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: 07:07:12 05/29/99 Sat
Author: Kevin
Subject: Re: Time continued
In reply to: daniel 's message, "Re: Time continued" on 17:29:41 05/27/99 Thu

I have cut your message up a little bit, I do not believe to the extent of quoting out of context, but I thought I should prewarn you (some folks get real bent out of shape about this).

> > 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....(@ @).
>

The salute I gave you was sincere. No tricks, no traps, although I loved your response (@@) I haven't seen that one before! I admit you do at times irritate me, mostly because we are so much alike. We both have strong opinions based on many hours of research (and much prayer). Because we believe in our positions so strongly, we both are pretty insensitive to other's point of view. However, I do respect that you have thought this through, and that you are not just following along because that is what you were told to do - as I fear most people are prone to do. Despite our differences we also have a lot in common. We both love the Lord. We both believe the Bible is inspired. We both are seeking to reach out to a lost and dying world. We both desire to be honest before the Lord, and we both desire to walk upright before men.

I tried early in my walk to pretend I was a YE'r, but for reasons of integrity I decided to stand up for what I really believe. I understand that is exactly why you have taken the stand you have taken. So, unless some form of time dilation theory can appeal to both of us, we will never be able to agree. I accept that, and still consider you a brother. I pray you accept me the same, not that I need approval from men to feel complete. The Lord alone is my salvation, not approval, and not my knowledge or lack there of, in anything else. Still, brothers are a joy and a gift.

By the way, I am sure you are aware Humphrey's time dilation theory has been criticized by secular and Christian scientists, both YEC and OEC. Have you read Gerald Schroeder's version? My web site is named in honor of his first book. Although I remain highly skeptical of his theory, his book is what convinced me it was necessary to think this through - and go public.


> 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.

Hermeneutics, redaction criticism, higher criticism, or whatever else you might consider using to interpret Scripture; where did they come from? They did not originate with the Bible. They are not a Divine gift to man. They are man made tools. They are useful, yes, but they are tools. They are not idols to be bowed down to. They are not Holy Writ (which is also not an idol). I am sure similar tools of interpretation are what the Pharisees used to justify denying the risen Savior, but He is risen none the less.

The tools you are using for interpretation are of recent invention. No older than a couple hundred years. So it is ridiculous to declare the physical evidence is inadmissible because it has only recently been uncovered. The discovery may be new but the evidence is not. When you look into the night sky you are not looking at the 'now'. You are looking at the 'then'. The 'then' is very big and very old. You say the tools of Biblical interpretation disagree, but which is more accurate, the tools of investigation or the object of the investigation? Obviously, the object - whether the Work or the Word. You say the tools of science are in error - why? - because they disagree with the Word. But you must twist the physical evidence beyond it's breaking point to make it fit the interpretation tool you have used to examine the Work against. You say I am stretching the meaning of Genesis beyond that which Moses intended. I do not deny this as a possibility. I appeal to the nature of progressive revelation to explain this. Moses may have pictured a literal 24 hour day when he had the words written down, but the Holy Spirit inspired his word choice in such a way as to allow the creation narrative to take on deeper significance as more of God as His Works were revealed. The old earth model does not use the simplest reading of the Word, no one debates that. Instead, we look for the deeper, yet still literal, meaning of the words. You can not use a deeper literal, or even consistent, meaning of the physical world in your holistic model.

>
> 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.

Point - OE does not rely on science, it relies on Scripture and the physical evidence (there is a difference).

>
> 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.

No disagreement from me on man not being old - compared to the universe as a whole, man has barely been here a day ;-)

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

You mentioned 'forbidden archeology' before. No offense, but the portions I have seen of it read like the ancient astronaut books of the '70's, lot's of fun - no substance. Bones of contention, I have heard of, but am not familiar with - who wrote it? I enjoyed Philip Johnson, and Michael Behe's books - if you haven't read them, I recommend them. Neither address the age of the earth issue, so I suspect you would thoroughly enjoy them.

>
> 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.
>

OE claims to use a literal, though not the simplest, interpretation of the Bible.

> 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:

So is God. How did He speak to Job? (hint: through His creation)

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

It is not repeatable, that is why honest science uses theories - and doesn't call them facts. However God left His fingerprints all over the place. We can see them. We can measure them. And they are awesome.

> The bible claims to be truth in the absolute sense,
> including it's statements about nature. On the other

God is truth in the absolute sense. The Bible makes no such claim about itself.

> 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?"

Again, I am not talking about the theories of science. I am saying the physical evidence tells the truth of God's creation. Our interpretations of the Word and the Work may change - His truth does not.


> > 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.
>

1 day = 1000 years. We covered this, unless in your response you believed that is not what he was saying. If so, I totally misunderstood you on that one.

> > 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!
>

I of course was speaking on a corporate level, not on an individual level... it is of course the only way you could interpret that statement ;-)

>
> 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.

Don't even go there. Have you read his page?

>
> 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 am also a literalist. Literal does not mandate simplest.

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

I thought about making some cleverly irritating comment, but I won't. I will say, I have seen what happens when the 'theories' touted in this journal are examined in the real world. It's pretty messy.

>
> 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.
>

You can't have it both ways Daniel. You can not say on the one hand prove the world is old using Scripture only, while on the other, prove miracles using science only. It is inconsistent (and a straw man). Still just for giggles...

Adam was the first man made in God's image (by my understanding of Scripture). He was not the first two legged hominid - where does the Bible say he was? God's image is spirit, not two legged hominid.

The flood; probably universal (not global - do you know the difference?)

As you said the resurrection does not require scientific explanation. Jesus appeared to the disciples as a sign and wonder to prove He had authority over death. But if you need an explanation - the resurrection was possible because Jesus being God in the flesh was self limited on earth to our space time continuum. In death He was liberated from these restraints and in His true multi-dimensional nature overcame the seeming invincibility of death.

etc. etc.

I never said the history of the Bible was symbolic. I believe you did. I said it is literal, though misinterpreted.

> > 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?
>

Do not think for a moment that I don't wish you were correct. It would be so much simpler. Your hermeneutic only looks like a complete package because you keep it inside it's literary box. Take it out and try to make it fit in the real world and it falls apart.

>
> 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.
>

I was not implying revenge on your part. I was telling you a story about me. Sorry you didn't catch that.

> 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

I agree to your accessment of our differing views.

>
> > 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.

Your analogy fails because world time and game time are based on the same timeline. Even playing the game while traveling near the speed of light, where time dilation would come into play, will not help you. Still same timeline. At the speed of light time is virtually meaningless. Light that left a star 10 billion years ago from our perspective, has from it's perspective seen no passage of time. But because the light is still part of our universe it is still trapped by time. Time is meaningless yet the light is not eternal. It had an origin, and when the energy is depleted it will have an end. Mathematically, our time is a dimension of this universe. It began with the universe and it will end with it. Our universe was created, so God's time must be different than our time. God must exist in at least one additional dimension than was created with our universe. Now using the mathematical model I mentioned you might better be able to understand that while this is meaningless to us, because we can't perceive it, it is still possible with God and mathematically necessary.

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

Biblically, Richard did, I did, and I believe Mike did - you interpreted them differently. Mathematically, I did - you disagree. There is nothing left to try and convince you with - but time.

Have a great weekend fellas!

Peace
Kevin

[ 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.