VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:29:41 05/27/99 Thu
Author: daniel
Subject: Re: Time continued
In reply to: Kevin 's message, "Time continued" on 14:46:48 05/27/99 Thu


> You made a comment in an earlier post, something about
> checking the history of YEC and noticing that there
> was no resistance to it prior to a couple hundred
> years ago. You wondered why that is. Hmmm.
>

I am not sure how to continue with this thread, but I will attempt to do so in light of the fact that I think that I too have a lot to learn and some to teach.

Knowing that some passages have dual fulfillment or meaning for more audiences that were not necessarily the intended recipients of the massage, I having been thinking about redaction criticism which keeping very simple means what did the author mean within the text. Now obviously the ultimate author is God, but Moses I am quite sure was very intelligent although sometimes shy, I think believed that what he was writing is YEC. We have to wait thousands of years before OEC comes on the scene, and you say that that is primarily due to NEW technology and information.

So your belief would certainly debunk the majority of biblical scholars for the last few thousand years. That is ok, becasuse in my mind Augustine had such a detrimental effect on the church that we wrongly believe in a God that is very much based on greek mysticism. As a matter of fact, Augustine said specifically that the scriptures must be interpreted with Platonic Rationalism. Wow. Unfortunately a majority of biblical scholars have been blinded by Augustine.

So what is the difference between these two issues? Is there a difference?

Yes. Each relies on something extrabiblical. Science or Plato.

The point thatI am trying to get at is what was Moses' original belief about the passages? This is important because the Lord uses men to issue his decrees and will.

The knowledge or belief of multi-dimensional space time continuums was certainly not known by Moses, but I am sure that knowledge of the History of man was very well known. This is obvious as we look into the lineage or nations that came from Noah. Have you ever studied this? The History of man clearly has an abrupt beginning point based on historical records. Both biblical and extrabiblical. The "History" of man is not old at all.

I have just finished reading two books,
"Forbidden Archeology" and "Bones of Contention". And Have you read either of these books?

<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.mcremo.com">http://www.mcremo.com</a>
<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.angelfire.com/ak/hotone/gap.html">http://www.angelfire.com/ak/hotone/gap.html</a>

And lastly
<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://rae.org/jwindex.html">http://rae.org/jwindex.html</a>

I do not pretend to be a scientist. I claim to be a lay person with a strong knowledge of biblical hermeneutics. In my efforts to synthsize and come up with a wholistic approach to biblical interpretation, I have learned that literalism is usually first to be displaced and replaced with "NEW" information, usually escoteric in nature and now most recently with technological advancments.

As I have said many times, I do not believe it is possible to come up with a consistent biblical hermeneutic that captures OEC, the history of the bible, and the direction or will of God. I have brought up the whole issue about "time" and God's power because it requires literalism to understand the messages of the bible. YEC claims to be the literalistic interpretation of the bible. So because literlaism is necessary to understand biblical prophecy, the law, grace, and forgiveness, then literalism is a likely candidate for understanding creation.

Am I making myself clear? I hope so.

I wish I had a scanner to scan pages 241-246 of Bones of Contention. Lubenow gracefully captures what I believe about the Double-Revelation theory that you are apparently so bound to. He writes:

"Science is incapable of instructing us on Creation. Creation was a one-time occurence, a singularity....

The bible claims to be truth in the absolute sense, including it's statements about nature. On the other hand, philosophers of science are unanimous in recognizing that science does not-in fact, cannot traffic in absolute truth. All scientific truth is relative. What a strange twist of logic would cause to think that absolute truth and relative truth can be or should be harmonized, would that not be elavating the relative truth of today to absolute status?"

What is the average age of a scientific theory today?

The above pages are worth the entire cost of the book.

So where are we?

> Mostly, the tools did not exist to reveal the age of
> the earth until recently. The earth is old. Given
> Darwin, dinosaurs, the lack of physical evidence of
> the global flood, and prehistoric hominid fossils, it
> is no wonder many believers have felt compelled to
> hold firmly to YEC. But, and this is important, as I
> pointed out to you previously, many commentators of
> the past held that the days of creation were greater
> than 24 hour days (Martyr).

Please provide this reference. I have most of his works.

> Others held that the days
> were symbolic rather than literal as they contended
> that God created everything instantly (some held time
> did not exist until the third day - Philo). St.
> Augustine never really said what he believed except
> that the days of creation were somehow different than
> normal days - whatever that meant to him. Others
> bought into the Greek idea that the universe was
> eternal - they apparently did not see a conflict with
> Scripture (maybe they never read it?). Yes, others
> held the days were 24 hour days. The point is there
> was acceptance of differing views because no one was
> certain. That is why there was no resistance.
>

How do you know that there was no resistance? I am not sure what your statement means. There was also very little resistance regading the demand by Augustine to interpret scripture through the wisdom of Plato. Absurd!

> As for YEC, you are an exception, your views appear to
> be based on Scripture alone. Most YEC's I have
> encountered claim this, but the real heart of their
> faith is fear. Fear of evolution. Fear that science
> has somehow proved God does not exist.

Fear? Not sure what you are saying here either. I am not afraid of evolution. I am saddened that Christians do not know how to interpret scripture literally.

> That is
> nonsense. Or the other extreme is their faith is
> based on pride - they are sooo much wiser than all
> those godless scientists. Both extremes are horribly
> wrong. What makes you far more challenging to debate
> than most is you actually know what you believe and
> why. That proves to me we have a lot in common. I
> don't agree with your position, but I salute you.
>

Thanx, but I am sure this is a trap door around the corner....(@ @).


> Please do not misunderstand that story. In no way am
> I questioning your intentions, or your maturity. I do
> not know you well enough to have an opinion. The
> point was, though your argument sounds good and seems
> to be based in Scripture, it does not mean you are
> correct. It only means no one has ever convinced you
> you're wrong. You are wrong. The world is old.
>

Then through scripture please disprove me. As far as your other case, I am quite certain I could teach this gentleman a thing or two about predestination. Please do not take that as arrogance, it is just that it is a primary aspect of what I focus my studies on.


> As a matter of personal choice I have always avoided
> confrontation with YEC. On the public discussion
> boards it seems out of place. It makes it appear I am
> attacking a brother (or sister), something I do not
> want to do. The naturalist crowd is quite organized
> and seem more than capable of tearing the YE view
> apart. Instead I prefer presenting an alternative
> view of the evidence. One that accepts the Work and
> the Word of God as witness of His creation. I admit
> to taking a more antagonistic position with you, early
> on, because this is a closed debate and I perceived
> you were eroding the faith of a brother and a friend.

I am simply challenging. If you are not willing to challenge what you believe....you better! I love Ed as a brother in the Lord. But he openly admitted to me that he was even unsure of the resurrection and he was unsure of the biblical Adam. Why? That is because people like you make him believe that the bible is not meant to be a literal, historic document.

Please tell me the difference between Genesis 1: and Genesis 11:. The point is that they are both Historic and you have no method by which to deal with one literally and one as symbolic. Since I am a literalist there is simplistic harmony between Gen 1 and Gen 11.


> I have no compassion for religious vipers. I also
> avoid the YEC debate because for all the hard work and
> research that goes into it, the return is negligible.
> As I said before, you will not change your position
> because of this debate. The change, if it comes, will
> be from a battle within yourself, not from without.
>

Have you ever read the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal? Seems like a lot of hard work, and well documented too.

> I am but a layman. I have only been working on the OE
> model for a couple years. I may still have holes in
> my theory - you haven't convinced me of any yet, but
> I'm sure they are there.

Here is a whole bunch.

Prove that Adam was not the first living human biblically.
(He was the first biped ever created)
Prove that the Flood was not Global biblically.
(The flood was global)
Prove that the Resurrection was scientifically plausible.
(It does not require science)
Prove that the Virgin Birth was scientifically plausible.
(It does not require science)
Prove that a man can walk on water scientifically.......etc.......
(It does not require science)
Prove that the History of the bible is symbolic.
(It is historic)

How is that for a start.

> Your model fails from the
> start. It may be a nice tight dogmatically correct
> view, but it is wrong.

Dogmatically correct? Huh? Do you mean biblically correct or are just afraid to confront that possibility?

> It is more dead than the
> fossils that prove it wrong. Since your view is dead,
> and you believe mine can not be supported with God's
> Word, where does this leave us? Should we question
> whether Scripture is really the word of God? God
> forbid. That was my starting point. I believed the
> Bible was not the word of God. I searched for meaning
> in life through various philosophies and religions,
> and found no purpose. To invent a purpose, I came up
> with a list of goals. I reached them all by the time
> I was 25. So again I saw no meaning. About this
> time, my former employer (a true religious viper - I
> pray he will see his error) began to use the Bible
> against me for his personal gain. There was no
> reasoning with him. But I had a plan. I would use
> the Bible against him! So I started reading it with
> zeal - and poor motives. God had a plan as well. The
> Spirit grabbed me hard and quick. I was on my knees
> in short order. I found the conflicts that kept me
> from accepting the Word (YEC for instance) were but
> man made doctrines. When I looked beyond them I was
> humbled and amazed at the truth of Scripture. I also
> lost my desire for revenge against my employer. It was
> replaced by love, and a deep sadness for his
> blindness. Never again will I be held captive by man
> or man made doctrines.
>

I am not revengeful. I am simply confident in His word, and I have little confidence in men that change whatever it is they believe about science more frequently within a generation then a generation changes its leaders.

> Why Pray? I had this debate with my Pastor as a new
> convert. His belief is that the purpose of prayer is
> to conform us to the will of God - we change, not God.
> I maintained prayer was a call for God to do a work
> that can not be done without Him. The fervent prayer
> of a righteous man availeth much. I figured if a man
> like me could pray and it didn't rain for 3 years, I
> should be able to pray for change in the physical and
> spiritual lives of those around me. I have seen some
> truly miraculous things happen as a result of that
> attitude. And yet, I find my Pastor was correct as
> well.
>

Prayer changes not only man's heart towards God, but it is often that God changes his plan because of the prayers of man.

> Now what you are really saying is why pray if God has
> already predestined your days. The problem is you
> misunderstand predestination - like the fellow at my
> church, you believe it means some people are created
> to burn. Nonsense.

If there is anything about biblical interpretation I do understand is predestination. As I said before I was predestined to debate the fact that predestination is not true to the extent that God predetermined that I would write a post about the fact that predestination is not true to the extent that God predetermined it.

We are freewillbeings. Period. The difference between you and I in this matter is that you believe that God knew before hand who would be shot at the columbine high school massacre and I believe that God had no clue who would live or die that day, until the incident occurred. He certainly knew all the variables, but not even the gunman knew how many or who would be killed that day. The gunman were motivated. The students were motivated. Survival instincts, pleas for life and confessions of love towards God were all part of an tragic unfolding event that God had no part in except to challenge the reprobates that what they were doing was evil. Since their conscience was seared, it was impossible for God to intervene. They were and will be rightfully judged, and God never condemned them years ago or eons ago to this fate.



> All your actions and reactions
> are your free will choice. You can decide to agree
> with me or disagree with me - your choice. God
> fellowships with us (seeks a relationship with us) in
> time, because as Richard pointed out, it is the only
> way we can relate to Him. Our lives are linear. Our
> decisions and their consequences are linear. God
> deals with us in a linear manner. If He limits
> Himself to the now is His choice. If He is limited in
> any way it is for the benefit of His creation.
>

He does not have a choice. He also does not have a choice to sin, to create a round square or to live in the Lake of Fire.

He is still Soveriegn and Almighty.

> Your Scripture about time in heaven; It does not
> surprise me to see proof of time in heaven. I see
> nothing in Scripture to lead me to believe otherwise.
> However, the heavenly realm was created not for God
> alone, but in order that He might have a relationship
> with the heavenly beings. I see no indication in
> Scripture that the angels are able to know the future.

There is alos no indication that God is able to know the future. He plans the future.


> Does time before time have any meaning?; Yes. Our
> time is linear. Time in the heavenly realm God
> created for the angels is linear. Mathematically our
> time can be considered as a ray. It has an origin.
> At present it is considered to have no end in the
> forward direction. We do not know what time
> limitations God has, only that His time is not our
> time.

I believe the "game" anology is valid and reveals that it is not necessary to look to multi-dimensions. Please prove that this anology is deficient.

> If He has two time dimensions this would be
> represented as a plane, three dimensions - a cube or
> sphere. No matter how we represent God's time, when
> our time intersects it, the observed intersection is
> still a ray. That is how you can maintain the Bible
> writers did not know about multiple times, and yet we
> can say we do know. That is the nature of progressive
> revelation. God gives what we need when we need it.
> In this age of skepticism we need it. Yet it does not
> violate Scripture in any way, only our understanding
> of it.


I do not understand ". That is how you can maintain the Bible
writers did not know about multiple times, and yet we
can say we do know. "

>
> But, I realize you are not likely to accept this
> teaching, so let's suppose for a moment I agree with
> you that God is limited to the now (I don't agree -
> I'm just supposing). How would this in any way limit
> the universe to 6,000 years of age? In no way would
> it, so this is a peripheral issue. One that has been
> argued by greater minds for years without resolution.
> If you believe God is only in the now, what do I care.
> Time to move on.
>

Please provide any examples of God not being limited to the NOW.

I have already tried to share with you why I think this is important to the entire issue.


> By the way, if radiometric dating was the only method
> of determining the age of the universe I would agree
> with you that we should be very cautious about
> accepting the data. But it is not the only method
> available. Besides, there are many different types of
> dating methods that when properly applied arrive at
> the same conclusion - the earth is old.

And the bible's historic account of creation and man is young.

Daniel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.