Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

I believe the Bible can be summarily called "the word of God". I have said it contains the word of God.

As for scripture interpreting itself, this is the idea what we should not engage in eisegesis when reading scripture.

Interpretation, tongues?

1 Corinthians 14:26 NASB - What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Interpretation, scripture.

2 Peter 1:20 NASB - But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

In your world what does "summarily" entail?

And being the "word of God" do you think it cannot contain figurative speech?

I do agree that we should be aware of eisegesis. I do not agree that we should not employ eisegesis. Because in one's obsessive attempts to rid one self of that, we simply hide the reality that this is being done by all. And those who have mastered sophistry to try and deceive others, end up deceiving naive people. A balanced approach is always more stable. And it takes honesty and courage to have a balance approach.

 

[Jacob]

Who is not seeing the connection?

I did not mean you.

 

[Jacob]

In your world what does "summarily" entail?

It means that this is what we call the Bible, the word of God. Another way of saying it is that it is the written word of God, whereas the question of if it is the verbal word of God may rest on if the prophets word from God was written down after it was understood by them, or if it was written down exactly at the same time as it was being dictated.

There are places that say, in the Bible, the word of the LORD came to... such and such. Well, that is the word of God. And the Bible is the book in which this word of God is contained, in addition to the question of if the entire Bible is the word of God. Well, what about this (opinion vs. the Holy Spirit):

1 Corinthians 7:25 NASB - Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

1 Corinthians 7:40 NASB - But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

2 Corinthians 8:10 NASB - I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it.

I say no other book can be rightly called "the word of God" than the Bible.

And being the "word of God" do you think it cannot contain figurative speech?

It can. Is your question if I believe the Bible is the literal word of God? The question may hinge on the word "literal". But alas I have answered you either way.

I do agree that we should be aware of eisegesis. I do not agree that we should not employ eisegesis. Because in one's obsessive attempts to rid one self of that, we simply hide the reality that this is being done by all. And those who have mastered sophistry to try and deceive others, end up deceiving naive people. A balanced approach is always more stable. And it takes honesty and courage to have a balance approach.

I believe it is possible to read a passage and wait for understanding if you do not rather than remember something you heard someone once say (which it is possible we may all do). It's better to read the Bible for yourself than to trust a commentator.

Exegesis over eisegesis.

 

[doloresistere]

It goes back to a discussion of subjective and objective truth. You may not be seeing the connection.

As for reality, truth is that which corresponds to reality.

You can really take a discussion off its original points by discussing all possible "connections". I see the connection; it just isn't a direct response to the questions put to you. Making connections off an original point is not the same as directly addressing those points.

 

[Jacob]

You can really take a discussion off its original points by discussing all possible "connections". I see the connection; it just isn't a direct response to the questions put to you. Making connections off an original point is not the same as directly addressing those points.

It goes back to where or not there is absolute truth and whether or not science is objective truth.

 

[doloresistere]

It goes back to where or not there is absolute truth and whether or not science is objective truth.

You are again making connections and avoiding the point I made to you.....It is your habit.

 

[Jacob]

You are again making connections and avoiding the point I made to you.....It is your habit.

I am allowing you to follow my conversation with noguru, with a better understanding of where we have come from in past conversation.

 

[noguru]

It goes back to where or not there is absolute truth and whether or not science is objective truth.

No person's perspective is completely objective. That includes one's understanding of the Bible as well. You don't get to escape this reality by stamping "the word of God" on your opinion.

The best we can do is approach objectivity or progress in that direction. One way to verify whether a subjective perspective/report is accurate is to compare it to the empirical evidence available.

In the philosophy of science we can isolate four levels of possibility. The first level and loosest is logical possibility. The next level , and more decisive is physical possibility. Then there is biological possibility and then historical possibility. Something can be logically possible, but not physically possible. Something can be physically possible, but not biologically possible. Something can be biologically possible but not historically possible. Science analyzes things to the strictest level of historical possibility.

If you think that you can place your view of the Bible above science in terms of objectivity, by claiming only God has objective truth, then I think you are deceiving yourself as well as others. Even your view of the Bible is based on external evidence which testifies that there is any accuracy at all in the Bible. Otherwise you would just throw it away as fantasy.

At which level do you think most theological claims can be analyzed?

What do you do if you find evidence that contradicts a certain theological claim?

Do you assume the evidence is wrong, or do you think it may possibly be your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Jacob]

No person's perspective is completely objective. That includes one's understanding of the Bible as well. You don't get to escape this reality by stamping "the word of God" on your opinion.

You may be correct.

1 Corinthians 7:40 NASB - But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

The best we can do is approach objectivity or progress in that direction. One way to verify whether a subjective perspective/report is accurate is to compare it to the empirical evidence available.

That is one way, but then you have the interpretation of evidence.

In the philosophy of science we can isolate four levels of possibility. The first level and loosest is logical possibility. The next level , and more decisive is physical possibility. Then there is biological possibility and then historical possibility. Something can be logically possible, but not physically possible. Something can be physically possible, but not biologically possible. Something can be biologically possible but not historically possible. Science analyzes things to the strictest level of historical possibility.

If something is only possible that does not mean it has occurred or even that it will occur.

If you think that you can place your view of the Bible above science in terms of objectivity, by claiming only God has objective truth, then I think you are deceiving yourself as well as others. Even your view of the Bible is based on external evidence which testifies that there is any accuracy at all in the Bible. Otherwise you would just throw it away as fantasy.

There is a difference between man's word and God's.

At which level do you think most theological claims can be analyzed?

Are you asking about science? If so, I don't know. History? I believe the Bible is historically accurate in all its details.

What do you do if you find evidence that contradicts a certain theological claim?

Evidence from the Bible? Biblical evidence? Go with what the Bible says over man's Theology.

Do you assume the evidence is wrong, or do you think it may possibly be your interpretation of the Bible?

I admit it can be shown that I have made interpretation of the Bible before. I don't believe legitimate evidence deviates from the Biblical account.

 

[noguru]

There is a difference between man's word and God's.

Exactly. That is why I will look at what God says about things above what you say.

Are you asking about science? If so, I don't know. History? I believe the Bible is historically accurate in all its details.

I know you have said this before. But there is no reason for me to take your word above what God has left us in the Bible.

Evidence from the Bible? Biblical evidence? Go with what the Bible says over man's Theology.

What is it exactly that makes you think Genesis is an accurate scientific account of origins?

I admit it can be shown that I have made interpretation of the Bible before. I don't believe legitimate evidence deviates from the Biblical account.

So in other words, if the evidence deviates from your preconceived notion that Genesis is an accurate historical/scientific account you do not consider the evidence "legitimate"?

 

[Jacob]

Exactly. That is why I will look at what God says about things above what you say.

I know you have said this before. But there is no reason for me to take your word above what God has left us in the Bible.

What is it exactly that makes you think Genesis is an accurate scientific account of origins?

So in other words, if the evidence deviates from your preconceived notion that Genesis is an accurate historical/scientific account you do not consider the evidence "legitimate"?

There is a difference between science and God.

That is why I pay attention to what God says.

Would you say that science does not disagree with God? This would be different than saying God does not disagree with science.

I have referred to the Bible as an historical account (being accurate when it speaks of history). We can talk about the creation accounts beginning with the book of beginnings, Genesis, if you would like.

I was not referring to the creation account actually. Just the Bible and interpretation (and science or courtroom law or evidence). Certainly we can discuss creation in terms of science.

I'm not sure in what manner you are attempting to pigeonhole me in reference to my view of science and the creation accounts in the beginning of the book of Genesis.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, I make the best effort humanly possible to see things accurately. If you have a better strategy I would love to hear it, would you share your insight with me?

Yes, I would like to share it with you. Believe in God's Word, our Bible! It doesn't say anything about genomes or atoms in it at all. Settle for the fact that God created all things and changes all things as He deems necessary or best. It's quite that simple. To heck with all of your evolutionary stuff.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Untellectual,

I like your last post, the one before mine. You are no dummy!!

May God Bless You Abundantly and Put the Spirit of the Holy Ghost In Your Speech!!

Michael

 

[noguru]

Yes, I would like to share it with you. Believe in God's Word, our Bible! It doesn't say anything about genomes or atoms in it at all. Settle for the fact that God created all things and changes all things as He deems necessary or best. It's quite that simple. To heck with all of your evolutionary stuff.

Michael

So in other words, you just don't want to know?

"Talk to the hand, cause the face ain't listening." Is that it? :chuckle:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

No, I care about what you think and hope you make it to heaven, of course. You are Christian so you believe in Jesus as the Messiah and God's Son, so you'll be fine. I just can't agree that God did not have His Hand in ALL of the changes of Creation. Do you understand me??

God Bless Your Big Heart and Soul,

Michael

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

No, I care about what you think and hope you make it to heaven, of course. You are Christian so you believe in Jesus as the Messiah and God's Son, so you'll be fine. I just can't agree that God did not have His Hand in ALL of the changes of Creation. Do you understand me??

God Bless Your Big Heart and Soul,

Michael

Michael, do you believe God created nature?

Do you think God has to create things "a certain way" to pass your test?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, do you believe God created nature?

Do you think God has to create things "a certain way" to pass your test?

I believe God created the plants, trees, animals, etc. Yes. But there is no MOTHER NATURE. It is Him Who brings all of those things, including earthquakes in the places He wants them.

Yes, I believe that God has to create things a certain way to change something's makeup or behavior.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

What's the deal? Don't you agree with me?? You are Christian.

God Watch Over You!

Michael

 

[Jacob]

Dear Untellectual,

I like your last post, the one before mine. You are no dummy!!

May God Bless You Abundantly and Put the Spirit of the Holy Ghost In Your Speech!!

Michael

May my lips be purified to speak the truth.

 

[noguru]

I believe God created the plants, trees, animals, etc. Yes. But there is no MOTHER NATURE. It is Him Who brings all of those things, including earthquakes in the places He wants them.

Yes, I believe that God has to create things a certain way to change something's makeup or behavior.

Michael

Michael, I never said anything about Mother Nature. That was you. The rest I have no problem with. Though you still have no idea what science does.