Does the Bible Teach A Flat Earth?


Do Scriptures such as Isaiah 40:22 really teach a flat earth?

Bible doubters, even ones who claim to be Christians, often make the accusation that the Bible of teaches a flat Earth. They do this in order to undermine the authority of the Scriptures concerning origins and thereby insert a wedge of doubt by which they can introduce millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution into the Scriptures. In other words, they use a wedge of doubt to subvert Biblical authority and supplant it with the authority of modern man. In the end, it really does come down to what we hold as our ultimate authority: God’s revealed Word or the word of fallible, finite men who weren’t there and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

For example, Bible doubters often cite Isaiah 40:22 as proof of a flat earth. The passage reads:

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…”

Bible doubters immediately seize upon the word “circle,” noting that a circle is a flat 2-dimensional shape and certainly not a 3-dimensional sphere. Of course, their entire analysis is based on a modern understanding of the word circle. When interpreting the Bible, it is important to note the context of the passage as it was originally intended to be understood.

For example, James Patrick Holding of Tecktonics.org comments on the word rendered “circle” here in this passage:

“Apologists dealing with this issue often cite Isaiah 40:22 with the explanation that Hebrew, having no specific word for sphere, may here indicate a spherical earth. Of course we may also read into the text a flat circle, as Seely does. Interestingly, Seely attempts to confirm his own interpretation by making an error exactly like that of a skeptic I once confronted on this issue:

“If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning “ball”.”

Dur, however, no-more indicates sphericity than the word used in Isaiah 40:22, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thus (Isaiah 29:3):

‘And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.’

Obviously, unless they were professional gymnasts as well as tacticians, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than specifying a given shape.

Seely offers two citations in support of a ‘flat earth’ view that we need not spend much time on: Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth. Even if it did teach a flat-earth reading, it would prove only that Elihu believed such a thing — not everything reported in the Bible is endorsed in the Bible.

As is standard to note in such cases, the statements of characters in the Bible are not automatically granted inerrancy unless the speaker is either God or indicated to be inspired of God.”

One website tries to make its case for the Bible teaching a flat earth by making the following statement and then quoting commentaries by liberal teologians. [We remind our readers as always that neither the notes in your Bible nor commentaries upon the Bible are inspired, only the Bible itself is inspired]:

“Ancient Israel imagined the earth to be a flat disk (Isa 42.5) resting on a foundation or pillars (Job 9.6). It is surrounded by the ocean (Pss 24.2; 136.6). It has four corners (Isa 11.12; Ezek 7.2; job 37.3; 38.13) and an edge (Isa 24.36) or ends (Isa 40.8; Job 28.4; Ps 48.11; Jer 6.22; 25.32). It also has a center or navel (Ezek 38.12). Except for the implication that Jerusalem is the earth’s center, ancient Israel’s view of the world did not differ from that of other ancient Near Eastern peoples.”

Of course, in order to make the Bible appear to support a flat earth, Bible doubters must insist that we interpret it in a woodenly literal fashion without consideration of allegory, figure of speech or the passage’s reference frame. For example, weathermen will tell you that the sunrise and sunset will occur at such-and-such time. This does not mean our meteorologists believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but rather indicates that they using the reference frame of the earth for making their observations.

Take for example, Isaiah 42:5 says:

“Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; he that gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk in it:”

The bone of contention is that spreading out the earth allegedly implies a flat earth, but this is reading too much into the text. Do we say that geologists who affirm sea floor spreading must also affirm a flat earth? No, because use of the term “spreading” does not necessarily imply flatness. This is a classic non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow the proposed evidence. This is also a classic example of trying to find prooftexts for a preconceived notion.

What about Job 9:6, which speaks of a God “Which shaketh the earth out of her place and the pillars thereof tremble.” This verse clearly describes an earthquake. Does this mean that the Bible affirms literally pillars of the earth? Not really. For example, in Job 26:11, we read a similar passage, this time stating “The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.” The pillars were astonished at his reproof? Clearly we’re dealing with a figure of speech here. The image of the pillars of earth [or heaven, for that matter] trembling are simply a useful image for depicting the instability of an earthquake. Only a woodenly literal interpretation would have it otherwise.

Psalm 24:1-2 says:

“The earth is the LORD’S and the fulness thereof the world and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas and established it upon the floods”

Far from saying that the earth is surrounded by the seas, neither this verse nor Psalm 136:6 [“To him that stretched out the earth above the waters for his mercy endureth for ever”] state rather that the earth rests above the waters or floods, which is true enough from a reference frame of someone looking at islands and continents jutting out of the sea. We do caution the reader that the Psalms contain a lot of poetic language, a fact our critics should be well aware of; nevertheless it is intellectually painful to relate how often Bible doubters quote the Psalms and insist that they be interpreted in a woodenly literal fashion in order to make their “case.”

Likewise, when the Bible refers to the ends of the Earth or corners of the world, this is a figure of speech derived from the use of maps. We say today that we intend to take the Gospel message to the ends of the earth, but we do not infer a flat earth; likewise, we refer to the four corners of the globe but we never imagine it to be flat any more than we imagine that a standard map of USAmerica requires a country devoid of the Rockies, Cascades and the Appalachians.

The final reference from our quote is misleading. The verse can be rendered the “navel of the land” or “center of the land” [translations rendering the word “land” as “world” or “earth” make nonsense of a figure of speech that was intended to denote Jerusalem, which is situated in the midst of the land of Israel. This is simply a matter of correct context.

As we’ve seen [and we could easily demonstrate this with other verses commonly used by Bible doubters as well], in every case our critics have either misunderstood the context of the passage or tried to force a woodenly literal interpretation on the text, refusing to consider either normal figures of speech or the frame of reference.

Again, we must ask ourselves why they do this, especially those who do so in the name of Christendom? The answer is simple: they believe that science has proven an old earth and/or microbes-to-man evolution and thus they use a wedge of doubt, the erroneous claim taht the Bible teaches a flat earth, to subvert Biblical authority and supplant it with the authority of modern man. The irony for the compromising Christians is that they accept the ultimate authority of the modern scientific consensus inconsistently and arbitrarily, for the very scientific consensus which affirms millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution, having chained itself to pure naturalism, equally denies  he physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the existence of the soul and the reality of a personal God who is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him – things they would unequivocably affirm as true Christians. Jesus truly spoke when he said in John 3:12, “If I tell you of earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” In other words, if we deny the earthly claims of Scripture [the Creation, Fall, world-covering Fall and dispersal at Babel, and other historical claims of the Bible], how can we believe the heavenly things it asserts [like the resurrection, salvation and eternal rewards].

I do think that many of these compromising Christians are well-meaning; they wish to make the Bible more palatable to an unbelieving world. Yet in attempting to make the Bible more scientifically palatable, they are undermining its very authority and supplanting the ultimate authority of Scripture for the authority of the current scientific consensus. This is not only inconsistent and arbitrary, as noted, it is also ultimately self-defeating. How do we defend a thing by undermining it?

Again, in the end, it really does come down to what we hold as our ultimate authority: God’s revealed Word or the word of fallible, finite men who weren’t there and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

 Rev Tony Breeden

Advertisements

34 Comments Add yours

  1. For those interested in further information apologetics regarding this subject, I also recommend the article, Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?, available from Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry at the following link:

    http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

    1. Ricky Wright says:

      The way I see it, it is the word of ancient, bronze age men “who weren’t there” or its the word of modern scientists “who weren’t there” either. Simply declaring the Bible the word of God which is perfect and infallible doesn’t make it so. It is instead the word of ignorant, superstitious barbarians who didn’t understand the world around them and who used their claims to know God as an excuse for murdering, raping and pillaging the people who settled the “holy land” before them, including the murder of children – and even the animals. First you demonize your opponent [they were great sinners and evil] and then you purge the land in the name of your god. I fear religionists who will one day destroy the world in their holy wars more than a comet or super volcano.

      1. Tony Breeden says:

        By declaring that the Bible is the word of men versus the word of men, you are discounting the idea that it is the very word of God, yet the Bible’s claim to supernatural revelation is validated by fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection of Christ. Have you considered these evidences before making your judgment that the Bible is merely the word of men?

        Furthermore, are you comfortable invoking an appeal to novelty in defense of modern science? Modern science isn’t merely newer; modern scientists have chained their search for answers to pure naturalism; this being the case, all they can do is give us all-natural answers that may or may not be true and are certainly false where the supernatural was involved. Unfortunately, their refusal to consider the supernatural at all likewise means they have no method of ascertaining when the supernatural should’ve been invoked. They simply presume that a natural answer is the correct one over the supernatural by virtue of being natural. This means that in cases where the supernatural was the correct answer, modern scientists are wrong and have no way of knowing whether they are in error due to their epistemological bias:

        Meanwhile, those who believe the Bible [who founded science in order to “think God’s thoughts after Him”] have a means to determine when answers should be natural or supernatural: the witness of the God who was there as revealed in a Book that has been supernaturally authenticated by fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection of Christ. Our worldview provides a logically consistent method for determining whether the answers should be natural or supernatural; meanwhile the naturalistic worldview is self-refuting since it must claim that nature can do supernatural things [i.e., that everything can come from nothing, that life can come from non-life, that an amphibian can really become a human with royal status if we just give it enough time, etc.]

        As for gross hypocrisy in the past, perceived or actual, we’ve dealt with that on this site:

  2. modsynth says:

    Hey man, how have you been lately?

    I get your frustration about critics being woodenly literal in poetic passages in Psalms. Since assigning genre is something we do with our fallible mental faculties as we interpret Scripture, determining whether a passage is poetic or not is a human distinction rather than a Divinely-revealed fact. I wonder if you would be willing to acknowledge that there’s reasonable debate concerning the genre of Genesis 1. Its repetition, its language, and unique style have led even conservative evangelical scholars to conclude that the chapter may not be a literal, historic explanation of nature. You make that conclusion here about Psalms and Job, and I’m sure you understand that many Old-Earth creationists and ID/TE proponents apply the very same decision-making process to conclude that the days of Genesis and even the sequence and specifics were not meant to be interpreted in a wooden, literalistic way. If you get too literal, you run into problems with Gen. 2, so there’s got to be some interpreting which once again uses our brains and is therefore subject to the same charge of employing “man’s wisdom”. It’s inescapable. It’s not God’s word against man’s word, it’s man’s interpretation of God’s word against man’s interpretation of scientific data. When the scientific data achieves a certain burden of proof (which varies for different individuals), then the effort goes to interpreting the Bible and seeing if it can reconcile to the data.

    Some passages do seem to suggest, at least at first glance, an ancient and unscientific cosmology. You are trying to debate that conclusion here, but it would seem that your reason for doing so is that you have become convinced that the earth is a spheroid and that it revolves around the sun. You are likely convinced of that model. If one only used Scripture, such a conclusion would never be reached. Calvin (hardly a theological liberal) and many others have come to accept that the ancient cosmology of the writers’ times are reflected in certain parts of the Bible (accommodation). They apparently do not feel the need to try to explain this away or reinterpret things.

    Some Early Church figures accepted a round earth but debated the solid firmament. As you know, there are many verses which describe a firmament in a way which seems incompatible with modern conclusions of the sky and atmosphere. There was an old argument about it which also put God’s word against man’s. I know that the popular Augustine quote bugs you, so I won’t bother repeating it, but that’s the kind of situation he was addressing as that debate played out in his time. Christians were claiming that the sky was solid when observers were beginning to conclude that it wasn’t. Observation won, and reinterpretation began. The argument was a waste of time that distracted from and even discredited the sharing of the Gospel. Now solid-firmamentists are more rare than flat-earthists, and even the geocentrists have accepted the existence of antipodes against Augustine’s denial. There comes a point where you and all the other round-earth, heliocentrists become convinced by observation, and then reread scripture and find a way to reconcile. If that were not so, you wouldn’t bother with this long post and would just accept the simpler interpretation.

    I don’t see a vastly different approach among Young-Earth and Old-Earth creationists, just a difference in degrees and how the methodology is described. The conclusions are obviously different, but I think that’s due to how you classify the genre of Genesis 1 and the conclusion that when Paul said “death” he meant physical death of not only humans but animals and therefore ruled out the possibility that trilobites and dinosaurs lived and died long before humans sinned. YEC is based on these interpretations. Some people find the evidence against them from geology and cosmology to be convincing, so they reexamine those texts and employ the same type of interpretation that you have done to the flat-earth sections.

    1. Modsynth,

      We’re not assigning genre, so much as recognizing it.

      You claim that “It’s not God’s word against man’s word, it’s man’s interpretation of God’s word against man’s interpretation of scientific data,” but you’re only partially correct. It’s which word we hold as our ultimate authority. I have no problem with man’s interpretation of scientific data if he hold the supernatural revealtion of Scripture as his ultimate authority, but I do object when someone takes man’s naturalistic interpretation of scientific data and then says we need to re-interpret supernatural revelatiuon accordingly.

      -revfTony

      1. modsynth says:

        Well, lots of people “recognize” the genre as poetic. They’ve done so using internal evidence alone long before geology, Darwin, and modern discoveries of Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Whether you “recognize” or “classify/assign”, there’s a human element to the effort and both sides need to come to terms with that simple and inescapable reality.

      2. modsynth,

        This is an interesting assertion you make, but I am not sure it is actually borne out by history. If Genesis has been deemed poetic based on iternal evidence, why do we have statements from opponents of Biblical creationism who admit otherwise:

        ““It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.” 9.Pattle P. T. Pun, “A Theory of Progressive Creationism,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39 (March 1987), p. 14

        Your response also betrays the fact that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit has any hand in guiding people into all truth John 16:13, for you view interpretation as a purely human endeavor; furthermore, you seem to suppose that there are not things that are spiritually discerned [1 Cor. 2:14], so that all interpretation is equal. These are great whopping flaws in your thinking and are evidence that you have not yet fully surrendered your thinking to Christ.

        -revTony

      3. modsynth says:

        I said “human element” and made no suggestion that the Spirit doesn’t guide or inform us. I do believe we should ask for wisdom from God and let the Spirit of Truth guide us.

        We read in human languages, so there’s always something going on in the physical world in our physical brains to some degree, right? I really don’t see how you can continue to deny this and make it seem as though God is on your side and you are merely “recognizing” plain facts and not using some context and interpretation with your physical brain.

        I still want to know how you can apply your methodology and accept an orbiting earth and a gaseous atmosphere. If you consistently use a straight-forward interpretation as voiced by the quote you pasted, you should also believe that the earth cannot move, the firmament is solid, stars are small enough to fall to earth, and so on. My point is that you eventually accept some of “man’s naturalistic interpretation(s)” when given enough evidence and then reexamine the text. This is exactly what you’ve done in this blog post.

        On the other thing, you know Augustine and others believed creation was instantaneous, not spread over 6 days. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, merely that they interpreted it differently over a millennium before the scientific revolution.

      4. modsynth,

        Sadly, your accomodationist view does negate the possibility of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the writing and later interpretation of the Scriptures. The accomodationist view comes with the inherent suggestion that God was simply not omnipotent or maniscient enough to reveal His Word in a manner that would be comprehensible to humans and therefore, in order to accomodate pre-scientific ignorance, was forced to deliver fictional histories to relate truth. In short, the accomodationist view accuses God of a willful lie and casts doubt on His power and wisdom. Likewise, the accomodationist view denies the Biblical revelation of 2 Peter 1:21, for you imply that some Scripture did indeed come by the will of man in that the will of man imposed his untrue and unscientific cosmology upon the revealtion of God and God was powerless to prevent it!

        I find it noteworthy that you believe you ought to pray for wisdom when studying the Scriptures. In this, I applaud you, though I note your inconsistency when it comes to the conclusions of men of science who suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. The Scriptures affirm that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. This is an important concept to keep in mind when accepting the conclusions of modern science. While the foundational disciplines of science were laid down by Bible-affirming men who wanted to “think God’s thoughts after Him,” the present consensus of science is predominantly agnostic and atheist and they seek to “prevent a Divine foot from entering the door.” As noted elsewhere, the modern consensus of science has chained itself to pure naturalism, which of necessity excludes the consideration of the supernatural; if God is excluded, how can these conclusions be said to have their beginning in the fear of the Lord? Let me put it another way: when men of science deny the efficacy of prayer, the possibility of miracles, the notion that men rise from the dead, or that virgins conceive by the Holy Ghost, do you accept the modern consensus of science? Not if you are an authentic Christian! Instead you judge the conclusions of fallible men by the infallible rule of Scripture. By accepting the conclusions of antisupernaturalistic science where they concern origins, you are being arbitrary and inconsistent.

        I should also note that your points concerning language exclude the fact that men can recognize metaphor from experience. Likewise you points concerning stars small enough to fall to earth, the fixity of the planet, etc, all ignore my points that a literal [historical/grammatical] interpretation does not require a woodenly literal interpretation. To underscore my point, a plainsense literal interpretation of Scripture does not require wooden literalism.

        Having said that, I need to make a comment on something you seem not to comprehend. You stated that I “eventually accept some of “man’s naturalistic interpretation(s)” when given enough evidence and then reexamine the text.” You’re comparing apples to oranges. What I object to is pure naturalism not naturalism tempered by supernatural revelation. The uniformitarian’s millions of years and the evolutionist’s goo-to-you biology are the inevitable result of science which plays by an arbitrary set of rules that refuses to consider supernatural agency [creation]. It is utter nonsense to suggest that God created by a process which was imagined to make Him entirely unnecessary!

        And only the Biblical Creationist has a consistently rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. Dr. Jason Lisle, author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation, has given this line of reasoning quite a bit of thought in a post called Evolution: The Anti-Science:

        “The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

        Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

        These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.”

        So the Biblical Creationists has a rational basis for trusting in the uniformity of nature and past experience. The evolutionist has no rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. If the universe is the result of chance, random events, we have no way to know whether the uniformity we have experienced extends to the entire universe or will continue in the future; furthermore, if our brains are the result of chance, chemical processes, we have no way to know whether we can trust our experiences. Thus, Lisle correctly concludes:

        “Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way.”

        And as for theistic evolutionists, well, the inconsistencies we’ve mentioned already are their ultimate downfall:

        “A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

        It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.”

        In short, Biblical creationists affirm the uniformity of nature and thus methodological naturalism, except where supernatural revelation indicates otherwise, precisely because the Bible claims we should expect the uniform processes of nature to rule excpt where supernatural agency or any other nonuniformity [such as the mechanisms behind Noah’s Flood] was involved, as revealed in Scripture. Our worldview is consistent with the observation that there are things that exist outside the natural material world [such as laws of logic, the uniformity of natural law and morality] so that we should reject any insistence on pure naturalism, and is also consistent with a God who upholds the uniformity of nature, yet rewards those who diligently seek Him [so that He acts personally] and has revealed Himself in His Son, Scripture and, to a lesser extent Nature.

        Let me qualify that latter statement for you to further demonstrate how you arbitrarily accept the ultimate authority of science in some matters and Scripture over science in others. If you only have Nature to tell you about God, you come to some obvious conclusions: He has used death, mutation, pain and suffering to bring about His Will; the unexplainable existence of pain and suffering makes Him a somewhat detached possibly ogrish deity; He cares more about the Big Picture than the little details or the process in that He created man via microbes-to-man evolution. Yet most Christians would object to these observations by appealing to supernatural revelation over natural revelation. We would note that God originally created the world perfect but that death, pain and suffering entered the world by man’s sin and that Nature reveals the glory, power and existence of God but it no longer reveals His nature and character as the original state [and promised future state] of creation does; that God is good and a rewarder them that diligently seek Him; and that He cares enough about the small details of creation to note the number of our hairs and when each sparrow falls. In doing this, we appeal to the superior [ultimate] revelation of Scripture over any philosophy or idea of fallible man.

        Since you bring up Augustine as a justification for interpreting the days of Genesis in a non-literal fashion, I will note that Augustine believed creation in 6 days was a slap in the face of God’s omnipotence, so he figured by his mundane human “omniscience” that God must’ve done it instantaneously. In fact, he concluded falsely, God didn’t speak anything into existence either; why would God deign to do that?

        Augustine made a very human error, assuming that because God is all-powerful that He wouldn’t need to take six days or that He wouldn’t need to create by divine fiat; therefore He didn’t, right? No. Augustine assumed that because He didn’t need to He wouldn’t choose to. This ignores the special revelation that we have [the Bible] that states that He did in fact create in 6 literal days, underscored by the 4th commandment [based upon the Creation Week].

        I like what Martin Luther said on the matter:

        “The “Days” of Creation were ordinary days in length. We must undertand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Neverthele…ss, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.”

        Now, you should know that the useage of the word yom [day] as used in Genesis 1 and 2 is consistent with a literal day. Outside of Genesis 1, any time yom is used with the terms evening or morning or night or a number, it means an ordinary day. In Genesis 1, it’s overkill. God’s intended meaning is made quite clear. Modern old-earthers know this, but they choose to try to make it say something otherwise… why? Well, NOT for the same reasons Augustine thought they weren’t ordinary days.

        You’re again comparing apples to oranges, but let me walk you through it anyway.

        Augustine had notions of omnipotence that he couldn’t square with the text. He thought God should’ve done things instantaneously and without effort [forgetting God could choose to do so even if He was capable of doing so without all the fuss]. So he imposed his extrabiblical ideas of omnipotence on the text and allegorized the Creation Week.

        Likewise, evolutionists and old earth proponents have notions of the age of the universe that they can’t square with the text. They think scientists who try to explain the world as if God did not exist and special revelation had to square with their feeble atheistic graspings are right about the age of the earth. So they have tried to impose this extrabiblical timescale on the text and allegorize the Creation week.

        Both Augustine and old earthers have the same problem: They’ve found themselves echoing the Serpent’s question: “Did God really say?”

        I like how Jonathan Sarfati sums up the issue:

        “If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible unambiguously teaches long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but may allow for an old earth. We never hear something like, ‘Yes, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field and rapid reversals seem to provide irrefutable proof of a young earth. But we mustn’t allow even the strongest science to overrule the clear teaching of the Word of God that the earth is billions of years old.’” –[Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, pg 55.]

        I’m sorry, sir, but there can only be one orthodox position. It could not come from Augustine or anyone else who strays from the traditional reading of the text to allegorize it to suit their extraBiblical expectations.

        Think about it,
        revTony

  3. drlindberg says:

    “They do this in order to undermine the authority of the Scriptures concerning origins and thereby insert a wedge of doubt. . .”

    Isn’t this what they call “ad hominem,” implying illegitimate motives to people just because you disagree with their opinion.

    1. Lindberg,

      No, it’s not an ad hominem if I am correctly describing their motives. Have you examined your own?

      -Sirius Knott

      1. drlindberg says:

        It is an ad hominem because their motives are irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of any statement they may make

        My principal motive is to defend science, since it appears to me that without science, we are unlikely to solve many of the problems facing us. I suppose another is that seeing untruths promoted so boldly disturbs my sense of morality – particularly when promoted by those who set themselves up as paragons of morality.

        It’s interesting to see that you have the chutzpah to judge the motives of millions of people, most of whom you don’t even know.

      2. Lindberg,

        Your principle motive is to defend science, but what you’re actually defending is science chained to pure naturalism. The founders of modern science, men like Kepler, Newton, mendel and Boyle, had a different view: they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Today’s scientists, having arbitrarily chained themselves to pure naturalism do not consider the supernatural as a possibility. This means that in cases where supernatural agency was actually responsible [or where supernatural revealtion would serve as a witness that events transpired differently than all-natural uniformitarian theories woulkd insist], scientists end up concocting all-natural Just-so stories to account for things according to methodological naturalism. This further means that science is no longer the search for truth so much as the search for all-natural answers which may or may not be true and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible or where uniformitarian assumptions should have been corrected by supernatural revelation.

        It should be noted that my principle motive is to defend both the ultimate authority of the Bible and true science. If I am promoting an untruth, you have yet to prove thus.

        It should also be noted that, in context, I impugned the motives of those who claim to be Christians yet undermine the Bible’s ultimate authority in order to supplant it with man’s authority. In doing so, I’m simply restating the Bible’s position on such men in modern terms.

        -SK

  4. Havok says:

    RevTony: It should also be noted that, in context, I impugned the motives of those who claim to be Christians yet undermine the Bible’s ultimate authority in order to supplant it with man’s authority. In doing so, I’m simply restating the Bible’s position on such men in modern terms.

    It’s not supplanting the bible’s (or God’s) authority with man’s authority. It’s supplanting (ancient) man’s authority with more modern man’s authority.

    1. Havok,

      You’re simply begging the question of whether God exists. Nothing more.

      revTony

      1. Havok says:

        Actually Tony, I’m not begging the question of God’s existence. You’re assuming, without adequate justification, the divine providence of the Christian bible.

      2. Again, Havok, fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection itself divinely authenticate the Word of God.

        Since Easter is coming up, why don’t you take a look at the Resurrection? Maybe then you’d have more than a passing understanding of what it is you so vehemently object to.

  5. drlindberg says:

    Many of the things that you object to in modern science were also discovered by men who considered that “they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,”” men such as early Christian geologists Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856), head of geology at Oxford, Reverend Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), head of geology at Cambridge, and Reverend Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864), American geologist and pastor, not to mention Louis Agassiz, who discovered the Ice Ages. All of these would reject your claim that a literal historical interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 is required in order to be a Christian.

    As would St. Augustine. Do you claim that he was ignorant of theology?

    1. Lindberg,

      I have never claimed that one must have a traditional interpretation of Genesis in order to be a Christian. This is an insufferable straw man. In fact, I have written quite to the contrary:
      https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/do-you-have-to-affirm-a-literal-6-day-creation-and-a-global-flood-to-be-a-christian/

      This is yet more evidence that you strongly object to a position you have never bothered to fully comprehend!

      Furthermore, help you, if you think Augustine is your ally concerning the age of the earth. Augustine and a few others, afflicted by a peculiar presupposition concerning God’s omnipotence did state that the days of the Creation Week could not be taken literally, but this will not help you, Old Earther; Supposing that God’s omnipotence would be impugned upon if He took the time to create by uttering things into existence [and by physical craftsmanship, in the case of man] over the space of a week, when He could have done it instantaneously with but a thought, Augustine and a few others supposed that the Creation Week could not be literal, but this is of no help to the Old Earther; supposing that God MUST perform at maximum efficiency [rather than as He chooses], they supposed that creation must have taken place in an instant, but this will not help the Old Earther – for it means that Augustine and his cohorts supposed the earth was even younger [by the space of a week] than even modern young earthers! Ha!

      -Tony

      1. drlindberg says:

        “I have never claimed that one must have a traditional interpretation of Genesis in order to be a Christian. This is an insufferable straw man. In fact, I have written quite to the contrary:
        https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/do-you-have-to-affirm-a-literal-6-day-creation-and-a-global-flood-to-be-a-christian/

        What other motivation do you have for rejecting so much of modern science? Where else do you see such a contradiction between science and what you are pleased to call the “historical reliability of Genesis 1-12”?

        And perhaps you could be so good as to explain where I am misinterpreting passages such as the following (from the address above):

        “Sad enough that they themselves embrace this sort of willful error where they call God’s Word into question without batting an eye and make pretense that His Word must be calibrated against 21st Century science, despite the affirmations of a young earth and a global Noachim flood from Jesus Himself and the Apostles. They also lead others into this error, calling Truth folly and error truth – again, so long as they call it science. By doing so, they undermine the authority of Scripture and open the door for all sorts of erroneous interpretation. Many reject Christianity wholesale. Others simply pick and choose what they will believe.

        Their rejection of the historical reliability of Genesis 1-12 is the Wedge that tears down the religion that they so dearly love! What folly!

        Yet there is hope! Eleven years ago, the woman who became my wife asked me, “What about evolution?” I replied, “Well, I suppose that God could have used evolution.” But God directed my studies, convicted my heart and impressed and affirmed the reliability of His revealed Word upon me until, slowly but surely, I came to realize that He meant what He said. He created everything by fiat in six solar days.”

        Sounds to me like you are saying that “He created everything by fiat in six solar days.”

        As for Augustine, I was thinking of this passage:
        “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

        “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
        –Augustine of Hippo

        I’m afraid I don’t see anything there suggesting that “creation must have taken place in an instant”. Was that something being argued by many non-Christians at the time? Or something that non-Christians held to “as being certain from reason and experience”?

      2. Lindberg,

        My motivation for rejecting “much” [really, such gross overstatement is beneath you. You should know that I have zero problem with observeable operational science by now… if you’d been paying any attention] of modern science is that modern science has an antisupernatural bias. It’s commitment to pure naturalism blinds it to the possibilty of any supernatural answers which might be called for, including all consideration of God, supernatural revelation or supernatural agency. While it has thus hamstrung itself, so that it is no longer the truth so much as the search for purely natural answers which may or may not be true [and are certainly false where supernatural agency was responsible], it pretends as if these purely natural answers must be true if they’ve been proposed! Worse, it is so committed to its antisupernatural bias that it denies any attempt at deducing intelligent design in a non-arbitrary manner precisely because any criteria which would lead to intelligent human causation would open the door for the possibility of intelligent theistic causation; so scientists admit intelligent design when engaged in the search for extraterrestrial life, investigating archaeological artifacts and code-breaking, but deny these principles where they might also lead to the possible consideration of supernatural agency. So my reasons for rejecting these claims of modern science is that they are purely naturalistic [contrary to the evidence of supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy and the fact that information is not a part of the material universe], they deny human experience in recognizing the hallmarks of intelligent design in a non-arbitrary manner [when its man-made] and they are arbitrary in the assumption of naturalism [except when its origins is human or possibly extraterrestrial].

        But none of these things have to do with whether I think a thesitic evolutionist or an Old Earther are saved or not. The Bible telles us to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered and warns that there will be false doctrines. Not all of these false doctrines are fatal to one’s authentic Christianity. It isn’t even the question here. If you feel that could be the only motivation I have, it stands as evidence against your actually having botherted to comprehend my past comments.

        Your Augustine quote has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Augustine wrote in City of God in the chapter entitled, “Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots any Thousands of Years to the Earth’s Past”:

        “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and the origin of the human race… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give a history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”

        It is fairly well known that he supposed that the days of the Creation Week were figuarative and that most of these events actually took place instantaneously. This was a minority view held by very few of the church fathers.

        -Tony

      3. riandouglas says:

        Tony, it seems you’re again repeating your misunderstanding concerning why scientists don’t tend to go in for supernatural explanations.
        As I think I pointed out to you in previous comments, the supernatural is not nor has it been ruled out a priori, as you imply, but rather it has a history of explanatory impotence which leads scientists to prefer non-supernatural explanations.
        The supernatural has no associated methodological principles with which it can be investigated, putting all such explanations on very shaky epistemological footing – there appears to be no way to test if a supernatural explanation is correct, nor does there appear to be any way to objectively pick 1 supernatural explanation from out of the numerous that could be proposed.

        I’ve linked to this essay previously, but will do so again because it demonstrates my point: Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection

      4. riandouglas,

        I am not repeating a misunderstanding. It is you who are missing the point.

        The supernatural is ruled out a priori because they believe that pure naturalism alone can provide a basis for objective knowledge; however the assumption of pure naturalism is by no means objective where it concerns supernatural causation! It rules it out as a possibility. Meanwhile, only the Biblical worldview can provide a non-arbitrary, logically consistent basis for the preconditions of intelligibility [viz. laws of logic, morality, uniformity in nature, etc], which preconditions other worldviews must affirm [inconsistently and arbitrarily] in order to conduct science.

        For more on this subject, see More on Why Creation Is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution.

  6. riandouglas says:

    Tony: I am not repeating a misunderstanding. It is you who are missing the point.
    You are repeating your misunderstanding of what science is. Asserting otherwise doesn’t change that fact.

    Tony: The supernatural is ruled out a priori because they believe that pure naturalism alone can provide a basis for objective knowledge; however the assumption of pure naturalism is by no means objective where it concerns supernatural causation! It rules it out as a possibility.
    The “supernatural” is ruled out on methodological grounds because there is no method or process to obtain reliable knowledge concerning this putative “realm”. Science is concerned with reliable knowledge about reality, and it’s methods reflect this. The results of scientific investigation have gradually carved out what we mean by “natural” – it is not an a priori presumption.

    Tony: Meanwhile, only the Biblical worldview can provide a non-arbitrary, logically consistent basis for the preconditions of intelligibility [viz. laws of logic, morality, uniformity in nature, etc], which preconditions other worldviews must affirm [inconsistently and arbitrarily] in order to conduct science.
    You can assert this all you want, but that doesn’t make it so Tony.
    The laws of logic do not require Christianity, regardless of what various Christian presuppositionalists assert. There are many views of logic, and most of them don’t require theism (the “laws” could be abstract objects of a Platonic variety, or they could simply be assumptions – axioms that are taken to be true in a formal system).
    Morality does not require Christianity, regardless of what various Christian apologists assert (there are numerous views on metaethics and moral philosophy, most of which don’t seem to require a God).
    The uniformity of nature does not require Christianity, all we need is regularities and such things are to be expect even in the midst of randomness.

    Christians like yourself seem to accept uncritically the claims of Christian apologists, but never seem to do any homework concerning the “opposition” – this seems to be because you believe you already have the truth, and so you have the answer to any and all questions.
    And you talk about scientists unfairly assuming naturalism a priori – so hypocritical!

    1. riandouglas,

      boy, are you barking up the wrong tree. While I grew up in church, I rejected the faith of my youth to become a rather blasphemous agnostic. When I returned to the faith after nearly a decade, I still affirmed millions of years of evolution for several years. If you take even a cursory tour of my site, you’ll find that I in no case simply parrot other apologists. You’ve come here unprepared as a result of your assumptions.

      Scientists suppose that they already know that all answers must be natural and they a priori assume that supernatural revelation can not reliably describe reality. They very fact that you think of naturalism as objective especially in the face of supernatural claims is entirely laughable.

      Furthermore, I never said you have to be a Christian or that Christianity is required for the preconditions of intelligibility to be true or for folks to borrow these assumptions [read more carefully next time]; I said that only the Biblical worldview can provide a non-arbitrary, non-contradictory basis for the preconditions of intelligibility.

      For example, only the Biblical Creationist has a consistently rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. Dr. Jason Lisle, author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation, has given this line of reasoning quite a bit of thought in a post called Evolution: The Anti-Science:

      “The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

      Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

      These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.”

      So the Biblical Creationists has a rational basis for trusting in the uniformity of nature and past experience. The evolutionist has no rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. If the universe is the result of chance, random events, we have no way to know whether the uniformity we have experienced extends to the entire universe or will continue in the future; furthermore, if our brains are the result of chance, chemical processes, we have no way to know whether we can trust our experiences. Thus, Lisle correctly concludes:

      “Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way.”

      In short, Biblical creationists affirm the uniformity of nature and thus methodological naturalism, except where supernatural revelation indicates otherwise, precisely because the Bible claims we should expect the uniform processes of nature to rule excpt where supernatural agency or any other nonuniformity [such as the mechanisms behind Noah’s Flood] was involved, as revealed in Scripture. Our worldview is consistent with the observation that there are things that exist outside the natural material world [such as laws of logic, the uniformity of natural law and morality] so that we should reject any insistence on pure naturalism, and is also consistent with a God who upholds the uniformity of nature, yet rewards those who diligently seek Him [so that He acts personally] and has revealed Himself in His Son, Scripture and, to a lesser extent Nature.

      I should also note that when you say that “the supernatural is ruled out on methodological grounds because there is no method or process to obtain reliable knowledge concerning this putative realm. Science is concerned with reliable knowledge about reality,” you are abritrarily deciding that supernatural revelation cannot provide reliable knowledge about reliability simply because it is revealed by God and not a process man came up with.

      You should be aware, holding this unteneable position, that even Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, acknowledged that:

      ” `Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.” Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

  7. Arthur imperial says:

    When the Bible contradicts reality, Christians interpret it figuratively (allegorical) but when it agrees with their own beliefs, they interpret it literally. We all know, Gen. chap.1 interpret by Young earth creationist literally, but other passages that contradicts their belief regarding the shape of the earth or even heliocentricism, they interpret these passages figuratively !!! LOL 😀
    These are the Bible verses that teach the earth does not move, contradicting modern scientific version of reality, which says the earth rotates on its axis and revolving around the sun ( means the earth is moving).

    1 Chronicles 16:30
    Psalm 93:1
    Psalm 96:10

    As usual Christian will say that these verses are figurative, but obviously these are literal by reading the whole chapter, take
    us for granted that Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 96:10 are not speaking literally, logically it follows that the Lord reigns “figuratively” and even his judgement is not literal, making these verses absurd. If we take some parts of the Scriptures literally why not the whole verse itself (or vice versa). Christians interpret the Bible subjectively, that’s why in their almost two thousand years of existence, they are not yet arrived with the same conclusion in which part of the Bible they should take literal and allegorical.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      While you are alleging an arbitrary dichotomy, we are simply taking the passages in context. Young earth creationists do not ascribe to woodenly literal hermeneutic, as your straw man argument suggests. Oh, and otherwise literal passages may employ figurative language [a fact you should be well aware of]

  8. Arthur imperial says:

    Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that “the present is the key to the past” and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism’s modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

    The Bible contradicts uniformitarianism, reading Daniel 2:21, that says ‘He “CHANGES TIMES and SEASONS”; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.’ Therefore, Christians have no basis of believing uniformity in nature using their own scriptures.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      God promises in Genesis 8:22 that:

      “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”

      This is the Christian’s basis for uniformity of natural law. We note that this promise was given AFTER the Creation, Fall of Man [with all its various effects] and the Flood; we hold to a general uniformity of nature AFTER these events. Daniel 2:21 merely clarifies that God is sovereign over all nature, including seasons and reigns of kings. Colossians 1:17 echoes this sentiment: “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

  9. Arthur imperial says:

    If we take the God of the Bible as the ultimate source of “truth”, it logically follows that Christians have no basis for the existence of truth & reality, because the scriptures itself confessed that the biblical writers or authors are deceived or deceiver,

    Jeremiah 20:7

    You deceived me, LORD, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.

    Ezekiel 14:9

    9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

    Jeremiah 4:10

    Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.”

    Isaiah 63:17

    Why, LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance.

    If the writers and authors of the bible confessed that they are deceived,and deceiving their own people, how can christian certain that he/she is not deceived by believing the scriptures? that the messages of the bible are true and not a deception of ancient writers and authors?

    LIAR PARADOX

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      You do not comprehend inspiration, sir.

      The Bible says “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” [2 Peter 1:21], meaning that the Holy Spirit is the author. While God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared, without overriding their personalities. Furthermore, it should be noted that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write; it is hubris to suggestthat the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word, precisely because this suggests that an omniscient God is unable to overcome the limitations and flaws of His creations in order to communicate with and/or through them! In other words, you can only make such an objection if you either presume a God other than that described in the Bible OR if you presume the Bible is a wholly human work [which above passage of same denies]

  10. Brian says:

    The closing paragraph is so biased and one-sided that it basically sums up the bias of the entire article. The writer ends with,

    “Again, in the end, it really does come down to what we hold as our ultimate authority: God’s revealed Word or the word of fallible, finite men who weren’t there and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.”

    How about a more accurate closing statement, like,

    “Again, in the end, it really does come down to what we hold as our ultimate authority: A ‘supposed’ God’s ‘supposed’ revealed Word (as set out in an ancient compilation of scriptures written by man and with many of the scriptures conveniently/deliberately left out) or the word of modern, educated men who have devoted their lives to researching reality and not simply believing in ancient myths.”

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      The only Scriptures that were “left out” were books showed no evidence of being God-breathed in that they did not line up with previous teaching that were considered God-breathed and/or contained no supernaturally fulfilled prophecy by which we might ascertain such.

      Your comments have done nothing more than reveal your bias for pure naturalism and Scientism [the idea that science will discover all of the correct answers given enough time]. All science chained to pure naturalism can do is give us all-natural answers that may or may not be true and are certainly false where the supernatural was involved. It cannot rule out the supernatural; it cannot even determine whether supernatural agency is called for over natural agency. Having rejected ID theory in a knee-jerk reaction against creationism, modern science cannot even determine whether a non-natural answer is called for involving humans, except arbitrarily. Furthermore, naturalistic science must still hold that nature can do supernatural things [eg., that everything can come from nothing or comic book multiverses, that life can come from non-life, that specified complex information can come without intelligent design, etc.,…all processes which are not consistent with observations we make about the universe today] and is thus logically inconsistent with its own claims.
      Meanwhile, the Bible has been vetted historically and, if fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection are taken into account, even supernaturally as the Word of God. It never changes and it never fails. Meanwhile, today’s scientific consensus typically becomes tomorrow’s pseudoscientific nonsense.
      You couched your comments in terms of science versus faith. In doing so, you revealed your own credulity and your unwillingness to actually consider my claims… for if you were to seriously engage my arguments you would find that they are backed by a weight of arguments and evidences rather than being taken on blind faith.
      I refer you to the other articles on this website or my new book, Defending Genesis: How We Got Here & Why It Matters, if you’d like to comprehend my position BEFORE you bother to disagree with it.
      Regards,
      Tony Breeden
      DefGen.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s