Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

As BEST as I can tell, the Bible teaches YEC. Therefore, scientific interpretations of experience that directly contradict the YEC worldview must be wrong somewhere. I don't know where, and I can't answer that question.

And because of the necessary human insufficiency of Jac to validate his "BEST" analysis, the blue part of his quote cannot be known with confirmed accuracy and the green portion, including his "must be wrong somewhere" musing, is mere, debatable, speculation.

You are reading a false sense of uncertainty into my words. I could just as well be talking about John 1:1 and say, "As BEST as I can tell, the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. Therefore, theological interpretations of experience that directly contradict the evangelical worldview must be wrong somewhere. I don't know where, and I can't answer that question."

Or, closer to the actual OEC/YEC debate, I could say regarding Genesis 1:1, "As BEST as I can tell, the Bible teaches creation ex nihilo. Therefore, scientific interpretations of experience that directly contradict the creationist worldview must be wrong somewhere. I don't know where, and I can't answer that question."

It doesn't follow, then, that the second half is mere speculation.

The bigger question is whether it truly matters whether Jac is right about the Days/time issue or whether OEC/Progressives like myself are. I say, NO! If you're an OEC and you come across unbelievers who only believe in a godless naturalism - your touting OEC views is not going to move them toward the Gospel. It might LATER help them reconcile some of the scientific evidence so that they don't outright reject the Gospel, but it's not an effective early conversation issue. Neither are YEC views. Now, presenting evidences showing the impossibility of our universe and the appearance of life without God may well be effective, but I really don't see the time issue being very important. Salvation doesn't require that we understand every aspect of Genesis or Scripture. But the detailed history of Jesus and the Gospel comes FAR after Genesis - and how one broaches THAT with an unbeliever is likely going to be FAR more important than making points about one's Creation time views.

You would only be right if Genesis 1 only had apologetic value. Since it does not, I beg to differ. The OEC/YEC debate has important ramifications on how you interpret other parts of Scripture. In fact, YEC and OEC have different theological interpretations of Genesis 1. I can promise you that how we understand creation has a massive impact on pastoral theology. One of the issues I'm constantly dealing with as a hospital chaplain is the place of suffering in creation. Sure, OECs have their theodicies. So do YECs. And in some places, those YECs overlap. But there are serious differences at very fundamental levels on this question. I, for instance, can and do say that suffering and death are intrinsically evil. OECs tend to disagree with that. Here's an anecdote that well illustrates a small part of the practical differences here.

However, the only part of the time issue that is of practical importance to MAN has to do with God readying the planet for Adam, Eve and the rest of mankind - not HOW LONG, but THAT HE DID SO. Once God begins speaking and instructing about matters outside of the debatable time issues, that is what truly matters. Those YECs and OECs/Progressives who don't get this - especially those who wish to have constant, aggressive and hostile debates over it - are only causing division within the Body of Christ.

With all due respect, you are begging the question. Of course you think it doesn't matter. You accept long ages as the meaning of the yomim. For those of us who hold YEC, however, there are much more important issues at stake. Put differently, the only way you can say it doesn't matter is if you have already concluded that YEC is wrong on those issues it regards as important (e.g., death before the fall, to take but one example).

Jac, your problem is that the very same words can have a different understandings and do so to many, many highly theologically trained, and knowledgeable, conservative Christian Hebrew scholars. And scientific data - yes, perhaps imperfectly interpreted clues - sees great age. So you have two things that are not insignificant to consider. Scripture, of course, should always be, BY FAR, the greatest consideration, and certainly the ONLY infallible standard - it's true no matter whether we've properly understood some of its meanings. But we can't always perfectly know it's precise meanings, which you've admitted. And you well know that OECs also view sin entering the world as bringing spiritual death and all of its horrific ramifications. So don't get on some high horse as to how YECs are some how holier and more insistent upon the impact of the fall and sin - ON MAN or any lesser defenders of the integrity of Scripture. Such a view elevates the time issue far above its importance. That one believes sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, that Paradise was lost, that salvation and its Author became crucial to remedying it, that death, mayhem and destruction's seeds were cast, that a powerful adversary and destroyer propel these along, that God's Word is forever, true and reliable, that it leads to Christ - THESE are strongly embraced by Christian OECs/Progressive Creationists.

Whatever the truth may be about the animals and time, I just can't see your witness boosted by claiming there were no animal deaths before the fall or that 14 billion year here or there matters for an Eternal, all-powerful Being. God Himself has essentially said that lengths of time are all essentially the same to Him. It's fine to believe what you do about time and animal deaths, but it changes nothing except for the animals living before the Fall, and WHEN the Fall happened. It also doesn't change the impact of sin or its seriousness TO MAN and nor could it be any less if there were no animal deaths before the fall. We should be able to agree through whom sin began, on its impact, its ramifications, its perpetuater, and its Remedy. Your belief that there was no animal death before the fall is basically a pointless argument will a poor evangelistic focus - one I've never seen change anyone's mind about the truth of Scripture or their need for salvation, but one I have seen be a impediment to belief. Of course, people can use anything they want to create their own self-justified impediments. Its not the YEC time or animal death beliefs that I have a problem with certain YECs - its their FOCUS on those issues in a fallen world needing Jesus. That and some YECs' holier-than-thou attitudes assert that they are somehow more authentic Christians, greater holders of the faith, greater believers in the integrity of Scripture, take sin more seriously - none of which are true. I have a FAR greater problem with this attitude than I ever will with and disagreements over time meanings in Genesis.

Philip wrote:That and some YECs' holier-than-thou attitudes . . .

And I've no interest in this type of holier-than-thou attitude. Take your condemnation elsewhere.

All the best.

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Paul, the line and approach of questioning you are taking comes across as interrogation. Neither of us are children here. If you have a point, make it. Alternatively, I could just point out that while I answered your absurd question, you simply ignored mine and proceeded to ask me another absurd question. If you have any hope of this continuing, you need to answer my questions as well so that this is an actual conversation.

I don't wanna speak for you are assume your views, hense I am asking for confirmation.
My reasoning?
This:
The Universe is God's direct creation.
The universe is in need of redemption.
The Bible was written by man, inspired by the HS, but men nevertheless BUT, let us go with the view that ALL of scripture is God breathed, much like like creation.
The in creation is in need of redemption, why is it is so hard to view the bible in the same light?
Creation is NOT inerrant, why should we view the bible as such ??

Creation is not God breathed. It is not inspired. Scripture is God breathed. It is inspired. Therein lies the difference. Now, we are certainly free to have a difference in theology here, and that's fine. I hold that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. If you adopt positions that require you to reject inspiration and inerrancy, then that's your position. One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. Or, to put it more concretely:

• 1. If evolution is true, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written;
  2. Gensis 1 is not incorrect as written;
  3. Therefore, evolution is not true

That would be my argument. But someone could just as easily say

• 1. If evolution is true, Genisis 1 is incorrect as written;
  2'. Evolution is true;
  3'. Therefore, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written

If (1) is accepted as true, then question is whether (2) is true or if (2') is true. My theology doesn't allow for (2) to be false. Perhaps yours does, but don't bother asking me to give up inerrancy (and therefore, inspiration). That's a step I cannot and will not make, especially not by an appeal to the corruptibility of nature in general, as if we are somehow to put creation on the same plane as Scripture. The way I see it, you may as well be saying that nature is equivalent to the 67th book of the Bible, and such logic either elevates the cosmos far above its place or debases Scripture far below its proper place.

By the way, there is no reason to take that tone with me, is there?
Have I at any point offended you or said anything to make you concerned about my motives when I discuss anything with you?

There's no tone intended. No one wants to be interrogated. No one wants to take a very basic theology quiz. You would do much better to simply say something along the lines of what you did in this post. If you somehow are worried that I don't believe that the universe is God's creation and needs redemption (although I can't imagine where you would get such a notion), you could simply say, "Now, I don't want to presume on your theology, but I would guess you probably believe that the universe is God's creation and in need of redemption. Now, if that is so . . .," etc.

edit:

As to your logic, by the way, I would ask how you know that the universe is in need of redemption. I would take it that you know this from Scripture. But if you are to abandon inerrancy (and I would say therefore inspiration), that is, if you believe that the Bible is in need of redemption because it, too, has errors, then how do you know that the Bible isn't in error in its claim that the universe needs redemption? You don't. You would simply believe that the Bible was right on this particular point. And says who? You, of course.

This is the danger of denying inerrancy. The person who denies inerrancy does not merely say that the Bible has errors but that he believes the parts that are obviously right. What he is really saying is that he, himself, is the divine authority, and that he believes those parts that line up with what he already believes or finds unobjectionable. And that, to me, is highly objectionable.

So, no, the Bible is not in need of redemption. It is not errant. On the contrary, it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Ok, I see, though disagree with your point.
I do NOT see creation as being less than the bible.
Creation is a direct byproduct of God whereas the bible was written by man, copied by man, translated by man into flawed and imperfect languages.
To view the bible higher than creation is, well, IMO incorrect.
You ask how I know that creation is of God, that it was from the bible and yes, to a certain degree but I hold to that view regardless of the bible, I see it in the world I observe, but that is another thread.
I see no danger in denying inerrancy of the bible, just as I see no danger in accepting the view that God's DIRECT creation is in need of redemption and is not inerrant.
I don't see how we can hold to the view that the bible which is NOT God's direct creation, but written and copied and translated by imperfect man with imperfect tools, is inerrant and still be OK with the notion that God's direct creation is not inerrant.

The one thing we do know is that humans have, at best, adequate knowledge of things.
Not complete, not error free and certainly not unquestionable knowledge.

Jac, I'm not attacking YOU, but I was challenging the assertions of some YECs - whether they reflect your views or not - that most OECs Scripturally believe in anything that lessens the impact of sin on man: how it entered the world through Adam and Eve, the necessity for a Savior, and/or assertions that the evangelical efforts and effectiveness of OECs are somehow damaged by their old earth views. I'm sorry if that has offended you, but it was addressed at your implied assertions and what I see as a wrongful, divisive focus by some YECs on the time issue/animal deaths before the fall. Can we discuss why we each believe what we do about the time issue - by all means! I only have a problem with false assertions about what OECs actually believe, as if they aren't able to be as fully realized and effective a Christian if they don't have YEC views - which is what you have implied.

1. If evolution is true, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written;
2. Gensis 1 is not incorrect as written;
3. Therefore, evolution is not true[/list]

1. If evolution is true, Genisis 1 is incorrect as written;
2'. Evolution is true;
3'. Therefore, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written

I would of course say

1) If evolution is true then a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.
2) Evolution is true
3) Therefore a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

You could also substitute Evolution with Progressive Creation.

Silvertusk wrote:You could also substitute Evolution with Progressive Creation.

You could, but then you'd be misrepresenting many progressive creationists that do believe in a literal interpretation. Just not literal and concrete.

The point to ask is WHAT did the writer in Genesis have in mind when he wrote it?
Was he making a scientific statement about the world? the universe? or a theological statement?
If a theological one, what was it and what was his point?

PaulSacramento wrote:The point to ask is WHAT did the writer in Genesis have in mind when he wrote it?
Was he making a scientific statement about the world? the universe? or a theological statement?
If a theological one, what was it and what was his point?

I hear people ask this, but I'm not sure about the relevance?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if it's the typical line of thinking I've heard in the past from others, I think it does no good to retreat into a "these aren't really a scientific text" mentality when one detects matters of truth that may conflict with science. One must apply a consistent hermeneutic, and have a reason to reject that Scripture is touching on matters of truth other than believing it would otherwise be wrong.

In all honesty, I think there is much validity in critically treating the books that comprise the Bible each as individual historical texts. In fact, if Christians approached Scripture in this manner more, then they might be able to witness better to secular society on society's own terms. This means, applying historical-critical methods... even bringing to the table that belief in a monotheistic God evolved over time, and Israel simply employs the use of God in its writings to justify their nation as God's people, and therefore justify the killing, conquering and the like of other nations, for a land they achieved via conquest rather than "God" giving it to them.

The thing is, this is diametrically opposed to anything Christians would believe. But, if this were some other religion, then it is fair under a rational analysis to consider options other than those invoking God/gods. So how can this be good for us as Christians? Well, when we get to the crux of the story (which is where it counts) -- that is, Jesus and his crucifixion -- Habermaus does much good in speaking about the reality of matters surrounding Jesus and even the resurrection, on purely historical terms. That is, treating the texts as historical pieces of literature like any other rather than divinely inspired and inerrant texts.

Once one begins to see emerging truths, rather than dismissing them out of hand, then they have fresh eyes with which to read all of Scripture with different assumptions of God. That is, reading Scripture without applying such a rigid historical-critical methods that the authors would have never envisaged.

Getting back on track... if on matters of physical reality and truths about our world, one dismisses what the Bible says because they believe the author is talking religiously, or this or that way without intending it to be "scientific" on matters of "physical reality" -- such is not doing it justice. In fact, such lukewarmness is like having one foot in and on foot out, and is rather insulting I think to Scripture. It also insults the intelligence of skeptics who just see us as "spiritualising" those parts we'd otherwise believe to be false. So confronting them on their own terms, means they will at least listen to some parts -- like perhaps those parts Hamermaus tries to confront people with.

At least scholars who use the HC method treats the texts extremely seriously, more so than perhaps many Christians who accept them as divinely inspired. But if your fancy is to discard or warp the truth of what is said in the interest of modern science, then don't get injecting God into the picture anywhere Scripture mentions Him. Or go saying this passage the author never intended it to be a piece of on science, or cosmology, or its simply poetry or what-have-you... because Scripture touches on a lot of matters of truth regardless of the intended prose, and if it's wrong -- it's wrong.

If you seriously believe the words in Genesis support Evolution, then I have no qualms. However, if your way of dealing with the text is to accept it simply as some kind romantic piece on creation because you see it as being wrong on truths it touches upon (and in any case, it's not a "sceintific text")... then be honest enough to say you believe it is wrong on the truths it touches upon in Genesis 1-2 perhaps 3 and even more. But then, the question becomes how do you decide what to trust and accept...

Ultimately, if on matters of what we know to be true, we believe that particular book of the Bible to be wrong (e.g., Genesis), then where it touches upon spiritual matters we can't really trust it either.

Well, I never intended to ramble on... but I was away a few months so... and there was more I wanted to add in order to balance my previous post re: the Historical-Critical method.

In the pulpit and our spiritual lives as Christians, we apply a different hermeneutic -- a Canonical hermeneutic -- that treats all Scripture as divinely inspired such that God is its ultimate author that guided the authors. It is therefore good for teaching, good for guidance, good for reform and reproofing just like Martin Luther tried to do internally within the Church.

The Canonical method is one skeptical atheists and agnostic never seem to even try consider. What if their philosophical presuppositions that exclude God's existence are wrong? At least, there are Christians who perform historical criticism, and at extreme levels... even unabashedly teaching it to students. Seems we're more honest. At the end of the day, if you read the Bible from start to finish, it nevertheless gets the message of the Gospel through loud and clear...

It tells a story that follows Israel, and their beliefs about God and humanities relationship to Him beginning with creation.

One where we fall away from God, and despite occasions where humanity and God come together, continue to struggle and fall due to our selfish desires time after time, after time. It highlights just how far apart we really are from God and His standards time and time again. Such that God pours out his wrath numerous time in the OT, again, and again, and again upon those who made the Covenant with God to be his people.

We learn through the prophets that God will not struggle forever with his people, that He desires the heart and not simply obedience and ritualised sacrifice. And then Christ is born into the nation that God took under His wing, on account of His promise to Abraham passed down through Isaac and Jacob.

And then, the dilemma becomes clear that God's Love has been pinned against God's Righteousness. And so we get a story about how God provided a free gift via Christ... such that we can be made righteous and receive God's love via grace, although we are by no means righteous. And this whole story even culminates with talk of the end of times in Revelations.

In addition to being a historical text that names real names, and real places right down to the direction wind blows in some areas... a story with such a deep plot that spans over thousands of years...? Regardless of any critic's pedantic points questioning this or that verse or word as being untrue or wrong -- but such a deep and rich story about God's relationship to humanity is for me simply amazing.

Is there any other historical text comparable to what we call the Bible that carries such an involved story and synopsis over so long? For those who read it, it's absolutely a depressing story to do with Israel and Judah at that! But through the thick of it, God creates a way, the Way, to redeem humanity even from their most blackest points. The Messiah is born... and we get into the NT canon which completes the picture and enables God's Love to win out over His Righteousness in Christ, grace replacing wrath.

What I'd like to see is for Christians to just treat the text, and their interpretation honestly. If it touches upon matters of truth to do with science, although it is by no means a scientific paper, then Scripture is still either wrong or it is right. Be upfront, rather than squirm. It doesn't end there, and there is still much to appreciate.

I myself, prefer to treat Scripture in Canonical fashion. My view of the world, and belief in God, and belief in Christ, enables me to do that without hesitation. So I will attempt where possible to always reconcile any truths I see touched upon in Scripture with reality and vice-versa -- regardless of whether it's Genesis, Job, Psalm, Proverbs, the Gospels, Romans, Revelations or what-have-you. I've stopped even bothering questioning now, because when I put myself to answering hundreds of criticisms from skeptics many years ago, I was always able to resolve issues one way or another. And, even if it seems contorted, as long as one solution exists to a particular passage, then it isn't really possible to say such a passage in Scripture is wrong without doubt.

PaulSacramento wrote: Ok, I see, though disagree with your point.
I do NOT see creation as being less than the bible.
Creation is a direct byproduct of God whereas the bible was written by man, copied by man, translated by man into flawed and imperfect languages.
To view the bible higher than creation is, well, IMO incorrect.
You ask how I know that creation is of God, that it was from the bible and yes, to a certain degree but I hold to that view regardless of the bible, I see it in the world I observe, but that is another thread.
I see no danger in denying inerrancy of the bible, just as I see no danger in accepting the view that God's DIRECT creation is in need of redemption and is not inerrant.
I don't see how we can hold to the view that the bible which is NOT God's direct creation, but written and copied and translated by imperfect man with imperfect tools, is inerrant and still be OK with the notion that God's direct creation is not inerrant.

First, I never said that creation was inerrant or errant. That doesn't make any sense, because creation doesn't teach anything. It just is what it is. You may argue, I suppose, that creation is a(n innerant) natural sign of God, as smoke is a natural sign of fire, but unless something teaches, it is neither errant nor inerrant. What I have said is that creation -- God's handiwork -- is corrupted. Because it is corrupted, we have to be careful about the inferences we draw from it.

Second, and related, God's word is inerrant because it does teach something. It is not a natural sign. It is an instrumental sign. It's words have meaning, intended referents. To the extent that we understand those meanings, we understand its teaching. To suggest, then, that the Bible is errant is to suggest that God inspired men to say things that are not true, which is absurd. God cannot and does not inspire error.

Third, if you are going to deny inerrancy, I still hold that you have no objective means to affirm anything the Bible says is true, up to and including the gospel. Oh, sure, you can say with Habermas and other apologists that the Bible is historically accurate insofar as it claims that Jesus rose from the dead. But the biblical teaching that comprises the gospel--that all those who place their faith in Him have everlasting life--cannot be proven historically, for it is not a historical proposition. It is not a philosophical proposition. It is not a scientific, mathematical, aesthetic, or ethical proposition. It is a theological proposition, and if the Bible can be in error on things, then in principle there is no way to guard against the claim that it could be in error on theological propositions such as those that comprise the gospel. If you believe the gospel as the Bible records it, then, you cannot say you believe in on the basis of Scripture. That is the great loss. All you can say is that the Bible says it and you believe it is correct in that assertion. But what is the basis for saying it is correct? There neither is nor can be any independent verification of the theological truth of the claim.

So that's the rub for me. If your position entails you allow for an errant Bible, then I am forced to reject your position. In a syllogism it would look like this:

• 1. PaulSacramento's position entails an errant Bible;
  2. That which entails the Bible is errant is wrong;
  3. Therefore, PaulSacramento's position is wrong.

Obviously you disagree with (2), but tradition OEC advocates such as Ross and Rana do not. I'm just arguing from the majority position here. That doesn't mean the majority position is correct, of course. It's just to say that your theological position is outside the mainstream, for better or for worse. And what I at least respect about OEC (DA, anyway) is that it is mainstream in its acceptance of (2)--it claims to be a literal interpretation of Scripture. Any position that denies that is just one I don't bother engaging in debate with.

-----------------------------------

Silvertusk wrote:I would of course say

1) If evolution is true then a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.
2) Evolution is true
3) Therefore a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

I would just refer you to my comments to PS above. If your position entails an errant Bible, then it's a non-starter for me. That's just as true if you attempt to uphold inerrancy while denying the necessity of a literal interpretation. As I said above, at least DA theory claims to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Those positions (e.g., the Framework theory) that see it as anything other than literal are actually claiming the Bible is errant when read literally, and, as I have said repeatedly, denying inerrancy is unacceptable to me.

But this is why I am YEC. I don't see any other positions as really upholding an inerrant Bible. I give OEC/DA credit for at least trying to uphold an inerrant Bible, but I think it just isn't feasible on a hermeneutical level. *shrug*

--------------------------------------------

K, I won't quote your whole argument. I will only say that what you seem to have done is opt for one of the positions I offered earlier, which is to drop trying claim the Bible is inspired and inerrant as written and attempt to hold some semblance of inspiration by adopting a more mythological hermeneutic. Perhaps "mythological" sounds too negative, but I think it's an appropriate label. Child's Canon Criticism has much to commend it, and I think liberal scholars would do better to adopt that approach than the deconstructionist view they usually take. All the same, it (Canon Criticism) still doesn't take the text seriously as written, because as written it still has errors. I see no objective basis on which to affirm the theological infallibility of Scripture while denying its historical veracity. The only objective aspect we have of Scripture are its actual words. Thus, we either affirm its words or not. If we deny them (in principle, if no occasion), then any instance we affirm them is not on their authority but on some other. Yet the truth value of theological propositions cannot be affirmed apart from authority, and if the authorty is not affirmed of the words themselves (which Canon Criticism disallows) then that authority can only be personal, and that, of course, is no real authority at all (at least to me).

Jac wrote:
What I have said is that creation -- God's handiwork -- is corrupted. Because it is corrupted, we have to be careful about the inferences we draw from it.

Jac, I can't remember you actually saying this before. It helps me understand a little more about why you believe what you do.

Jac3510 wrote:K, I won't quote your whole argument. I will only say that what you seem to have done is opt for one of the positions I offered earlier, which is to drop trying claim the Bible is inspired and inerrant as written and attempt to hold some semblance of inspiration by adopting a more mythological hermeneutic. Perhaps "mythological" sounds too negative, but I think it's an appropriate label. Child's Canon Criticism has much to commend it, and I think liberal scholars would do better to adopt that approach than the deconstructionist view they usually take. All the same, it (Canon Criticism) still doesn't take the text seriously as written, because as written it still has errors. I see no objective basis on which to affirm the theological infallibility of Scripture while denying its historical veracity. The only objective aspect we have of Scripture are its actual words. Thus, we either affirm its words or not. If we deny them (in principle, if no occasion), then any instance we affirm them is not on their authority but on some other. Yet the truth value of theological propositions cannot be affirmed apart from authority, and if the authorty is not affirmed of the words themselves (which Canon Criticism disallows) then that authority can only be personal, and that, of course, is no real authority at all (at least to me).

Don't mistake me Jac and what I believe.

Are you confusing Canon Criticism (what books are to be considered Canon, which goes into literary criticsim and the like) for the Canonical hermeneutic (reading them together as authoritative)? Something a very liberal lecturer of mine did, because knowing my background was evangelical in nature, it was his suggestion I look into Canon Criticism as he was desiring me to discard some parts of the Bible as unreliable. But, I offered up the Canonical hermeneutic instead, as a plausible one to use... only briefly touching upon criticism of the canon.

Rather, the Canonical method, as I've read across several books some time ago, takes an authoritative approach to Scripture. It's not so much interested in how it got to where it is, so much as accept it as it is. To place it back on the table as even divinely inspired when so many other methods rip it apart. It provides an outsider, someone who is not a Christian or doesn't believe in God, a way to look at Scripture in a non-threatening manner to their worldview. To break out of their non-belief to entertain Scripture as authoritative and even sacred, in the same manner many Jews and Christians would.

A historical-critical hermeneutic rips apart the Bible as anything but inspired by God. The Canonical method places Scripture back on the table as authoritative, even if not the inspired and even inerrant word of God. There is benefit to be had in looking through the eyes of someone who does not believe in God. Sadly HC is anything but fair in criticism, and is often performed with certain atheistic philosophical presuppositions, but still... what you're left with a lot of substance that a non-Christian scholar couldn't easily deny.

It is perhaps one reason why the resurrection can be debated by scholars, because there are certain historical facts one is left with that still need to be accounted for -- if one is to reason it away. Of course, one could just ignore any history whatsoever to laugh off even looking at certain historical facts surrounding the resurrection event... but then such people are closed-minded fools.

What I did not state, was my position on any of this, except in my final paragraph which reveals how I consider Scripture. But the one thing I get tired of reading, which was the reason for my posting, is that "Genesis isn't a science textbook" as though now that makes it alright to dismiss matters of truth it touches upon because the author didn't know better. To such people, I say stop putting one foot in and one foot out -- be more honest with yourself and how you see Scripture.