--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/9/99 10:54:23 am
re: Data and Philosophy
Doy,
I appreciate very much your point concerning data and interpretation.
Facts of nature and facts of the Bible can never contradict, unless
of course one or the other is not true. That is the fundamental tension
of apologetics, isn't it? You are exactly correct in noting that interpretations
of the Bible (religions) and interpretations of nature (science)
may contradict, and I believe this is nearly always because of philosophical
presuppositions. [Sometimes it is because not all the relevant data is
known. Only a fool claims absolute knowledge.] As anyone who has
attended any of our lectures knows, I go to extreme lengths in the
workshops we teach to make sure we emphasize this same point. I center
every presentation of my workshops around this point. "Here is the
data; here are two interpretations. Which do you find more reasonable
to believe?" I am not confusing data with interpretation. I am asking that
those who wish to change my interpretation of the data do so, not
by pointing out it is my interpretation, but rather by taking the
same physical data (which is documented by links in above posts of mine
and David's responses) and offering a better interpretation of that
same data (as in "more reasonable" to me, since that's who you are
trying to convince).
Mostly what is going on in this so far is akin to an experience I suppose
we can all identify with. You are studying with someone concerning
the necessity of baptism. You cite all the relevant passages (the data).
They respond "Well, that's just your interpretation." Which of course is
exactly correct, but you believe it to be the correct interpretation
consistent with certain established laws of interpreting such data
(passages). So you try again. You try to educate them better in their skills
of how to interpret such data. You go back over the same passages.
You introduce additional supporting passages. You show how it all
fits together from many different perspectives and contexts. They again
say its just your interpretation. Until one of two things happens
you are at an impasse.
Either:
1) you acknowledge that since it's just your interpretation then it
is okay for them to interpret the passages differently (my experience
is that their "interpretation" is usually to just ignore the passages,
or at least it seems that way to me.)
or
2) the other acknowledges that the passages must be incorporated into
a rational interpretation consistent with all relevant passages (i.e.,
the whole of Scripture).
Failing to reach one or the other ends hope of getting any further.
Accepting 1) is unacceptable to you. Accepting 2) is usually unacceptable
to the other.
So while it is a valid charge that my interpretation is "just my interpretation"
(actually a "few" other folks share this ancient earth view), accepting
resolution approach (1) is unacceptable to me. I do not acknowledge
that "it is just my interpretation" frees one to hold interpretations contradicted
by data. (But of course contradiction itself is a matter of interpretation.
All human understanding is interpretive whether considering scripture
or nature.) So I encourage anyone to offer alternate interpretations of
the physical data. Then we will be making some progress.
Secondly: regarding your point that any geological view that doesn't
incorporate Genesis 1 is only playing with part of the data. Obviously
correct again. That of course is why I am a creationist in the first place.
I incorporate Genesis 1 - and the rest of Scripture - into my interpretation
of the physical data. Without the grace of Genesis (the Bible), I
probably wouldn't be a creationist. Likewise any Genesis interpretation
of creation that fails to incorporate the physical data in the creation
is equally suspect if it presumes to extrapolate, without the benefit
of physical data, beyond the limited and simple statements of Genesis 1.
As to your point to David concerning dogmatism, I agree. This is obviously
an area where much continued study is needed among brethren. However,
providing overwhelming evidence, such as David points to in his links,
and I on my web page, is not dogmatism. It is attempting to help others
see the massive volume of physical evidence that must be countered
by potentially valid alternative explanations of that data. Also
this should help evangelists better appreciate the magnitude of the challenge
before them if they wish to evangelize a world well educated concerning
such data. Unfortunately, the evangelist's job is a lot harder now
than it used to be, because there is simply a lot more data. I am trying
to help Christians be better equipped, even if you disagree with
my interpretations, understand what you are going to be facing when
evangelizing those that share similar views as I and others have concerning
the age of the earth. Look at it like this, you can use me to sharpen
your saw (in Steve Covey terms).
Remember, I am not trying to convert anyone to a religious belief that
the universe is ancient, rather my view is that whether you believe
it to be young or old doesn't matter with respect to your relationship
in Christ.* I happen to believe it is old on purely scientific grounds.
I believe scripture can be understood consistently with that view.
I do strongly believe that we shouldn't be teaching our young people that
they must believe its young in order to accept the Bible as truth.
Or even planting seeds of suspicion in their minds over this issue.
THAT dogmatism is a very hazardous slope for their faith, and the unity
of brethren. I very much appreciate your "agnostic" position, I think
that is probably the best bet for most folks - simply acknowledge
that one might not know. However, a caution, don't let that become the
dogma itself. If another brother does think he knows (whether young
or old) he should not be viewed with suspicion simply for that greater
certainty. Maybe he has more complete data or a better understanding than
another. The time agnostic has three choices: 1) maintain his agnosticism
without looking any further, 2) show all the interpretations of the
data to be wrong, thus moving to informed agnosticism, 3) accept an interpretation
of the data, therefore no longer being an agnostic. I am of the latter,
though not so dogmatically so that I'm not willing to evaluate alternate
interpretations I've not previously considered. My door is open.
* I do believe it makes a difference in how effectively one can evangelize
with the gospel in certain communities well versed in science.
Sincerely,
Hill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/12/99 10:15:22 am
A troubling statement
Hill:
Again, I appreciate the tone of your replies, and I don't really disagree
with the bulk of what you said in the last reponse. I am glad that
the clarification between data and interpretation is made. There are a
couple of points I'd like to respond to.
1. I am troubled by the statement you made: "Without the grace of Genesis
(the Bible), I probably wouldn't be a creationist." I would ask for
some clarification here. You argue strongly that the evidence from
nature points to the Creator, etc., as Romans 1 or Psalm 119 would tell
us to look at such evidence. I agree with this, of course. But then
to say that you probably would not be a creationist were it not for
Genesis and the Bible, seems to me to be contradicting the very premise
that nature "argues" for a Creator. In other words, natural revelation
is sufficient to point to a Creator, and people are without excuse for
not believing it (isn't that what Romans 1 says?). But you seem to
be saying that creation is not sufficient to point to a Creator,
since you would not be a creationist if the special revelation (the Bible)
were not here. That is troubling to me. Could you clarify that?
2. The analogy on Baptism and interpretation is not exactly on par
with the age of the earth interpretations. The doctrine of baptism
is a plainly stated doctrine, and while interpretation plays a role,
obviously, it is not the same type of interpretive matter that is required
in the age of the earth discussion. The evidence in the age of the
earth is not "dug up" or seen with explanations attached to them, stating
their age, etc. We are the ones supplying all of that through our interpretations.
Baptism, on the other hand, has the explanations there (and it is
the explanations themselves we are interpreting). So I see a difference
in the "type" or "degree" of interpretive process. The parallel, in my
mind, is not a very compelling one. With baptism, we are given all
the data by God. With "age," we have to discover the data, and then
admit that we may not indeed have all the data, which should (I think)
affect how dogmatic we can be in our interpretations.
brotherly,
Doy Moyer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/12/99 12:07:08 pm
A troubling statement
Doy,
Yes, I likewise think things are proceeding in a beneficial manner
among all.
Concerning the "troubling statement": I suspected this would
raise such a question in some minds. I merely mean it in a probablistic
sense. I certainly believe the physical evidence of a creator is
overwhelming and leaves anyone who does not see it for that "without
excuse." It has proven itself to be powerful, even opening the door to
some measure of faith among men such as Einstein, Eddington and a
host of others. However, the naturalistic influences in the sciences
are strong and becoming more militant, even as a minority voice. In so
doing they seem to be winning the battle -- in at least a local here-and-now
sense. Odds are I would, if to follow the path of most of my peers,
not be able to accept the truth of God's existence through eyes blinded
by naturalism. In other words, "There, but for the grace of God,
go I." I don't think this is just because I'm a scientist, but more
because I live in America at the close of the 20th century. I believe God
has been gracious to me, as well as all others so blessed with faithful
parents, cheap Bibles, sound Bible teaching and loving brethren, in
that I do not have to depend solely on natural data. I have His Word. This
is a blessing, the magnitude of which, I cannot begin to appreciate.
As to your second objection concerning my analogy between teaching
baptism and these issues: You are exactly correct, they are not comparable
-- from our perspective. But for exactly the reasons you noted concerning
baptism, they are 100% comparable from the perspective of one who doesn't
think baptism is clear, direct and obvious, and the one who doesn't
think young earth evidence is clear, direct and obvious. If they
thought it was clear, direct and obvious you probably wouldn't be having
the discussion in the first place. They would already have done it.
Sincerely,
Hill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/12/99 1:18:10 pm
clarification
Brother Roberts:
Thank you for clarifying that statement. I now understand you to be
saying that, given the climate of the modern age, were it not for
the Bible, you would probably run with the "blinded" crowd and accept
naturalism "without question," which, of course, would be a detriment to
your honesty.
On the second matter, I'm not sure you got the impact of my point.
I was saying that baptism has both "evidence" and "explanation" given
to us in the Bible. That's what we deal with when we are talking to
non-Christians, or those who don't accept the significance of baptism.
The "age" issue has evidence, but explanation is supplied by "reading
between the lines" so to speak, not by direct revelation from God. So I
see the two issues as distinct types of interpretive methods. I would view
the age issue more along the lines as something like the "war question"
in the Bible, something that is "open to debate" in that all of the
information we might like to have is not given, so we argue from inferences,
etc. (which may or not be necessary). (Having said that, I do have
a position on that, but am not dogmatic in the same way I am about
baptism.) I do not fault you for taking a strong postion on the age of
the earth. My key point in this string was simply to have you acknowledge
that distinction between evidence and interpretation, which you have
done. Thus, instead of mixing fact with interpretation (e.g., plate tectonics
says that the earth is billions of years old), it is a wiser statement
to distinguish them (e.g., plate tectonics is evidence which leads
you to conclude that the earth is old, etc.) That may seem like "splitting
hairs," but I think the two statements are completely different,
and allows for a fairer discussion because it acknowledges that interpretation
is where the argument lies, not in the evidence itself (without our explanations
attached to it).
Again, thanks for the clarification.
Doy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/13/99 10:15:08 am
clarification
Doy,
(This response is really getting into the nit-picky weeds, probably
doesn't matter to anyone but Doy and I.)
Let me see if I understand your remaining concern. You're saying that
my choice of trying to teach someone about baptism was a poor analogy
because baptism is not only a Bible topic (as is creation time) but
is well and fully expounded by the Bible itself. A better comparison to
the age question I could have chosen might be the war issue because,
while clearly it's a Bible topic, it is not nearly so well and clearly
explained as is baptism (if the war issue is explained at all).
If I have that right, I agree that, as you and I understand baptism
in contrast to the war issue, baptism is much, much, much clearer,
because it is so well explained. However, that is not MY point in the analogy
at all -- an admittedly imperfect analogy. Let me try to show better
what I mean.
My point is that for the person who did not already accept mine and
your "interpretation" concerning baptism, the dissimilarity obvious
to you and me between baptism and the war issue would not be at all
obvious to them. It should be, but it wouldn't be.
For example (I'm writing here as if I were someone else - these are
NOT representative of my beliefs), a disputant might believe that
concerning baptism there are only a dozen or so passages that deal with
it and all from the NT, while as to the war issue, the whole of OT
history is germane. Hence the war issue is much more fully explained
and illustrated by the thousands, in addition to the specific commands
in the Pentateuch concerning killing. This is contrasted with a handful
of NT passages spanning only a few years of cultural practice. In
short, you and I would both be very frustrated, and at an impasse with
this student, as I mentioned in my prior post. Be that as it may,
until we can find a common ground of mutually accepted evidence to
build from, we would be at that impasse with them over these differing
interpretations concerning the necessity of baptism. So it is not
a foregone conclusion that everyone is going to see baptism as clearly
explained, but understand the war issue is not so clear. In fact I chose
a straight-forward thing like baptism on purpose, for just this reason.
The clarity of the young earth interpretation seems to be on a par
with baptism in the minds of many of our brethren. In their minds, it's
so clear as to be indisputable, and one who rejects a young earth is not
far from rejecting baptism and the whole of scripture. I think this
is not the case with you, or else you would not have suggested the war
issue as a better analogy.
One who is of the ancient earth view, might believe that while baptism
is clearly and soundly taught in the NT, it is "only" known by written
revelation in a few pages of inspired text, whereas the ancient earth is
spoken to by literally trillions of trillions of tons of hard, physical
data from the time of creation to now. The multiplicity of independent
testimonies in the Divine creation record itself far exceeds the singularities
of Divine testimony in the inspired word. (This doesn't reflect the
relative significance of these two issues, only the weight of attestation.)
So when anyone convinced that the young earth view is absolutely,
positively obvious (as with baptism) tries to "convert" an ancient earther,
or vice versa, it does very little good to tell the ones of opposite
view that it is "just their interpretation" that the earth is old or young.
My point in all this is simply that until one can understand, comprehend
and appreciate the position of the other in these matters, very little
progress can be made. Resorting to "it's just your interpretation" (or
metaphysics) doesn't help toward that end. It reassures the ones who already
hold the "preferred" interpretation, but as a method of persuasion
such is almost useless. Trying to find a common starting ground will
help. Isn't this sort of just common sense?
For practically any ancient earth believer you feel you must engage,
that common ground is going to be the physical data itself. It's
tough, as Allan has already noted, really tough. But that is no reason
to avoid it, just because it's hard. It was also tough for us to
learn something so arcane as Greek and Hebrew, but to really get
into the meaning of the texts it's necessary. And I didn't always trust
what the "scholars" in those disciplines were telling me - many of
them have presuppositions nothing like mine. But the more I learned
of those disciplines, the more I came to realize that usually the Greek
and Hebrew scholars really did have something for me to learn, and
still do. It was well worth the effort. If for no other reason it was
worth it because now I have at least some measure of common ground with
other brothers who put in that huge effort to learn to read the Bible
in the original languages in order to better reach the lost.
So I am very glad to see that now these discussions are beginning to
deal with some of the data, albeit somewhat one-sidely. It sure was
hard getting here. I've enjoyed these discussions with you very much.
Sincerely,
Hill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/13/99 2:19:53 pm
clarification
Hill:
I understand your point. My point was simply to say that something
like baptism is both taught and explained (both of which must be
interpreted, I grant). In other words, all we need is right there in "black
and white," given by direct revelation of God. I see a difference between
that and something like the age issue, which involves looking at
the data (which may be incomplete), and then having to come up with OUR
explanations, which are not given in "black and white." That's really my
only point on that analogy. Enough of that.
I am more of a philosopher than a scientist. However, I've studied
enough philosophy to know that science itself is based on philosophy
(the first scientists were more philosophers than anything). There is
"philosophy of science" involved in the practice of science, which I know
you admit and understand completely. I only bring this up to say
that I don't think the discussion which has focused on this philosophical
"rhetoric" is a waste of time. In fact, I think it is necessary so that
there can be a more objective look at the evidence itself (which
is extremely difficult to do, I'm sure you'll admit). So I appreciate
you engaging us at this level.
I am not a hard-liner on the age of the earth. I never have been, though
I have leaned to the younger earth side of things. I am always open
to change my mind, if I am so convinced that the evidence demands
that of me. I have not been so convinced to this point. But please do not
take that to mean that I have not looked at the evidence, or that
I'm being dishonest with the evidence. I have read quite a bit relative
to this issue, including a recent reading of Ross's book. Frankly, I think
both sides can, at times, overstate the case and go further in the
relative positions than is warranted.
Looking at what I have seen written in this discussion, I want to note
two things: 1. I can see you are frustrated because you feel that
no one has touched the evidence you know is there. Allan and I do
not believe that it is about the data itself, but the interpretation of
the data. We have not offered alternate explanations for all the
data, but, of course, this does not mean it does not exist. Equally
qualified men (scientifically speaking, that is) have offered explanations.
You have chosen to reject it because you think the other is more
reasonable. That's fine. But at least admit that the interpretations are
there. 2. On the other hand, Allan has become frustrated (and so
have I, to an extent) because "rhetorical" arguments have been made
that the other side has not touched, but rather has seemed to whisk it
all away as being irrelevant and too philosophical. For example,
Allan has appealed to the flood (which is not philosophical, but
a historical event), and I have appealed to the need for any geological
data to include Genesis, and it seems these points are simply not
given credibility. I don't understand why these points are not vital
to the understanding of the issue. How can we claim to be Bible believers
if we do not factor these matters into an issue like this?
I understand that from your point of view, the evidence is so overwhelming
that it is inconceivable to think that the earth is young. I respect
your position as a scientist and hope that you will continue as a scientist
to try to persuade those of your peers to accept the Bible. I do have a
couple of questions to ask in this regard (for the purpose of a better
understanding on my part):
a. Since you seem to imply that there is no geological evidence of
the flood of Gen. 6, how would you convince a modern scientist that
he should believe that it occurred, as the Bible says? In other words,
if you were teaching a peer, and he was struggling with the flood
as a stumbling block, what would you tell him? Why should he accept
that data if he sees no geological evidence for it? If it comes down to
"because the Bible says," how is that different from a YEC who argues
the same relative to how God created everything in 6 literal days
just a few thousand years ago? And how does 2 Pet. 3:5-7 factor into this
(i.e., is there, or is there not an indication that the flood "changed"
things, and that people should know this)?
b. I would like to see your explanation of Genesis. I have not completely
combed through your website, and it may be there. But could you provide
the link if it is there? If not, can you give a basic explanation of
Genesis 1 that fits the ancient earth view? (If it is the same as Ross,
you can just say so and save some time). Now, I ask this only because
I'm not sure of your particular view. I've read many views, and I'm sure
your view will fit one of them (unless you have a unique position?).
Ok, that's more than a couple questions. Ha. Brother Roberts, please
know that I am not an antagonist. I accept you as my brother, but
am simply trying to understand these issues better. I would love to sit
and discuss these matters. And let me say this about bro. Turner.
I know him pretty well, and he is pretty good at making a case. I
have not always agreed with him on conclusions, but I respect his ability
to argue a point. He and I have sat together for many hours arguing
and debating many issues. Don't mistake his "full court press" for
a lack of love and respect.
Well that paragraph is for the sake of peace. And now that I'm rambling,
I'll stop. Thanks for the responses.
Brotherly,
Doy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/13/99 6:32:20 pm
Re: clarification
Hello Doy,
I will provide some answers to the questions you have presented to
Hill about Genesis and the flood as they relate to the geology of
the Earth.
The following are my own answers. I do not present these answers as
either complete or reliable. Anyone may accept or reject anything
I say without fear of offending me as I make no claims about the perfection
of my own understanding of the Bible.
You ask the following question:
1. Concerning Allan's appeal to the flood as an explanation of earth's
geology, you ask: "I don't understand why these points are not vital
to the understanding of the issue. How can we claim to be Bible believers
if we do not factor these matters into an issue like this?"
As a Christian I am not compelled to factor the flood into the geology
of the Earth. The Bible makes no claim that the flood explains any
geological feature of the Middle East or anywhere else on earth.
2. "Since you seem to imply that there is no geological evidence of
the flood of Gen. 6, how would you convince a modern scientist that
he should believe that it occurred, as the Bible says?"
Effective arguments on behalf of the flood require substantial evidence
to support the argument. If a scientists or anyone else demanded
evidence of Noah's flood, the only honest and effective answer is that
no evidence exist. Even the proponents of flood geology are ambiguous in
their identification of supposed flood strata.
Christians ought to assume that prospective converts will subject any
teaching to critical examination. Only a reckless Christian would
make a claim about evidence which would fail. Wise Christians would avoid
making claims about evidence which could potentially fail.
For that reason, I would not make proof of Noah's flood a crucial topic
when attempting to convert anyone. Not only would disputes about
the validity of flood evidence distract from the gospel, the failure of
the evidence might prevent conversion altogether.
3.
4. Your next two questions: "In other words, if you were teaching
a peer, and he was struggling with the flood as a stumbling block,
what would you tell him? Why should he accept that data if he sees no
geological evidence for it?"
If the flood became a stumbling block to conversion, I would much rather
sacrifice the flood than the soul of the potential convert. I would
never demand that anyone accept anything without evidence, nor would I
ever convince anyone of anything without substantial, defensible evidence.
5. "If it comes down to "because the Bible says," how is that different
from a YEC who argues the same relative to how God created everything
in 6 literal days just a few thousand years ago?"
I would never conclude an argument by insisting on the truth of my
position based upon the claim that my position represented the Bible's
teachings. Christians ought to keep in mind that what the Bible says is
limited to the text of the Bible itself, all interpretations of the text
necessarily go beyond the text. Alternative interpretations do exist,
whether we reject these interpretations or not. Potential converts are
sophisticated enough to distinguish between the Bible's text, what we say
about the text, and alternative interpretations of the text. For
that reason, "the Bible says..." is seldom effective.
The merits of young earth creationism are independent of the merits
of Noah's flood. A distinction exist between the Bible's account
of Noah's flood and the modern concept of flood geology, just as a distiction
exist between the Bible's account of creation and the more ancient concept
of young earth creationism.
6. "And how does 2 Pet. 3:5-7 factor into this (i.e., is there, or
is there not an indication that the flood "changed" things, and that
people should know this)?"
2 Peter 3:5-6 states, "For this they willingly forget: that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished,
being flooded with water."
Peter makes no claim regarding the flood's impact upon earth's geology.
No scripture indicates or implies that the flood made any profound
changes to the earth.
7. "I would like to see your explanation of Genesis. I have not completely
combed through your website, and it may be there. But could you provide
the link if it is there? If not, can you give a basic explanation of
Genesis 1 that fits the ancient earth view?"
I feel no responsibility for creating or defending any ancient earth
interpretation of Genesis. I believe that the age of the Universe
and the interpretation of Genesis are two separate issues.
What I know is that from a historical standpoint, alternatives to the
literal interpretation have existed from ancient (pre-Christian)
times. Vocal proponents of these alternative interpretations have existed
among both Jews and Christians.
A strictly literal interpretation of Genesis does not lead to any knowledge
of the Universe's age. Young Earth advocates are ambiguous about
the age of the Earth as they have rejected Archbishop Ussher's chronology
and cannot find any more acceptable date for the creation. For that reason,
young earth creationists are extremely vague about the age of the
Universe.
The creation certainly did not occur in 4004 B.C. -- Egyptian and Babylonian
history prevent that early a date for the creation. Nor is there
any reason to suppose that any date under 10,000 (years old) would
succeed, as archeaology has revealed prehistoric civilization prior to
8000 B.C.
Once the Universe's age has exceeded 10,000 years, the literal interpretation
becomes problematic. What I am suggesting is that if the Universe
is at least 10,000 years old, the literal interpretation is already in
trouble.
Modification of the literal interpretation to allow a Universe of (say)
15,000 years is not substantially different from the modifications
required to allow a Universe of 15 billion years. For that reason, a Christian
intent upon demonstrating the failure of the literal interpretation merely
has to prove that the Universe is at least 10,000 years old.
I am confident that no proponent of the young earth will defend that
proposition that the Universe is at most 6000 years old, and have
reason to believe that no proponent of the young earth will defend the
proposition that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
For that reason, when someone claims to defend the young earth doctrine,
I cannot help but wonder exactly what they are defending. Lacking
any specific age for the Universe and any maximum age for the Universe,
there is very little that young earth creationism can defend.
*******
If you have any questions or comments about the above, I will be pleased
to answer.
Thanks,
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/14/99 3:19:23 pm
clarification
Doy, As noted in my last post to Allan, I have concluded with
my parts of this discussion. However, I would like to send you some
further thoughts revelative to these last excellent questions of yours.
Unfortunately, I cannot seem to get to you by email since your website
is down. If you would contact me via the webmail from my site, I
can send these final thoughts to you.
Hill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/14/99 3:54:00 pm
Re: clarification
Hill,
Doy raised the questions on this discussion board, why won't you answer
him here?
Brother, please think about the others who have been following this
discussion online who would be interested in your response but who
will now have no opportunity to hear it.
Sincerely,
Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/16/99 10:15:59 am
Not the last word
Brother Moyer, Per Allan's request, I'll go ahead and post this
final response to you, since I did not receive a working email address
to send it to you.
Due to Allan inadvertently conceding my main points in his post of
11/13, I see no point to continue to flog that horse. I've disengaged
from the discussion board as noted in my last post to Allan. However, I
wanted to respond directly to your worthy questions.
I appreciate the spirit of your encouragement not to be put off by
Allan's "full court press" in your words. It's just not my style.
Suits him.. No ill will toward him. He's doing his best, I'm sure.
The reason I've not engaged your discussion of Genesis 1 is that I've
already done that. I pointed to that material on my website in my
first post. Go to my http://LordiBelieve.org
website, to the Materials page, take the AgeEvidences link to my
book. You will find it in the Appendix of the book. (Of over 700 that have
visited this discussion board, much less than 50 have actually accessed
that material introduced in my first post. Of those, nearly all skipped
the discussion of the physical evidence in the book, and read only the
appendix. The appendix only has any force if one is willing to read the
rest of the book first. Aren't webcounters wonderful widgits!) I
have gone to a very great deal of effort to incorporate Genesis into an
understanding of a total interpretation of origins. I'm not totally happy
with it, but a lot happier than with any other option I know of.
It is not a final word, but at least an attempt. The CD we offer at workshops
has a great deal more analysis of some of the thought trail that led me
there. Furthermore, one will find on our site how one could have
a full set of video tapes that shows the whole shebang of an LIB workshop
to see if what is reported about what I teach, really is what I teach
during a workshop. One can also see if what is reported about how
I teach and act, really is how I teach and act. For example, during the
first lesson you would find that I spend almost an hour on the presuppositions
of the evolution/creation controversy (naturalism and theism). But
then I spend 11 hours on the data, the theistic and naturalistic
interpretations thereof, and appeals for the hearer to decide what is more
reasonable to them. [BTW, no appeal is ever made to decide the young
or old issue, that is left open.]
You will also note in that material that I do not claim that my age
interpretation is the only one possible, it is just the best one
I know of. Else I would have a different one. As I pleaded in my next to
last post to Allan, please give us the better interpretations. Saying
they exist isn't sufficient. Yes, I know of others from a YEC view.
I was raised on them. I could cite them from my youth about as well as
the steps in the plan of salvation. I consistently find them woefully
and miserably inadequate to actually explain the data. They must
sound good to those who don't work with the physical data, but mostly they
are lame, and frequently just silly to the point of embarrassment.
But anyone is welcome to pitch them against the evidence posted by
David, Tom and myself. Those examples are of course just the tip of the
iceberg, as my book will illustrate. Readers: please note that the
only astronomical data I've introduced directly to this discussion
has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. It is about an event that was
seen just 12 years ago and occurred very recently ( a mere 170,000
years ago). The BigBang theory could be totally dismissed and the
astronomical data would still reflect antiquity such as this. As a matter
of fact, were the Big Bang theory to be dismissed that would argue
for a very much older universe than is currently accepted. In astronomical
terms the Big Bang limits the age of the universe to that of relative youth.
So, if a bit of levity is permitted, I'm an old earth'r, but a young
universe'r!
As to your frustration with not engaging you and Allan in philosophical
juggling. Here's why: it comes to me as a weak and wearisome attempt
to dodge the force of the evidence. It may not be, but that's my
assessment. It has been the same dodge I've encountered for the past 30
years. In 48 posts only we OECs have attempted to deal with physical
evidence. This, I think makes my point very nicely. OECs start with
the data to formulate interpretations based on a set of axioms. YECs hope
someone will get round tuit. If one doesn't like such OEC interpretations,
give better ones that argue from the same data and mutually agreed
axioms. That is how I stated over and over one must deal with an obnoxious
one like me. I know folks don't like it, but that is your only hope.
And I'm typical of many potential evangelistic targets you might
have. I understand your "agnostic" position here. But your posts do not
sound agnostic. You sound already committed to a position. I take
it this is simply a means on your part for bringing out discussion.
And so it did.
As to your concern for teaching my peers about the flood, I teach them
about it the same way I would teach them about turning water to wine.
I would not appeal to a useless search for physical data of the event.
It was a short-term miracle in geological terms, I don't expect to find
such physical data. Neither would they. (Contrary to Allan's rhetoric,
there is a HUGE difference between "in spite of the evidence" and
"lack of evidence." Shouldn't a former policeman easily appreciate such?
It's the difference between ignoring the prints on the gun, and not
having the gun.) Consequently, for someone who's life was focused
on research of physical data I would start somewhere else than the flood.
I start with creation. That has proven very effective among my peers.
In fact they are astounded to learn what Genesis actually says. Most
have never read it. After the shock of Genesis 1's accuracy hits them,
I have never yet had one get derailed by the flood. Once they accept
that creation is possible, then God is possible. I move from creation
by word directly to Jesus the Word, via John 1:1ff. (You will note this
is exactly the opening focus of my web site.) I focus on the historical
and textural evidence for the veracity of the death and resurrection
of Jesus. If they accept a risen Jesus, then it has never been a problem
to get them to accept that his disciples and the earlier prophets
wrote as guided by God. And, given that miracles are possible, the
flood miracle recorded by those prophets is no problem either. If however,
I were to suggest we begin digging for Noah's flood layer, they would
think I had lost my mind, as surely as you would if I were to organize
a search for the lost water pots of Cana. And mostly for all the same reasons.
I believe the pots existed. The fact that I doubt being able to find
them in no way impugns my faith in the miracle. I accept it on the
basis of evidence: testimony of witnesses.
Anticipating your question: Why then isn't creation just another miracle
that we shouldn't expect to find corroborated by physical data? Because
God specifically points us to it as physical evidence of Himself, His
reality. Romans 1:19-20. It was His primary argument for Himself in OT
times against false gods. If creation wasn't/isn't what it appears
to be to all men of all ages with whatever tools they have to study the
evidence, then Romans 1:19-20 is foolishness. Really, I cannot understand
Romans 1:19-20 if creation is not real evidence but only mere illusory
remnants of a miracle that didn't really happen as the physical evidence
indicates it did. The same logic would say that Jesus didn't really turn
water to wine, it was just a really good magic trick that fooled
them all. Water only appeared to turn to wine. To make it appear that
way, he made pots as a necessary consequence of the illusion. Those pots
appeared real but in fact they were just part of the illusion, they
don't really exist. In fact the whole event is really just an illusion,
to make it appear that Jesus did a miracle. Surely appearances are
just as good an evidence as reality! If its in the Book it doesn't
even matter what the physical evidence is. The written record of it is
the means of the illusion. Nothing actually happened at all, the
written record (the data) just says it did. The Bible revelation
is a miraculous "catastrophy" in the uniform flow of history. Hence, it
bears no relationship to actual history. Anyone who actually looks
to verify the history of the Bible is obviously out to destroy God's
Word. Especially since most archeologists do not accept the Bible as God's
Word. Such attempts to harmonize history with the Bible are probably
biased because of the presuppositions inherent in the study. Hence
we can ignore the conclusions, or ridicule them, or whatever else it takes
to prevent folks from considering these dangerous ideas that history
and the Bible might agree.
Such "philosophical" juggling doesn't sound so good on the other foot
does it? History is history. It matters not if it is written history
or natural history. As offensive as the demonic illustration in the prior
paragraph surely must sound to you because of your proper confidence
in God's Word, it is just that offensive and demonic to me (and potential
converts) for a man of God to argue that God's physical evidence is just
there for appearances. For then, God only appears to exist.
All the other word games you, Allan or others wish to advance against
the physical evidence can likewise all be turned against the Word
of God in exactly the same way as they are turned against the physical
evidence. Try it for yourself sometime. Worth a whole book, I won't attempt
it in email. I believe this is precisely why Paul warned Timothy
against such philosophical wranglings, while advocating that the pagans
should be converted to belief in God by their understanding of the physical
evidence of the creation.
I suspect you or others will wish to post a response to this. My door
is always open to seekers. However, as noted earlier, I have other
matters than this to attend to. Life is calling.
Sincerely,
Hill
HRobLIB@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/16/99 2:48:20 pm
Re: Not the last word
Hill,
Would you be so kind as to identify where and how I "inadvertently"
conceded your points?
Sincerely,
Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Thread 1a
back to Thread
1