IF YEC is True, Why So Much Evidence Pointing to OEC?

[Kurieuo]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will...

I don't know if my following message will interest you much, but it should at least provide some insight to you as an outsider.

Some main rules for Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture would come under the "historical-grammatical" method.
This interpretative method attempts to understand what the original authors and hearers would have understood.
Such a method does have its weaknesses, but I'll be elaborating on this in another thread hopefully sooner rather than later.

If you asked me whether YEC is a valid interpretation of Scripture though, I'd answer that it is an acceptable interpretation.
I do see some confusing Scriptural aspects like the Sun not being created until day 4 and yet we have "evening and morning" for the first three days.
What does the author then mean or intend by the phrase "evening and morning"?
YECs might then say that the first three "days" are to be taken as symbolic time i.e., 24 hours.
OECs would obviously reason otherwise.

Now where I see a YEC interpretation as a fairly acceptable interpretation of Scripture, YECs will often reject the Day-Age (an OEC) interpretation as being invalid.
Ironically, when charged with the accusation that we compromise God's word YECs often submit into the debate that are extra-biblical (outside of Scripture).
For example, "it was never a traditional view", "it is a modern century evolvement", "you're reading science into the text", "early Christian thought never believed in an Old Earth", etc.
Such thinking commits the genetic fallacy. These extra-biblical arguments are irrelevant to what is or is not an acceptable interpretation.
If everything ever known about Christianity or Scripture should be found in the past, why then Christians ought to just stop practicing theology.

The way I see matters when reading text, is that there a many ways we can interpret words -- whether talking Scripture or even just a letter from someone.
As I take Scripture seriously, I cast out a net to work out what possible interpretations could be had around a particular text.

YEC and Day-Age interpretations treat the text most literally, and are most often debated here since there are many YECs and GodandScience.org advocates a Day-Age interpretation.
But, then there are other interpretations like the Framework hypothesis that may also be acceptable to me (as long as one can justify their method of interpretation I'm fine with that!).
What I would reject is just a treating a message to mean whatever regardless of any true rules or methods of interpretation.
That is what I mean when I say finding meaning in Scripture is not a "free for all".

After discovering some possible interpretations, I then look to other sources of truth.
This might be other passages in Scripture, it might be logical reasoning, it might be what previous authorities in the past thought, it might be what I intuit to be the case, but it could also be knowledge about the natural world.
Based upon the physical world, it seems there was lots of carnivorous activity long before humanity arrived.
We also know a lot of our natural resources like oil and the like are due to organic matter being compressed and heat and the like over millions of years.
There are many dating methods used to try and determine the age of Earth and the universe.

Many arguments based upon nature and reason rule out the YEC interpretation.
OEC interpretations are the only other alternatives.

Such an approach I believe takes both Scripture and Science seriously on their own terms.
What I'm not doing is taking outside evidence and reading it into the text as many YECs would claim.
Rather I am reading in the text the range of positions allowable, and then taking that to what we know about the world.

In fact, in my own personal life I came to a non-YEC position based upon Scripture alone.
This was prior to having any real Earth science knowledge or really caring much about science.

[Morny]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will...

I don't see the rule similarity. Mutually contradictory Biblical exegeses are numerous and notoriously difficult to resolve, even among Biblical scholars. To resolve disputes science uses the scientific method, which works spectacularly well.

Audie seems to have a point regarding many Biblical exegesis disagreements.

[Audie]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will.

..

True to an extent; some just think God is telling them directly what it all means.

I don't know if my following message will interest you much, but it should at least provide some insight to you as an outsider.

Some main rules for Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture would come under the "historical-grammatical" method.
This interpretative method attempts to understand what the original authors and hearers would have understood.
Such a method does have its weaknesses, but I'll be elaborating on this in another thread hopefully sooner rather than later.

I understand the idea, and its a reasonable one.

If you asked me whether YEC is a valid interpretation of Scripture though, I'd answer that it is an acceptable interpretation.

YEC is a valid reading? Hmm. Im sure it is. To me it might seem the only valid interpretation. but, you see where that leads the like of me.

Now where I see a YEC interpretation as a fairly acceptable interpretation of Scripture, YECs will often reject the Day-Age (an OEC) interpretation as being invalid.
Ironically, when charged with the accusation that we compromise God's word YECs often submit into the debate that are extra-biblical (outside of Scripture).
For example, "it was never a traditional view", "it is a modern century evolvement", "you're reading science into the text", "early Christian thought never believed in an Old Earth", etc.

My thought on that is, if you dont go outside the Bible for anything you will end up concluding that Pi is 3.0 and the stars are little things that might fall.

The way I see matters when reading text, is that there a many ways we can interpret words -- whether talking Scripture or even just a letter from someone.
As I take Scripture seriously, I cast out a net to work out what possible interpretations could be had around a particular text.

Reasonable. What isnt, is those who think they have the One Truth. IMO.

That is what I mean when I say finding meaning in Scripture is not a "free for all"

not among serious students, but then, there are as I say, those who do free style according to how they are inspired. As you know.

Based upon the physical world, it seems there was lots of carnivorous activity long before humanity arrived.

Like some several other thin gs that are incompatible with YEC readings.

Many arguments based upon nature and reason rule out the YEC interpretation.
OEC interpretations are the only other alternatives.

I can easily think of one more.

Such an approach I believe takes both Scripture and Science seriously on their own terms.
What I'm not doing is taking outside evidence and reading it into the text as many YECs would claim.
Rather I am reading in the text the range of positions allowable, and then taking that to what we know about the world.

In fact, in my own personal life I came to a non-YEC position based upon Scripture alone.
This was prior to having any real Earth science knowledge or really caring much about science

That is harder work than just doing the literal or lie thing.


.

[Kurieuo]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will...

I don't see the rule similarity. Mutually contradictory Biblical exegeses are numerous and notoriously difficult to resolve, even among Biblical scholars. To resolve disputes science uses the scientific method, which works spectacularly well.

Audie seems to have a point regarding many Biblical exegesis disagreements.

Welcome Morny,

I was giving Audie some insight into how conservative Biblical scholarship is performed within Evangelical circles.
There are more liberal theologies that will entertain contradictions, and while they'll treat Scripture seriously, not view Scripture as inerrant.
So, Biblical exegesis will be very different depending upon whether you follow a more conservative or liberal mindset.
Interpretations likewise will differ, but obviously, I'm following a conservative mindset in my previous post.
YEC and Day-Age interpretations after all come from a conservative interpretative framework.

With the non-Christian, I'd never entertain a discussion to try and justify an inerrant "Word of God" if you will.
That is not possible, I wouldn't know where to start and I think it is irrelevant to one becoming a Christian.

BUT, I would entertain the non-Christian treating the independent books that comprise the Bible fairly like any other historical text.
When that is done, many beliefs are there especially pertaining to Jesus. Extra-Biblical sources also shed light on Jesus.

Re: Science and conservative Biblical scholarship. You may not see similarity, but have you ever tried to resolve passages yourself?
I've elaborated upon some rules and methods interpreters use when it comes to Scripture akin to the scientific method is you will.

It is interesting that you note some passages are notoriously difficult to resolve.
This isn't too dissimilar from science right? There are many uncertainties, and many things notoriously difficult to resolve or even develop a working theory for.
BUT, do you see scientists walking away and giving up? No. So why should Biblical scholarship?

Even when scientists use the scientific method they often disagree with each other. BUT, that doesn't mean science is a free for all either!
There are rules to follow, and the same is the case when interpreting Scripture whether in a conservative framework or more liberal.

Scott

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Audie,

I appreciate your manner of response.

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will.

..

True to an extent; some just think God is telling them directly what it all means.

True, I won't deny that.
Many conservative lay Christians would be guilty of this.
Your words are perhaps even kind and an understatement of the issue.

For example, some Christians will take an approach that they just close your eyes, flick open the Bible to a random page and the first sentence that their eyes meet is a message from God. I'm not interested in whimsical, purely heart-felt interpretations that leave the mind at the door.

No one has a corner on Scripture or "God" if you will.
If they want to have a justified interpretation then they need to follow sensible methods and rules.

If you asked me whether YEC is a valid interpretation of Scripture though, I'd answer that it is an acceptable interpretation.

YEC is a valid reading? Hmm. Im sure it is. To me it might seem the only valid interpretation. but, you see where that leads the like of me.

Yes, taking Scripture alone I'd accept YEC as a valid reading.
That is, I can understand the logic of the interpretation.
I still find it wanting Scripturally which I often debate with YECs, but it's close enough to be reasonable interpretation.

I'm just being fair here. I'll obviously argue for my own interpretation, but that doesn't mean there may not be other possible interpretations.
To draw again a parallel to science, there might be many possible theories which according to our current knowledge are acceptable.
Only one can be true though, and so proponents of each try to thrash it out.

Science has an advantage here perhaps though, in that experiments can be performed to test theories.
With Scripture, we can't ask God or those who wrote it. So we just have to work with what we've got.

That said, if one doesn't rule out looking to other areas of truth, such found in the natural world (which Scripture itself provides strong grounds for doing). What then becomes an acceptable or non-acceptable interpretation can be informed by truths outside of Scripture.

Now where I see a YEC interpretation as a fairly acceptable interpretation of Scripture, YECs will often reject the Day-Age (an OEC) interpretation as being invalid.
Ironically, when charged with the accusation that we compromise God's word YECs often submit into the debate that are extra-biblical (outside of Scripture).
For example, "it was never a traditional view", "it is a modern century evolvement", "you're reading science into the text", "early Christian thought never believed in an Old Earth", etc.

My thought on that is, if you dont go outside the Bible for anything you will end up concluding that Pi is 3.0 and the stars are little things that might fall.

I can perhaps think of other examples, like the one I just mentioned in my last paragraphs above re: YEC.

However, it is generally considered that rounding off numbers and approximations are not error as the author is not concerned which such precision
Of course, strictly and mathematically speaking they do matter to architects and builders.

As for visions and dreams, obviously metaphor and symbol is often intended.
For example Daniel 8:10, only someone not adhering to any interpretative framework would take the words in a literal manner.
They've missed the context of language set in verses 1 and 2.

It is like I said, not a free for all.
Many skeptic sites are extremely guilty of ripping a verse out of context here and there.
Their motivation is to just try to make everything read and look as stupid as possible.
Obviously they couldn't care less about what is being said.

As one skeptic site had it, '"the stars are small objects that can fall from the sky and then be "stamped upon."'
Just read the fuller chapter of Daniel 8 and then tell me that this is what the author meant.
One does not need to look outside of Scripture to reject such.

That is what I mean when I say finding meaning in Scripture is not a "free for all"

not among serious students, but then, there are as I say, those who do free style according to how they are inspired. As you know.

Yes, both Christian and non-Christian alike do rip the words of Scripture about to suit their purpose.

Many arguments based upon nature and reason rule out the YEC interpretation.
OEC interpretations are the only other alternatives.

I can easily think of one more.

I just didn't want to rub it in.
Jac has perhaps been lenient on me by not interjecting.
But, if you ever need more.

Such an approach I believe takes both Scripture and Science seriously on their own terms.
What I'm not doing is taking outside evidence and reading it into the text as many YECs would claim.
Rather I am reading in the text the range of positions allowable, and then taking that to what we know about the world.

In fact, in my own personal life I came to a non-YEC position based upon Scripture alone.
This was prior to having any real Earth science knowledge or really caring much about science

That is harder work than just doing the literal or lie thing.

Indeed it is.

[Audie]

Say something I can argue with.

[Morny]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will...

I don't see the rule similarity. Mutually contradictory Biblical exegeses are numerous and notoriously difficult to resolve, even among Biblical scholars. To resolve disputes science uses the scientific method, which works spectacularly well.

Audie seems to have a point regarding many Biblical exegesis disagreements.

Welcome Morny,

I was giving Audie some insight into how conservative Biblical scholarship is performed within Evangelical circles.
There are more liberal theologies that will entertain contradictions, and while they'll treat Scripture seriously, not view Scripture as inerrant.
So, Biblical exegesis will be very different depending upon whether you follow a more conservative or liberal mindset.
Interpretations likewise will differ, but obviously, I'm following a conservative mindset in my previous post.
YEC and Day-Age interpretations after all come from a conservative interpretative framework.

But again, how do Biblical exegeses resolve their differences? I'm pretty sure that "liberal theologies" not only think that they do not "entertain contradictions", but also have comparable critiques about "conservatives". Each side righteously and unyieldingly claims the high ground with no resolution in sight.

The scientific method, on the other hand, efficiently resolves differences, avoiding dozens of splinter groups. Separate sciences do not exist. Just science. Does the evidentiary weight support your scientific theory? If the answer is no, your theory joins the garbage heap - usually sooner than later.

So no - I don't see how "science and conservative Biblical scholarship" are similar.

[Kurieuo]

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.

That is true to an extent.
At the same time it isn't really a "free for all".
There are exegetical rules to follow, similar to scientific rules if you will...

I don't see the rule similarity. Mutually contradictory Biblical exegeses are numerous and notoriously difficult to resolve, even among Biblical scholars. To resolve disputes science uses the scientific method, which works spectacularly well.

Audie seems to have a point regarding many Biblical exegesis disagreements.

Welcome Morny,

I was giving Audie some insight into how conservative Biblical scholarship is performed within Evangelical circles.
There are more liberal theologies that will entertain contradictions, and while they'll treat Scripture seriously, not view Scripture as inerrant.
So, Biblical exegesis will be very different depending upon whether you follow a more conservative or liberal mindset.
Interpretations likewise will differ, but obviously, I'm following a conservative mindset in my previous post.
YEC and Day-Age interpretations after all come from a conservative interpretative framework.

But again, how do Biblical exegeses resolve their differences? I'm pretty sure that "liberal theologies" not only think that they do not "entertain contradictions", but also have comparable critiques about "conservatives". Each side righteously and unyieldingly claims the high ground with no resolution in sight.

The scientific method, on the other hand, efficiently resolves differences, avoiding dozens of splinter groups. Separate sciences do not exist. Just science. Does the evidentiary weight support your scientific theory? If the answer is no, your theory joins the garbage heap - usually sooner than later.

So no - I don't see how "science and conservative Biblical scholarship" are similar.

Hi Morny,

They resolve via looking more closely as the text, literary techniques used and the like.

Did you know that there are peer-reviewed papers and books of commentaries on Scripture?

I"m not sure I can elaborate more than what I've done if you think it otherwise, at the same time it's probably not highly relevant to you.

All the best, K

[Kurieuo]

Say something I can argue with.

Maybe you're just going soft?

[Audie]

Say something I can argue with.

Maybe you're just going soft?

Never.

[Morny]

They resolve via looking more closely as the text, literary techniques used and the like.

Did you know that there are peer-reviewed papers and books of commentaries on Scripture?

Liberal theologies are absent from those peer-reviews, correct? Even among conservative Biblical scholarship, surely fundamental differences remain that have no hope of resolution, correct? If not, that self-selected group doing the research must be small relative to all Christian scholars, which is really the target group analogous to all scientists. Resolving some difficult disagreements with deeper autographa, historical, or prophetic analysis techniques won't help. Again, I think this all relates to a point that Audie made earlier.

On the other hand, complete agreement in science on old theories is the norm. And for new theories, agreement from the hold-outs is often just one new experimental result away. (I use the term "complete agreement" under the assumption that I'm purposely omitting the 1% of wackadoodles that pervade every field from basket-weaving to nuclear physics.)

[Kurieuo]

They resolve via looking more closely as the text, literary techniques used and the like.

Did you know that there are peer-reviewed papers and books of commentaries on Scripture?

Liberal theologies are absent from those peer-reviews, correct?

No, not really. Conservatives and liberals alike contribute.
These are professional journals that libraries provide access to for research and what-not.

Even among conservative Biblical scholarship, surely fundamental differences remain that have no hope of resolution, correct?

I'm not sure. Depends what you mean.
That is, I find resolution to a lot of them. And by and large there is full agreement on the main things.
But, 99% agreement on matters like creation, no -- not really.

Is science any different however, when it comes to the "Big bang" what happened in/at the beginning?
Or origins of life? That is, "origins" NOT "evolution". I think you'll find unclear and even absurd pictures there too.

If not, that self-selected group doing the research must be small relative to all Christian scholars, which is really the target group analogous to all scientists. Resolving some difficult disagreements with deeper autographa, historical, or prophetic analysis techniques won't help. Again, I think this all relates to a point that Audie made earlier.

It is true that there would be wider diversity of opinion (if that's what you're getting at).
I mean you even have Atheist, Agnostic and Muslim Biblical scholars putting their own spin on the "divine" aspects.
Obviously, given the lens one brings to scholarly discussions, the greater diversity of opinion there will be.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? I think it's a good thing in a way. When people are all in agreement that could be a sign that no true critical analysis is going on.

However, there are circles of groups.
Some circles that don't believe in God, some that do but are quite liberal, other circles that are conservative.
Each have their own rules they bring to the game. Some disagree with the rules that others might use, but are nonetheless willing to hear them out I suppose.

On the other hand, complete agreement in science on old theories is the norm. And for new theories, agreement from the hold-outs is often just one new experimental result away.

Old theories can quickly lose being the norm based upon new information and understanding of how the physical world works.
New theories may contradict each other meaning each one needs to be more fully proven. Over time, the ones that fail fall to the wayside, and the ones that receive greater support end up being considered with more and more seriousness.
The term "hypothesis" is probably more correct than "theory" since theories are to some extent tested.

I don't think it's as clean-cut as you put it here.
HOWEVER, I do pick up on the difference you're alluding to -- that Biblical scholarship isn't as clear-cut as science with the scientific method.

Listen, I'm not saying that the analogy is an apples for apples comparison in all aspects.
The one thing I don't think can be said is that reading Scripture is a free for all -- that it can mean whatever we want it to mean.
There are rules and interpretative methods to follow that serious scholarship follows and even critiques.
Although you disagree with a full comparison to the science world, I'm not sure you would disagree with that much?

[Morny]

Listen, I'm not saying that the analogy is an apples for apples comparison in all aspects.
The one thing I don't think can be said is that reading Scripture is a free for all -- that it can mean whatever we want it to mean.
There are rules and interpretative methods to follow that serious scholarship follows and even critiques.
Although you disagree with a full comparison to the science world, I'm not sure you would disagree with that much?

Correct. And I can certainly appreciate how much effort goes into Biblical scholarship.

No, not really. Conservatives and liberals alike contribute.
These are professional journals that libraries provide access to for research and what-not.

If diverse Biblical scholars are contributing, then I'm pretty sure that big differences in exegetic claims exist, which is the contrast I'm making with science.

When new evidence or experiments arise, disagreeing scientists change their minds to throw out theories that do not fit the evidence. Over time, the scientific method unifies support for theories.

Biblical scholarship cannot make such unifying progress in the same way, as partially evidenced by the periodic and irreversible splintering of Christianity into sub-groups.

Is science any different however, when it comes to the "Big bang" what happened in/at the beginning?
Or origins of life? That is, "origins" NOT "evolution". I think you'll find unclear and even absurd pictures there too.

Yes, science is different from Biblical scholarship. New astronomical observations continue to amazingly match the predictions of the "Big Bang" theory. Scientists are unified about what details happened in "The First Three Minutes" (a book by Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg) of the universe. Just a few decades ago even the most optimistic scientist would have laughed at the suggestion that we could have unimpeachable evidence for what happened in the first three minutes of a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Does science have a unified answer yet for what happened at the very instant of creation? No. But somewhat relevant here is the saying, "If a camel flies, no one laughs if it doesn't get very far."

The same applies to the origin of life, which is also on the leading edge of science. The history of science would warn you not to bet the farm that science won't eventually have a clear answer on the origin of life. Evolution's basic idea of common ancestry hasn't been in question in science for over a hundred years.

[Audie]

You think?

K is gonna get you big time now, he has scientific proof that the world is only 6006 years old!