carrier, and sacraments no-one to deliver them. So, in a way, we have Church and Nature – Creation, the Cosmos.
    To posit that these two stand in opposition to each other, is to deny common grace. It is to deny that reason works at all, because there is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that reason would work in the one realm, and not in the other.

    Thus, when most of you here read me saying what reason has clearly shown about the Cosmos, and then hear how I illustrate that it does not violate the Church, and how one reasons about Scripture, you jump out and say – it cannot be, because I believe… Really? I mean, really? No one examines the scriptural argument. No one examines the Cosmic argument. Everyone harks back to a fundamentally held belief, and instead, choose to attack reason?

    But I should maybe not be so amazed, as I myself was in that position – till I realised two things: My objection to Reason was a last-ditch effort of a soul who should have realised that the battle is lost. My tidy, comfortable, well-defined fundamentalist world had been turned on its head. And my reaction to it was psychological: I feared to acknowledge it, because what would the other Christians say? (Indeed, this thread proves damn well what they would say – heretic, gnostic, denier of the truth, and and and). And because Theistic evolutionists was always painted as evil compromisers, my tender conscience balked at the idea – similar, but much more intense than when I took the step to break with prohibitionism, and drink alcohol. The psychological process was remarkably similar!
    Acknowledging that you have stuck your head in the sand was, and always will be, a painful process.
    But all truth is God’s truth. We may try to sound wise with silly arguments about worldviews, or we may try to attack reason, conflating it with that other type of reason, aka excuses, while we hold onto a tidy little universes of our own making. But when we do that, we do not realise that we make God a liar, we force our constructs and comfort zones onto His Word, and we retreat into the morass of sophism. And that morass sucks you in….
    How then to look at things?
    If we see what Aristotle did, but we “baptise” him thoroughly, together with the Phytagoreans (stripping them of their mysticism, and telling them the Cosmos is ReasonABLE, because its’ Originator is the fountainhead of truth, and we kick Hobbes in the backside, we might make some progress. Accept the many fruits of common Grace, and proceed without fear. Rejoice in the organic and the abstract, knowing us to be the glorious meeting place of the two. Yet, be humble, because we need, and have, a Saviour. And stop looking like silly little fools, not because of the Gospel (for, as St Paul says, many think it foolishness), but because of our own ignorant stubbornness in the face of clear evidence – linguistic, cultural, historic, scientific (in that order, btw).

  • fws

    Klassie @ 280

    wow.

    And I thought I could be long. And I usually am.
    Reason. Will, Emotions. And the relationship between them.
    Eckart Tolle thinks that emotion is the reaction of the body to the mind. There are many other theories.

    I will need to parse what you wrote carefully.
    Klassie, I think you are on to something. It tangentally has to do with free will and reason, but not the way you are approaching it I suggest. Try this Klassie for starters:

    If I understand correctly: Lutherans , in the Apology, grant Reason almost the full power to direct the will and emotions. They also grant Reason the full power to know and understand everything that is sense-ible in the world.

    It is Rome and Calvin who say that the Conscience was written in man before the fall and that conscience or the Law written in man fell with man. Therefore God had necessity to clarify stuff by reissuing the Law on two tablets. This is NOT Lutheran Doctrine Klassie.
    You seemed to assume that it was in one of your posts. Remember that I objected to this?

    So what would this mean in our discussion? I suggest this:

    NO faith is necessary at all to understand the cosmos scientifically is what it means. We can feel free to explore and consider the sense-ible, empirical facts trusting that neither saving faith nor it’s Basis in Fact will be challenged, ever, by real science.
    We can even know some “Spiritual” things. God is good, merciful etc.

    Yet Lutherans say reason is powerless in “spiritual” matters. What would that be? “I believe that… i cannot by my own reason or strength (will) believe” is what the small catechism says in the 3rd article of the creed. And that raises questions as to what is faith, reason, and will doesn’t it?

    Can I suggest that rather than explore all the possible meanings of will or reason, and embark on a discussion without any boundaries, that maybe a better approach is to see how the Apology uses those terms to see what is meant by them in the Small Catechism to see what they mean when they say that Reason and Will are not free in spiritual things? And then see if we can agree with that?

    Would that be an ok approach?

  • fws

    Klassie @ 280

    wow.

    And I thought I could be long. And I usually am.
    Reason. Will, Emotions. And the relationship between them.
    Eckart Tolle thinks that emotion is the reaction of the body to the mind. There are many other theories.

    I will need to parse what you wrote carefully.
    Klassie, I think you are on to something. It tangentally has to do with free will and reason, but not the way you are approaching it I suggest. Try this Klassie for starters:

    If I understand correctly: Lutherans , in the Apology, grant Reason almost the full power to direct the will and emotions. They also grant Reason the full power to know and understand everything that is sense-ible in the world.

    It is Rome and Calvin who say that the Conscience was written in man before the fall and that conscience or the Law written in man fell with man. Therefore God had necessity to clarify stuff by reissuing the Law on two tablets. This is NOT Lutheran Doctrine Klassie.
    You seemed to assume that it was in one of your posts. Remember that I objected to this?

    So what would this mean in our discussion? I suggest this:

    NO faith is necessary at all to understand the cosmos scientifically is what it means. We can feel free to explore and consider the sense-ible, empirical facts trusting that neither saving faith nor it’s Basis in Fact will be challenged, ever, by real science.
    We can even know some “Spiritual” things. God is good, merciful etc.

    Yet Lutherans say reason is powerless in “spiritual” matters. What would that be? “I believe that… i cannot by my own reason or strength (will) believe” is what the small catechism says in the 3rd article of the creed. And that raises questions as to what is faith, reason, and will doesn’t it?

    Can I suggest that rather than explore all the possible meanings of will or reason, and embark on a discussion without any boundaries, that maybe a better approach is to see how the Apology uses those terms to see what is meant by them in the Small Catechism to see what they mean when they say that Reason and Will are not free in spiritual things? And then see if we can agree with that?

    Would that be an ok approach?

  • fws

    KK @ 280

    escuse me for being sort of a one trick pony. My focus is on understanding our Lutheran Confessions better. I am not all that expert in either science or philosophy. But fortunately our Apology , especially, deals directly with Aristotle. “Concerning ethics/morality nothing can be demanded beyond Aristotle” they declare.

    This means that we are to judge morality by Reason. No Bible is necessary. Luther in his writing on Moses and the Law explains this better than me. Lutherans have turned away from this back to the Scholastic/Calvinist idea that our knowledge of the Law is damaged and so we need the Bible to know it.

    Lutherans say there are only two things Special Revelation (the Bible) are needed for: 1) To be able to see that the keeping of the Law demands what we cannot do. First Commandment. And so have us be terrified and 2) Not only that there is a God, and that he is Good and Merciful and Love. This is actually condemning Law, as in… so why aren’t you?! But to know that God is Good and Merciful to ME in Christ ! It is that “for ME” that makes the Law Gospel.

    Think about that KK and how that affect what we are talking about. ONLY those two things require the Bible to know them. NOTHING else. This is what the Lutheran Church teaches.

    Where I am getting stuck is where I mentioned earlier. Those two things only the Bible can bring to us are conditioned and grounded in historical facts. I would have problems with an alegorical Adam that means.

  • fws

    KK @ 280

    escuse me for being sort of a one trick pony. My focus is on understanding our Lutheran Confessions better. I am not all that expert in either science or philosophy. But fortunately our Apology , especially, deals directly with Aristotle. “Concerning ethics/morality nothing can be demanded beyond Aristotle” they declare.

    This means that we are to judge morality by Reason. No Bible is necessary. Luther in his writing on Moses and the Law explains this better than me. Lutherans have turned away from this back to the Scholastic/Calvinist idea that our knowledge of the Law is damaged and so we need the Bible to know it.

    Lutherans say there are only two things Special Revelation (the Bible) are needed for: 1) To be able to see that the keeping of the Law demands what we cannot do. First Commandment. And so have us be terrified and 2) Not only that there is a God, and that he is Good and Merciful and Love. This is actually condemning Law, as in… so why aren’t you?! But to know that God is Good and Merciful to ME in Christ ! It is that “for ME” that makes the Law Gospel.

    Think about that KK and how that affect what we are talking about. ONLY those two things require the Bible to know them. NOTHING else. This is what the Lutheran Church teaches.

    Where I am getting stuck is where I mentioned earlier. Those two things only the Bible can bring to us are conditioned and grounded in historical facts. I would have problems with an alegorical Adam that means.

  • fws

    kk

    I am going to cut and paste what you wrote into wordpad and parse it carefully. Gimme a bit ok? I hope you are cool with my reading what you wrote through the lense of Apology art II, III, and IV

  • fws

    kk

    I am going to cut and paste what you wrote into wordpad and parse it carefully. Gimme a bit ok? I hope you are cool with my reading what you wrote through the lense of Apology art II, III, and IV

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sure, Frank. In spite of the length, I wrote it fast, and latish at night, so take that into account too, will ya? :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sure, Frank. In spite of the length, I wrote it fast, and latish at night, so take that into account too, will ya? :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank at 283: Yes, the Lutherans are right, and Rome/Geneva wrong. As to faith and science – it all depends what one means by faith: Faith as in big ‘F’ faith, the Faith by which the just live (Romans 1). Or faith as in an act of belief with lack of factual support?

    And I’m completely with you in #284. As to the ‘allegorical’ Adam – remember, Adam is the same word in Hebrew as ‘man’. Actually, in one of the most direct translations i know, namely the 1933 and 1953 translations of the Bible into Afrikaans, for the first chapter of Genesis, the translators use the words Man, and She-man (not the best way of putting it in English – the Afrikaans uses Man and Mannin, possibly the only time the second word has ever been used in Afrikaans).

    We should be careful not to force our theological constructs back onto the text, but let the text speak, insofar possible, for itself. Then its theological impact would be so much clearer. That, incidentally, is why I am very careful of worldview or a priori thinking, because it forces the Text into a framework we like, so that we can have the psychological satisfaction of “Getting it right”, so that we “Are right”, and therefore “Good and better than that pagan over there”. This includes all constructs btw, whether philosophically, scientifically or theologically derived.

    I think too that the problems with a literal or representative (allegorical carries too much baggage) Adam is a specific problem that arise with the modernist mindset more than before. With the little bit I know of ANE thought and beliefs, and from my contact with lesser-educated, more tribal people, it appears that there construct of reality would allow for a non-existent “Representative” to be more Real in a manner of speaking, than the real people themselves. This is a theme or idea I also picked up from Lewis, but he gets it from neoplatonist sources. I do like it though. Further study of the role of Narrative, both modern and ancient, confirms the fact that Human’s have a epistemological need for narrative structures to define and express the truth, more so in ancient and tribal societies than in the modern day. Interestingly, modern psychological research on children, such as Piaget, have a lot to say about this as well.

    However that may be then, we seem to have fallen into the trap of saying “story” – false, fact – true! This is not correct, and it stems from the pernicious influence of Descartes, Hobbes and their ilk. But neither does that imply some fuzzy-wuzzy, neo-gnostic truthiness either. It is not that.

    That being said, one should also not go to far and make all story absolute truth – then we will have to believe both Gilgamesh, the Eridu Genesis, Pangu and who knows what else. But all those, while containing some element of the truth, dies, while Genesis comes into concrete history with Terah and Abraham, and leading through God’s dealings with his descendants, to Christ. If you read Genesis, noticing the writing style, you should note how its character changes, even in translation. The author goes from the overview, which takes on mythic proportions and overtones, to the specific. Also, contextually, one should remember the specific literally styles, and philosophical impacts of early Genesis – the pagan universe is being set on its head, and man, fallen man, is being placed over the physical, organic cosmos, with only God above him. See the links I provided earlier.

    More on a historic vs representative Adam at a later stage, maybe.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank at 283: Yes, the Lutherans are right, and Rome/Geneva wrong. As to faith and science – it all depends what one means by faith: Faith as in big ‘F’ faith, the Faith by which the just live (Romans 1). Or faith as in an act of belief with lack of factual support?

    And I’m completely with you in #284. As to the ‘allegorical’ Adam – remember, Adam is the same word in Hebrew as ‘man’. Actually, in one of the most direct translations i know, namely the 1933 and 1953 translations of the Bible into Afrikaans, for the first chapter of Genesis, the translators use the words Man, and She-man (not the best way of putting it in English – the Afrikaans uses Man and Mannin, possibly the only time the second word has ever been used in Afrikaans).

    We should be careful not to force our theological constructs back onto the text, but let the text speak, insofar possible, for itself. Then its theological impact would be so much clearer. That, incidentally, is why I am very careful of worldview or a priori thinking, because it forces the Text into a framework we like, so that we can have the psychological satisfaction of “Getting it right”, so that we “Are right”, and therefore “Good and better than that pagan over there”. This includes all constructs btw, whether philosophically, scientifically or theologically derived.

    I think too that the problems with a literal or representative (allegorical carries too much baggage) Adam is a specific problem that arise with the modernist mindset more than before. With the little bit I know of ANE thought and beliefs, and from my contact with lesser-educated, more tribal people, it appears that there construct of reality would allow for a non-existent “Representative” to be more Real in a manner of speaking, than the real people themselves. This is a theme or idea I also picked up from Lewis, but he gets it from neoplatonist sources. I do like it though. Further study of the role of Narrative, both modern and ancient, confirms the fact that Human’s have a epistemological need for narrative structures to define and express the truth, more so in ancient and tribal societies than in the modern day. Interestingly, modern psychological research on children, such as Piaget, have a lot to say about this as well.

    However that may be then, we seem to have fallen into the trap of saying “story” – false, fact – true! This is not correct, and it stems from the pernicious influence of Descartes, Hobbes and their ilk. But neither does that imply some fuzzy-wuzzy, neo-gnostic truthiness either. It is not that.

    That being said, one should also not go to far and make all story absolute truth – then we will have to believe both Gilgamesh, the Eridu Genesis, Pangu and who knows what else. But all those, while containing some element of the truth, dies, while Genesis comes into concrete history with Terah and Abraham, and leading through God’s dealings with his descendants, to Christ. If you read Genesis, noticing the writing style, you should note how its character changes, even in translation. The author goes from the overview, which takes on mythic proportions and overtones, to the specific. Also, contextually, one should remember the specific literally styles, and philosophical impacts of early Genesis – the pagan universe is being set on its head, and man, fallen man, is being placed over the physical, organic cosmos, with only God above him. See the links I provided earlier.

    More on a historic vs representative Adam at a later stage, maybe.

  • Larry

    KK,

    As I’ve said before I call a thing what it is and don’t hide behind words, heresy is heresy and truth is truth. That’s not name calling but labeling a thing what it is. You are far too given over to emotional tirades. For example if you said what I was saying was false and heresy, I would not be offended by it but actually appreciate the honesty concerning the subject about which we speak. You talk a lot about reason, but your constant reaction and name calling betrays your constant given over to your emotions far too much.

    It’s really simple and honest conversation as opposed to the covert hidden words. Yes, if for example one embraces believers baptism and does not baptize their infants, that is heresy and eternally dangerous, the same with the sacrament of the altar, the trinity and so forth. That’s not being “mean” but speaking truthfully and forthrightly. If you would disagree with me and confess whatever it is you confess and call me a heretic at least we’d be speaking honestly. But to not speak that way is to surreptitiously hide behind words and deceive all involved, a thing Zwingli did as did later Calvin. Only those who have something to hide actually hide behind words and malleable meanings.

    Not one single thing I’ve written here and before have I written to you with venom or hatred as you say. Whether you believe that or not is entirely yours to determine I cannot “make you” believe me.

    Secondly, I did not say you denied the “real presence”, not once. I did say you denied (or at least implied it) that Christ’s flesh and blood is placed into one’s mouth and that is what is on the altar. If you do not deny that, the later not the former, then say so and I stand corrected on that issue concerning what you profess/confess. Otherwise what I said was true, right?

    Thirdly, and quite simply for the n-th time, no one is denying reasons place here, a red herring you constantly toss out there, neither did Luther, simply its place concerning faith and those things we call “articles of faith” (a formal term in order to capture the idea without explaining it every time). By extension of the arguments you make, yes you KK, on Genesis can be made against any and all the articles of faith up to and including the Sacraments. And in fact is precisely the form of the argument made by every single heretic/heresy throughout the history of the church, including arians and all Gnostics, and is a matter of historical record. In fact these were precisely the forms of the arguments both Zwingli and Calvin made on the sacrament, relegating the institution of Christ to symbolic and/or allegorical language. And yes Calvin cried “foul” to Westhphal in their exchanges and cried about Westhphal consigning him (Calvin and his followers) and I quote, “…the worst of heretics…”.

    Finally, what I outlined at 259 has to be dealt with, because allegorizing Adam (and Eve) in order to fit it into one’s concept of evolution or age dating is indeed not a small move but upon it hangs the entire Christian faith. This is no mere trifle in any since of that word. I understand the temptation for this especially as a geologist, it’s literally in my face all day long. And you mischaracterize me and falsely accuse me constantly for as I said to SAL above this is no easy thing especially for someone like me or yourself in this field because we look and understand the data (good and bad). You think it very easy for me to write and say this, but you would be wrong even on a personal level. I would, that is to say my flesh, my sense of self pride and desire to be intellectually accepted and not be called or implied as a fool – would much rather agree with you and have you equally stroke my intellectual ego than to be laughed at. Such persecuting laughter is not a desirable thing at all for the flesh. I don’t come at this battle desiring this, I would much rather desire to never have to speak of it, if I confess the struggle of my flesh honestly, and agree. Just like Peter that found it much more desirable to deny Christ than confess him, I too would much rather in my flesh desire the applause and back slapping of fellow scientist. So I realize that temptation is there and it is strong. It makes it all the more convenient to fall for and into such explanations concerning Genesis. We must not think that suffering the cross, its foolishness, would ever be light or easy to any of us (like we might look at Peter and say, “com’on Peter a ham sandwich is all it took, you couldn’t stand over that”). No Satan finds the niche for each of us in our day and time that will most tempt us. For some it will be “morals”, for others the company of like fellows, for others their intellectual prowess to name a few. So I understand well what an intellectual pacifier evolution can be first hand.

    So this is the 200+ thread!

  • Larry

    KK,

    As I’ve said before I call a thing what it is and don’t hide behind words, heresy is heresy and truth is truth. That’s not name calling but labeling a thing what it is. You are far too given over to emotional tirades. For example if you said what I was saying was false and heresy, I would not be offended by it but actually appreciate the honesty concerning the subject about which we speak. You talk a lot about reason, but your constant reaction and name calling betrays your constant given over to your emotions far too much.

    It’s really simple and honest conversation as opposed to the covert hidden words. Yes, if for example one embraces believers baptism and does not baptize their infants, that is heresy and eternally dangerous, the same with the sacrament of the altar, the trinity and so forth. That’s not being “mean” but speaking truthfully and forthrightly. If you would disagree with me and confess whatever it is you confess and call me a heretic at least we’d be speaking honestly. But to not speak that way is to surreptitiously hide behind words and deceive all involved, a thing Zwingli did as did later Calvin. Only those who have something to hide actually hide behind words and malleable meanings.

    Not one single thing I’ve written here and before have I written to you with venom or hatred as you say. Whether you believe that or not is entirely yours to determine I cannot “make you” believe me.

    Secondly, I did not say you denied the “real presence”, not once. I did say you denied (or at least implied it) that Christ’s flesh and blood is placed into one’s mouth and that is what is on the altar. If you do not deny that, the later not the former, then say so and I stand corrected on that issue concerning what you profess/confess. Otherwise what I said was true, right?

    Thirdly, and quite simply for the n-th time, no one is denying reasons place here, a red herring you constantly toss out there, neither did Luther, simply its place concerning faith and those things we call “articles of faith” (a formal term in order to capture the idea without explaining it every time). By extension of the arguments you make, yes you KK, on Genesis can be made against any and all the articles of faith up to and including the Sacraments. And in fact is precisely the form of the argument made by every single heretic/heresy throughout the history of the church, including arians and all Gnostics, and is a matter of historical record. In fact these were precisely the forms of the arguments both Zwingli and Calvin made on the sacrament, relegating the institution of Christ to symbolic and/or allegorical language. And yes Calvin cried “foul” to Westhphal in their exchanges and cried about Westhphal consigning him (Calvin and his followers) and I quote, “…the worst of heretics…”.

    Finally, what I outlined at 259 has to be dealt with, because allegorizing Adam (and Eve) in order to fit it into one’s concept of evolution or age dating is indeed not a small move but upon it hangs the entire Christian faith. This is no mere trifle in any since of that word. I understand the temptation for this especially as a geologist, it’s literally in my face all day long. And you mischaracterize me and falsely accuse me constantly for as I said to SAL above this is no easy thing especially for someone like me or yourself in this field because we look and understand the data (good and bad). You think it very easy for me to write and say this, but you would be wrong even on a personal level. I would, that is to say my flesh, my sense of self pride and desire to be intellectually accepted and not be called or implied as a fool – would much rather agree with you and have you equally stroke my intellectual ego than to be laughed at. Such persecuting laughter is not a desirable thing at all for the flesh. I don’t come at this battle desiring this, I would much rather desire to never have to speak of it, if I confess the struggle of my flesh honestly, and agree. Just like Peter that found it much more desirable to deny Christ than confess him, I too would much rather in my flesh desire the applause and back slapping of fellow scientist. So I realize that temptation is there and it is strong. It makes it all the more convenient to fall for and into such explanations concerning Genesis. We must not think that suffering the cross, its foolishness, would ever be light or easy to any of us (like we might look at Peter and say, “com’on Peter a ham sandwich is all it took, you couldn’t stand over that”). No Satan finds the niche for each of us in our day and time that will most tempt us. For some it will be “morals”, for others the company of like fellows, for others their intellectual prowess to name a few. So I understand well what an intellectual pacifier evolution can be first hand.

    So this is the 200+ thread!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, there is no use of us discussing this. I understand where you come from very well, and I also understand the psychological forces driving you to have a perfect doctrinal system. Those are powerful forces, and when someone questions something, you feel that they have touched your existence/salvation. Then you go all Leo X on them.

    There is no sense in continuing any discussion with you at all. Go with God, my friend, and I mean that.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Larry, there is no use of us discussing this. I understand where you come from very well, and I also understand the psychological forces driving you to have a perfect doctrinal system. Those are powerful forces, and when someone questions something, you feel that they have touched your existence/salvation. Then you go all Leo X on them.

    There is no sense in continuing any discussion with you at all. Go with God, my friend, and I mean that.

  • Larry

    KK,

    “I know where you are coming from and the psychological”, KK the psychologist, is simply a condescending pat on the head and conveniently ignoring of the points made and unanswered, esp. that at 259.

    I do wish you would answer my question, a rather simple one, concerning the sacrament. Because if I’ve erred in what you believe as you say I have I’d like to be able to say I was wrong.

  • Larry

    KK,

    “I know where you are coming from and the psychological”, KK the psychologist, is simply a condescending pat on the head and conveniently ignoring of the points made and unanswered, esp. that at 259.

    I do wish you would answer my question, a rather simple one, concerning the sacrament. Because if I’ve erred in what you believe as you say I have I’d like to be able to say I was wrong.

  • Larry

    The irony of you saying, “you to have a perfect doctrinal system”, is too thick to cut.

  • Larry

    The irony of you saying, “you to have a perfect doctrinal system”, is too thick to cut.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Christ is present in True Body and blood. We physically observe wine and bread, yet these are not symbols. The mode of His presence is a mystery to us, but that does not make it unreal.

    We are not trans-/consubstantianists.

  • Klasiei Kraalogies

    Christ is present in True Body and blood. We physically observe wine and bread, yet these are not symbols. The mode of His presence is a mystery to us, but that does not make it unreal.

    We are not trans-/consubstantianists.

  • fws

    klassie @ 280

    Frank’s Preamble:

    I hope that my response will indicate that I really listened to and understood what you wrote. I realized after composing my response that you still havent come to core contrast that is the Lutheran one in Romans 8. Rome and Geneva say that flesh/body to spirit/Spirit is the movement from vice to virtue. From Carnality to Godly. Luther says that flesh/body is not carnal/concupiscence/sex/desire. He says it is Virtue! True Righeousness that man can know and do! That move should literally floor anyone who gets what that means. See if how I develop this weaving it into your comments, makes sense. I can be tedious. I know.

    You sense that something here is wrong. You point to CS Lewis at that point. But then, might i very humbly suggest.. humble recognizing that you are brighter than me… you don’t make the hairpin turn in the exegesis of Romans 8 that was Luther’s Breakthrough. And is the one each of us must see for our own self.

    here is my response (and yes, common grace applies to all our errors we write to our brothers late at night):

    KK:
    When we say “Reason”, what do we mean?
    The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements …associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect…
    There is a close connection between reason and emotion what is right, practical, or possible people are willing, within reason, … one’s sanity: she is in danger of losing her reason [self-control!]…
    Reason is closely identified with…the capacity for freedom and self-determination.
    Reason …is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.
    Plato had an elevated opinion of Reason, stating that is the Monarch over the rest of Man.
    Aristotle calls man the “Rational animal”, believing that the life ruled by Reason is a happy life.
    …[the] Phytagoreans…[believed that]…Reason [was] a characteristic of the Cosmos [St Thomas: Characteristic of God!].

    …Descartes …existence=thought (only?). And Hobbes…Dawkins…to disdain metaphor, poetry, theology and (traditional) moral philosophy…break[ing] the organism down to irrelevance…plac[ing] the “selfish gene” on the throne. [pure materialism?]

    …the word “Reason” … can …refer…to the simple machinations of the mind to justify itself (probably the most common use in the Bible, and in Luther).

    Comment: The Apology would disagree with your “probably most common use…”

    KK:
    But a big part of the problem is how to relate faith to reason.
    I still maintain that when we use those two terms together, most people immediately apply the first use in my previous paragraph. That is NOT…what I am doing.
    ..I am …referring [to reason]…in a way that disdains the extreme tendencies of Hobbes, Descartes and Dawkins.
    The trio disdains the body, the organic….
    CS Lewis… develops a strong philosophy of the mind and body in relation to truth and reality…he breaks down…overt mysticism & Gnosticism … He attacks the mistaken pure-intellect of the Hobbesians, showing that it is indeed the opposite. And, importantly, he glories in Creation.
    I use reason as logic acting on information, but, I would add, this logic is not always a strict mental process.

    Comment:
    I suggest this is not a useful definition because it conflates too much. Can we separate this as logic=reason. then acting. then information?

    KK:
    For instance…The reminder of…food brings forth the desire thereof..presence of woman [brings forth desire thereof].. [This is a "natural appetite] It is “reasonable”.

    Comment:
    This is a meaning shift.
    Here reasonable=natural=norm-al … ergo: “to be expected” or “ordinary” or “of the natural or ordinary course of what we would expect”, or even “predictable”.
    May we more narrowly define: logic=reason?
    .
    KK:
    Sin comes in when we [will/desire] to act on that desire/[emotion] in a way that does us harm.

    Comment:
    This is the exact statement of Thomist/Scholastic Aristotelianism.
    Scholastics call this will/desire/emotion “concupiscense.”
    They say that concupiscence is a “natural appetite”.
    Ergo it cannot be sin.
    We were created with concupiscence after all! So sin is where?
    Sin is in the “willful act”. Note that the word “willful” is a category. This distinction is the basis for the further distinction venial/mortal sin.
    Consider this assertion: Calvinism is really neo-scholasticism. Calvinists agree with Scholastic Aristelianism.
    The difference? Calvin is THE disciple of Augustine and veers from St Thomas in favor of Augustine.
    So my observation so far is that you have not yet broken with the Calvinist paradymn (sp?) completely.

    KK:
    At that moment, the individual obviously chooses – reason, acting within reason-able circumstances weighing the evidence and making a decision.
    But what [happens] when the individual is confronted with faith… The hyper-Calvinist wants us to believe that essentially, you have it, or you don’t, and that’s all there is to it. .. [this] implies – zero reason.
    But, from …experience, can we … say that we never chose?
    [1] That our minds either worked on real facts, logical arguments …even emotional appeals?
    [2] Or that we were driven …to jump into the unknown void, desperately believing that Someone will catch us, because that is the only option (this is also Reason, acting on fact/argument)?
    How can we then deny that there is a strong link between reason, and faith?

    Comment:
    I suggest that was never the debate. Not for Calvin or even Hobbes. The debate is rather this:
    what is the relation between reason and faith?

    KK:
    …Pilate [says] “What is truth??”…
    1]Satan is the source of all UNTruth. All truth is God’s truth.
    2]Reason, acting on argument and fact, examining, casting out and re-observing: Will it continue to lead us astray?
    3]If we take reason away, we take the ability to speak, communicate and even understand God’s Word away.
    4]Knowledge and understanding do not drift into us like some gnostic secret.
    5]Knowledge comes by observing, doing, and understanding what has been given to us.

    Comment:
    The Lutheran answer? All true!
    Yet still a Lutheran question: ALL this being true granted,
    is there a knowing or doing that is beyond the capacity of Reason? Yes or no?

    KK:
    So what has been given to us?
    [1] Nature (Romans 1)
    [2] Church/Sacraments/Scripture.
    [{2} Sacred/{1}Secular, ie. Romans 8:{1} Flesh/{2}Spirit]

    Comment:
    Romans 2:15 Divine Law FULLY written/revealed in Reason.
    More importantly: Nature, Church, Sacraments, Scripture ALL….are …Romans 8 Flesh. Period.
    So then the question would be this to ponder: what is Sacred/Spirit in Romans 8 for Lutherans?

    KK: To posit that these two stand in opposition to each other, is to deny common grace.

    Comment:
    Lutherans do not oppose the two.
    They place both under the category of Romans 8 “Flesh that will perish with the earth.
    They destroy the false division between the sacred and profane, material and spiritual.
    This is what you say CS Lewis does. But he doesn’t quite make it! He is a platonist just as you say he is.
    Lutherans say Christ Himself, in his very Person does this with the Communication of Attributes.
    Read Steve Paulson’s “Lutheran Theology” to get what this all means.
    So you need to go to Christology here, alone! to resolve this tension is what Lutherans say.
    This was the precise and radical insight Luther called “Two Kingdoms” that led him out of darkness.
    “Common Grace” Lutherans call “Fatherly Mercy and Goodness”. We define this under the 1st article of the Small Catechism and call it “first article gifts”. And these are Law words. There is NO Gospel here at all.
    Example: this “common grace” is granted to “the unworthy (Old Adam!)… indeed without our prayer (no faith required at all!)…. even to all the wicked (even for those actively seeking to subvert God’s Eternal Will, which is not conformity to the Law!) It is for Goodness and Mercy to happen among men.”
    Rome and Geneva both confuse grace with Grace and mercy with Mercy. And that is reasonable! Mercy and grace are to receive the exact opposite of what we deserve according to what we have done. This sounds like Gospel.
    But here grace and mercy are pure Law words.
    The Law always accuses and kills. The Law only accuses and kills. Justice is reasonable. It is to get according to what is done. It is clear that Justice is a Law word.
    But not so clear for mercy and common grace. Why? grace and mercy and goodness are “fruit of.”
    Justice is the Law-at-work. justice is law in action.
    grace and mercy are fruits of the Law. Small letter grace and mercy are the small l life that is worked by the death that is justice.
    The story of baby cut in true is a great illustration of how justice that always requires a death, relates to love that is the mercy of dying in the place of someone else.

    KK:
    It is to deny that reason works at all, because there is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that reason would work in the one realm, and not in the other.

    Comment: Ponder how Lutherans place nature and church , sacred and secular, carnal and spiritual into the same Romans 8 category of “flesh that will perish.”
    Lutherans (should!) say that all that is done in church is about death. There is no Life in anything that is sense-ible or that we are able to do, per se. So Lutherans would say “AMEN!” to what you say, but not for the reasons you say it. Our categories are radically different!

    KK:
    what would the other Christians say? (Indeed, this thread proves damn well what they would say – heretic, gnostic, denier of the truth, and and and).

    Comment: You do not hear me saying that I hope. That would be wrong.

    KK:
    But all truth is God’s truth. We may try to sound wise with silly arguments about worldviews, or we may try to attack reason,…But when we do that,…we make God a liar, we force our constructs and comfort zones onto His Word, and we retreat into the morass of sophism. And that morass sucks you in….

    Comment: Amen! We precisely present a false distinction between sacred vs profane, spiritual and churchly vs secular, carnal vs spiritual, sin vs goodness, and virtue vs vice. All these categories, in the context of Romans 8, are false contrasts.

    KK:
    If we see what Aristotle did, but we “baptise” him thoroughly, together with the Phytagoreans (stripping them of their mysticism, and telling them the Cosmos is ReasonABLE, because its’ Originator is the fountainhead of truth, and we kick Hobbes in the backside, we might make some progress.

    Comment:
    This is indeed one solution. It is a very attractive one. And it is the most reasonable one. That is why it is so attractive. I find myself continuing to return to that solution as moth to flame.
    It is the path St Thomas and the Scholastics chose. I love St Thomas by the way.
    Here is exactly where the Apology engages the Scholastics.
    You need to understand the terminology of both Aristotle and St Thomas to really “get” what the Apology says in art II,III and IV. Our Confessions outline another option. I favor that other option. It is about the Communication of the Attributes of Christ in his Incarnate Person in short.
    I am saying that the path you suggest is what the Church chose from St Thomas up until Luther rejected that path.
    And so Reason and Aristotle? They rock and rule in ALL that you say they do up to now.
    This sphere of influence is what Luther calls the “Earthly Kingdom”.
    Into that container Luther (and the Confessions) place everything Reason, the will, and the emotions are able to evoke and do. It is the Kingdom of “to do”. Doing fully includes reason, will, emotions and even faith.
    Further, this container also fully includes all we can see and do and is sense-ible in Church! It includes the maintenence of sound doctrines, it includes right administration of Word and Sacraments. It even includes the distinction of Law and Gospel!
    Amazingly, ALL this ‘stuff’ Luther would identify as Romans 8 “flesh/body” that will all perish and die with the earth.
    God rules everything in this Kingdom in, with and under Old Adam driving him with the Law.
    And the Law always does and only does what?
    It accuses and kills us.

    Then Luther says that God rules in another and different Kingdom.
    We are told that we are to separate this other Kingdom as far as the earth is from the most distant star.
    This Kingdom contains nothing that is about anything we are able to see or do. How could it include any of that? Those things are ALL FULLY contained in that other Kingdom where God rules in a different way! In this Kingdom God rules alone, in a way that can be known only aurally on earth, that is by faith in the Works of Another. God Rules in this Kingdom by the Communication of Attributes in the Blessed and Most Holy Incarnate Lord. His Attributes and Works are, in a most fleshly way, incarnated in sinners and makes them holy.

    KK:
    Accept the many fruits of common Grace, and proceed without fear.
    Rejoice in the organic and the abstract, knowing us to be the glorious meeting place of the two.

    Comment:
    Organic and Abstract. Another contrast. Why introduce new words? A question and not a challenge. Another meaning shift? New words. Meaning the same thing as the contrasts you presented before?
    Ok. The real question is not in that contrast.

    It is where that “glorious meeting place of the two ” is to be found.?Is it in “natural man”?

    Lutherans would say yes. And no. The meeting of the those two things, in all we can sensibly see and do is Virtue. It is TRUE Right-eousness, and…. it’s meaning is only death. There is no “more” or “beyond” there. So “glorious”? Nietsche says yes. “meeting place”? For certain. “without fear”? Only the dead don’t fear death. We need to die this means.

    So where is that glorious meeting place? Alone here: In the Communication of Attributes of Christ in his very Person
    .
    KK:
    Yet, be humble, because we need, and have, a Saviour.

    Comment:
    why?

    KK:
    And stop looking like silly little fools, not because of the Gospel (for, as St Paul says, many think it foolishness),

    Comment:
    It IS foolishness. It IS un-reasonable. Define Gospel. Define reason-able. It is something we can know and by “natural” : ” thinking, cognition, and intellect”.

    Gospel is not something reason can know. It requires new emotions in the heart.

    Feeble Example: Your wife says: “I demand that you love me!” reason says this: “It is obvious that no one can command this even in his own heart. Therefore what this command really is asking is for me to ACT like I love, or even to try to work up feelings of love or remorse if I can’t do that. So reason assumes and is certain that the first commandment is fulfilled by something we can do. Love as an act of the will driven by reason even. But it is still driven when it is commanded!

    Reason assumes that if God demands something it is fully implied that we can do it.

    But “saving faith” is about emotions/desires/will in the heart.

    The fact that we have to work at virtue is the very proof that our heart is not right. It is the proof that our heart, our will, is bound, is enslaved even. How?

    There is no true fear, love or trust in God in our heart.

    We can know, by reasonable evidence, that there is a God and that he is Good and Merciful with reason and even our will and emotions.

    What reason cannot do, without the HS and Christ before his eyes by way of his ears, is to be DEAD CERTAIN that God wills to be Good and Merciful to Him.

    This is not faith defined in Kierkegaardian terms as leap in to darkness.

    It is rather this:

    It is for God to offer a Promise that he places here in time and space and in carnal profane earthly non-spiritual material THINGS.
    Faith is to cling to that Promise. And it is to receive that Promised Mercy, right there, in , with and under what is all Law and death and what will perish eternally and forever.

    KK:
    but because of our own ignorant stubbornness in the face of clear evidence – linguistic, cultural, historic, scientific (in that order, btw).

    Comment:
    why are we stubborn and ignorant?
    Faulty Reason?
    No.
    Nothing wrong with Reason here.

    Reason is in fact the Divine Law of God written in the Mind.

    So if we can know AND do Gods Divine Law (which is not God’s Divine Will!) then why don’t we?

    Reason is rule-d by Divine Law. The heart and will is un-ruly.

    The heart completely lacks the Image of God. It requires regeneration to restore that Image.
    Then our will is driven by the emotions of true fear, love and trust. It no longer needs to be driven by Reason!

    And only with that Image, Original Righeousness that is Faith in the Works of Another can the Law also be , again written in the UNruly heart. This is prophecied in Jeremiah 31. Conformity to the Law is not restoration of God’s Image this says by the way!

    Note that romans 2:15 does not say that the Law is written in the heart of man. It is written in their Reason. That is the problem. It is the “work of the Law’ that is written in the heart. what is that work? the increase of sin.

    The work of the Law written in the heart of Old Adam is the reaction to God demanding us to do what is impossible to do. That is to fear, love and trust.

    Moses and the Law, ie Reason, cannot make that happen.

    So “natural man” , left to “natural law” or Reason, is lost until the rebirth.

    I hope this makes sense Klassie. Get the book Steve Paulson’s “Lutheran Theology.” You will resonate to that book. You are really primed to read it even if you find yourself disagreeing.

  • fws

    klassie @ 280

    Frank’s Preamble:

    I hope that my response will indicate that I really listened to and understood what you wrote. I realized after composing my response that you still havent come to core contrast that is the Lutheran one in Romans 8. Rome and Geneva say that flesh/body to spirit/Spirit is the movement from vice to virtue. From Carnality to Godly. Luther says that flesh/body is not carnal/concupiscence/sex/desire. He says it is Virtue! True Righeousness that man can know and do! That move should literally floor anyone who gets what that means. See if how I develop this weaving it into your comments, makes sense. I can be tedious. I know.

    You sense that something here is wrong. You point to CS Lewis at that point. But then, might i very humbly suggest.. humble recognizing that you are brighter than me… you don’t make the hairpin turn in the exegesis of Romans 8 that was Luther’s Breakthrough. And is the one each of us must see for our own self.

    here is my response (and yes, common grace applies to all our errors we write to our brothers late at night):

    KK:
    When we say “Reason”, what do we mean?
    The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements …associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect…
    There is a close connection between reason and emotion what is right, practical, or possible people are willing, within reason, … one’s sanity: she is in danger of losing her reason [self-control!]…
    Reason is closely identified with…the capacity for freedom and self-determination.
    Reason …is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.
    Plato had an elevated opinion of Reason, stating that is the Monarch over the rest of Man.
    Aristotle calls man the “Rational animal”, believing that the life ruled by Reason is a happy life.
    …[the] Phytagoreans…[believed that]…Reason [was] a characteristic of the Cosmos [St Thomas: Characteristic of God!].

    …Descartes …existence=thought (only?). And Hobbes…Dawkins…to disdain metaphor, poetry, theology and (traditional) moral philosophy…break[ing] the organism down to irrelevance…plac[ing] the “selfish gene” on the throne. [pure materialism?]

    …the word “Reason” … can …refer…to the simple machinations of the mind to justify itself (probably the most common use in the Bible, and in Luther).

    Comment: The Apology would disagree with your “probably most common use…”

    KK:
    But a big part of the problem is how to relate faith to reason.
    I still maintain that when we use those two terms together, most people immediately apply the first use in my previous paragraph. That is NOT…what I am doing.
    ..I am …referring [to reason]…in a way that disdains the extreme tendencies of Hobbes, Descartes and Dawkins.
    The trio disdains the body, the organic….
    CS Lewis… develops a strong philosophy of the mind and body in relation to truth and reality…he breaks down…overt mysticism & Gnosticism … He attacks the mistaken pure-intellect of the Hobbesians, showing that it is indeed the opposite. And, importantly, he glories in Creation.
    I use reason as logic acting on information, but, I would add, this logic is not always a strict mental process.

    Comment:
    I suggest this is not a useful definition because it conflates too much. Can we separate this as logic=reason. then acting. then information?

    KK:
    For instance…The reminder of…food brings forth the desire thereof..presence of woman [brings forth desire thereof].. [This is a "natural appetite] It is “reasonable”.

    Comment:
    This is a meaning shift.
    Here reasonable=natural=norm-al … ergo: “to be expected” or “ordinary” or “of the natural or ordinary course of what we would expect”, or even “predictable”.
    May we more narrowly define: logic=reason?
    .
    KK:
    Sin comes in when we [will/desire] to act on that desire/[emotion] in a way that does us harm.

    Comment:
    This is the exact statement of Thomist/Scholastic Aristotelianism.
    Scholastics call this will/desire/emotion “concupiscense.”
    They say that concupiscence is a “natural appetite”.
    Ergo it cannot be sin.
    We were created with concupiscence after all! So sin is where?
    Sin is in the “willful act”. Note that the word “willful” is a category. This distinction is the basis for the further distinction venial/mortal sin.
    Consider this assertion: Calvinism is really neo-scholasticism. Calvinists agree with Scholastic Aristelianism.
    The difference? Calvin is THE disciple of Augustine and veers from St Thomas in favor of Augustine.
    So my observation so far is that you have not yet broken with the Calvinist paradymn (sp?) completely.

    KK:
    At that moment, the individual obviously chooses – reason, acting within reason-able circumstances weighing the evidence and making a decision.
    But what [happens] when the individual is confronted with faith… The hyper-Calvinist wants us to believe that essentially, you have it, or you don’t, and that’s all there is to it. .. [this] implies – zero reason.
    But, from …experience, can we … say that we never chose?
    [1] That our minds either worked on real facts, logical arguments …even emotional appeals?
    [2] Or that we were driven …to jump into the unknown void, desperately believing that Someone will catch us, because that is the only option (this is also Reason, acting on fact/argument)?
    How can we then deny that there is a strong link between reason, and faith?

    Comment:
    I suggest that was never the debate. Not for Calvin or even Hobbes. The debate is rather this:
    what is the relation between reason and faith?

    KK:
    …Pilate [says] “What is truth??”…
    1]Satan is the source of all UNTruth. All truth is God’s truth.
    2]Reason, acting on argument and fact, examining, casting out and re-observing: Will it continue to lead us astray?
    3]If we take reason away, we take the ability to speak, communicate and even understand God’s Word away.
    4]Knowledge and understanding do not drift into us like some gnostic secret.
    5]Knowledge comes by observing, doing, and understanding what has been given to us.

    Comment:
    The Lutheran answer? All true!
    Yet still a Lutheran question: ALL this being true granted,
    is there a knowing or doing that is beyond the capacity of Reason? Yes or no?

    KK:
    So what has been given to us?
    [1] Nature (Romans 1)
    [2] Church/Sacraments/Scripture.
    [{2} Sacred/{1}Secular, ie. Romans 8:{1} Flesh/{2}Spirit]

    Comment:
    Romans 2:15 Divine Law FULLY written/revealed in Reason.
    More importantly: Nature, Church, Sacraments, Scripture ALL….are …Romans 8 Flesh. Period.
    So then the question would be this to ponder: what is Sacred/Spirit in Romans 8 for Lutherans?

    KK: To posit that these two stand in opposition to each other, is to deny common grace.

    Comment:
    Lutherans do not oppose the two.
    They place both under the category of Romans 8 “Flesh that will perish with the earth.
    They destroy the false division between the sacred and profane, material and spiritual.
    This is what you say CS Lewis does. But he doesn’t quite make it! He is a platonist just as you say he is.
    Lutherans say Christ Himself, in his very Person does this with the Communication of Attributes.
    Read Steve Paulson’s “Lutheran Theology” to get what this all means.
    So you need to go to Christology here, alone! to resolve this tension is what Lutherans say.
    This was the precise and radical insight Luther called “Two Kingdoms” that led him out of darkness.
    “Common Grace” Lutherans call “Fatherly Mercy and Goodness”. We define this under the 1st article of the Small Catechism and call it “first article gifts”. And these are Law words. There is NO Gospel here at all.
    Example: this “common grace” is granted to “the unworthy (Old Adam!)… indeed without our prayer (no faith required at all!)…. even to all the wicked (even for those actively seeking to subvert God’s Eternal Will, which is not conformity to the Law!) It is for Goodness and Mercy to happen among men.”
    Rome and Geneva both confuse grace with Grace and mercy with Mercy. And that is reasonable! Mercy and grace are to receive the exact opposite of what we deserve according to what we have done. This sounds like Gospel.
    But here grace and mercy are pure Law words.
    The Law always accuses and kills. The Law only accuses and kills. Justice is reasonable. It is to get according to what is done. It is clear that Justice is a Law word.
    But not so clear for mercy and common grace. Why? grace and mercy and goodness are “fruit of.”
    Justice is the Law-at-work. justice is law in action.
    grace and mercy are fruits of the Law. Small letter grace and mercy are the small l life that is worked by the death that is justice.
    The story of baby cut in true is a great illustration of how justice that always requires a death, relates to love that is the mercy of dying in the place of someone else.

    KK:
    It is to deny that reason works at all, because there is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that reason would work in the one realm, and not in the other.

    Comment: Ponder how Lutherans place nature and church , sacred and secular, carnal and spiritual into the same Romans 8 category of “flesh that will perish.”
    Lutherans (should!) say that all that is done in church is about death. There is no Life in anything that is sense-ible or that we are able to do, per se. So Lutherans would say “AMEN!” to what you say, but not for the reasons you say it. Our categories are radically different!

    KK:
    what would the other Christians say? (Indeed, this thread proves damn well what they would say – heretic, gnostic, denier of the truth, and and and).

    Comment: You do not hear me saying that I hope. That would be wrong.

    KK:
    But all truth is God’s truth. We may try to sound wise with silly arguments about worldviews, or we may try to attack reason,…But when we do that,…we make God a liar, we force our constructs and comfort zones onto His Word, and we retreat into the morass of sophism. And that morass sucks you in….

    Comment: Amen! We precisely present a false distinction between sacred vs profane, spiritual and churchly vs secular, carnal vs spiritual, sin vs goodness, and virtue vs vice. All these categories, in the context of Romans 8, are false contrasts.

    KK:
    If we see what Aristotle did, but we “baptise” him thoroughly, together with the Phytagoreans (stripping them of their mysticism, and telling them the Cosmos is ReasonABLE, because its’ Originator is the fountainhead of truth, and we kick Hobbes in the backside, we might make some progress.

    Comment:
    This is indeed one solution. It is a very attractive one. And it is the most reasonable one. That is why it is so attractive. I find myself continuing to return to that solution as moth to flame.
    It is the path St Thomas and the Scholastics chose. I love St Thomas by the way.
    Here is exactly where the Apology engages the Scholastics.
    You need to understand the terminology of both Aristotle and St Thomas to really “get” what the Apology says in art II,III and IV. Our Confessions outline another option. I favor that other option. It is about the Communication of the Attributes of Christ in his Incarnate Person in short.
    I am saying that the path you suggest is what the Church chose from St Thomas up until Luther rejected that path.
    And so Reason and Aristotle? They rock and rule in ALL that you say they do up to now.
    This sphere of influence is what Luther calls the “Earthly Kingdom”.
    Into that container Luther (and the Confessions) place everything Reason, the will, and the emotions are able to evoke and do. It is the Kingdom of “to do”. Doing fully includes reason, will, emotions and even faith.
    Further, this container also fully includes all we can see and do and is sense-ible in Church! It includes the maintenence of sound doctrines, it includes right administration of Word and Sacraments. It even includes the distinction of Law and Gospel!
    Amazingly, ALL this ‘stuff’ Luther would identify as Romans 8 “flesh/body” that will all perish and die with the earth.
    God rules everything in this Kingdom in, with and under Old Adam driving him with the Law.
    And the Law always does and only does what?
    It accuses and kills us.

    Then Luther says that God rules in another and different Kingdom.
    We are told that we are to separate this other Kingdom as far as the earth is from the most distant star.
    This Kingdom contains nothing that is about anything we are able to see or do. How could it include any of that? Those things are ALL FULLY contained in that other Kingdom where God rules in a different way! In this Kingdom God rules alone, in a way that can be known only aurally on earth, that is by faith in the Works of Another. God Rules in this Kingdom by the Communication of Attributes in the Blessed and Most Holy Incarnate Lord. His Attributes and Works are, in a most fleshly way, incarnated in sinners and makes them holy.

    KK:
    Accept the many fruits of common Grace, and proceed without fear.
    Rejoice in the organic and the abstract, knowing us to be the glorious meeting place of the two.

    Comment:
    Organic and Abstract. Another contrast. Why introduce new words? A question and not a challenge. Another meaning shift? New words. Meaning the same thing as the contrasts you presented before?
    Ok. The real question is not in that contrast.

    It is where that “glorious meeting place of the two ” is to be found.?Is it in “natural man”?

    Lutherans would say yes. And no. The meeting of the those two things, in all we can sensibly see and do is Virtue. It is TRUE Right-eousness, and…. it’s meaning is only death. There is no “more” or “beyond” there. So “glorious”? Nietsche says yes. “meeting place”? For certain. “without fear”? Only the dead don’t fear death. We need to die this means.

    So where is that glorious meeting place? Alone here: In the Communication of Attributes of Christ in his very Person
    .
    KK:
    Yet, be humble, because we need, and have, a Saviour.

    Comment:
    why?

    KK:
    And stop looking like silly little fools, not because of the Gospel (for, as St Paul says, many think it foolishness),

    Comment:
    It IS foolishness. It IS un-reasonable. Define Gospel. Define reason-able. It is something we can know and by “natural” : ” thinking, cognition, and intellect”.

    Gospel is not something reason can know. It requires new emotions in the heart.

    Feeble Example: Your wife says: “I demand that you love me!” reason says this: “It is obvious that no one can command this even in his own heart. Therefore what this command really is asking is for me to ACT like I love, or even to try to work up feelings of love or remorse if I can’t do that. So reason assumes and is certain that the first commandment is fulfilled by something we can do. Love as an act of the will driven by reason even. But it is still driven when it is commanded!

    Reason assumes that if God demands something it is fully implied that we can do it.

    But “saving faith” is about emotions/desires/will in the heart.

    The fact that we have to work at virtue is the very proof that our heart is not right. It is the proof that our heart, our will, is bound, is enslaved even. How?

    There is no true fear, love or trust in God in our heart.

    We can know, by reasonable evidence, that there is a God and that he is Good and Merciful with reason and even our will and emotions.

    What reason cannot do, without the HS and Christ before his eyes by way of his ears, is to be DEAD CERTAIN that God wills to be Good and Merciful to Him.

    This is not faith defined in Kierkegaardian terms as leap in to darkness.

    It is rather this:

    It is for God to offer a Promise that he places here in time and space and in carnal profane earthly non-spiritual material THINGS.
    Faith is to cling to that Promise. And it is to receive that Promised Mercy, right there, in , with and under what is all Law and death and what will perish eternally and forever.

    KK:
    but because of our own ignorant stubbornness in the face of clear evidence – linguistic, cultural, historic, scientific (in that order, btw).

    Comment:
    why are we stubborn and ignorant?
    Faulty Reason?
    No.
    Nothing wrong with Reason here.

    Reason is in fact the Divine Law of God written in the Mind.

    So if we can know AND do Gods Divine Law (which is not God’s Divine Will!) then why don’t we?

    Reason is rule-d by Divine Law. The heart and will is un-ruly.

    The heart completely lacks the Image of God. It requires regeneration to restore that Image.
    Then our will is driven by the emotions of true fear, love and trust. It no longer needs to be driven by Reason!

    And only with that Image, Original Righeousness that is Faith in the Works of Another can the Law also be , again written in the UNruly heart. This is prophecied in Jeremiah 31. Conformity to the Law is not restoration of God’s Image this says by the way!

    Note that romans 2:15 does not say that the Law is written in the heart of man. It is written in their Reason. That is the problem. It is the “work of the Law’ that is written in the heart. what is that work? the increase of sin.

    The work of the Law written in the heart of Old Adam is the reaction to God demanding us to do what is impossible to do. That is to fear, love and trust.

    Moses and the Law, ie Reason, cannot make that happen.

    So “natural man” , left to “natural law” or Reason, is lost until the rebirth.

    I hope this makes sense Klassie. Get the book Steve Paulson’s “Lutheran Theology.” You will resonate to that book. You are really primed to read it even if you find yourself disagreeing.

  • fws

    Klassie @ 2??

    “You go all Leo X on me”. Classic.

    So the Lutheran diagnostic on Real Presence is this KK:

    What is it that you affirm you hold in your hand and recieve into your mouth?”

    May I assume KK that ypur response would be a hearty:

    “I recieve bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain. “

  • fws

    Klassie @ 2??

    “You go all Leo X on me”. Classic.

    So the Lutheran diagnostic on Real Presence is this KK:

    What is it that you affirm you hold in your hand and recieve into your mouth?”

    May I assume KK that ypur response would be a hearty:

    “I recieve bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain. “

  • Tom Hering

    “Evening and morning” do not make a complete day in Hebrew thought. “Evening and morning” is a break between the daytime work hours, not a 24-hour time period. (Kevin @ 276)

    Like “yom,” the phrase “evening and morning” can mean an extended period of time, or it can mean a 24-hour day. Context is everything in a language with a very limited vocabulary. Yes, it can also mean the break period between daytime work hours, but the text states that God rested on the seventh day. For the seventh time in your view? “Oy! All this creating is perech!

  • Tom Hering

    “Evening and morning” do not make a complete day in Hebrew thought. “Evening and morning” is a break between the daytime work hours, not a 24-hour time period. (Kevin @ 276)

    Like “yom,” the phrase “evening and morning” can mean an extended period of time, or it can mean a 24-hour day. Context is everything in a language with a very limited vocabulary. Yes, it can also mean the break period between daytime work hours, but the text states that God rested on the seventh day. For the seventh time in your view? “Oy! All this creating is perech!

  • DonS

    KK and Kevin: Thanks to both of you for responding thoughtfully to my inquiry about death in a comment somewhere way up there. I read the linked articles KK provided and thought about Kevin’s comments, which were similar in nature, extensively.

    I’m going to continue to not wade into this discussion to any significant extent, both because it has, as usually veered into unproductivity and because I’ve had similar discussions with Webmonk, KK, and Kevin in the past. I have a great deal of respect for all three men, whom I am glad to consider as brothers in the Lord.

    A few thoughts: I don’t think the Genesis flood had to be necessarily worldwide, as we know the world today, because of II Peter 3:6: “…by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water”. All of the accepted English translations I am aware of include similar language. Of course, I don’t believe that either Scripture or science preclude a worldwide Genesis flood.

    I agree with Kevin N. that Scripture does not definitively preclude animal death prior to the Fall. It certainly precludes prior human death, which requires, for those who believe in human evolution, some kind of distinct line that was crossed wherein a human (presumably the “representative” Adam) first became in the image of God, became, simultaneously physically immortal, and then almost immediately fell (since no one but Christ has walked the earth without sin), at which point physical death was again extended to all mankind, through the representative Adam (Gen. 3:19).

    This is far too contorted a view of Scripture for me to accept. Genesis is also clear that the animals were created with man in mind, for his pleasure and for him to name, and to be his companions Gen. 2: 18-19). Genesis 1:30 states that “‘Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so.” This clearly implies that there were no carnivorous animals prior to the Fall, which gives credence to the traditional understanding of Genesis 3:21 that the first animal death was for the purpose of God making skins to cover Adam and Eve. Thus, the beginning of the shedding of blood to save sinful man.

    So, the bottom line is that I believe the biblical account that God created Man from the dust, in His own image, and breathed life into him, personally. The geneology of Adam in Genesis 5 is specific. If Adam were not a real human being, I don’t believe his geneology would be presented in such a factual way, even if one reads Genesis with an eye toward its poetic construct. An argument repeatedly given in favor of an old earth is that the geologic record, if the earth were young, would be a deception. Well, I don’t see how Genesis 5 is any less a deception if one posits that Adam is not a real flesh and blood human being.

    As for an old earth, I am much more ambivalent about that, because Scripture is a lot less definitive about that. I believe in a literal six day creation, because I have a default of taking the Bible literally unless the intrinsic scriptural record indicates that a particular portion should not be viewed that way, but accept that others don’t, and that they have good reasons for not doing so. That is one of many doctrinal disagreements among believers, which are by no means central to the doctrine of salvation through belief in Christ’s sacrifice alone, which will be settled in heaven.

    Science is a tool that God has given us to live in and to take advantage of the abundant world He has given us. His imposition of consistent physical laws allow us to develop constructs for predicting future events, finding natural resources, exploring space, circumnavigating the globe, developing medicines and vaccines, farming, and countless other productive activities. It is right that science, to be valid, should be based only on the observable, and should not consider the possible effects of supernatural events, since those cannot be observed, predicted, or accounted for when establishing our natural law constructs and theories. However, modern science has forgotten this. Instead of merely ignoring the supernatural, it denies the supernatural. This 2009 Pew survey is stunning in its revelation as to the impact this false understanding of science, and its limitations, has had on the faith of scientists: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx The survey indicated that 41% of scientists did not believe in God, compared to 4% of the general public. Only 33% believe in God, compared to 83% of the general public. Truly stunning, and scary.

    The supernatural is the most real part of life. It’s not accounted for at all by science, for good reasons, but our society has forgotten that these reasons are rooted in our limitations, specifically our inability to directly observe anything outside of our momentary existence. In my view, our science should be understood in view of Scripture, rather than trying to fit our Scripture into our absurdly poor understanding of natural law.

  • DonS

    KK and Kevin: Thanks to both of you for responding thoughtfully to my inquiry about death in a comment somewhere way up there. I read the linked articles KK provided and thought about Kevin’s comments, which were similar in nature, extensively.

    I’m going to continue to not wade into this discussion to any significant extent, both because it has, as usually veered into unproductivity and because I’ve had similar discussions with Webmonk, KK, and Kevin in the past. I have a great deal of respect for all three men, whom I am glad to consider as brothers in the Lord.

    A few thoughts: I don’t think the Genesis flood had to be necessarily worldwide, as we know the world today, because of II Peter 3:6: “…by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water”. All of the accepted English translations I am aware of include similar language. Of course, I don’t believe that either Scripture or science preclude a worldwide Genesis flood.

    I agree with Kevin N. that Scripture does not definitively preclude animal death prior to the Fall. It certainly precludes prior human death, which requires, for those who believe in human evolution, some kind of distinct line that was crossed wherein a human (presumably the “representative” Adam) first became in the image of God, became, simultaneously physically immortal, and then almost immediately fell (since no one but Christ has walked the earth without sin), at which point physical death was again extended to all mankind, through the representative Adam (Gen. 3:19).

    This is far too contorted a view of Scripture for me to accept. Genesis is also clear that the animals were created with man in mind, for his pleasure and for him to name, and to be his companions Gen. 2: 18-19). Genesis 1:30 states that “‘Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so.” This clearly implies that there were no carnivorous animals prior to the Fall, which gives credence to the traditional understanding of Genesis 3:21 that the first animal death was for the purpose of God making skins to cover Adam and Eve. Thus, the beginning of the shedding of blood to save sinful man.

    So, the bottom line is that I believe the biblical account that God created Man from the dust, in His own image, and breathed life into him, personally. The geneology of Adam in Genesis 5 is specific. If Adam were not a real human being, I don’t believe his geneology would be presented in such a factual way, even if one reads Genesis with an eye toward its poetic construct. An argument repeatedly given in favor of an old earth is that the geologic record, if the earth were young, would be a deception. Well, I don’t see how Genesis 5 is any less a deception if one posits that Adam is not a real flesh and blood human being.

    As for an old earth, I am much more ambivalent about that, because Scripture is a lot less definitive about that. I believe in a literal six day creation, because I have a default of taking the Bible literally unless the intrinsic scriptural record indicates that a particular portion should not be viewed that way, but accept that others don’t, and that they have good reasons for not doing so. That is one of many doctrinal disagreements among believers, which are by no means central to the doctrine of salvation through belief in Christ’s sacrifice alone, which will be settled in heaven.

    Science is a tool that God has given us to live in and to take advantage of the abundant world He has given us. His imposition of consistent physical laws allow us to develop constructs for predicting future events, finding natural resources, exploring space, circumnavigating the globe, developing medicines and vaccines, farming, and countless other productive activities. It is right that science, to be valid, should be based only on the observable, and should not consider the possible effects of supernatural events, since those cannot be observed, predicted, or accounted for when establishing our natural law constructs and theories. However, modern science has forgotten this. Instead of merely ignoring the supernatural, it denies the supernatural. This 2009 Pew survey is stunning in its revelation as to the impact this false understanding of science, and its limitations, has had on the faith of scientists: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx The survey indicated that 41% of scientists did not believe in God, compared to 4% of the general public. Only 33% believe in God, compared to 83% of the general public. Truly stunning, and scary.

    The supernatural is the most real part of life. It’s not accounted for at all by science, for good reasons, but our society has forgotten that these reasons are rooted in our limitations, specifically our inability to directly observe anything outside of our momentary existence. In my view, our science should be understood in view of Scripture, rather than trying to fit our Scripture into our absurdly poor understanding of natural law.

  • fws

    don @ 296

    That was a nice summary. I am pretty much right there with you.

    Kevin N

    Can you show us your basis for saying morning and evening are used as they are? Maybe from another similar OT context? What is your basis for your assertion?

    Tom

    What is your basis for your reading? Would Kevin N’s not be as natural a reading as your own? Why not?

  • fws

    don @ 296

    That was a nice summary. I am pretty much right there with you.

    Kevin N

    Can you show us your basis for saying morning and evening are used as they are? Maybe from another similar OT context? What is your basis for your assertion?

    Tom

    What is your basis for your reading? Would Kevin N’s not be as natural a reading as your own? Why not?

  • Grace

    fws @ 248

    Reading over some of the comments made on this thread. I came upon this gem from fws @ 248:

    “I am suggesting we can puzzle through this together as Lutheran Christians . I benight Kevin N and Webmonk as honorary Luthruns for this discussion.

    I suggest that Lutherans have a unique set of theological tools that allow us not to feel the Foundation of our faith threatened by all this , as it is for Grace. Whom I, for that reason, propose to exclude from this conversation.

    fws is “threatened” by his beliefs, and the Bible, mingled with his own assumptions, coupled with laying aside the Bible in favor of the Luthern Confessions.

    This preferance sheds a spotlight on WHY, he is unable to understand the Bible, not just on this subject by others.

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    With this belief, it is obvious why fws would make this PROPOSAL to other commenters regarding me (Grace) as follows: “propose to exclude from this conversation.“

  • Grace

    fws @ 248

    Reading over some of the comments made on this thread. I came upon this gem from fws @ 248:

    “I am suggesting we can puzzle through this together as Lutheran Christians . I benight Kevin N and Webmonk as honorary Luthruns for this discussion.

    I suggest that Lutherans have a unique set of theological tools that allow us not to feel the Foundation of our faith threatened by all this , as it is for Grace. Whom I, for that reason, propose to exclude from this conversation.

    fws is “threatened” by his beliefs, and the Bible, mingled with his own assumptions, coupled with laying aside the Bible in favor of the Luthern Confessions.

    This preferance sheds a spotlight on WHY, he is unable to understand the Bible, not just on this subject by others.

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    With this belief, it is obvious why fws would make this PROPOSAL to other commenters regarding me (Grace) as follows: “propose to exclude from this conversation.“

  • Grace

    I rely on the HOLY Scriptures, they are infallible, inerrant, without flaw. Many books are helpful, but they do not take the place of the Word of God.

    The comment made:

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    This is the very reason why individuals ride off the tracks, when trying explain what they don’t understand. ‘

    SHAMEFUL!

  • Grace

    I rely on the HOLY Scriptures, they are infallible, inerrant, without flaw. Many books are helpful, but they do not take the place of the Word of God.

    The comment made:

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    This is the very reason why individuals ride off the tracks, when trying explain what they don’t understand. ‘

    SHAMEFUL!

  • Grace

    Do any of you Lutherans feel the same as fws regarding the above claim?

  • Grace

    Do any of you Lutherans feel the same as fws regarding the above claim?

  • fws

    grace @ 299 & 300

    So. Take a wild guess. Do you think the link Gracie provides will take you to a post of FWS where you can confirm he says what she says he says, in context?

    Take a wild guess who is the authoress of the post Gracie links to.

    Grace, you really totally lack any shame at all don’t you?

  • fws

    grace @ 299 & 300

    So. Take a wild guess. Do you think the link Gracie provides will take you to a post of FWS where you can confirm he says what she says he says, in context?

    Take a wild guess who is the authoress of the post Gracie links to.

    Grace, you really totally lack any shame at all don’t you?

  • Grace

    If you’re lost, go straight to post 465. for the statement fws made. Yes one will need to scroll down, but you can do it!

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

  • Grace

    If you’re lost, go straight to post 465. for the statement fws made. Yes one will need to scroll down, but you can do it!

    fws @ 465 March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

  • fws

    Grace @ 300

    Grace, I can feel free to speak for all the Lutherans here!
    We ALL believe that it is “the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.” Just as I said.

    I am so sorry that you cannot gramatically parse a sentence or read contextually.
    Let me give you a quick lesson on how to read. Yes this is patronizing. You completed what grade level in school? Yes I am shaming you. Yes you deserve it.

    You are reading this:
    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“
    To say instead what I did NOT say:
    I say THAT the Confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures…are the sole role and norm for our faith and our life.

    You mentally moved the word THAT from where it was originally, which was in the elipsis of the second phrase. The second phrase is my original phrase , REstated as only you would understand it.

    I will not be at all surprised if you take this post and misquote me again in the future. You do wretched shameless things here Grace. You will never apologize when you make such an error will you?

    Stop being wierd Grace.

  • fws

    Grace @ 300

    Grace, I can feel free to speak for all the Lutherans here!
    We ALL believe that it is “the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.” Just as I said.

    I am so sorry that you cannot gramatically parse a sentence or read contextually.
    Let me give you a quick lesson on how to read. Yes this is patronizing. You completed what grade level in school? Yes I am shaming you. Yes you deserve it.

    You are reading this:
    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“
    To say instead what I did NOT say:
    I say THAT the Confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures…are the sole role and norm for our faith and our life.

    You mentally moved the word THAT from where it was originally, which was in the elipsis of the second phrase. The second phrase is my original phrase , REstated as only you would understand it.

    I will not be at all surprised if you take this post and misquote me again in the future. You do wretched shameless things here Grace. You will never apologize when you make such an error will you?

    Stop being wierd Grace.

  • Larry

    KK,

    I assume with your response you mean as Frank said that you would say, “I recieve bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain.” Is that correct?

    Because Frank is correct and as you well know as a Lutheran “mode presence” was never in question and as Sasse points out is the language how the Reformed “get around” what is meant by “real presence”. So am I correct to say you would concur that “I receive bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain.”

    In short “the mode of His presence is not a mystery to us that is as Frank stated well above and has always been the Reformed craftiness on that issue (Sasse identifies this). The “cannot be explained” is “how the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth is the very same Body and Blood born of the a Virgin”. How that happens, not the mode, is what we confess that we cannot explain.

    I want to be very clear on your answer and I appreciate your forthrightness on this.

  • Larry

    KK,

    I assume with your response you mean as Frank said that you would say, “I recieve bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain.” Is that correct?

    Because Frank is correct and as you well know as a Lutheran “mode presence” was never in question and as Sasse points out is the language how the Reformed “get around” what is meant by “real presence”. So am I correct to say you would concur that “I receive bread and wine, and also the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth. That same Body and Blood born of a Virgin. How this can be I cannot explain.”

    In short “the mode of His presence is not a mystery to us that is as Frank stated well above and has always been the Reformed craftiness on that issue (Sasse identifies this). The “cannot be explained” is “how the very Body and Blood of Christ in my hand and mouth is the very same Body and Blood born of the a Virgin”. How that happens, not the mode, is what we confess that we cannot explain.

    I want to be very clear on your answer and I appreciate your forthrightness on this.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, Grace, Grace … I really wish I could understand you. Being bemused (in all senses of the word) only goes so far.

    So FWS proposed (@248) to exclude you, and this seems to have upset you (@298). To get some kind of revenge, you went looking through who-knows-how-many posts on completely unrelated topics (even though you often complain about “not having enough time” — typically when asked to substantiate your own claims here) until you found one where FWS said something … that you completely misread.

    Oh, I know you, Grace. I know how you’ll howl and wail that you read FWS’s comments exactly as he meant them. Except that he has clearly stated otherwise. Both here and there.

    Which makes me think several things:

    1) Are you intentionally misreading FWS’s words, or are you so blinded by the fact that he’s gay that you can’t read his comments correctly?

    2) If your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as they appear to be, then do you see the irony in promoting your “just me and Bible” attitude? “I rely on the HOLY Scriptures, they are infallible, inerrant, without flaw,” you say — but, as you are making painfully obvious, human understanding of what is written often is crippled by biases and ignorance.

    3) Why do you get so upset by being theoretically excluded from some subset of an online discussion group by a man you so obviously disdain? For that matter, why do you even comment on this blog, given that you seem to have no common ground with its author? Your sole goal here seems to be to attack the Lutheranism that is something of a commonality among those who comment here. Why?

    Oh, and FWS (@303), it’s spelled “weird”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, Grace, Grace … I really wish I could understand you. Being bemused (in all senses of the word) only goes so far.

    So FWS proposed (@248) to exclude you, and this seems to have upset you (@298). To get some kind of revenge, you went looking through who-knows-how-many posts on completely unrelated topics (even though you often complain about “not having enough time” — typically when asked to substantiate your own claims here) until you found one where FWS said something … that you completely misread.

    Oh, I know you, Grace. I know how you’ll howl and wail that you read FWS’s comments exactly as he meant them. Except that he has clearly stated otherwise. Both here and there.

    Which makes me think several things:

    1) Are you intentionally misreading FWS’s words, or are you so blinded by the fact that he’s gay that you can’t read his comments correctly?

    2) If your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as they appear to be, then do you see the irony in promoting your “just me and Bible” attitude? “I rely on the HOLY Scriptures, they are infallible, inerrant, without flaw,” you say — but, as you are making painfully obvious, human understanding of what is written often is crippled by biases and ignorance.

    3) Why do you get so upset by being theoretically excluded from some subset of an online discussion group by a man you so obviously disdain? For that matter, why do you even comment on this blog, given that you seem to have no common ground with its author? Your sole goal here seems to be to attack the Lutheranism that is something of a commonality among those who comment here. Why?

    Oh, and FWS (@303), it’s spelled “weird”.

  • BW

    tODD @ 305

    poor tODD!

    Thought I’d just get that out of the way now.

  • BW

    tODD @ 305

    poor tODD!

    Thought I’d just get that out of the way now.

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR, tODD

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR, tODD

  • Grace

    fws,

    I COPY PASTED exactly what you wrote on the other thread:

    fws @ 465 I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.

    Now you come up with a fumbled rendition, which you should be ashamed of. You’re confused again! Elementary school?

    NOW YOU STATE:

    “You are reading this:
    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    To say instead what I did NOT say:
    I say THAT the Confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures…are the sole role and norm for our faith and our life.”

    I reposted it, exactly the way you wrote it –

    You can twist it all you like, just as you do with Romans 1. The feeble attempt to redeem you yourself is: To say instead what I did NOT say:”

    Talk about grade school antics – :razz:

  • Grace

    fws,

    I COPY PASTED exactly what you wrote on the other thread:

    fws @ 465 I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.

    Now you come up with a fumbled rendition, which you should be ashamed of. You’re confused again! Elementary school?

    NOW YOU STATE:

    “You are reading this:
    “I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.“

    To say instead what I did NOT say:
    I say THAT the Confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures…are the sole role and norm for our faith and our life.”

    I reposted it, exactly the way you wrote it –

    You can twist it all you like, just as you do with Romans 1. The feeble attempt to redeem you yourself is: To say instead what I did NOT say:”

    Talk about grade school antics – :razz:

  • Grace

    I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word. That has always been a sticking point for some of the posters, and yet for others, it’s not.

    There are lots of books, some are good, some pastors I agree with, and others I don’t agree with totally. The Bible I can depend on, it’s inerrant, much different than any other book ever written.

  • Grace

    I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word. That has always been a sticking point for some of the posters, and yet for others, it’s not.

    There are lots of books, some are good, some pastors I agree with, and others I don’t agree with totally. The Bible I can depend on, it’s inerrant, much different than any other book ever written.

  • Grace

    I should have added, there are many interesting people on this blog, some of which I’ve learned from, others who appear to follow after my posts, to see what there is to nit-pick ;)

  • Grace

    I should have added, there are many interesting people on this blog, some of which I’ve learned from, others who appear to follow after my posts, to see what there is to nit-pick ;)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    BW (@306), thanks for making Grace’s all-too-predictable response (@307) just that much richer!

    Anyhow, Grace (@308), really, you’re making yourself the poster child for the problem of trusting in one’s own reading comprehension skills alone.

    FWS has explained — multiple times now — what he said. You are clearly ignoring his explanations on purpose, at this point. You refuse to believe him. Why? It’s because he’s gay, isn’t it?

    I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word.

    Hello, non sequitur! No, you can’t blame the Bible for this one, Grace. And you certainly can’t blame God’s Word for why you intentionally choose to act this way towards FWS. No, to understand that, you’d have to examine your own sinful nature.

    The Bible I can depend on, it’s inerrant, much different than any other book ever written.

    But your understanding of it is not inerrant, much as your understanding in this thread is demonstrably errant. This is the fundamental flaw in “just my Bible and me”-type theology.

    Bemusingly, you also said (@310):

    …others who appear to follow after my posts, to see what there is to nit-pick

    Are you going for Maximum Irony here, Grace? Have you already forgotten that, just a few comments earlier, you began (which is to say, derailed) this current conversation by dredging up (and, again, completely misreading) comments from a blog post made 15 months ago! Who’s nit-picking again?

    What’s that saying, something about dishing, but not taking?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    BW (@306), thanks for making Grace’s all-too-predictable response (@307) just that much richer!

    Anyhow, Grace (@308), really, you’re making yourself the poster child for the problem of trusting in one’s own reading comprehension skills alone.

    FWS has explained — multiple times now — what he said. You are clearly ignoring his explanations on purpose, at this point. You refuse to believe him. Why? It’s because he’s gay, isn’t it?

    I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word.

    Hello, non sequitur! No, you can’t blame the Bible for this one, Grace. And you certainly can’t blame God’s Word for why you intentionally choose to act this way towards FWS. No, to understand that, you’d have to examine your own sinful nature.

    The Bible I can depend on, it’s inerrant, much different than any other book ever written.

    But your understanding of it is not inerrant, much as your understanding in this thread is demonstrably errant. This is the fundamental flaw in “just my Bible and me”-type theology.

    Bemusingly, you also said (@310):

    …others who appear to follow after my posts, to see what there is to nit-pick

    Are you going for Maximum Irony here, Grace? Have you already forgotten that, just a few comments earlier, you began (which is to say, derailed) this current conversation by dredging up (and, again, completely misreading) comments from a blog post made 15 months ago! Who’s nit-picking again?

    What’s that saying, something about dishing, but not taking?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow Grace had asked (@300):

    Do any of you Lutherans feel the same as fws regarding the above claim?

    Anyhow, yes, Lutherans believe, along with FWS, that “the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.”

    Of course, for you to understand that, you’d have to stop intentionally misreading FWS’s comments.

    Perhaps now would be a good time for you to pick a different tangent to go off on?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow Grace had asked (@300):

    Do any of you Lutherans feel the same as fws regarding the above claim?

    Anyhow, yes, Lutherans believe, along with FWS, that “the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.”

    Of course, for you to understand that, you’d have to stop intentionally misreading FWS’s comments.

    Perhaps now would be a good time for you to pick a different tangent to go off on?

  • Grace

    fws claimed differently a year ago, perhaps wishing he hadn’t written what he wrote – he misreads, and twists Romans 1, which makes no sense. The ELCA agrees with him. They and fws contradict the Word of God.

  • Grace

    fws claimed differently a year ago, perhaps wishing he hadn’t written what he wrote – he misreads, and twists Romans 1, which makes no sense. The ELCA agrees with him. They and fws contradict the Word of God.

  • fws

    grace @ 313

    1) I apologize for hurting your feelings.

    and

    2) stop being Weird.

  • fws

    grace @ 313

    1) I apologize for hurting your feelings.

    and

    2) stop being Weird.

  • Grace

    fws,

    You haven’t hurt my feeling whatsoever – :lol:

  • Grace

    fws,

    You haven’t hurt my feeling whatsoever – :lol:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@313):

    fws claimed differently a year ago

    No he didn’t, Grace! Stop telling lies!

    I did, in fact, follow the link you told us to. All I found there was that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Then and now.

    FWS made the initial statement (which he later admitted was poorly formatted):

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?

    He later clarified his beliefs by saying:

    I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.

    And, to fully clarify, he again said:

    I will add just a comma and a period to make the following clear, and apologize if this caused genuine confusion:

    I say the confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life. Why?

    Grace, to constantly and willfully misrepresent a man is a sin.

    Neither the discussion in this thread here, nor the other thread you’ve dragged into this discussion, have anything to do with homosexuality. Except this: your attitude towards FWS’ homosexuality has completely clouded your ability to read his plain words, such that you sinfully defame the man, claiming he has said what he plainly has not.

    And yet you say, “I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word.” Please. Your actions here preach otherwise.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@313):

    fws claimed differently a year ago

    No he didn’t, Grace! Stop telling lies!

    I did, in fact, follow the link you told us to. All I found there was that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Then and now.

    FWS made the initial statement (which he later admitted was poorly formatted):

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?

    He later clarified his beliefs by saying:

    I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.

    And, to fully clarify, he again said:

    I will add just a comma and a period to make the following clear, and apologize if this caused genuine confusion:

    I say the confessions, and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life. Why?

    Grace, to constantly and willfully misrepresent a man is a sin.

    Neither the discussion in this thread here, nor the other thread you’ve dragged into this discussion, have anything to do with homosexuality. Except this: your attitude towards FWS’ homosexuality has completely clouded your ability to read his plain words, such that you sinfully defame the man, claiming he has said what he plainly has not.

    And yet you say, “I post on this blog because I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God – the only Word.” Please. Your actions here preach otherwise.

  • fws

    grace @315

    why are you so predictable?

    Switch up once in a while gal!

    Turn yourself loose.
    Say your feelings were hurt.
    Even if they weren’t.
    Or even apologize to someone here .
    or admit you made a mistake.
    or be kind to someone when they aren’t to you.
    or return rudeness and sarcasm with the opposite of that.

    Or not.

  • fws

    grace @315

    why are you so predictable?

    Switch up once in a while gal!

    Turn yourself loose.
    Say your feelings were hurt.
    Even if they weren’t.
    Or even apologize to someone here .
    or admit you made a mistake.
    or be kind to someone when they aren’t to you.
    or return rudeness and sarcasm with the opposite of that.

    Or not.

  • fws

    grace @ 315

    or..
    refrain from putting everything in bold and ALL CAPS

    or actually respond to someone rather than just quote a scripture passage over and over.

    Or say something that surprises someone as coming from you.

    or not. stay predictable.

    We all know what you are gonna say that way.

    But then why even bother to say it.

  • fws

    grace @ 315

    or..
    refrain from putting everything in bold and ALL CAPS

    or actually respond to someone rather than just quote a scripture passage over and over.

    Or say something that surprises someone as coming from you.

    or not. stay predictable.

    We all know what you are gonna say that way.

    But then why even bother to say it.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 316

    @ 316 Grace, to constantly and willfully misrepresent a man is a sin.

    Really? Then why do you do it?

    How many past posts do you dig up, on other posters? Not to mention their PERSONAL LIVES? Have you forgotten all the posts? – and then there is Peter Leavitt, (Porcell) of whom you made repeated attempts to discredit him, and FAILED. There are many Peter Leavitt’s in the area he comes from, did you know that, or did you skip those investigative hunts of yours?

    You tried in vain to discredit Peter Leavitt, but it didn’t work.

    tODD – your posts at 153, 165 with a long list of LINKS, and 178

    Post 153 below –

    153 tODD May 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    “Oh, and one more thing, Peter. In keeping with my Teutonic background — and, furthermore, in keeping with the explicit request of your “Swedish-born wife” that I “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing” — I’ve come to be suspicious of some of the details of your life you’ve told us about here.
    You already admitted where you live. You told us it was only “one of [your] summer places”, but I find that odd, given that you repeatedly ran for town moderator from that address. Strange behavior for a summer home, don’t you think?

    Anyhow, your local paper certainly seems to agree with me that your wife’s name is Barbara. They also say you’re a retired teacher. Oddly, they say you went to Union College, not Harvard as you frequently claim here. Were you really in the French Club there?

    Heck, I could even tell you what church you go to. Or what church Barbara goes to. They don’t appear to be the same. At least your involvement in your church’s ministry teams does bear up some of your claims about your business knowledge.

    That said, I couldn’t find any evidence that you actually ran the Boston Marathon like you said you did. And I’m fairly suspicious of all the other homes you claim to own and/or visit in the Bahamas and South Africa.

    Do you want me to give you a phone call, and we can discuss this further?

    These posts against Peter Leavitt (Porcell) can all be found on:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/05/24/obama-wants-israel-to-go-back-to-1967-borders/#comment-117442

  • Grace

    tODD @ 316

    @ 316 Grace, to constantly and willfully misrepresent a man is a sin.

    Really? Then why do you do it?

    How many past posts do you dig up, on other posters? Not to mention their PERSONAL LIVES? Have you forgotten all the posts? – and then there is Peter Leavitt, (Porcell) of whom you made repeated attempts to discredit him, and FAILED. There are many Peter Leavitt’s in the area he comes from, did you know that, or did you skip those investigative hunts of yours?

    You tried in vain to discredit Peter Leavitt, but it didn’t work.

    tODD – your posts at 153, 165 with a long list of LINKS, and 178

    Post 153 below –

    153 tODD May 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    “Oh, and one more thing, Peter. In keeping with my Teutonic background — and, furthermore, in keeping with the explicit request of your “Swedish-born wife” that I “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing” — I’ve come to be suspicious of some of the details of your life you’ve told us about here.
    You already admitted where you live. You told us it was only “one of [your] summer places”, but I find that odd, given that you repeatedly ran for town moderator from that address. Strange behavior for a summer home, don’t you think?

    Anyhow, your local paper certainly seems to agree with me that your wife’s name is Barbara. They also say you’re a retired teacher. Oddly, they say you went to Union College, not Harvard as you frequently claim here. Were you really in the French Club there?

    Heck, I could even tell you what church you go to. Or what church Barbara goes to. They don’t appear to be the same. At least your involvement in your church’s ministry teams does bear up some of your claims about your business knowledge.

    That said, I couldn’t find any evidence that you actually ran the Boston Marathon like you said you did. And I’m fairly suspicious of all the other homes you claim to own and/or visit in the Bahamas and South Africa.

    Do you want me to give you a phone call, and we can discuss this further?

    These posts against Peter Leavitt (Porcell) can all be found on:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/05/24/obama-wants-israel-to-go-back-to-1967-borders/#comment-117442

  • fws

    grace @ 319

    Stop being weird Grace.

    and now…

    find something to do with your time that does some good for someone.

  • fws

    grace @ 319

    Stop being weird Grace.

    and now…

    find something to do with your time that does some good for someone.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws (#297),

    Morning is the time period after the sun comes up.

    Evening is the time period after the sun goes down.

    There is no “daytime” in the formula “there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.”

    It seems to be somewhat odd to describe a complete, literal 24-hour day by leaving out the part between morning and evening; the part in which God labored, and in which humans labor. Maybe Moses meant a literal 24-hour day, maybe he didn’t. It is just a tad bit unclear.

    As Tom Hering said (#295), “Context is everything in a language with a very limited vocabulary.” The context of Genesis 1 contains considerable ambiguity concerning the nature of “yom.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    fws (#297),

    Morning is the time period after the sun comes up.

    Evening is the time period after the sun goes down.

    There is no “daytime” in the formula “there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.”

    It seems to be somewhat odd to describe a complete, literal 24-hour day by leaving out the part between morning and evening; the part in which God labored, and in which humans labor. Maybe Moses meant a literal 24-hour day, maybe he didn’t. It is just a tad bit unclear.

    As Tom Hering said (#295), “Context is everything in a language with a very limited vocabulary.” The context of Genesis 1 contains considerable ambiguity concerning the nature of “yom.”

  • Tom Hering

    What is your basis for your reading? Would Kevin N’s not be as natural a reading as your own? Why not? (Frank @ 297)

    Because my reading was done in the nude, sitting under a tree, munching sunflower seeds. It doesn’t get any more natural than that.

  • Tom Hering

    What is your basis for your reading? Would Kevin N’s not be as natural a reading as your own? Why not? (Frank @ 297)

    Because my reading was done in the nude, sitting under a tree, munching sunflower seeds. It doesn’t get any more natural than that.

  • fws

    tom @ 322

    Oh yes it does! Were the sunflower seeds organically grown? Certified to be so? or just “natural”. You know the FDA doesnt certify “natural”.

    Kevin N @ ??

    Then what you say doesn’t really add any new information. I thought maybe you could point to a turn of phrase or a poetic form somewhere else in the OT that used that evening/morning couplet that would show us something. Is there something in the septuagint or the Jewish fathers that add some additional information?

    I am not getting maybe the point you make. Tom is reading the text as “the evening and morning marked a day” . That does not seem at all forced. Nor does imagining a 24 hour day seem forced. Nor does a more poetic non literal meaning however. But I dont see how your observation sheds light on this. (no pun intended).

    I think the stronger argument, I think you made it, is the structure of environment and then the environment being filled. water/sky and fish/birds , along with the order of things…. light and darkness without first being a sun/moon or even stars! the earth created before all (!) other heavenly bodies!

    And Moses would have seen that too. I don’t think that the OT believers were more incredulous than us and would more readily accept a miracle like a virgin birth. Probably the exact opposite would be true.

  • fws

    tom @ 322

    Oh yes it does! Were the sunflower seeds organically grown? Certified to be so? or just “natural”. You know the FDA doesnt certify “natural”.

    Kevin N @ ??

    Then what you say doesn’t really add any new information. I thought maybe you could point to a turn of phrase or a poetic form somewhere else in the OT that used that evening/morning couplet that would show us something. Is there something in the septuagint or the Jewish fathers that add some additional information?

    I am not getting maybe the point you make. Tom is reading the text as “the evening and morning marked a day” . That does not seem at all forced. Nor does imagining a 24 hour day seem forced. Nor does a more poetic non literal meaning however. But I dont see how your observation sheds light on this. (no pun intended).

    I think the stronger argument, I think you made it, is the structure of environment and then the environment being filled. water/sky and fish/birds , along with the order of things…. light and darkness without first being a sun/moon or even stars! the earth created before all (!) other heavenly bodies!

    And Moses would have seen that too. I don’t think that the OT believers were more incredulous than us and would more readily accept a miracle like a virgin birth. Probably the exact opposite would be true.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@319), you’re flailing. Predictably.

    If you want to point out to me where I have sinned and misrepresented a man, then do so, and I will repent. I admit that I do not always act out of love in my comments here.

    But you have not pointed that out. No, you have dragged yet another completely irrelevant topic into this discussion, all in an apparent attempt to divert our attention from what you’re doing to FWS.

    Doing research on publicly available information isn’t misrepresentation. (The man did admit to that being his address, you know, so we knew which Leavitt he was.)

    What does it profit you to “believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God” if you won’t admit to your sins, if you constantly change the subject when they’re pointed out to you?

    This isn’t even the first bit of misinformation you’ve spread on this blog this week!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@319), you’re flailing. Predictably.

    If you want to point out to me where I have sinned and misrepresented a man, then do so, and I will repent. I admit that I do not always act out of love in my comments here.

    But you have not pointed that out. No, you have dragged yet another completely irrelevant topic into this discussion, all in an apparent attempt to divert our attention from what you’re doing to FWS.

    Doing research on publicly available information isn’t misrepresentation. (The man did admit to that being his address, you know, so we knew which Leavitt he was.)

    What does it profit you to “believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God” if you won’t admit to your sins, if you constantly change the subject when they’re pointed out to you?

    This isn’t even the first bit of misinformation you’ve spread on this blog this week!

  • fws

    kevin n @ 321

    how would it have been worded in a way that would have had to mean a “normal” or 24+/- hour day? Let’s do a thought experiment here.

  • fws

    kevin n @ 321

    how would it have been worded in a way that would have had to mean a “normal” or 24+/- hour day? Let’s do a thought experiment here.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    If there is ambiguity in the details of the order of creation in Genesis shouldn’t it be a matter of adiaphora and not one that we break communion over?

    I get the sense (from past discussions with pastors) that seminarians who doubt the YEC interpretation are viewed as heretics.

    That seems a bit defensive over a mostly academic topic.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    If there is ambiguity in the details of the order of creation in Genesis shouldn’t it be a matter of adiaphora and not one that we break communion over?

    I get the sense (from past discussions with pastors) that seminarians who doubt the YEC interpretation are viewed as heretics.

    That seems a bit defensive over a mostly academic topic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Back on topic. I’ve made these points before (this whole discussion is pretty much just everyone rehashing their long-standing beliefs, once more), but it should be noted that those holding to the “days represent long periods” reading have a problem: the order of the creation in Genesis does not reflect the order dictated by evolutionary science or cosmology.

    That is to say, in Genesis, the order goes: (Day 3) seed-bearing plants and trees; (Day 4) sun, moon, and stars; (Day 5) fish and birds; (Day 6) land animals.

    Ask any scientist which order those should go on, and they’ll tell you: stars, sun, and moon; fish; land animals; seed-bearing plants, trees; birds. Doesn’t exactly look like Genesis 1, does it?

    As for the whole argument (from Old-Earth types) that all the geological data would constitute “deception” from God, if the Earth were actually young, it needs to be remembered that all miracles are scientifically deceptive. The most easily discussed of these is the miracle at Cana, but again, all of them would be subject to such an argument.

    Just to throw a bone to the other side, I think most Christians are somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between (1) Taking Everything Literally and (2) Reading Everything as Metaphor. Unless you deny all miracles, then you necessarily take some unscientific claims of the Bible at face value, no matter what logic would tell you. And unless you believe Earth has four corners and sits on literal pillars, then you allow for poetic license. I realize that some people actually do hold to such literalism, but, well, is it anybody here?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Back on topic. I’ve made these points before (this whole discussion is pretty much just everyone rehashing their long-standing beliefs, once more), but it should be noted that those holding to the “days represent long periods” reading have a problem: the order of the creation in Genesis does not reflect the order dictated by evolutionary science or cosmology.

    That is to say, in Genesis, the order goes: (Day 3) seed-bearing plants and trees; (Day 4) sun, moon, and stars; (Day 5) fish and birds; (Day 6) land animals.

    Ask any scientist which order those should go on, and they’ll tell you: stars, sun, and moon; fish; land animals; seed-bearing plants, trees; birds. Doesn’t exactly look like Genesis 1, does it?

    As for the whole argument (from Old-Earth types) that all the geological data would constitute “deception” from God, if the Earth were actually young, it needs to be remembered that all miracles are scientifically deceptive. The most easily discussed of these is the miracle at Cana, but again, all of them would be subject to such an argument.

    Just to throw a bone to the other side, I think most Christians are somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between (1) Taking Everything Literally and (2) Reading Everything as Metaphor. Unless you deny all miracles, then you necessarily take some unscientific claims of the Bible at face value, no matter what logic would tell you. And unless you believe Earth has four corners and sits on literal pillars, then you allow for poetic license. I realize that some people actually do hold to such literalism, but, well, is it anybody here?

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE: – - – - – “If you want to point out to me where I have sinned and misrepresented a man, then do so, and I will repent. I admit that I do not always act out of love in my comments here.” – - – - –

    Your attack on Peter Leavitt last year was totally mean spirited. Further more it was untrue.

    There are many men in that area named Peter Leavitt. Further more, people put their holdings in a LLC, plus a TRUST, with a code. In this way, one can have many homes, and Real Estate without the general public, or people like you having access. This is something all to many either don’t understand, or know about. One home can easily be stated, leaving the rest in the TRUST.

    The information above should be clear, even to you. And YES, you did misrepresent Peter Leavitt (Porcell) and it was nothing but a witch hunt on your part.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE: – - – - – “If you want to point out to me where I have sinned and misrepresented a man, then do so, and I will repent. I admit that I do not always act out of love in my comments here.” – - – - –

    Your attack on Peter Leavitt last year was totally mean spirited. Further more it was untrue.

    There are many men in that area named Peter Leavitt. Further more, people put their holdings in a LLC, plus a TRUST, with a code. In this way, one can have many homes, and Real Estate without the general public, or people like you having access. This is something all to many either don’t understand, or know about. One home can easily be stated, leaving the rest in the TRUST.

    The information above should be clear, even to you. And YES, you did misrepresent Peter Leavitt (Porcell) and it was nothing but a witch hunt on your part.

  • BW

    Grace

    I have studied genealogy, and studied it well, and know for a fact that there are not that many Peter Leavitts in New England. I have done the research, how do you back up YOUR CLAIM!?:

    Your tactic is grade school in nature! You just say there are many Peter Leavitts but you don’t back it up.

    You can say there are many Peter Leavitts in that area all you like but that doesn’t MAKE IT SO!

    ****
    I’m sorry….Couldn’t help myself….I have been enjoying this comment thread, up until there was a derailing.

  • BW

    Grace

    I have studied genealogy, and studied it well, and know for a fact that there are not that many Peter Leavitts in New England. I have done the research, how do you back up YOUR CLAIM!?:

    Your tactic is grade school in nature! You just say there are many Peter Leavitts but you don’t back it up.

    You can say there are many Peter Leavitts in that area all you like but that doesn’t MAKE IT SO!

    ****
    I’m sorry….Couldn’t help myself….I have been enjoying this comment thread, up until there was a derailing.

  • Grace

    BW

    I have known for some time that there are many Peter Leavitt’s –

    I do a great amount of research on a variety of subjects. As for individuals, if you understand, (I’m not talking about GOOGLE) finding people who are missing, etc., is not impossible. Finding out where people live, what they own, etc., isn’t all that easy. Much of it is held in TRUST’s with codes.

    Because you couldn’t accomplish the task, means ZERO. Obviously you don’t know how.

  • Grace

    BW

    I have known for some time that there are many Peter Leavitt’s –

    I do a great amount of research on a variety of subjects. As for individuals, if you understand, (I’m not talking about GOOGLE) finding people who are missing, etc., is not impossible. Finding out where people live, what they own, etc., isn’t all that easy. Much of it is held in TRUST’s with codes.

    Because you couldn’t accomplish the task, means ZERO. Obviously you don’t know how.

  • Grace

    BW

    People can still keep their lives private, even with people like you who try and find them, using “genealogy” -

  • Grace

    BW

    People can still keep their lives private, even with people like you who try and find them, using “genealogy” -

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, again: Leavitt admitted his address. The rest of the facts followed. QED.

    But anything to avoid admitting to your own error, huh? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you own up to your own willful sins on this blog. One does have to wonder if you believe that you sin (and willfully so), or if you’ve somehow swallowed the lie that you don’t.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, again: Leavitt admitted his address. The rest of the facts followed. QED.

    But anything to avoid admitting to your own error, huh? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you own up to your own willful sins on this blog. One does have to wonder if you believe that you sin (and willfully so), or if you’ve somehow swallowed the lie that you don’t.

  • fws

    sal @ 326

    Yes there is defensiveness among lots of LCMS clergy and seminary profs. Depends on who you talk to. I would chalk alot of that up to the invasion of DL moody style fundamentalism into the LCMS around the time German Lutherans were switching over to english starting in the late 20s.

    And yes there is also a “defensiveness’ about topics like homosexuality . No discussion is really allowed. That would be to cave in . It would be to welcome error. We don’t think that way discussing stuff with calvinists, papists, buddhists or atheists. Why is there that difference and , as you say “defensiveness”?

    And of course we are also “defensive” on womens role in the church, and we forget that in the not so distant past the LCMS made NO distinction as to what they taught about women’s roles as to church vs society. Women were not to be in authority in society either until around 1930. no womens sufferage! That was at least a consistent position. We have a very short memory.

    But I am a gay man and chose to be in the LCMS Sal And , oddly, I am made to feel most welcome without any litmus test even such as being grilled: “i demand to know if you are a practicing homo or not before I decide to let you in or not!”

    What background are you coming from Sal? why aren’t you a Lutheran?!

  • fws

    sal @ 326

    Yes there is defensiveness among lots of LCMS clergy and seminary profs. Depends on who you talk to. I would chalk alot of that up to the invasion of DL moody style fundamentalism into the LCMS around the time German Lutherans were switching over to english starting in the late 20s.

    And yes there is also a “defensiveness’ about topics like homosexuality . No discussion is really allowed. That would be to cave in . It would be to welcome error. We don’t think that way discussing stuff with calvinists, papists, buddhists or atheists. Why is there that difference and , as you say “defensiveness”?

    And of course we are also “defensive” on womens role in the church, and we forget that in the not so distant past the LCMS made NO distinction as to what they taught about women’s roles as to church vs society. Women were not to be in authority in society either until around 1930. no womens sufferage! That was at least a consistent position. We have a very short memory.

    But I am a gay man and chose to be in the LCMS Sal And , oddly, I am made to feel most welcome without any litmus test even such as being grilled: “i demand to know if you are a practicing homo or not before I decide to let you in or not!”

    What background are you coming from Sal? why aren’t you a Lutheran?!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    This thread has gotten a bit wayward – and more’s the pity.

    Larry, He is present. This is what I believe and confess:

    13. Do you believe, then, that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Sacrament?
    Yes, I believe it.
    14. What convinces you to believe this?
    The word of Christ: Take, eat, this is My body; drink of it, all of you, this is My blood.

    And:

    That the true body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are there dispensed and received; and the contrary doctrine is rejected (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who presented their own Confession at the same time at Augsburg, that the body of Christ, because He has ascended to heaven, is not truly and essentially present here upon earth in the Sacrament [which denied the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper administered on earth, namely, for the reason that Christ had ascended into heaven]); 10] even as this opinion is clearly expressed in Luther’s Small Catechism in the following words: The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself; 11] and in the Apology this is not only explained still more clearly, but also established by the passage from Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16, and by the testimony of Cyril, in the following words: The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. For since Paul says: “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” etc., it would follow, if the body of Christ were not, but only the Holy Ghost were truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit of Christ. Besides, we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh.

    But the great stress you lay upon the fact that I need to be very clear, makes me think that you have taken upon yourself the Office of Grand Lutheran Inquisitor, and that I ought to sow a red cross on my shirt or jacket. I’m not at home, but I’ll see if the concierge has something. Maybe Todd can make a red cross come up every time I post or something….

    Really, such a spirit is not of Christ, but loves the law of doctrine more than anything else. Either that, or we have a serious case of convertitis here…..

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    This thread has gotten a bit wayward – and more’s the pity.

    Larry, He is present. This is what I believe and confess:

    13. Do you believe, then, that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Sacrament?
    Yes, I believe it.
    14. What convinces you to believe this?
    The word of Christ: Take, eat, this is My body; drink of it, all of you, this is My blood.

    And:

    That the true body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are there dispensed and received; and the contrary doctrine is rejected (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who presented their own Confession at the same time at Augsburg, that the body of Christ, because He has ascended to heaven, is not truly and essentially present here upon earth in the Sacrament [which denied the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper administered on earth, namely, for the reason that Christ had ascended into heaven]); 10] even as this opinion is clearly expressed in Luther’s Small Catechism in the following words: The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself; 11] and in the Apology this is not only explained still more clearly, but also established by the passage from Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16, and by the testimony of Cyril, in the following words: The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. For since Paul says: “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” etc., it would follow, if the body of Christ were not, but only the Holy Ghost were truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit of Christ. Besides, we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh.

    But the great stress you lay upon the fact that I need to be very clear, makes me think that you have taken upon yourself the Office of Grand Lutheran Inquisitor, and that I ought to sow a red cross on my shirt or jacket. I’m not at home, but I’ll see if the concierge has something. Maybe Todd can make a red cross come up every time I post or something….

    Really, such a spirit is not of Christ, but loves the law of doctrine more than anything else. Either that, or we have a serious case of convertitis here…..

  • fws

    Todd @ 327

    i am right there with ya Todd. Probably a little more flexible, but I would follow your outline more or less.

    the “less” is that you mention the order of how things are created in gen 1. That would indicate to me that Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in a way that is NOT “this is how it woulda looked if I had remembered to bring my cam corder. Dang!”

  • fws

    Todd @ 327

    i am right there with ya Todd. Probably a little more flexible, but I would follow your outline more or less.

    the “less” is that you mention the order of how things are created in gen 1. That would indicate to me that Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in a way that is NOT “this is how it woulda looked if I had remembered to bring my cam corder. Dang!”

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And really, Larry, we are not saved by faith in the correct doctrine, but by faith in Christ.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And really, Larry, we are not saved by faith in the correct doctrine, but by faith in Christ.

  • Grace

    Peter most likely owned that piece of Real Estate, that isn’t the issue, but that doesn’t preclude him from owning many more homes, either here or abroad, making it impossible for you to know anything about holdings – which annoyed you, and obviously still does.

    As for his identity, and education at Harvard – since there are many with his name, you cannot with any proof say that he didn’t attend Harvard. It is obvious that Peter and Carl (who post on this blog) both are highly educated, much more that most anyone else who posts here. I didn’t always agree with Peter, but I knew that he most likely was a Harvard graduate. My cousin graduated from Harvard, .. it’s most obvious.

    As for Peter’s name – you have no idea how many Peter Leavitts there are, especially in the North East.

  • Grace

    Peter most likely owned that piece of Real Estate, that isn’t the issue, but that doesn’t preclude him from owning many more homes, either here or abroad, making it impossible for you to know anything about holdings – which annoyed you, and obviously still does.

    As for his identity, and education at Harvard – since there are many with his name, you cannot with any proof say that he didn’t attend Harvard. It is obvious that Peter and Carl (who post on this blog) both are highly educated, much more that most anyone else who posts here. I didn’t always agree with Peter, but I knew that he most likely was a Harvard graduate. My cousin graduated from Harvard, .. it’s most obvious.

    As for Peter’s name – you have no idea how many Peter Leavitts there are, especially in the North East.

  • fws

    Klassie at 334

    I am most sorry if I said anything that made you feel less than at home in this discussion or offended you or felt like you were being accused of something Klassie.

    I hope that is not the case. I wrote you a detailed response to your three part post. I hope you felt a fraternal and uniteed spirit in what I wrote. I fully assume that you are truly in complete unity of common faith with me dear brother.

  • fws

    Klassie at 334

    I am most sorry if I said anything that made you feel less than at home in this discussion or offended you or felt like you were being accused of something Klassie.

    I hope that is not the case. I wrote you a detailed response to your three part post. I hope you felt a fraternal and uniteed spirit in what I wrote. I fully assume that you are truly in complete unity of common faith with me dear brother.

  • Grace

    KK

    Martin Luther’s NEW version: – - – - Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith “alone” without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

    Luther had no right to add the word “alone”

    Luther stated: – - – - “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul.say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’.I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” – - – -
    (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127)

  • Grace

    KK

    Martin Luther’s NEW version: – - – - Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith “alone” without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

    Luther had no right to add the word “alone”

    Luther stated: – - – - “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul.say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’.I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” – - – -
    (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127)

  • Dust

    Grace…am not sure what the facts are concerning Peter, but am very sure about the spirit of the dialogue. maybe the facts are true, and so calling him out had merit, but not the rest of it.

    Do you think it was perhaps because Peter was very conservative? tODD likes to think some folks disagree with fws, just because he is gay, so can’t it go the other way too?

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace…am not sure what the facts are concerning Peter, but am very sure about the spirit of the dialogue. maybe the facts are true, and so calling him out had merit, but not the rest of it.

    Do you think it was perhaps because Peter was very conservative? tODD likes to think some folks disagree with fws, just because he is gay, so can’t it go the other way too?

    cheers!

  • Grace

    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    James 2

  • Grace

    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    James 2

  • Grace

    Dust @ 340

    YOU WROTE: “Grace…am not sure what the facts are concerning Peter, but am very sure about the spirit of the dialogue. maybe the facts are true, and so calling him out had merit, but not the rest of it.”

    Dust, I don’t know if you clicked on the LINK and read the posts I gave for referrence – however, going after a commenter on a blog is very BAD FORM, especially when you think you can somehow TRY and PROVE this person to be a liar, his personal life, career, education, church and even throw his wife into the mix. That’s nothing but a witch hunt.

    Ask YOURSELF, why would anyone take the time to do such a thing? This usually comes from a heart of envy. Peter is a very intelligent man, there were others on the blog that resented him, just for that reason.

    Do you find “merit” in such an act? I don’t.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 340

    YOU WROTE: “Grace…am not sure what the facts are concerning Peter, but am very sure about the spirit of the dialogue. maybe the facts are true, and so calling him out had merit, but not the rest of it.”

    Dust, I don’t know if you clicked on the LINK and read the posts I gave for referrence – however, going after a commenter on a blog is very BAD FORM, especially when you think you can somehow TRY and PROVE this person to be a liar, his personal life, career, education, church and even throw his wife into the mix. That’s nothing but a witch hunt.

    Ask YOURSELF, why would anyone take the time to do such a thing? This usually comes from a heart of envy. Peter is a very intelligent man, there were others on the blog that resented him, just for that reason.

    Do you find “merit” in such an act? I don’t.

  • Dust

    Grace…actually did read everything and it was pretty depressing to revisit :( No, do not find merit…was just commenting that tODD thought that to point out any “lies” had some merit (or some other word, which is not the important) so was cutting some slack there. but to go into everything, and especially his wife and then to “pile on” with others and to express the glee and some sort of weird (if that’s the right word, hee hee) pleasure in doing all of it. personally, would have been embarrassed to admit to such behavior, but to do it publicly and without any shame or fear of criticism from your peers, does say something about the spirit of that enterprise, in my humble opinion. it was pretty shocking to see the personal attacks and investigation into a commenter on a silly blog, lord have mercy! but it wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last…although can say it does seem to have not been so emotional as it was in the past?

    yes, it makes me wonder about the motives on why someone would do such a thing, but really can’t read a person’s heart. it could be it came from a heart of envy, don’t know…but don’t know either how anyone has the time and will to do such a thing? sort of made me think of some form of cyber stalking and think there ought to be a law :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace…actually did read everything and it was pretty depressing to revisit :( No, do not find merit…was just commenting that tODD thought that to point out any “lies” had some merit (or some other word, which is not the important) so was cutting some slack there. but to go into everything, and especially his wife and then to “pile on” with others and to express the glee and some sort of weird (if that’s the right word, hee hee) pleasure in doing all of it. personally, would have been embarrassed to admit to such behavior, but to do it publicly and without any shame or fear of criticism from your peers, does say something about the spirit of that enterprise, in my humble opinion. it was pretty shocking to see the personal attacks and investigation into a commenter on a silly blog, lord have mercy! but it wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last…although can say it does seem to have not been so emotional as it was in the past?

    yes, it makes me wonder about the motives on why someone would do such a thing, but really can’t read a person’s heart. it could be it came from a heart of envy, don’t know…but don’t know either how anyone has the time and will to do such a thing? sort of made me think of some form of cyber stalking and think there ought to be a law :)

    cheers!

  • Grace

    Dust #343

    “yes, it makes me wonder about the motives on why someone would do such a thing, but really can’t read a person’s heart. it could be it came from a heart of envy, don’t know…but don’t know either how anyone has the time and will to do such a thing? sort of made me think of some form of cyber stalking and think there ought to be a law”

    Thank you for your response and thoughtful words. The posts on that particular blog, made me very sad when I read them over a year ago.

    Peter left, and never came back, it was the blogs loss.

    It appears to me since then, that the constant nit-picking on the part of a few people on this blog, on a regualar basis, has increased.

    Commenters can discuss subjects strongly, but when they step over the line into another individuals life, concocting a story, that might have a thread of truth, just to get even, that’s speaks VOLUMES, it’s also an alert, as to the motive.

    What difference does it make if you don’t believe that someone has obtained a particular place in life, if one really believes that, wouldn’t they let it go, not wanting to hurt the other person?

    I have attended reunions where people become very agitated, jealous and angry over other peoples lives, how they look, live, etc. When they lash out, it’s deporable. ENVY is almost always the root of such behavior.

    Dust, I do thank you for you thoughtful comments. If Peter is reading this thread, I’m sure it means a lot to him.

  • Grace

    Dust #343

    “yes, it makes me wonder about the motives on why someone would do such a thing, but really can’t read a person’s heart. it could be it came from a heart of envy, don’t know…but don’t know either how anyone has the time and will to do such a thing? sort of made me think of some form of cyber stalking and think there ought to be a law”

    Thank you for your response and thoughtful words. The posts on that particular blog, made me very sad when I read them over a year ago.

    Peter left, and never came back, it was the blogs loss.

    It appears to me since then, that the constant nit-picking on the part of a few people on this blog, on a regualar basis, has increased.

    Commenters can discuss subjects strongly, but when they step over the line into another individuals life, concocting a story, that might have a thread of truth, just to get even, that’s speaks VOLUMES, it’s also an alert, as to the motive.

    What difference does it make if you don’t believe that someone has obtained a particular place in life, if one really believes that, wouldn’t they let it go, not wanting to hurt the other person?

    I have attended reunions where people become very agitated, jealous and angry over other peoples lives, how they look, live, etc. When they lash out, it’s deporable. ENVY is almost always the root of such behavior.

    Dust, I do thank you for you thoughtful comments. If Peter is reading this thread, I’m sure it means a lot to him.

  • fws

    grrrrrace @ 344

    That’s it. we are all so envious of you Grrrace.

    And you are such a kindly person. I can picture a tear forming in your eye as you wring your handkerchief and clutch your pearls in disbelief at just how agitated , jealous and angry all the people in your life are for some reason….

  • fws

    grrrrrace @ 344

    That’s it. we are all so envious of you Grrrace.

    And you are such a kindly person. I can picture a tear forming in your eye as you wring your handkerchief and clutch your pearls in disbelief at just how agitated , jealous and angry all the people in your life are for some reason….

  • Tom Hering

    I think this thread is proof that evolution from lower to higher isn’t the natural way of things in this world. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    I think this thread is proof that evolution from lower to higher isn’t the natural way of things in this world. :-D

  • Dust

    Grace….and so it begins….same as it ever was :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace….and so it begins….same as it ever was :)

    cheers!

  • Grace

    Dust,

    They can’t help themseleves, it’s the sport they enjoy :roll: most!

  • Grace

    Dust,

    They can’t help themseleves, it’s the sport they enjoy :roll: most!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank at 338 – no, we’re fine. I just can’t stand the heresy hunter, jot and tittle, it is my job to cleanse the church types like Larry. You and I know there is a big difference between parsing the doctrine, and trusting Christ.

    I wanted to respond to your post, but this thread has gone downhill fast ever since she-who-must-not-be named, and her sidekick got involved.

    Suffice to say I’m thinking about some points, that we are on the same page in most, especially the ones you were unsure of, and that we are fine…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Frank at 338 – no, we’re fine. I just can’t stand the heresy hunter, jot and tittle, it is my job to cleanse the church types like Larry. You and I know there is a big difference between parsing the doctrine, and trusting Christ.

    I wanted to respond to your post, but this thread has gone downhill fast ever since she-who-must-not-be named, and her sidekick got involved.

    Suffice to say I’m thinking about some points, that we are on the same page in most, especially the ones you were unsure of, and that we are fine…

  • Grace

    Larry makes some good points. Just because you don’t like what he posts doesn’t equate to name calling, “heresy hunter” or maybe it does, where you’re concerned. Is that the best you can do, when you don’t agree? Looks like it to me.

    KK WROTE: – - “I wanted to respond to your post, but this thread has gone downhill fast ever since she-who-must-not-be named, and her sidekick got involved.”

    Dust has been on this blog for some time, I respect him, even though we don’t always agree. He makes some very valid points.

  • Grace

    Larry makes some good points. Just because you don’t like what he posts doesn’t equate to name calling, “heresy hunter” or maybe it does, where you’re concerned. Is that the best you can do, when you don’t agree? Looks like it to me.

    KK WROTE: – - “I wanted to respond to your post, but this thread has gone downhill fast ever since she-who-must-not-be named, and her sidekick got involved.”

    Dust has been on this blog for some time, I respect him, even though we don’t always agree. He makes some very valid points.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 346

    “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” Genesis 1:27

  • Grace

    Tom @ 346

    “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” Genesis 1:27

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@335) to me:

    you mention the order of how things are created in gen 1. That would indicate to me that Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in a way that is NOT “this is how it woulda looked if I had remembered to bring my cam corder. Dang!”

    Sorry, you’re going to have to try to explain that again. What would indicate to you that “Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in [that] way”. (Also … Moses intended?)

    I can see how “yom” could mean something less literal than the strict definition for one full revolution of the Earth, in the same way that I can see that Scripture does not intend to convey that the Earth literally has pillars or corners. That is to say, I see how these things would constitute poetic devices.

    But, at the very least, I am quashing the theory — which I’ve heard espoused not a few times — that the “days” of Genesis 1 can simply be read as each constituting a very long period of time. Because, again, they go out of order from what science tells us. What this means is that even the division into days and the ordering — which Genesis 1 puts not a little emphasis on — must be understood metaphorically.

    To me, it just seems to require such a vast amoung of twisting of the actual account (not at all suggested by the text itself) to arrive at an understanding consistent with the present scientific consensus.

    I mean, what is the meaning of all the “day” talk if it not only doesn’t mean one revolution of the Earth, but it doesn’t even suggest any particular order? It’s as if modern science required that all we got out of Genesis 1 was “God made the Earth; don’t worry about anything else.” But Genesis 1 isn’t that short!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@335) to me:

    you mention the order of how things are created in gen 1. That would indicate to me that Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in a way that is NOT “this is how it woulda looked if I had remembered to bring my cam corder. Dang!”

    Sorry, you’re going to have to try to explain that again. What would indicate to you that “Moses intended what he wrote to be understood in [that] way”. (Also … Moses intended?)

    I can see how “yom” could mean something less literal than the strict definition for one full revolution of the Earth, in the same way that I can see that Scripture does not intend to convey that the Earth literally has pillars or corners. That is to say, I see how these things would constitute poetic devices.

    But, at the very least, I am quashing the theory — which I’ve heard espoused not a few times — that the “days” of Genesis 1 can simply be read as each constituting a very long period of time. Because, again, they go out of order from what science tells us. What this means is that even the division into days and the ordering — which Genesis 1 puts not a little emphasis on — must be understood metaphorically.

    To me, it just seems to require such a vast amoung of twisting of the actual account (not at all suggested by the text itself) to arrive at an understanding consistent with the present scientific consensus.

    I mean, what is the meaning of all the “day” talk if it not only doesn’t mean one revolution of the Earth, but it doesn’t even suggest any particular order? It’s as if modern science required that all we got out of Genesis 1 was “God made the Earth; don’t worry about anything else.” But Genesis 1 isn’t that short!

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Heresy hunters. The real presence of Christ. Calvinists. Women’s suffrage. Peter Leavitt (whoever that is; please don’t explain). Past grudges. I think we have enought fodder to keep us going up to 1000 comments. I tried to get the conversation derailed to lutefisk a while back, but no one took the bait.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Heresy hunters. The real presence of Christ. Calvinists. Women’s suffrage. Peter Leavitt (whoever that is; please don’t explain). Past grudges. I think we have enought fodder to keep us going up to 1000 comments. I tried to get the conversation derailed to lutefisk a while back, but no one took the bait.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Regarding yom:

    When I brought up “evening and morning,” my point was not to advocate the day-age interpretation of Genesis, but to argue that here is one thing in the text that suggests that something other than a literal 24-hour day is occurring.

    Other things in the text that point to a non-literal day include:

    –The use of yom in Genesis 2:4 is clearly non-literal: “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” refers to the entire creation period.

    Yom doesn’t have to mean a literal 24-hour day before the appearance of the sun in 1:14-18.

    –An awful lot of stuff happens in day 6: Creation of animals, creation of Adam, Adam names the animals, figures out that none of them are suitable, is put to sleep, Eve is created, Adam says, “Wow, at long last, this is it!” Perhaps, as many YECs suggest, Adam was some sort of superman, but the Bible does not portray him as such.

    –Just as God’s work is not like our work, and God’s rest is not like our rest, it is very possible that God’s day is not like our day. God, after all, was the only one there.

    Does any of this prove that yom means something other than a literal 24-hour day? No. But it suggests that we cannot be dogmatic about literal 24-hour days a few thousand years ago either.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Regarding yom:

    When I brought up “evening and morning,” my point was not to advocate the day-age interpretation of Genesis, but to argue that here is one thing in the text that suggests that something other than a literal 24-hour day is occurring.

    Other things in the text that point to a non-literal day include:

    –The use of yom in Genesis 2:4 is clearly non-literal: “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” refers to the entire creation period.

    Yom doesn’t have to mean a literal 24-hour day before the appearance of the sun in 1:14-18.

    –An awful lot of stuff happens in day 6: Creation of animals, creation of Adam, Adam names the animals, figures out that none of them are suitable, is put to sleep, Eve is created, Adam says, “Wow, at long last, this is it!” Perhaps, as many YECs suggest, Adam was some sort of superman, but the Bible does not portray him as such.

    –Just as God’s work is not like our work, and God’s rest is not like our rest, it is very possible that God’s day is not like our day. God, after all, was the only one there.

    Does any of this prove that yom means something other than a literal 24-hour day? No. But it suggests that we cannot be dogmatic about literal 24-hour days a few thousand years ago either.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    tODD (#352),

    Old-Earthers take different approaches to the topic of the order of events in Genesis 1.

    Hugh Ross does a good job of correlating the events of Genesis 1 to Earth history (I can already hear some of you gasping or choking). A key to his interpretation is the point of reference. If, for example, one were standing on the surface of the Earth 4+ billion years ago, the sky would have probably been opaque. The sun did not “appear” in the sky until later; probably some time after photosynthesis (plants) existed (see http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/day-age-time-chart/).

    I not necessarily advocating the day-age interpretation, just pointing out how some Bible-believing Christians have thought about this. I think the day-age interpretation is consistent with Scripture, but it doesn’t flow naturally out of the Scriptures.

    Another way old-Earthers have thought about it is to say that order doesn’t matter all that much. This would not be the only place in the Bible where things are out of order even though the text itself doesn’t make that clear. The book of Jeremiah is a good example, with much of the material being arranged topically rather than chronologically. A more familiar example would be the four gospels. If you were to take each one by itself, you would think they were chronological. But when you compare them, it is clear that strict chronology was not all that important to any of them. Can we say for certain that the same is not true in Genesis 1?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    tODD (#352),

    Old-Earthers take different approaches to the topic of the order of events in Genesis 1.

    Hugh Ross does a good job of correlating the events of Genesis 1 to Earth history (I can already hear some of you gasping or choking). A key to his interpretation is the point of reference. If, for example, one were standing on the surface of the Earth 4+ billion years ago, the sky would have probably been opaque. The sun did not “appear” in the sky until later; probably some time after photosynthesis (plants) existed (see http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/day-age-time-chart/).

    I not necessarily advocating the day-age interpretation, just pointing out how some Bible-believing Christians have thought about this. I think the day-age interpretation is consistent with Scripture, but it doesn’t flow naturally out of the Scriptures.

    Another way old-Earthers have thought about it is to say that order doesn’t matter all that much. This would not be the only place in the Bible where things are out of order even though the text itself doesn’t make that clear. The book of Jeremiah is a good example, with much of the material being arranged topically rather than chronologically. A more familiar example would be the four gospels. If you were to take each one by itself, you would think they were chronological. But when you compare them, it is clear that strict chronology was not all that important to any of them. Can we say for certain that the same is not true in Genesis 1?

  • Grace

    Keven @ 354

    YOU COMMENTED: “–Just as God’s work is not like our work, and God’s rest is not like our rest, it is very possible that God’s day is not like our day. God, after all, was the only one there.

    No, that’s not true.

    “make man in our image”

    “OUR image – OUR likeness”

    Who was “us” in Genesis 1:26

    SPIRIT of God and “us” in Genesis

    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    (Lets look at verse 26 and 27 of Genesis 1)

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in His own image, in the created He him; male and female created HE them. Genesis 1

    Look at the Spirit of God in verse 2.

    Look at who the “let us” is in verse 26. Who was the “us”? God was speaking to, His Son? The next interesting fact is “in our image, after our likeness” – this would clearly mean that Christ knew and saw what His Father looked like. God does have an image, but no one has ever seen God the Father, however they have seen His Son, Christ Jesus.

    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
    John 6:46

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    Reading the two passages above both from the Gospel of John, the answers are clear. Jesus, God the Son knew and had viewed His Father – when Jesus said to Philip, “he that hath seen me had seen the Father” it is clear that they both must look alike – the first person of the Trinity being God the Father, the second being Christ Jesus, God the Son and the third, the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit.

    We are not told what GOD looks like, but the verses 26 and 27 are explicit as to the fact that we are in HIS IMAGE. What image is this, is it GOD the FATHER or GOD the SON? I say it is both!

    The TRINITY, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

  • Grace

    Keven @ 354

    YOU COMMENTED: “–Just as God’s work is not like our work, and God’s rest is not like our rest, it is very possible that God’s day is not like our day. God, after all, was the only one there.

    No, that’s not true.

    “make man in our image”

    “OUR image – OUR likeness”

    Who was “us” in Genesis 1:26

    SPIRIT of God and “us” in Genesis

    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    (Lets look at verse 26 and 27 of Genesis 1)

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in His own image, in the created He him; male and female created HE them. Genesis 1

    Look at the Spirit of God in verse 2.

    Look at who the “let us” is in verse 26. Who was the “us”? God was speaking to, His Son? The next interesting fact is “in our image, after our likeness” – this would clearly mean that Christ knew and saw what His Father looked like. God does have an image, but no one has ever seen God the Father, however they have seen His Son, Christ Jesus.

    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
    John 6:46

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    Reading the two passages above both from the Gospel of John, the answers are clear. Jesus, God the Son knew and had viewed His Father – when Jesus said to Philip, “he that hath seen me had seen the Father” it is clear that they both must look alike – the first person of the Trinity being God the Father, the second being Christ Jesus, God the Son and the third, the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit.

    We are not told what GOD looks like, but the verses 26 and 27 are explicit as to the fact that we are in HIS IMAGE. What image is this, is it GOD the FATHER or GOD the SON? I say it is both!

    The TRINITY, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I have been working hard to make a case for Biblical ambiguity (adiaphora) regarding the age of the Earth, the extent of the flood, and the degree to which biological change is possible.

    I have not been reading science into the Bible. Science may have prompted the deeper examination of Scripture, just as it did back in the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate, but I am trying to be careful to distinguish between what the Bible actually says and what it doesn’t say.

    I believe that what I have written is consistent with Scripture, consistent with the Creeds, and even consistent with the Book of Concord (since I have been declared to be an honorary “Luthrun” in this discussion). I am sure some of you will correct me on the BOC if I am wrong.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I have been working hard to make a case for Biblical ambiguity (adiaphora) regarding the age of the Earth, the extent of the flood, and the degree to which biological change is possible.

    I have not been reading science into the Bible. Science may have prompted the deeper examination of Scripture, just as it did back in the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate, but I am trying to be careful to distinguish between what the Bible actually says and what it doesn’t say.

    I believe that what I have written is consistent with Scripture, consistent with the Creeds, and even consistent with the Book of Concord (since I have been declared to be an honorary “Luthrun” in this discussion). I am sure some of you will correct me on the BOC if I am wrong.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#356):

    I said “God was the only one there.” Being that I am a Christian and not a Muslim or JW, I obviously had “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in mind when I said “God was the only one there.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace (#356):

    I said “God was the only one there.” Being that I am a Christian and not a Muslim or JW, I obviously had “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in mind when I said “God was the only one there.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I tried using the old deprecated BLINK html tag. Shucks, it didn’t work.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I tried using the old deprecated BLINK html tag. Shucks, it didn’t work.

  • Grace

    Kevin,

    The Trinity three (3) it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam or Jehovha’s Witnesses.

    The BLINK html tag doesn’t work on most blog sites. People avoid it, as it’s a distraction. There are some tags that are very useful when one wants to make a point. I don’t use them often, but they are helpful.

  • Grace

    Kevin,

    The Trinity three (3) it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam or Jehovha’s Witnesses.

    The BLINK html tag doesn’t work on most blog sites. People avoid it, as it’s a distraction. There are some tags that are very useful when one wants to make a point. I don’t use them often, but they are helpful.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace,

    I feel I stepped over the line a bit with my bold, italics, and attempt at blinking. Please forgive me.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Grace,

    I feel I stepped over the line a bit with my bold, italics, and attempt at blinking. Please forgive me.

  • Grace

    Kevin, no problem, we all do it ;) Don’t concern yourself with “BOLD” either, everyone uses it, some more than others. It’s no big deal.

    Some of the html doesn’t work.

  • Grace

    Kevin, no problem, we all do it ;) Don’t concern yourself with “BOLD” either, everyone uses it, some more than others. It’s no big deal.

    Some of the html doesn’t work.

  • larry

    KK,

    You keep accusing me when all I’m doing (and I’ve said this enough that you should know it by now) is making sure we have accurate words in our discussion. And “inquisitor” is always a convenient cry. Nothing is further from the truth, I’m being clear in our discussion. In fact I’m purposely by doing this trying to avoid the very thing you falsely accuse me of. It would be like me calling you Leo X and grand inquisitor because in this post you wanted to be clear on the term “reason”, as you did, and say to you, “KK, you are such grand inquisitor and going all Leo X on me”. Same thing. I never took you as doing that, but rather like myself doing due diligence to avoid “talking past each other” due to a lack of understanding what the other is saying. That lack of understanding in what others mean in their words is a plague on this site often enough. I know you don’t believe me in spite of my constant clarification on the matter but you continue to accuse me at every turn and have done so from the first post. To be precise and exact on what is confessed is PRECISELY Christian (Luther). And who then is in the judging position as you falsely presume to know and judge my heart on the matter? I cannot nor would not presume to judge your heart on the matter. All I can do is judge your words, which we are called as Christians TO DO. That’s why the need of clarity to avoid the very thing you are saying and claiming I am doing. I’ve never once called you a name or even implied it, you have not once returned me the same courtesy. That’s ok, I’m not angry over it.

    I know we are not saved by “our right doctrine” but it is the truth that saves! Big difference. I’m not saying we are saved by getting the test question correct, another false accusation you imply by apparently nothing other than reading my heart on the matter for it certainly was not in my words. But we are saved by the truth and in danger when steered away from the truth that much is crystal clear in all of scripture. So it behooves us to know what the truth is. Faith is not historical, it is relational, trust in and that’s the entire point of this discussion (that which causes and sustains faith is the Word and thus the need for the Word to be pure and true, also you well know this as the catechism teaches concerning the first petition of the Lord’s prayer).

    That said, I believe you when you say what you believe. Now, hopefully, all the vitriol perceived may be put behind us.

    Now we have a clear set of words we can communicate upon.

    I would ask a very simple and honest question, why allegorize one set scriptures and not another on an article of faith? This is why your and Grace’s positions are interesting to the discussion. You on one hand affirm the sacrament (as we discussed, no need to further clarify), she on the other creation (as has been discussed, no need to further clarify), each denies the opposite (as discussed). When defending the sacrament you would recognize, “this is the Word of the Lord” and she when defending creation would recognize, “this is the Word of the Lord”. Yet, when on the opposite issue “this is the Word of the Lord” is equally not affirmed and by one means or another an allegorizing comes into play. Yet, both can appeal to physical and rational evidence in defending why they don’t believe the Word the same way the believe the Word on the opposite article of faith. The evidence to either as to science, sight, other senses, and reason would equally conclude the justification of another interpretation of the Scriptures. From that then one has to then reinterpret other scriptures (e.g. the lineages in your case and the right hand of God in Graces, just to name a couple of examples).

    Thus, in short summary why, without vitriol, do either of you not believe creation/sacrament (as discussed and defined) but then do believe the opposite, you the sacrament and Grace creation? I’m speaking of the theological here, we concede the evidence as to reason, sight, senses, science, philosophy and such would conclude as either of you would say they conclude.

    SIDE NOTE NOT MEANT TO DERAIL: With all the talk about “common ground” with other denom. and attempting to achieve it in vain via “a common moral front” or some other such, it will never be achieved. But here is common ground. Most Baptist believe, rightly, in creation (as discussed), why is that not common ground as an article of faith in order to open an honest discussion on the sacrament as an article of faith? Not to force right away, “Agree with me or else”, but to cause the thought to be pondered. There’s a lot of huff and puff about reason but very little actual use of it. I’m not a life long Lutheran, not in family tree, but sometimes I get the distinct feeling that some Lutherans are ashamed of the sacrament. Having been in the Baptist church for much of my Christian years I will give the Baptist credit for duly, boldly and rightly defending the Word of God on Creation and taking the insulting hits for the foolishness of the Cross in being called “backward ignorant hayseeds” for doing so. I fear for the future of the Lutheran church.

  • larry

    KK,

    You keep accusing me when all I’m doing (and I’ve said this enough that you should know it by now) is making sure we have accurate words in our discussion. And “inquisitor” is always a convenient cry. Nothing is further from the truth, I’m being clear in our discussion. In fact I’m purposely by doing this trying to avoid the very thing you falsely accuse me of. It would be like me calling you Leo X and grand inquisitor because in this post you wanted to be clear on the term “reason”, as you did, and say to you, “KK, you are such grand inquisitor and going all Leo X on me”. Same thing. I never took you as doing that, but rather like myself doing due diligence to avoid “talking past each other” due to a lack of understanding what the other is saying. That lack of understanding in what others mean in their words is a plague on this site often enough. I know you don’t believe me in spite of my constant clarification on the matter but you continue to accuse me at every turn and have done so from the first post. To be precise and exact on what is confessed is PRECISELY Christian (Luther). And who then is in the judging position as you falsely presume to know and judge my heart on the matter? I cannot nor would not presume to judge your heart on the matter. All I can do is judge your words, which we are called as Christians TO DO. That’s why the need of clarity to avoid the very thing you are saying and claiming I am doing. I’ve never once called you a name or even implied it, you have not once returned me the same courtesy. That’s ok, I’m not angry over it.

    I know we are not saved by “our right doctrine” but it is the truth that saves! Big difference. I’m not saying we are saved by getting the test question correct, another false accusation you imply by apparently nothing other than reading my heart on the matter for it certainly was not in my words. But we are saved by the truth and in danger when steered away from the truth that much is crystal clear in all of scripture. So it behooves us to know what the truth is. Faith is not historical, it is relational, trust in and that’s the entire point of this discussion (that which causes and sustains faith is the Word and thus the need for the Word to be pure and true, also you well know this as the catechism teaches concerning the first petition of the Lord’s prayer).

    That said, I believe you when you say what you believe. Now, hopefully, all the vitriol perceived may be put behind us.

    Now we have a clear set of words we can communicate upon.

    I would ask a very simple and honest question, why allegorize one set scriptures and not another on an article of faith? This is why your and Grace’s positions are interesting to the discussion. You on one hand affirm the sacrament (as we discussed, no need to further clarify), she on the other creation (as has been discussed, no need to further clarify), each denies the opposite (as discussed). When defending the sacrament you would recognize, “this is the Word of the Lord” and she when defending creation would recognize, “this is the Word of the Lord”. Yet, when on the opposite issue “this is the Word of the Lord” is equally not affirmed and by one means or another an allegorizing comes into play. Yet, both can appeal to physical and rational evidence in defending why they don’t believe the Word the same way the believe the Word on the opposite article of faith. The evidence to either as to science, sight, other senses, and reason would equally conclude the justification of another interpretation of the Scriptures. From that then one has to then reinterpret other scriptures (e.g. the lineages in your case and the right hand of God in Graces, just to name a couple of examples).

    Thus, in short summary why, without vitriol, do either of you not believe creation/sacrament (as discussed and defined) but then do believe the opposite, you the sacrament and Grace creation? I’m speaking of the theological here, we concede the evidence as to reason, sight, senses, science, philosophy and such would conclude as either of you would say they conclude.

    SIDE NOTE NOT MEANT TO DERAIL: With all the talk about “common ground” with other denom. and attempting to achieve it in vain via “a common moral front” or some other such, it will never be achieved. But here is common ground. Most Baptist believe, rightly, in creation (as discussed), why is that not common ground as an article of faith in order to open an honest discussion on the sacrament as an article of faith? Not to force right away, “Agree with me or else”, but to cause the thought to be pondered. There’s a lot of huff and puff about reason but very little actual use of it. I’m not a life long Lutheran, not in family tree, but sometimes I get the distinct feeling that some Lutherans are ashamed of the sacrament. Having been in the Baptist church for much of my Christian years I will give the Baptist credit for duly, boldly and rightly defending the Word of God on Creation and taking the insulting hits for the foolishness of the Cross in being called “backward ignorant hayseeds” for doing so. I fear for the future of the Lutheran church.

  • fws

    Todd @ 352

    Ah I getcha now. The fact that the narrative lays down an order implies strongly that God intends to tell us that in fact light was created before the sun etc. That is a possible reading that does not violate the text I think.

    I really like another theory here, that I think Kevin presented, that is about the narrative creating containers or environment then placing into those enviroments what will inhabit them…. darkness/light then moon-stars/sun.

    This also would not violate the text and seems , to me at least, to flow just a little more naturally as an explanation of the textual structure and has the side benefit of explaining to our modern minds why the order would be so different from what we think we now know.

  • fws

    Todd @ 352

    Ah I getcha now. The fact that the narrative lays down an order implies strongly that God intends to tell us that in fact light was created before the sun etc. That is a possible reading that does not violate the text I think.

    I really like another theory here, that I think Kevin presented, that is about the narrative creating containers or environment then placing into those enviroments what will inhabit them…. darkness/light then moon-stars/sun.

    This also would not violate the text and seems , to me at least, to flow just a little more naturally as an explanation of the textual structure and has the side benefit of explaining to our modern minds why the order would be so different from what we think we now know.

  • fws

    Todd @ 352

    “think we now know” includes lots of stuff doesnt it. The fact that the reason there is a 24 hour day is because that is how long the earth needs to rotate in orientation to the sun, and that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the reverse, along with lots of other stuff I can think of, and I am sure tycho Brahe and kepler etc all would even have more stuff.

    So with your view, the literal “days” would have been differently “literal” pre and post sun/moon/star creation. And then there would have had to have been far more miraculous things also happening. An earth that was maybe completely stationary and the center of everything, would then need to be whoosh’d to another position, with fragile atmosphere remaining intact to a new orientation that made it dependent upon or at least intricately interconnected with the movements of ALL the rest of the bodies in the universe.
    This would sort of maybe be like imagining the earth as the fashioning of a geer that then later would be placed inside a watch and connected to other gears and then the watch would be started into motion and then……

    Of course I do not deny that any of that would be impossible, but I also think it is very Lutheran to first look for the most “natural ” solution possible and not assume “miracle”. Why not?

    Let me propose the Lutheran idea that ALL miracles in the Bible were all as a testimony to the mystery of Christ. Let me define mystery in a Lutheran way :a mystery is something of Christ hidden in plain sight.” There was a point when Christ started miracles, and then , maybe more importantly, there was a point when he very deliberately withheld and stopped them. This is probably true in a real sense for the Church as well.

    Faith that saves is not defined by Lutherans as believing something for which we have no evidential proof is the point I am trying to make here.

  • fws

    Todd @ 352

    “think we now know” includes lots of stuff doesnt it. The fact that the reason there is a 24 hour day is because that is how long the earth needs to rotate in orientation to the sun, and that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the reverse, along with lots of other stuff I can think of, and I am sure tycho Brahe and kepler etc all would even have more stuff.

    So with your view, the literal “days” would have been differently “literal” pre and post sun/moon/star creation. And then there would have had to have been far more miraculous things also happening. An earth that was maybe completely stationary and the center of everything, would then need to be whoosh’d to another position, with fragile atmosphere remaining intact to a new orientation that made it dependent upon or at least intricately interconnected with the movements of ALL the rest of the bodies in the universe.
    This would sort of maybe be like imagining the earth as the fashioning of a geer that then later would be placed inside a watch and connected to other gears and then the watch would be started into motion and then……

    Of course I do not deny that any of that would be impossible, but I also think it is very Lutheran to first look for the most “natural ” solution possible and not assume “miracle”. Why not?

    Let me propose the Lutheran idea that ALL miracles in the Bible were all as a testimony to the mystery of Christ. Let me define mystery in a Lutheran way :a mystery is something of Christ hidden in plain sight.” There was a point when Christ started miracles, and then , maybe more importantly, there was a point when he very deliberately withheld and stopped them. This is probably true in a real sense for the Church as well.

    Faith that saves is not defined by Lutherans as believing something for which we have no evidential proof is the point I am trying to make here.

  • aletheist

    As has been discussed above, “reason” has different meanings in different contexts; the same is true of “faith.” The modern scientific mindset tends to equate it exclusively with believing a proposition, in particular when empirical evidence is lacking, and neglects the sense of trusting a person.

    I am not dogmatic about the age of the earth. I think that the most natural reading of the relevant texts in Scripture suggests that it is relatively young, but some of the alternative interpretations are worth considering. I think that the real issue is which authority someone trusts more. Answers in Genesis may not have the science right, but their philosophical starting point–God’s Word vs. autonomous human reason–resonates with me.

    The fact that assuming an old earth yields accurate predictions does not somehow “prove” that the earth is really old. After all, the Ptolemaic model yielded accurate predictions of the movements of heavenly bodies for centuries. Science generally does an excellent job of helping us to understand how the material universe works right now, but it takes a certain amount of faith (in both senses) to accept its conjectures about what has happened in the past–especially the very distant past. If the earth is indeed young, the problem is not that God made it look deceptively old; it is simply that people derived incorrect conclusions from their observations, probably because of incorrect presuppositions.

  • aletheist

    As has been discussed above, “reason” has different meanings in different contexts; the same is true of “faith.” The modern scientific mindset tends to equate it exclusively with believing a proposition, in particular when empirical evidence is lacking, and neglects the sense of trusting a person.

    I am not dogmatic about the age of the earth. I think that the most natural reading of the relevant texts in Scripture suggests that it is relatively young, but some of the alternative interpretations are worth considering. I think that the real issue is which authority someone trusts more. Answers in Genesis may not have the science right, but their philosophical starting point–God’s Word vs. autonomous human reason–resonates with me.

    The fact that assuming an old earth yields accurate predictions does not somehow “prove” that the earth is really old. After all, the Ptolemaic model yielded accurate predictions of the movements of heavenly bodies for centuries. Science generally does an excellent job of helping us to understand how the material universe works right now, but it takes a certain amount of faith (in both senses) to accept its conjectures about what has happened in the past–especially the very distant past. If the earth is indeed young, the problem is not that God made it look deceptively old; it is simply that people derived incorrect conclusions from their observations, probably because of incorrect presuppositions.

  • fws

    Larry @ 363

    I gotcha now in your comparison of KK and grace as flip sides of the same coin. But some elements are missing in your analysis.

    1) KK is not denying that creation in 6 days is impossible for logical reasons or even that an old earth is necessary for logical reasons. It may seem like that maybe, but I am not seeing that as the core of his argument Larry. If he were to see that he was wrong prior to or on judgement day it would not really matter to him not even a bit.

    2) He could argue both sides or all 3 or 4 or 5 sides of the argument here. He has been on all those sides at one time or another. And I really sincerely doubt that Grace or the other Evangelicals could even come remotely close to presenting the Lutheran position on any of this . Even Bucer had trouble there, and he came very close.

    3) Bucer was dishonest. His goal was to unite Luther and Calvin and maybe Zwinglians and to use honest wording that revealed real differences? Meh. Not so important. KK seems to be a real Lutheran there. His goal is to tell the truth. He is doing the opposite of trying to smooth over real differences, or make those differences more palatable to a young earther et al.

    4)KK intends this not in some religious way, but merely in trying to be a good geologist, as good as the buddhist or atheist geologist next to him. It is about “making a good shoe” to him. And he is seeing that evolutionary theory helps him do that. Creation theory does the contrary. And he is happy to have others disagree with that assessment. It is not a religious tennant of his is what I am saying. It doesnt need to be he is saying. He could be wrong even. But so far the evolutionary theories seem to be a useful tool and he feels he has not only the right but the moral duty then to pick that tool up and use it to do his craft.

    5) I think that point 4 is where you two are rubbing badly. There is lots of nuance here. And for your part Larry, you are very right! About what?

    6) Faith is always hitched to the Preached Word. No faith is not what you and KK both agree. So KK is accusing you too of something you dont believe which is that faith is about some intellectual assent to a list of “articles of faith”. It is obvious that you do not believe that. That would be wrong.

    7) So what is your concern? It is the same as mine and KKs and Todds and Kevin Ns and ALL the Luthruns and honorary Luthruns here (from which discussion Grace auto-excommunicates, and I am sorry for that. Truly.). Your concern is this: faith is what clings to a Promise made in material history and also receives that Promise , right here and now, in THIS material history. Under bread, wine, water, palm on pate in absolution, and also in what KK calls “common grace” which is where God extorts his carnal temporal mercy in, with and under Old Adam by force of the Law in creation.

    8) I really don’t see that KK is not extremely aware of the importance of this point. In fact he tries to drive that exact point home in what he wrote to me about reason! This is really what the center of our intramural and very Lutheran discussion should be centered upon I suggest. It is what you want Larry, and it , happily, also is where KK and kevin N and me and Todd and Tom and all the rest of us want the gravity of the discussion (pun intended) to be placed.

  • fws

    Larry @ 363

    I gotcha now in your comparison of KK and grace as flip sides of the same coin. But some elements are missing in your analysis.

    1) KK is not denying that creation in 6 days is impossible for logical reasons or even that an old earth is necessary for logical reasons. It may seem like that maybe, but I am not seeing that as the core of his argument Larry. If he were to see that he was wrong prior to or on judgement day it would not really matter to him not even a bit.

    2) He could argue both sides or all 3 or 4 or 5 sides of the argument here. He has been on all those sides at one time or another. And I really sincerely doubt that Grace or the other Evangelicals could even come remotely close to presenting the Lutheran position on any of this . Even Bucer had trouble there, and he came very close.

    3) Bucer was dishonest. His goal was to unite Luther and Calvin and maybe Zwinglians and to use honest wording that revealed real differences? Meh. Not so important. KK seems to be a real Lutheran there. His goal is to tell the truth. He is doing the opposite of trying to smooth over real differences, or make those differences more palatable to a young earther et al.

    4)KK intends this not in some religious way, but merely in trying to be a good geologist, as good as the buddhist or atheist geologist next to him. It is about “making a good shoe” to him. And he is seeing that evolutionary theory helps him do that. Creation theory does the contrary. And he is happy to have others disagree with that assessment. It is not a religious tennant of his is what I am saying. It doesnt need to be he is saying. He could be wrong even. But so far the evolutionary theories seem to be a useful tool and he feels he has not only the right but the moral duty then to pick that tool up and use it to do his craft.

    5) I think that point 4 is where you two are rubbing badly. There is lots of nuance here. And for your part Larry, you are very right! About what?

    6) Faith is always hitched to the Preached Word. No faith is not what you and KK both agree. So KK is accusing you too of something you dont believe which is that faith is about some intellectual assent to a list of “articles of faith”. It is obvious that you do not believe that. That would be wrong.

    7) So what is your concern? It is the same as mine and KKs and Todds and Kevin Ns and ALL the Luthruns and honorary Luthruns here (from which discussion Grace auto-excommunicates, and I am sorry for that. Truly.). Your concern is this: faith is what clings to a Promise made in material history and also receives that Promise , right here and now, in THIS material history. Under bread, wine, water, palm on pate in absolution, and also in what KK calls “common grace” which is where God extorts his carnal temporal mercy in, with and under Old Adam by force of the Law in creation.

    8) I really don’t see that KK is not extremely aware of the importance of this point. In fact he tries to drive that exact point home in what he wrote to me about reason! This is really what the center of our intramural and very Lutheran discussion should be centered upon I suggest. It is what you want Larry, and it , happily, also is where KK and kevin N and me and Todd and Tom and all the rest of us want the gravity of the discussion (pun intended) to be placed.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, you asked about other uses of “evening and morning.” Here’s Daniel 8:13-14,26.

    Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?” He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored” …

    … “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future.”

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, you asked about other uses of “evening and morning.” Here’s Daniel 8:13-14,26.

    Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?” He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored” …

    … “The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future.”

  • fws

    alethiest @ 366

    That was helpful! And it sets the center of discussion in a way that is useful . I dont think the others would necessarily agree with your own conclusions. But it is good you recognize them as conclusions based upon apparent facts .

    The most helpful observation is this one: you do not confuse what that word “faith ” means in the context of our salvation.

    Faith is not a kiergegaardian leap into the unknown. it is not to believe what is unbelievable or unprovable empirically. Nor is it believe in a list of doctrines or historical facts. And saving faith can also include all of these things as consequences but not as it’s essence,.

    Faith is that sure and absolutely certain unseen substance and evidence alone which clings alone to the Works of Another alone, because it trusts in the One who did them, and seeks to hide ALL it can do, including believe, in the Works of Another because it is terrified at all it can see and do, including the doing called faith. Period.

    And that makes no reasonable sense at all. Even though it completely comprehends and is at full peace with Reason and not at all it’s enemy or adversary.

    Reason then is fully elevated and empowered by being “demoted” from having anything to do with faith, and is sent down to earth to serve the task of being a good shoemaker, or … a great geologist!

    Faith says to reason: Stop staring up at heaven and trying to penetrate God’s inscrutable Will. Look to Christ alone for that! You have your own work to do. So now Mr Reason, go and get busy doing what you were made to do, and that is to be useful to others. Go help KK and Larry be better geologists and help that other man over there figure out a better way to stitch a shoe!

  • fws

    alethiest @ 366

    That was helpful! And it sets the center of discussion in a way that is useful . I dont think the others would necessarily agree with your own conclusions. But it is good you recognize them as conclusions based upon apparent facts .

    The most helpful observation is this one: you do not confuse what that word “faith ” means in the context of our salvation.

    Faith is not a kiergegaardian leap into the unknown. it is not to believe what is unbelievable or unprovable empirically. Nor is it believe in a list of doctrines or historical facts. And saving faith can also include all of these things as consequences but not as it’s essence,.

    Faith is that sure and absolutely certain unseen substance and evidence alone which clings alone to the Works of Another alone, because it trusts in the One who did them, and seeks to hide ALL it can do, including believe, in the Works of Another because it is terrified at all it can see and do, including the doing called faith. Period.

    And that makes no reasonable sense at all. Even though it completely comprehends and is at full peace with Reason and not at all it’s enemy or adversary.

    Reason then is fully elevated and empowered by being “demoted” from having anything to do with faith, and is sent down to earth to serve the task of being a good shoemaker, or … a great geologist!

    Faith says to reason: Stop staring up at heaven and trying to penetrate God’s inscrutable Will. Look to Christ alone for that! You have your own work to do. So now Mr Reason, go and get busy doing what you were made to do, and that is to be useful to others. Go help KK and Larry be better geologists and help that other man over there figure out a better way to stitch a shoe!

  • fws

    Tom @ 368

    Excellent sleuthing Tom. How do you always manage to do that man?! So are we to read those evenings and mornings as days? Yes. Poetic days? I see the answer as probably. As in that famous thousand years. Numerology is really important in the Bible. Even Luther makes big use of it in the Catechism and even Chemnitz in his cool discussion of the 8 circles of tradition in his Examin of the Council of Trent (there the 8th circle is one more than is necessary!).

    So Tom. do you think this necesitates any conclusions to be drawn as to days or evenings and mornings in gen 1? the rest of you?

  • fws

    Tom @ 368

    Excellent sleuthing Tom. How do you always manage to do that man?! So are we to read those evenings and mornings as days? Yes. Poetic days? I see the answer as probably. As in that famous thousand years. Numerology is really important in the Bible. Even Luther makes big use of it in the Catechism and even Chemnitz in his cool discussion of the 8 circles of tradition in his Examin of the Council of Trent (there the 8th circle is one more than is necessary!).

    So Tom. do you think this necesitates any conclusions to be drawn as to days or evenings and mornings in gen 1? the rest of you?

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 370. If the “evenings and mornings” in the prophecy were something other than 24-hour days, they presented a serious problem. Because the prophecy didn’t say what amount of time “evening and morning” actually indicated, other than the natural reading of a 24-hour day. So the prophecy couldn’t be tested, and the prophet couldn’t be stoned if wrong.

    But we know that isn’t the way God does things when he puts prophecy into the mouths of His messengers. He makes His prophecies verifiable.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 370. If the “evenings and mornings” in the prophecy were something other than 24-hour days, they presented a serious problem. Because the prophecy didn’t say what amount of time “evening and morning” actually indicated, other than the natural reading of a 24-hour day. So the prophecy couldn’t be tested, and the prophet couldn’t be stoned if wrong.

    But we know that isn’t the way God does things when he puts prophecy into the mouths of His messengers. He makes His prophecies verifiable.

  • fws

    tom @ 371

    ok. 2300 days.. that is… um…, 6.30139 years. Lay it out for me. what happened?

  • fws

    tom @ 371

    ok. 2300 days.. that is… um…, 6.30139 years. Lay it out for me. what happened?

  • fws

    tom @ 371

    so do you propose to make an exegetical law out of morning and evening based upon the literalness of that useage in daniel?

  • fws

    tom @ 371

    so do you propose to make an exegetical law out of morning and evening based upon the literalness of that useage in daniel?

  • Tom Hering

    I propose to use it as a biblical example of “evening and morning” meaning a 24-hour day. That’s all. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    I propose to use it as a biblical example of “evening and morning” meaning a 24-hour day. That’s all. :-D

  • fws

    Tom @ 374

    so was the temple rebuilt and in full operation in precisely 6.30139 years? did Daniel avoid getting stoned?

  • fws

    Tom @ 374

    so was the temple rebuilt and in full operation in precisely 6.30139 years? did Daniel avoid getting stoned?

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 375. Exactly where in history the beginning and end of those 2,300 days should be placed … I’m not going there. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 375. Exactly where in history the beginning and end of those 2,300 days should be placed … I’m not going there. :-D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@364):

    I really like another theory here, that I think Kevin presented, that is about the narrative creating containers or environment then placing into those enviroments what will inhabit them.

    You say this as if it were in opposition to my reading. I’ve had pastors that were much more insistent on a young Earth than I, and even they pointed out those parallels in the creation account that you like. Appreciating those parallels does not, itself, constitute an understanding of what the creation account means.

    So with your view, the literal “days” would have been differently “literal” pre and post sun/moon/star creation.

    No. I keep seeing this insistence from old-Earth types that “day” is meaningless absent a sun with which to keep track of our planet’s rotations. But if that were true, how would we read this passage from Joshua 10:

    The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

    Think about it. If days are only reckoned by the apparent movement of the sun across our sky (due to the Earth’s rotation), then how can one measure the amount of time (in days) that the sun stood still? According to the theory you (and others) appear to hold to, the amount of time the sun stood still would have been … no time at all!

    All that to say that I see no reason to infer the “days” in the creation account before the sun existed to mean anything different than those after. The parallels are extremely strong in that opening passage, and there is no context that would suggest changing the meaning mid-passage. God is clearly capable of measuring time in odd astronomical situations, even if he then communicates to us using our concepts that are bound by assumptions of completely normal workings.

    Let me propose the Lutheran idea that ALL miracles in the Bible were all as a testimony to the mystery of Christ.

    Um, hello, FWS?

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    So reading the creation account as miraculous would exactly be a testimony to Christ!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS said (@364):

    I really like another theory here, that I think Kevin presented, that is about the narrative creating containers