Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE:"alleged interpretations" of nature vs "the bible"

Expand Messages
  • Mark Whorton
    Hi Allen, First, thanks for your gracious spirit and I am enjoying your iron sharpening my iron. You were probably correct (I think it was you that said
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 1, 2002
      Hi Allen,
      First, thanks for your gracious spirit and I am enjoying your "iron"
      sharpening "my iron." You were probably correct (I think it was you that
      said this) that the process is more important than the result here.

      I probably agree (haven't thought much about it) that God doesn't put nature
      equal to His word in scripture if I am allowed to parse the word "equal".
      Nature is clearly not equal to the bible in its importance and centrality --
      Jesus Himself said in John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures because you
      think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about
      Me." The scriptures are more significant because they testify about Jesus
      and how we gain eternal life.

      However, that does not mean that they are unequal in terms of reliable
      witnesses to truth. Both stories are equally true because God wrote them --
      it is simply that one has a greater story to tell! From the perspective of
      significance (in terms of testifying about Jesus), they are not equal; but
      from the perspective of truth, they are equal.

      So, it is somewhat irrelevant that the Bible does not "equate" nature with
      scripture. Key point -- neither does scripture diminish the significance of
      nature as a revelation. It is always held in high standing for God Himself
      uses it to teach about Himself (see Job particularly) and as a basis of
      judgement (Rom. 1).

      But Allen my friend, I really have to disagree with this statement you made:

      <"The Bible is to be understood without "interpretation." There is a
      difference in accepting what God has written on a straight forward basis and
      interpreting it.">

      This just doesn't make sense. I fail to see how your view or my view is
      "straight forward basis" while those in error "interpret". We all
      interpret -- there is no such thing as a "straight forward basis" that is
      independent of interpretation. When you "accept what God has written on a
      straight forward basis", you are interpreting it. Now your interpretation
      may be obvious and correct while there are certainly many "straight forward"
      passages that have been misinterpreted, but this distinction you make is
      simply artificial in my opinion.

      Thanks for you thoughtful response,
      Mark

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dr Allen J Dunckley [mailto:drallen31@...]
      Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:18 AM
      To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature
      vs "the bible"


      Mark,

      I appreciated your response back to mine. You have given me something to
      think through. I will get back to you with some further thoughts on what
      you have said. One quick issue, No where in Scripture doe God put Nature
      equal to His Word. His Word is to Govern our thinking in ALL areas;
      including HOW we analyze what we think we see i.e "deep time" etc. If what
      we see contradicts what His Word says, then our observations from nature
      must be in error. The Bible is to be understood without "interpretation."
      There is a difference in accepting what God has written on a straight
      forward basis and interpreting it. Romanists "interpret" the bible to their
      view; Jehovah's Witnesses "interpret" the Bible. All interpretation leads
      to various degrees of error; that is Why One is "interpreting"it -- because
      they don't like what it says in a straight forward manner. Well -- I must
      go. I will be in touch with more. In the mean time, have a great day in
      our Lord!

      In the Master's Service,
      Allen

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark Whorton" <mark.whorton@...>
      To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:48 AM
      Subject: RE: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature vs
      "the bible"


      > I really don't have time for this, but since my hat is in the ring, I will
      > hit a couple of points in response to jonathanstein_csec. These are
      again,
      > pious and stirring arguments, but I don't necessarily agree with the
      > rebuttal.
      >
      > I'll clip some comments here and leave the entire message below for
      context.
      >
      > "Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say that "revelation
      in
      > nature" "
      > Well not in those exact terms maybe, but doesn't that capture the meaning
      of
      > "the heavens declare the glory of God?" Declare means reveal, heavens are
      > part of nature, so there you have it.
      >
      > Plus, I don't want to continue deconstructing an immortal strawman, but
      Hugh
      > Ross does not say that nature should overrule the bible. You build a
      > strawman argument when you write "If one allows that one should
      reinterpret
      > Scripture to fit in
      > with "nature..." Moot point since that isn't the point -- I don't do
      that.
      > Please don't keep making this assertion. I wrote about this yesterday --
      > Hugh (as I understand his perspective) reasons that nature is a credible
      > revelation of God just as the bible is a credible revelation, hence
      correct
      > theology should contradict neither. What's so hard about that?
      >
      > As I wrote yesterday, we don't "reinterpret the bible to fit nature." See
      > my post yesterday about that. Good point about the conscience, but it is
      > pretty subjective when compared to the objective basis of the bible and
      > revelation. The bible also speaks of men "searing their conscience" by
      sin,
      > and in the same way fallen men may falsely speculate from the true
      > revelation of nature. The revelation isn't corrupt -- man's reasoning
      from
      > it is corrupt.
      >
      >
      > Here is the key -- you wrote:
      > "What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds that
      > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is not. So we
      > should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and properly inform
      our
      > consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen nature interpreted by
      > fallen and fallible minds, or fallen consciences, to reinterpret
      infallible
      > and unfallen Scripture. "
      >
      > Your response to the "common, simple" error is actually nothing more that
      > theological conjecture. Scripture does not say that nature is fallen.
      > Apply the same critical analysis to this statement that you do about the
      > phrase "revelation in nature" and you will see that "fallen nature" is the
      > one that is not scriptural. Yes nature is severely affected by the fall.
      > But nature has not been corrupted in the sense that it no longer is a true
      > and reliable witness. That is absolutely ridiculous -- see my post
      > yesterday. I know that Romans speaks of creation being subjected to
      > futility, but it is inferred that Paul is speaking about the curse. He
      > doesn't say *when* it was subjected. Maybe you are right, but please
      > recognize that you are dealing with an interpretation and not "the bible".
      > It is plausible that God subjected the creation to futility from the
      > beginning, and yes He considered it "very good" because it was exactly
      > according to His plan -- redemption, declaration of His glory to humanity
      > and the heavenly hosts, and ultimately the putting away of evil and
      > consummation of all rulers and authority (read SATAN and his fall) under
      His
      > kingdom.
      >
      > Why the distinction between fallen nature and unfallen scripture? It is
      man
      > that has fallen, not the revelation -- God still holds man accountable to
      > both (or either), remember? You are creating a dichotomy between nature
      and
      > scripture that simply is not scriptural! It is your paradigm derived from
      > what you think God meant by "very good." You may be right, but it is an
      > *interpretation*.
      >
      > I'm sorry, but I think your perspicuity and propositional arguments are
      > specious. Both revelations are clear to those who study them in the
      correct
      > context. Don't tell me that a person who doesn't put forth the effort to
      > study scripture won't misinterpret the "clear reading of scripture" on
      some
      > points. Scientists and theologians alike study God's revelation to learn
      > truth. There are theologians with false presuppositions and wrong motives
      > just like there are scientists likewise. Both science and nature require
      an
      > "interpretive framework". Both are clear to those who dig in using the
      > proper "interpretive framework," and people can be led astray by scholars
      of
      > both areas.
      >
      > Come on, this is a nice seminary textbook statement, but it is an
      unfounded
      > assertion. Impressive sounding but incorrect.
      >
      > Now, thanks for your time, but I've got to hurry off...
      >
      > Mark
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: jonathanstein_csec [mailto:x-evolutionist@...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:11 PM
      > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature
      > vs "the bible"
      >
      >
      > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
      >
      > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
      > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
      > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
      >
      > A: "but I recognize the erroneousness of positing that
      > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its the
      > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other words, its
      > the words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in
      > His creation."
      >
      > Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say
      > that "revelation in nature" (but in Ross-speak this means
      > uniformitarian *interpretations* of nature) should overrule the
      > Bible. Nor do they say that "general revelation" is sufficient to
      > save. Rather, general revelation shows that there is a God who
      > designed everything, but people by and large reject this so they are
      > without excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.). Similarly, Romans 2 shows that
      > people also have the witness of their own consciences, but again most
      > people reject this revelation too.
      >
      > If one allows that one should reinterpret Scripture to fit in
      > with "nature", then should we also reinterpret in the light
      > of "conscience"? Plenty of people claim that their "consciences" say
      > that women must have the "right" to have their unborn child butchered
      > by taxpayer-funded hitmen (paraphrased to insert a note of accuracy
      > into pro-abortion propaganda), so this must over-rule the clear
      > Biblical testimony of the unborn child's humanity. Others earnestly
      > claim that their homosexual relationship is so "loving" that they
      > cannot in good conscience believe the Biblical teaching that
      > homosexual acts are wrong. So they reinterpret Paul's teaching in
      > Romans 1:27 as condemning only those with heterosexual orientation
      > practising homosexual acts, not those who are homosexually oriented.
      >
      > What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds that
      > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is not. So
      > we should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and properly
      > inform our consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen
      > nature interpreted by fallen and fallible minds, or fallen
      > consciences, to reinterpret infallible and unfallen Scripture.
      >
      > Also:
      >
      > * Scripture is *propositional*, nature is not, hence propositions
      > must be formed according to an interpretive framework.
      > * Scripture is *clear* (perspicuous), so can be interpreted using the
      > grammatical-historical hermeneutic, without the need for either popes
      > or scientists to explain what it "really" must mean. Nature is not
      > so clear -- think how many proven "facts" of science have been
      > overturned over the centuries.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., Adobero1@a... wrote:
      > > In a message dated 1/30/02 8:43:52 AM Central Standard Time,
      > > mark.whorton@m... writes:
      > >
      > > hi Mark ...
      > >
      > > Very Good!
      > >
      > > God did not reveal the "scriptures" in nature ... rather He reveals
      > Himself
      > > in nature along with the Holy Writ.
      > >
      > > Heck, I'm not a scientist but I recognize the erroneousness of
      > positing that
      > > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its
      > the
      > > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other words,
      > its the
      > > words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in His
      > creation.
      > > The Bible lends credence to the testament of our universe.
      > >
      > > There are three witnesses testifying of God. 1) The Holy Spirit,
      > 2) The
      > > Cosmos, 3) The Biblical record. Does the Holy Spirit disparage
      > the
      > > testimony of the Cosmos or Biblical account ... absolutely not!
      > Does the
      > > Cosmos vilify the accounts of the Holy Spirit or that of
      > Scripture ... again,
      > > totally absurd. And finally, does the Holy Bible denounce the
      > testimony that
      > > nature gives concerning its Creator? No Way Jose'.
      > >
      > > The three stand shoulder to shoulder in their testimony ...
      > concurring The
      > > Magnificent One our Lord God. We should embrace the "Cosmostic
      > Record" and
      > > its revelation of its Creator ... in the same manner we embrace the
      > verity of
      > > "Scriptural Record."
      > >
      > > God has left them all three as a ... single testament of His
      > Omnipotent Glory.
      > >
      > > blessings,
      > > Sam
      > >
      > > << Come on Allen, Don't you see what you are saying? You
      > contrast "alleged
      > > observations of what he thinks he sees in nature" with "the
      > bible". What
      > > about alleged observations of what you think you see in the
      > bible? You
      > > speak of "the bible" as if there is no interpretative step
      > involved there.
      > > Don't you understand that God has revealed Himself "in many
      > portions and in
      > > many ways," (Heb. 1:1) and that theology as well as science are
      > both
      > > *interpretations* of revelation? We shouldn't speak of "the
      > bible", but we
      > > should speak of our theological models. It is pious and noble
      > sounding to
      > > say that your interpretation of the bible is superior to your
      > interpretation
      > > of nature, but that is simply fallacious. The Holy Spirit guides
      > us into
      > > *all* truth. "Seek and ye shall find." The redeemed mind is no
      > less able
      > > to factually reason from nature that it is from scripture. Nature
      > isn't
      > > "fallen" in the sense that it is partially true and partially
      > false because
      > > God uses it to reveal Himself. How could God hold men accountable
      > to His
      > > revelation if only parts of it were true (and you couldn't tell
      > which parts
      > > were true and which were false). Isn't that one of the reasons we
      > believe
      > > in inerrancy of scripture? Otherwise how could we be held
      > accountable to
      > > it's teachings?
      > >
      > > My point is let's "fit" what the bible teaches and what nature
      > reveals
      > > together into a consistent paradigm. God authored both and if
      > there is a
      > > conflict, then I am incorrectly interpreting one or the other.
      > Don't assume
      > > that the interpretation of scripture is the correct one because
      > the church
      > > has been there and (incorrectly) done that. That is exactly the
      > premise of
      > > your charge -- "properly mold interpretations of nature to fit the
      > bible."
      > > What if you incorrectly interpret "the bible"? Or what if there
      > are
      > > multiple admissible interpretations of "the bible"? Shouldn't you
      > require
      > > your interpration of "the bible" to consistently "fit" the "clear
      > > revelation" of God in nature? Of course scientists misinterpret
      > nature
      > > (that is the nature of science -- to learn what is unknown through
      > trial and
      > > error) and many are driven to wrong conclusions by wrong
      > philosophical
      > > presuppositions (which is the point of Romans 1:21 - 23). But
      > does that
      > > mean that there is no "clear revelation" in nature? Of course not.
      > > Otherwise God would be unjust in holding men accountable to the
      > voice of
      > > nature.
      > >
      > > Your argument is very emotionally appealing and will get
      > some "amens" from
      > > the congregation, but it is simply unfounded and incorrect. Let's
      > try to
      > > "properly mold" our interpretations of scripture and nature
      > together into
      > > the truth that God is revealing to us.
      > >
      > > In the Master's Service with you,
      > > Mark >>
      >
      >
      >
      > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
      > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
      > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >



      Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
      to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Dr Allen J Dunckley
      Mark, I appreciated your response back to mine. You have given me something to think through. I will get back to you with some further thoughts on what you
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 1, 2002
        Mark,

        I appreciated your response back to mine. You have given me something to
        think through. I will get back to you with some further thoughts on what
        you have said. One quick issue, No where in Scripture doe God put Nature
        equal to His Word. His Word is to Govern our thinking in ALL areas;
        including HOW we analyze what we think we see i.e "deep time" etc. If what
        we see contradicts what His Word says, then our observations from nature
        must be in error. The Bible is to be understood without "interpretation."
        There is a difference in accepting what God has written on a straight
        forward basis and interpreting it. Romanists "interpret" the bible to their
        view; Jehovah's Witnesses "interpret" the Bible. All interpretation leads
        to various degrees of error; that is Why One is "interpreting"it -- because
        they don't like what it says in a straight forward manner. Well -- I must
        go. I will be in touch with more. In the mean time, have a great day in
        our Lord!

        In the Master's Service,
        Allen

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Mark Whorton" <mark.whorton@...>
        To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:48 AM
        Subject: RE: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature vs
        "the bible"


        > I really don't have time for this, but since my hat is in the ring, I will
        > hit a couple of points in response to jonathanstein_csec. These are
        again,
        > pious and stirring arguments, but I don't necessarily agree with the
        > rebuttal.
        >
        > I'll clip some comments here and leave the entire message below for
        context.
        >
        > "Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say that "revelation
        in
        > nature" "
        > Well not in those exact terms maybe, but doesn't that capture the meaning
        of
        > "the heavens declare the glory of God?" Declare means reveal, heavens are
        > part of nature, so there you have it.
        >
        > Plus, I don't want to continue deconstructing an immortal strawman, but
        Hugh
        > Ross does not say that nature should overrule the bible. You build a
        > strawman argument when you write "If one allows that one should
        reinterpret
        > Scripture to fit in
        > with "nature..." Moot point since that isn't the point -- I don't do
        that.
        > Please don't keep making this assertion. I wrote about this yesterday --
        > Hugh (as I understand his perspective) reasons that nature is a credible
        > revelation of God just as the bible is a credible revelation, hence
        correct
        > theology should contradict neither. What's so hard about that?
        >
        > As I wrote yesterday, we don't "reinterpret the bible to fit nature." See
        > my post yesterday about that. Good point about the conscience, but it is
        > pretty subjective when compared to the objective basis of the bible and
        > revelation. The bible also speaks of men "searing their conscience" by
        sin,
        > and in the same way fallen men may falsely speculate from the true
        > revelation of nature. The revelation isn't corrupt -- man's reasoning
        from
        > it is corrupt.
        >
        >
        > Here is the key -- you wrote:
        > "What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds that
        > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is not. So we
        > should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and properly inform
        our
        > consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen nature interpreted by
        > fallen and fallible minds, or fallen consciences, to reinterpret
        infallible
        > and unfallen Scripture. "
        >
        > Your response to the "common, simple" error is actually nothing more that
        > theological conjecture. Scripture does not say that nature is fallen.
        > Apply the same critical analysis to this statement that you do about the
        > phrase "revelation in nature" and you will see that "fallen nature" is the
        > one that is not scriptural. Yes nature is severely affected by the fall.
        > But nature has not been corrupted in the sense that it no longer is a true
        > and reliable witness. That is absolutely ridiculous -- see my post
        > yesterday. I know that Romans speaks of creation being subjected to
        > futility, but it is inferred that Paul is speaking about the curse. He
        > doesn't say *when* it was subjected. Maybe you are right, but please
        > recognize that you are dealing with an interpretation and not "the bible".
        > It is plausible that God subjected the creation to futility from the
        > beginning, and yes He considered it "very good" because it was exactly
        > according to His plan -- redemption, declaration of His glory to humanity
        > and the heavenly hosts, and ultimately the putting away of evil and
        > consummation of all rulers and authority (read SATAN and his fall) under
        His
        > kingdom.
        >
        > Why the distinction between fallen nature and unfallen scripture? It is
        man
        > that has fallen, not the revelation -- God still holds man accountable to
        > both (or either), remember? You are creating a dichotomy between nature
        and
        > scripture that simply is not scriptural! It is your paradigm derived from
        > what you think God meant by "very good." You may be right, but it is an
        > *interpretation*.
        >
        > I'm sorry, but I think your perspicuity and propositional arguments are
        > specious. Both revelations are clear to those who study them in the
        correct
        > context. Don't tell me that a person who doesn't put forth the effort to
        > study scripture won't misinterpret the "clear reading of scripture" on
        some
        > points. Scientists and theologians alike study God's revelation to learn
        > truth. There are theologians with false presuppositions and wrong motives
        > just like there are scientists likewise. Both science and nature require
        an
        > "interpretive framework". Both are clear to those who dig in using the
        > proper "interpretive framework," and people can be led astray by scholars
        of
        > both areas.
        >
        > Come on, this is a nice seminary textbook statement, but it is an
        unfounded
        > assertion. Impressive sounding but incorrect.
        >
        > Now, thanks for your time, but I've got to hurry off...
        >
        > Mark
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: jonathanstein_csec [mailto:x-evolutionist@...]
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:11 PM
        > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature
        > vs "the bible"
        >
        >
        > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
        >
        > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
        > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
        > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
        >
        > A: "but I recognize the erroneousness of positing that
        > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its the
        > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other words, its
        > the words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in
        > His creation."
        >
        > Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say
        > that "revelation in nature" (but in Ross-speak this means
        > uniformitarian *interpretations* of nature) should overrule the
        > Bible. Nor do they say that "general revelation" is sufficient to
        > save. Rather, general revelation shows that there is a God who
        > designed everything, but people by and large reject this so they are
        > without excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.). Similarly, Romans 2 shows that
        > people also have the witness of their own consciences, but again most
        > people reject this revelation too.
        >
        > If one allows that one should reinterpret Scripture to fit in
        > with "nature", then should we also reinterpret in the light
        > of "conscience"? Plenty of people claim that their "consciences" say
        > that women must have the "right" to have their unborn child butchered
        > by taxpayer-funded hitmen (paraphrased to insert a note of accuracy
        > into pro-abortion propaganda), so this must over-rule the clear
        > Biblical testimony of the unborn child's humanity. Others earnestly
        > claim that their homosexual relationship is so "loving" that they
        > cannot in good conscience believe the Biblical teaching that
        > homosexual acts are wrong. So they reinterpret Paul's teaching in
        > Romans 1:27 as condemning only those with heterosexual orientation
        > practising homosexual acts, not those who are homosexually oriented.
        >
        > What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds that
        > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is not. So
        > we should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and properly
        > inform our consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen
        > nature interpreted by fallen and fallible minds, or fallen
        > consciences, to reinterpret infallible and unfallen Scripture.
        >
        > Also:
        >
        > * Scripture is *propositional*, nature is not, hence propositions
        > must be formed according to an interpretive framework.
        > * Scripture is *clear* (perspicuous), so can be interpreted using the
        > grammatical-historical hermeneutic, without the need for either popes
        > or scientists to explain what it "really" must mean. Nature is not
        > so clear -- think how many proven "facts" of science have been
        > overturned over the centuries.
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., Adobero1@a... wrote:
        > > In a message dated 1/30/02 8:43:52 AM Central Standard Time,
        > > mark.whorton@m... writes:
        > >
        > > hi Mark ...
        > >
        > > Very Good!
        > >
        > > God did not reveal the "scriptures" in nature ... rather He reveals
        > Himself
        > > in nature along with the Holy Writ.
        > >
        > > Heck, I'm not a scientist but I recognize the erroneousness of
        > positing that
        > > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its
        > the
        > > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other words,
        > its the
        > > words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in His
        > creation.
        > > The Bible lends credence to the testament of our universe.
        > >
        > > There are three witnesses testifying of God. 1) The Holy Spirit,
        > 2) The
        > > Cosmos, 3) The Biblical record. Does the Holy Spirit disparage
        > the
        > > testimony of the Cosmos or Biblical account ... absolutely not!
        > Does the
        > > Cosmos vilify the accounts of the Holy Spirit or that of
        > Scripture ... again,
        > > totally absurd. And finally, does the Holy Bible denounce the
        > testimony that
        > > nature gives concerning its Creator? No Way Jose'.
        > >
        > > The three stand shoulder to shoulder in their testimony ...
        > concurring The
        > > Magnificent One our Lord God. We should embrace the "Cosmostic
        > Record" and
        > > its revelation of its Creator ... in the same manner we embrace the
        > verity of
        > > "Scriptural Record."
        > >
        > > God has left them all three as a ... single testament of His
        > Omnipotent Glory.
        > >
        > > blessings,
        > > Sam
        > >
        > > << Come on Allen, Don't you see what you are saying? You
        > contrast "alleged
        > > observations of what he thinks he sees in nature" with "the
        > bible". What
        > > about alleged observations of what you think you see in the
        > bible? You
        > > speak of "the bible" as if there is no interpretative step
        > involved there.
        > > Don't you understand that God has revealed Himself "in many
        > portions and in
        > > many ways," (Heb. 1:1) and that theology as well as science are
        > both
        > > *interpretations* of revelation? We shouldn't speak of "the
        > bible", but we
        > > should speak of our theological models. It is pious and noble
        > sounding to
        > > say that your interpretation of the bible is superior to your
        > interpretation
        > > of nature, but that is simply fallacious. The Holy Spirit guides
        > us into
        > > *all* truth. "Seek and ye shall find." The redeemed mind is no
        > less able
        > > to factually reason from nature that it is from scripture. Nature
        > isn't
        > > "fallen" in the sense that it is partially true and partially
        > false because
        > > God uses it to reveal Himself. How could God hold men accountable
        > to His
        > > revelation if only parts of it were true (and you couldn't tell
        > which parts
        > > were true and which were false). Isn't that one of the reasons we
        > believe
        > > in inerrancy of scripture? Otherwise how could we be held
        > accountable to
        > > it's teachings?
        > >
        > > My point is let's "fit" what the bible teaches and what nature
        > reveals
        > > together into a consistent paradigm. God authored both and if
        > there is a
        > > conflict, then I am incorrectly interpreting one or the other.
        > Don't assume
        > > that the interpretation of scripture is the correct one because
        > the church
        > > has been there and (incorrectly) done that. That is exactly the
        > premise of
        > > your charge -- "properly mold interpretations of nature to fit the
        > bible."
        > > What if you incorrectly interpret "the bible"? Or what if there
        > are
        > > multiple admissible interpretations of "the bible"? Shouldn't you
        > require
        > > your interpration of "the bible" to consistently "fit" the "clear
        > > revelation" of God in nature? Of course scientists misinterpret
        > nature
        > > (that is the nature of science -- to learn what is unknown through
        > trial and
        > > error) and many are driven to wrong conclusions by wrong
        > philosophical
        > > presuppositions (which is the point of Romans 1:21 - 23). But
        > does that
        > > mean that there is no "clear revelation" in nature? Of course not.
        > > Otherwise God would be unjust in holding men accountable to the
        > voice of
        > > nature.
        > >
        > > Your argument is very emotionally appealing and will get
        > some "amens" from
        > > the congregation, but it is simply unfounded and incorrect. Let's
        > try to
        > > "properly mold" our interpretations of scripture and nature
        > together into
        > > the truth that God is revealing to us.
        > >
        > > In the Master's Service with you,
        > > Mark >>
        >
        >
        >
        > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
        > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
        > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • kurt_streutker
        Mark Whorton writes to Allen Dunckley: This just doesn t make sense. I fail to see how your view or my view is straight forward basis while those in error
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 1, 2002
          Mark Whorton writes to Allen Dunckley:

          "This just doesn't make sense. I fail to see how your view or my view
          is "straight forward basis" while those in error "interpret". We all
          interpret -- there is no such thing as a "straight forward basis"
          that is independent of interpretation. When you "accept what God has
          written on a straight forward basis", you are interpreting it. Now
          your interpretation may be obvious and correct while there are
          certainly many "straight forward" passages that have been
          misinterpreted, but this distinction you make is simply artificial in
          my opinion."

          I presume that AD is using "interpret" in the colloquial sense rather
          than the technical sense as above. So when AD is saying that we
          should not interpret Scripture, I presume he means the same as "we
          should use the grammatical-historical hermeneutic (method of
          interpretation)". This means that we rely on the grammar and
          historical context of a word to decide its meaning, and this allows
          for reading poetry as poetry as well as historical narrative as
          historical narrative. I presume that none of the Christians (i.e.
          Gromit is excluded) on this discussion group deny that Genesis is
          historical narrative written by an eye-witness, even if they dispute
          its meaning.

          What AD and I would both presumably object to is using "science" to
          reinterpret a text in a way that is contrary to anything we could
          derive from the text *itself* in its historical and grammatical
          context.

          It's significant that the vast majority of exegetes before the rise
          of uniformitarianism believed that the days of creation were ordinary-
          length days, including Irenaeus, Basil, Lactantius, Luther and
          Calvin. And there seems to be an even wider agreement, based on
          analysis of the Biblical genealogies, that the world was less than
          6000 years old at the time of writing, and this was explicitly taught
          by Augustine.

          This indicates that the only reason people try to fit millions of
          years into the Bible is because they are intimidated by "science" --
          it has nothing to do with the grammar of the Hebrew itself, despite
          certain rationalizations.



          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Mark Whorton" <mark.whorton@m...>
          wrote:
          > Hi Allen,
          > First, thanks for your gracious spirit and I am enjoying your "iron"
          > sharpening "my iron." You were probably correct (I think it was
          you that
          > said this) that the process is more important than the result here.
          >
          > I probably agree (haven't thought much about it) that God doesn't
          put nature
          > equal to His word in scripture if I am allowed to parse the
          word "equal".
          > Nature is clearly not equal to the bible in its importance and
          centrality --
          > Jesus Himself said in John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures because
          you
          > think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify
          about
          > Me." The scriptures are more significant because they testify
          about Jesus
          > and how we gain eternal life.
          >
          > However, that does not mean that they are unequal in terms of
          reliable
          > witnesses to truth. Both stories are equally true because God
          wrote them --
          > it is simply that one has a greater story to tell! From the
          perspective of
          > significance (in terms of testifying about Jesus), they are not
          equal; but
          > from the perspective of truth, they are equal.
          >
          > So, it is somewhat irrelevant that the Bible does not "equate"
          nature with
          > scripture. Key point -- neither does scripture diminish the
          significance of
          > nature as a revelation. It is always held in high standing for God
          Himself
          > uses it to teach about Himself (see Job particularly) and as a
          basis of
          > judgement (Rom. 1).
          >
          > But Allen my friend, I really have to disagree with this statement
          you made:
          >
          > <"The Bible is to be understood without "interpretation." There is
          a
          > difference in accepting what God has written on a straight forward
          basis and
          > interpreting it.">
          >
          > This just doesn't make sense. I fail to see how your view or my
          view is
          > "straight forward basis" while those in error "interpret". We all
          > interpret -- there is no such thing as a "straight forward basis"
          that is
          > independent of interpretation. When you "accept what God has
          written on a
          > straight forward basis", you are interpreting it. Now your
          interpretation
          > may be obvious and correct while there are certainly many "straight
          forward"
          > passages that have been misinterpreted, but this distinction you
          make is
          > simply artificial in my opinion.
          >
          > Thanks for you thoughtful response,
          > Mark
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Dr Allen J Dunckley [mailto:drallen31@h...]
          > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:18 AM
          > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
          > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
          nature
          > vs "the bible"
          >
          >
          > Mark,
          >
          > I appreciated your response back to mine. You have given me
          something to
          > think through. I will get back to you with some further thoughts
          on what
          > you have said. One quick issue, No where in Scripture doe God put
          Nature
          > equal to His Word. His Word is to Govern our thinking in ALL areas;
          > including HOW we analyze what we think we see i.e "deep time" etc.
          If what
          > we see contradicts what His Word says, then our observations from
          nature
          > must be in error. The Bible is to be understood
          without "interpretation."
          > There is a difference in accepting what God has written on a
          straight
          > forward basis and interpreting it. Romanists "interpret" the bible
          to their
          > view; Jehovah's Witnesses "interpret" the Bible. All
          interpretation leads
          > to various degrees of error; that is Why One is "interpreting"it --
          because
          > they don't like what it says in a straight forward manner. Well --
          I must
          > go. I will be in touch with more. In the mean time, have a great
          day in
          > our Lord!
          >
          > In the Master's Service,
          > Allen
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Mark Whorton" <mark.whorton@m...>
          > To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@y...>
          > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:48 AM
          > Subject: RE: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
          nature vs
          > "the bible"
          >
          >
          > > I really don't have time for this, but since my hat is in the
          ring, I will
          > > hit a couple of points in response to jonathanstein_csec. These
          are
          > again,
          > > pious and stirring arguments, but I don't necessarily agree with
          the
          > > rebuttal.
          > >
          > > I'll clip some comments here and leave the entire message below
          for
          > context.
          > >
          > > "Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say
          that "revelation
          > in
          > > nature" "
          > > Well not in those exact terms maybe, but doesn't that capture the
          meaning
          > of
          > > "the heavens declare the glory of God?" Declare means reveal,
          heavens are
          > > part of nature, so there you have it.
          > >
          > > Plus, I don't want to continue deconstructing an immortal
          strawman, but
          > Hugh
          > > Ross does not say that nature should overrule the bible. You
          build a
          > > strawman argument when you write "If one allows that one should
          > reinterpret
          > > Scripture to fit in
          > > with "nature..." Moot point since that isn't the point -- I
          don't do
          > that.
          > > Please don't keep making this assertion. I wrote about this
          yesterday --
          > > Hugh (as I understand his perspective) reasons that nature is a
          credible
          > > revelation of God just as the bible is a credible revelation,
          hence
          > correct
          > > theology should contradict neither. What's so hard about that?
          > >
          > > As I wrote yesterday, we don't "reinterpret the bible to fit
          nature." See
          > > my post yesterday about that. Good point about the conscience,
          but it is
          > > pretty subjective when compared to the objective basis of the
          bible and
          > > revelation. The bible also speaks of men "searing their
          conscience" by
          > sin,
          > > and in the same way fallen men may falsely speculate from the true
          > > revelation of nature. The revelation isn't corrupt -- man's
          reasoning
          > from
          > > it is corrupt.
          > >
          > >
          > > Here is the key -- you wrote:
          > > "What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds
          that
          > > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is
          not. So we
          > > should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and properly
          inform
          > our
          > > consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen nature
          interpreted by
          > > fallen and fallible minds, or fallen consciences, to reinterpret
          > infallible
          > > and unfallen Scripture. "
          > >
          > > Your response to the "common, simple" error is actually nothing
          more that
          > > theological conjecture. Scripture does not say that nature is
          fallen.
          > > Apply the same critical analysis to this statement that you do
          about the
          > > phrase "revelation in nature" and you will see that "fallen
          nature" is the
          > > one that is not scriptural. Yes nature is severely affected by
          the fall.
          > > But nature has not been corrupted in the sense that it no longer
          is a true
          > > and reliable witness. That is absolutely ridiculous -- see my
          post
          > > yesterday. I know that Romans speaks of creation being subjected
          to
          > > futility, but it is inferred that Paul is speaking about the
          curse. He
          > > doesn't say *when* it was subjected. Maybe you are right, but
          please
          > > recognize that you are dealing with an interpretation and
          not "the bible".
          > > It is plausible that God subjected the creation to futility from
          the
          > > beginning, and yes He considered it "very good" because it was
          exactly
          > > according to His plan -- redemption, declaration of His glory to
          humanity
          > > and the heavenly hosts, and ultimately the putting away of evil
          and
          > > consummation of all rulers and authority (read SATAN and his
          fall) under
          > His
          > > kingdom.
          > >
          > > Why the distinction between fallen nature and unfallen
          scripture? It is
          > man
          > > that has fallen, not the revelation -- God still holds man
          accountable to
          > > both (or either), remember? You are creating a dichotomy between
          nature
          > and
          > > scripture that simply is not scriptural! It is your paradigm
          derived from
          > > what you think God meant by "very good." You may be right, but
          it is an
          > > *interpretation*.
          > >
          > > I'm sorry, but I think your perspicuity and propositional
          arguments are
          > > specious. Both revelations are clear to those who study them in
          the
          > correct
          > > context. Don't tell me that a person who doesn't put forth the
          effort to
          > > study scripture won't misinterpret the "clear reading of
          scripture" on
          > some
          > > points. Scientists and theologians alike study God's revelation
          to learn
          > > truth. There are theologians with false presuppositions and
          wrong motives
          > > just like there are scientists likewise. Both science and nature
          require
          > an
          > > "interpretive framework". Both are clear to those who dig in
          using the
          > > proper "interpretive framework," and people can be led astray by
          scholars
          > of
          > > both areas.
          > >
          > > Come on, this is a nice seminary textbook statement, but it is an
          > unfounded
          > > assertion. Impressive sounding but incorrect.
          > >
          > > Now, thanks for your time, but I've got to hurry off...
          > >
          > > Mark
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: jonathanstein_csec [mailto:x-evolutionist@m...]
          > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:11 PM
          > > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
          > > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
          nature
          > > vs "the bible"
          > >
          > >
          > > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
          > >
          > > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
          > > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
          > > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
          > >
          > > A: "but I recognize the erroneousness of positing that
          > > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its
          the
          > > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other words,
          its
          > > the words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in
          > > His creation."
          > >
          > > Read what the passages actually SAY. NONE of them say
          > > that "revelation in nature" (but in Ross-speak this means
          > > uniformitarian *interpretations* of nature) should overrule the
          > > Bible. Nor do they say that "general revelation" is sufficient to
          > > save. Rather, general revelation shows that there is a God who
          > > designed everything, but people by and large reject this so they
          are
          > > without excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.). Similarly, Romans 2 shows that
          > > people also have the witness of their own consciences, but again
          most
          > > people reject this revelation too.
          > >
          > > If one allows that one should reinterpret Scripture to fit in
          > > with "nature", then should we also reinterpret in the light
          > > of "conscience"? Plenty of people claim that their "consciences"
          say
          > > that women must have the "right" to have their unborn child
          butchered
          > > by taxpayer-funded hitmen (paraphrased to insert a note of
          accuracy
          > > into pro-abortion propaganda), so this must over-rule the clear
          > > Biblical testimony of the unborn child's humanity. Others
          earnestly
          > > claim that their homosexual relationship is so "loving" that they
          > > cannot in good conscience believe the Biblical teaching that
          > > homosexual acts are wrong. So they reinterpret Paul's teaching in
          > > Romans 1:27 as condemning only those with heterosexual orientation
          > > practising homosexual acts, not those who are homosexually
          oriented.
          > >
          > > What's the common error? Simple -- both nature (and our minds
          that
          > > interpret it) and consciences are *fallen*, but Scripture is
          not. So
          > > we should always use Scripture to interpret both nature and
          properly
          > > inform our consciences. It makes no sense at all to use fallen
          > > nature interpreted by fallen and fallible minds, or fallen
          > > consciences, to reinterpret infallible and unfallen Scripture.
          > >
          > > Also:
          > >
          > > * Scripture is *propositional*, nature is not, hence propositions
          > > must be formed according to an interpretive framework.
          > > * Scripture is *clear* (perspicuous), so can be interpreted using
          the
          > > grammatical-historical hermeneutic, without the need for either
          popes
          > > or scientists to explain what it "really" must mean. Nature is
          not
          > > so clear -- think how many proven "facts" of science have been
          > > overturned over the centuries.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., Adobero1@a... wrote:
          > > > In a message dated 1/30/02 8:43:52 AM Central Standard Time,
          > > > mark.whorton@m... writes:
          > > >
          > > > hi Mark ...
          > > >
          > > > Very Good!
          > > >
          > > > God did not reveal the "scriptures" in nature ... rather He
          reveals
          > > Himself
          > > > in nature along with the Holy Writ.
          > > >
          > > > Heck, I'm not a scientist but I recognize the erroneousness of
          > > positing that
          > > > nature should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Because its
          > > the
          > > > Scriptures that insist God is revealed in nature. In other
          words,
          > > its the
          > > > words found in Scripture that inisist God has been revealed in
          His
          > > creation.
          > > > The Bible lends credence to the testament of our universe.
          > > >
          > > > There are three witnesses testifying of God. 1) The Holy
          Spirit,
          > > 2) The
          > > > Cosmos, 3) The Biblical record. Does the Holy Spirit disparage
          > > the
          > > > testimony of the Cosmos or Biblical account ... absolutely not!
          > > Does the
          > > > Cosmos vilify the accounts of the Holy Spirit or that of
          > > Scripture ... again,
          > > > totally absurd. And finally, does the Holy Bible denounce the
          > > testimony that
          > > > nature gives concerning its Creator? No Way Jose'.
          > > >
          > > > The three stand shoulder to shoulder in their testimony ...
          > > concurring The
          > > > Magnificent One our Lord God. We should embrace the "Cosmostic
          > > Record" and
          > > > its revelation of its Creator ... in the same manner we embrace
          the
          > > verity of
          > > > "Scriptural Record."
          > > >
          > > > God has left them all three as a ... single testament of His
          > > Omnipotent Glory.
          > > >
          > > > blessings,
          > > > Sam
          > > >
          > > > << Come on Allen, Don't you see what you are saying? You
          > > contrast "alleged
          > > > observations of what he thinks he sees in nature" with "the
          > > bible". What
          > > > about alleged observations of what you think you see in the
          > > bible? You
          > > > speak of "the bible" as if there is no interpretative step
          > > involved there.
          > > > Don't you understand that God has revealed Himself "in many
          > > portions and in
          > > > many ways," (Heb. 1:1) and that theology as well as science are
          > > both
          > > > *interpretations* of revelation? We shouldn't speak of "the
          > > bible", but we
          > > > should speak of our theological models. It is pious and noble
          > > sounding to
          > > > say that your interpretation of the bible is superior to your
          > > interpretation
          > > > of nature, but that is simply fallacious. The Holy Spirit
          guides
          > > us into
          > > > *all* truth. "Seek and ye shall find." The redeemed mind is
          no
          > > less able
          > > > to factually reason from nature that it is from scripture.
          Nature
          > > isn't
          > > > "fallen" in the sense that it is partially true and partially
          > > false because
          > > > God uses it to reveal Himself. How could God hold men
          accountable
          > > to His
          > > > revelation if only parts of it were true (and you couldn't tell
          > > which parts
          > > > were true and which were false). Isn't that one of the
          reasons we
          > > believe
          > > > in inerrancy of scripture? Otherwise how could we be held
          > > accountable to
          > > > it's teachings?
          > > >
          > > > My point is let's "fit" what the bible teaches and what nature
          > > reveals
          > > > together into a consistent paradigm. God authored both and if
          > > there is a
          > > > conflict, then I am incorrectly interpreting one or the other.
          > > Don't assume
          > > > that the interpretation of scripture is the correct one because
          > > the church
          > > > has been there and (incorrectly) done that. That is exactly
          the
          > > premise of
          > > > your charge -- "properly mold interpretations of nature to fit
          the
          > > bible."
          > > > What if you incorrectly interpret "the bible"? Or what if
          there
          > > are
          > > > multiple admissible interpretations of "the bible"? Shouldn't
          you
          > > require
          > > > your interpration of "the bible" to consistently "fit"
          the "clear
          > > > revelation" of God in nature? Of course scientists
          misinterpret
          > > nature
          > > > (that is the nature of science -- to learn what is unknown
          through
          > > trial and
          > > > error) and many are driven to wrong conclusions by wrong
          > > philosophical
          > > > presuppositions (which is the point of Romans 1:21 - 23). But
          > > does that
          > > > mean that there is no "clear revelation" in nature? Of course
          not.
          > > > Otherwise God would be unjust in holding men accountable to the
          > > voice of
          > > > nature.
          > > >
          > > > Your argument is very emotionally appealing and will get
          > > some "amens" from
          > > > the congregation, but it is simply unfounded and incorrect.
          Let's
          > > try to
          > > > "properly mold" our interpretations of scripture and nature
          > > together into
          > > > the truth that God is revealing to us.
          > > >
          > > > In the Master's Service with you,
          > > > Mark >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
          > > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
          > > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
          > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Kyle Witten
          The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal library a book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a quote: There is a prejudice
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 5, 2002
            The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal library a
            book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a quote:

            "There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist, which I
            am anxious to remove. It has been said that thhey nurture infidel
            propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring to the
            origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it by the
            writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of the Bible,
            and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it unfolds.
            This is a false alarm. THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE ANTIQUITY
            OF THE GLOBE" [emphasis in original].

            Let me ask a question, Jonathan. What do you think about the above
            quote? Was it written by an anti-God scientist, or perhaps by a deluded
            believer who was "kowtowing" [to use Kurt's term] to evolutionary dogma?

            I eagerly await your reply.

            Kyle

            jonathanstein_csec wrote:

            > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
            >
            > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
            > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
            > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
          • Dr Allen J Dunckley
            Kyle, From this brief quote and not knowing the context in which it is found; also in its relationship to the whole topic or thrust of the book. It is not
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 5, 2002
              Kyle,

              From this brief quote and not knowing the context in which it is found; also
              in its relationship to the whole topic or thrust of the book. It is not
              clear which side of the fence the author is on. However, his statement that
              is included in the quote as, "THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE
              ANTIQUITY
              OF THE GLOBE" I take issue with. From it the writer reveals that he is not
              overly familiar with the details, especially of the Book of Genesis where
              with careful calculations one can arrive at a "fixed antiquity" of the
              globe, that is vastly less in age than the alleged "higher antiquity"
              expressed by geology. (All rocks "date" old; uuummmm????? Has anyone seen a
              "young rock?? What does a "young" rock look like?) God bless, till next
              time - - must go.

              In the Master's Service,
              Allen




              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Kyle Witten" <scienceapologetics@...>
              To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:16 PM
              Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature vs
              "the bible"


              > The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal library a
              > book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a quote:
              >
              > "There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist, which I
              > am anxious to remove. It has been said that thhey nurture infidel
              > propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring to the
              > origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it by the
              > writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of the Bible,
              > and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it unfolds.
              > This is a false alarm. THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE ANTIQUITY
              > OF THE GLOBE" [emphasis in original].
              >
              > Let me ask a question, Jonathan. What do you think about the above
              > quote? Was it written by an anti-God scientist, or perhaps by a deluded
              > believer who was "kowtowing" [to use Kurt's term] to evolutionary dogma?
              >
              > I eagerly await your reply.
              >
              > Kyle
              >
              > jonathanstein_csec wrote:
              >
              > > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
              > >
              > > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
              > > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
              > > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
              >
              >
              > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
              > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • Kyle Witten
              Allen, This quote was by Dr. Thomas Chalmers a minister of the Scottish Church. The quote in question was given at a message he delivered at the Church of St.
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 7, 2002
                Allen,

                This quote was by Dr. Thomas Chalmers a minister of the Scottish Church.
                The quote in question was given at a message he delivered at the Church
                of St. Andrews in 1804. I took the quote from "Testimony of the Rocks"
                by Hugh Miller (published 1857). You can find this quote in the
                opening paragraph of Lecture Three [The Two Records, Mosaic and
                Geological], which occurs on page 141 of the first edition of this text
                [from which I took the quote].

                I think that perhaps the most interesting part of the quote was the year
                in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim that this quote was not
                made in defference to evolution, because Darwin had not yet developed
                his theory of evolution. Dr. Chalmers made this statement simply
                because he believed that the words of Holy Scripture were reconciliable
                with an old-earth.

                Kyle

                Dr Allen J Dunckley wrote:

                > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2002 20:17:00
                > To: rtb_discussion_group@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                > nature vs "the bible"
                > From: Dr Allen J Dunckley <drallen31@...>
                >
                > Kyle,
                >
                > From this brief quote and not knowing the context in which it is found; also
                > in its relationship to the whole topic or thrust of the book. It is not
                > clear which side of the fence the author is on. However, his statement that
                > is included in the quote as, "THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE
                > ANTIQUITY
                > OF THE GLOBE" I take issue with. From it the writer reveals that he is not
                > overly familiar with the details, especially of the Book of Genesis where
                > with careful calculations one can arrive at a "fixed antiquity" of the
                > globe, that is vastly less in age than the alleged "higher antiquity"
                > expressed by geology. (All rocks "date" old; uuummmm????? Has anyone seen a
                > "young rock?? What does a "young" rock look like?) God bless, till next
                > time - - must go.
                >
                > In the Master's Service,
                > Allen
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Kyle Witten" <scienceapologetics@...>
                > To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:16 PM
                > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of nature vs
                > "the bible"
                >
                >
                >> The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal library a
                >> book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a quote:
                >>
                >> "There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist, which I
                >> am anxious to remove. It has been said that thhey nurture infidel
                >> propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring to the
                >> origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it by the
                >> writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of the Bible,
                >> and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it unfolds.
                >> This is a false alarm. THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE ANTIQUITY
                >> OF THE GLOBE" [emphasis in original].
                >>
                >> Let me ask a question, Jonathan. What do you think about the above
                >> quote? Was it written by an anti-God scientist, or perhaps by a deluded
                >> believer who was "kowtowing" [to use Kurt's term] to evolutionary dogma?
                >>
                >> I eagerly await your reply.
                >>
                >> Kyle
                >>
                >> jonathanstein_csec wrote:
                >>
                >> > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
                >> >
                >> > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
                >> > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
                >> > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
                >>
                >>
                >> Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                >> to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
              • jonathanstein_csec
                Kyle Witten sez: I think that perhaps the most interesting part of the quote was the year in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim that this quote was
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 11, 2002
                  Kyle Witten sez: "I think that perhaps the most interesting part of
                  the quote was the year in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim
                  that this quote was not made in defference to evolution, because
                  Darwin had not yet developed his theory of evolution. Dr. Chalmers
                  made this statement simply because he believed that the words of Holy
                  Scripture were reconciliable with an old-earth."

                  It's a pity that Kyle doesn't reject uniformitarian biases in geology
                  as he apparently does in biology. This date is AFTER the deist Hutton
                  persuaded many that "science" proved that the earth was far older
                  than the Bible indicated. From Hutton, J., Theory of the Earth with
                  Proof and Illustrations; cited in A. Holmes, A., Principles of
                  Physical Geology, 2nd edition, 1965, pp. 43–44, cited at
                  www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/hutton.asp:

                  "In 1795, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, `the
                  father of modern geology', proclaimed: `the past history of our globe
                  must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers
                  are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be
                  admitted except those of which we know the principle' (emphasis
                  added) — uniformitarianism. This is a not a refutation of biblical
                  teaching of Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to
                  consider them as even possible explanations."

                  Chalmers was one of the first to propose the erroneous "gap theory",
                  again motivated by trying to fit God's infallible Word into fallible
                  uniformitarian "science" -- see refutations
                  www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#gap

                  It's significant that these long-age ideas weren't even thought of
                  till people tried to fit the Bible into "science". Before Hutton
                  and Lyell, most authorities thought the earth was only thousands of
                  years old -- see Which is the recent aberration? Old-Earth or Young-
                  Earth Belief?
                  www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/date_of_creation.asp



                  --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten"
                  <scienceapologetics@y...> wrote:
                  > Allen,
                  >
                  > This quote was by Dr. Thomas Chalmers a minister of the Scottish
                  Church.
                  > The quote in question was given at a message he delivered at the
                  Church
                  > of St. Andrews in 1804. I took the quote from "Testimony of the
                  Rocks"
                  > by Hugh Miller (published 1857). You can find this quote in the
                  > opening paragraph of Lecture Three [The Two Records, Mosaic and
                  > Geological], which occurs on page 141 of the first edition of this
                  text
                  > [from which I took the quote].
                  >
                  > I think that perhaps the most interesting part of the quote was the
                  year
                  > in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim that this quote was
                  not
                  > made in defference to evolution, because Darwin had not yet
                  developed
                  > his theory of evolution. Dr. Chalmers made this statement simply
                  > because he believed that the words of Holy Scripture were
                  reconciliable
                  > with an old-earth.
                  >
                  > Kyle
                  >
                  > Dr Allen J Dunckley wrote:
                  >
                  > > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2002 20:17:00
                  > > To: rtb_discussion_group@y...
                  > > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                  > > nature vs "the bible"
                  > > From: Dr Allen J Dunckley <drallen31@h...>
                  > >
                  > > Kyle,
                  > >
                  > > From this brief quote and not knowing the context in which it is
                  found; also
                  > > in its relationship to the whole topic or thrust of the book. It
                  is not
                  > > clear which side of the fence the author is on. However, his
                  statement that
                  > > is included in the quote as, "THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX
                  THE
                  > > ANTIQUITY
                  > > OF THE GLOBE" I take issue with. From it the writer reveals
                  that he is not
                  > > overly familiar with the details, especially of the Book of
                  Genesis where
                  > > with careful calculations one can arrive at a "fixed antiquity"
                  of the
                  > > globe, that is vastly less in age than the alleged "higher
                  antiquity"
                  > > expressed by geology. (All rocks "date" old; uuummmm????? Has
                  anyone seen a
                  > > "young rock?? What does a "young" rock look like?) God bless,
                  till next
                  > > time - - must go.
                  > >
                  > > In the Master's Service,
                  > > Allen
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: "Kyle Witten" <scienceapologetics@y...>
                  > > To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@y...>
                  > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:16 PM
                  > > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                  nature vs
                  > > "the bible"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >> The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal
                  library a
                  > >> book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a
                  quote:
                  > >>
                  > >> "There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist,
                  which I
                  > >> am anxious to remove. It has been said that thhey nurture
                  infidel
                  > >> propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring to
                  the
                  > >> origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it
                  by the
                  > >> writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of
                  the Bible,
                  > >> and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it
                  unfolds.
                  > >> This is a false alarm. THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE
                  ANTIQUITY
                  > >> OF THE GLOBE" [emphasis in original].
                  > >>
                  > >> Let me ask a question, Jonathan. What do you think about the
                  above
                  > >> quote? Was it written by an anti-God scientist, or perhaps by a
                  deluded
                  > >> believer who was "kowtowing" [to use Kurt's term] to
                  evolutionary dogma?
                  > >>
                  > >> I eagerly await your reply.
                  > >>
                  > >> Kyle
                  > >>
                  > >> jonathanstein_csec wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
                  > >> >
                  > >> > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
                  > >> > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
                  > >> > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                  > >> to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                  > > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                • Kyle Witten
                  Jonathan, I have to inquire as what Hutton s theory of uniformitarianism has to do with the Chalmer s quote. You yourself state that Chalmers was a Gap
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 13, 2002
                    Jonathan, I have to inquire as what Hutton's theory of uniformitarianism
                    has to do with the Chalmer's quote. You yourself state that Chalmers
                    was a Gap Theorist, a theory which is incompatable with
                    uniformitarianism. The Gap Theory finds its roots, not in the
                    uniformitarian theory of Hutton, but in the Catastrophism of Baron
                    Georges Cuvier [1769-1832].

                    As I am sure you will recall, Baron Cuvier's theory was an OEC theory
                    and pre-dated Hutton's theory. Also, as I am sure you will further
                    recall, Cuvier's theory was itself based in part on the Neptunian theory
                    of Abraham Gottlob Werner [1749-1817].

                    Also we shouldn't forget the contributions to the development of
                    old-earth geology by such noted creationists as [note: all names are
                    taken from either ICR or AIG's websites and are identified as Christians
                    on these sites]:

                    Nicolas Steno
                    Louis Agassiz
                    Adam Sedgewick
                    Roderich Murchison
                    William Coneybeare

                    Kyle

                    jonathanstein_csec wrote:

                    > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2002 13:12:00
                    > To: rtb_discussion_group@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                    > nature vs "the bible"
                    > From: jonathanstein_csec <x-evolutionist@...>
                    >
                    > Kyle Witten sez [sic]: "I think that perhaps the most interesting part of
                    > the quote was the year in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim
                    > that this quote was not made in defference to evolution, because
                    > Darwin had not yet developed his theory of evolution. Dr. Chalmers
                    > made this statement simply because he believed that the words of Holy
                    > Scripture were reconciliable with an old-earth."
                    >
                    > It's a pity that Kyle doesn't reject uniformitarian biases in geology
                    > as he apparently does in biology. This date is AFTER the deist Hutton
                    > persuaded many that "science" proved that the earth was far older
                    > than the Bible indicated. From Hutton, J., Theory of the Earth with
                    > Proof and Illustrations; cited in A. Holmes, A., Principles of
                    > Physical Geology, 2nd edition, 1965, pp. 43–44, cited at
                    > www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/hutton.asp:
                    >
                    > "In 1795, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, `the
                    > father of modern geology', proclaimed: `the past history of our globe
                    > must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers
                    > are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be
                    > admitted except those of which we know the principle' (emphasis
                    > added) — uniformitarianism. This is a not a refutation of biblical
                    > teaching of Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to
                    > consider them as even possible explanations."
                    >
                    > Chalmers was one of the first to propose the erroneous "gap theory",
                    > again motivated by trying to fit God's infallible Word into fallible
                    > uniformitarian "science" -- see refutations
                    > www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#gap
                    >
                    > It's significant that these long-age ideas weren't even thought of
                    > till people tried to fit the Bible into "science". Before Hutton
                    > and Lyell, most authorities thought the earth was only thousands of
                    > years old -- see Which is the recent aberration? Old-Earth or Young-
                    > Earth Belief?
                    > www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/date_of_creation.asp
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten"
                    > <scienceapologetics@y...> wrote:
                    >> Allen,
                    >>
                    >> This quote was by Dr. Thomas Chalmers a minister of the Scottish
                    > Church.
                    >> The quote in question was given at a message he delivered at the
                    > Church
                    >> of St. Andrews in 1804. I took the quote from "Testimony of the
                    > Rocks"
                    >> by Hugh Miller (published 1857). You can find this quote in the
                    >> opening paragraph of Lecture Three [The Two Records, Mosaic and
                    >> Geological], which occurs on page 141 of the first edition of this
                    > text
                    >> [from which I took the quote].
                    >>
                    >> I think that perhaps the most interesting part of the quote was the
                    > year
                    >> in which it was made--1804. Once cannot claim that this quote was
                    > not
                    >> made in defference to evolution, because Darwin had not yet
                    > developed
                    >> his theory of evolution. Dr. Chalmers made this statement simply
                    >> because he believed that the words of Holy Scripture were
                    > reconciliable
                    >> with an old-earth.
                    >>
                    >> Kyle
                    >>
                    >> Dr Allen J Dunckley wrote:
                    >>
                    >> > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2002 20:17:00
                    >> > To: rtb_discussion_group@y...
                    >> > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                    >> > nature vs "the bible"
                    >> > From: Dr Allen J Dunckley <drallen31@h...>
                    >> >
                    >> > Kyle,
                    >> >
                    >> > From this brief quote and not knowing the context in which it is
                    > found; also
                    >> > in its relationship to the whole topic or thrust of the book. It
                    > is not
                    >> > clear which side of the fence the author is on. However, his
                    > statement that
                    >> > is included in the quote as, "THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX
                    > THE
                    >> > ANTIQUITY
                    >> > OF THE GLOBE" I take issue with. From it the writer reveals
                    > that he is not
                    >> > overly familiar with the details, especially of the Book of
                    > Genesis where
                    >> > with careful calculations one can arrive at a "fixed antiquity"
                    > of the
                    >> > globe, that is vastly less in age than the alleged "higher
                    > antiquity"
                    >> > expressed by geology. (All rocks "date" old; uuummmm????? Has
                    > anyone seen a
                    >> > "young rock?? What does a "young" rock look like?) God bless,
                    > till next
                    >> > time - - must go.
                    >> >
                    >> > In the Master's Service,
                    >> > Allen
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > ----- Original Message -----
                    >> > From: "Kyle Witten" <scienceapologetics@y...>
                    >> > To: <RTB_Discussion_Group@y...>
                    >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:16 PM
                    >> > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] "alleged interpretations" of
                    > nature vs
                    >> > "the bible"
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >> The other day I had the opportunity to add to my personal
                    > library a
                    >> >> book that I have found very interesting. In it we find a
                    > quote:
                    >> >>
                    >> >> "There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist,
                    > which I
                    >> >> am anxious to remove. It has been said that thhey nurture
                    > infidel
                    >> >> propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring to
                    > the
                    >> >> origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it
                    > by the
                    >> >> writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of
                    > the Bible,
                    >> >> and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it
                    > unfolds.
                    >> >> This is a false alarm. THE WRITINGS OF MOSES DO NOT FIX THE
                    > ANTIQUITY
                    >> >> OF THE GLOBE" [emphasis in original].
                    >> >>
                    >> >> Let me ask a question, Jonathan. What do you think about the
                    > above
                    >> >> quote? Was it written by an anti-God scientist, or perhaps by a
                    > deluded
                    >> >> believer who was "kowtowing" [to use Kurt's term] to
                    > evolutionary dogma?
                    >> >>
                    >> >> I eagerly await your reply.
                    >> >>
                    >> >> Kyle
                    >> >>
                    >> >> jonathanstein_csec wrote:
                    >> >>
                    >> >> > Adobero writes: "Heck, I'm not a scientist ..."
                    >> >> >
                    >> >> > But you seem all to willing to accept the words of anti-God
                    >> >> > scientists who promote evolution/billions of years, but ignore
                    >> >> > equally qualified scientists who disagree ...
                    >> >>
                    >> >>
                    >> >> Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                    >> >> to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                    >> >>
                    >> >>
                    >> >>
                    >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >> >>
                    >> >>
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                    >> > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >> >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                    > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.