Jbuza wrote:Hmmm I missed a post.
Bart,
I don't agree that sience falsely so called has anything at all to do with evolution, necessarily. I also don't take my opinions from the party line of some group of YEC.
Let me paste the NET translation of the verse.
Avoid31 the profane chatter and absurdities32 of so-called “knowledge.”33 6:21 By professing it, some have strayed from the faith.34 Grace be with you all.35
I think that people believe all kinds of things to be true that are not true. Just because something is accepted knowledge doesn't make it truth.
Also God says that he will confound the wisdom of this world. It is clear to me that people accept interpretations and stories based on unobserved suppositions. AT least YEC is derived from records, while OE takes its history from interpretations largely derived from assumptions of how the earth could be without God.
I don't mind the hard questions. Sometimes I have difficulty in becoming interested in some subjects to bother refuting these stories, but there is always lots to do, so I can't put all my time in unproductive, yet enjoyable disputations.
I would like to point out that the passage from Timothy above seems to indicate that one can profess so called knowledge or science as truth and still hang onto their faith. IT is clear however that one should avoid accepting and professing a story simply because someone else has accepted it is truth, especially when it is from the wise and great minds of this world, whom God has promised to confound.
You should not be surprised that conclusions and experimentation are supposed and interpreted from an OE standpoint because that has been the "so-called knowledge" of science for a while.
Jbuza,
You're welcome to your interpretation.
The point is that the passage in question uses the greek word "gnosis," which is knowledge and the context of the passage and the understanding of it by those reading it would clearly have applied to the heresy of gnosticism, which is a very specific and narrow context and has nothing whatsoever to do with what you are suggesting above. The text you are using to proof it here is grossly out of context.
The use of the word "science" in the KJV more than 1500 years after the writing of the text in the original greek, has nothing to do with how you are using the verse now.
It is a good example though of what I believe commonly takes place with YEC teaching and it is something that all Christians need to guard against as it is certainly not unique to YEC.
When looking for the "literal" meaning of a passage, it is simply read as if it were written by God directly to a Western American in the 21st century. The original language, context and culture of the original audience are just glossed over.
The problem with this type of hermeneutic is that it will usually render different meanings and understandings of the text which will rely upon the language, culture and context of whoever happens to be reading it at the time. What a mess!
It's certainly easier however. It takes a lot of work and study to put one's self into the position of understanding the Bible from the point of reference of the original audience. Most people prefer to simply read it as if it were written specifically for them and then spiritualize it and claim anyone disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God. Everyone is susceptible to this, including me.
I honestly believe that to a large extent, this is a prime example of what the YEC position relies upon and why it has such popular appeal among Christians who aren't discipled or taught to watch out for it.
In any event, if you want to continue to use this passage in this manner and imagine that it is speaking to the scientific method and/or the realm of science then you're free to do so.
The original audience understood it was addressing the heresy of gnosticism.
I prefer their understanding as an indicator of what God and Paul meant over yours.
In terms of the last portion of your post, the idea that and old earth is simply the result of such a presupposition coming back in a circular manner has been a common mantra of yours.
It fails woefully, as there is no common philosophical basis among the proponents of an Old Earth that creates this need. The breadth and span of those in the scientific community, across multiple disciplines using multiple evidence is so overwhelming in terms of corroboration as to make your assertion in this regard stunningly arbitrary. These are the conclusions of Old Earth Christian Creationists to be sure (a very small subset of the overall scientific community I might add,) but they are the conclusions in terms of the age of the earth based upon scientific observation of Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jainists, Buddhists, Confucianists etc. The reason their conclusions are so uniform is not because their starting world views are in agreement. It is because by the use of the Scientific Method, on the basis of the evidence, corroborated within many different disciplines and data sets, they have found the conclusion to be inescapable.
Attempting to cast the error of the YEC minority back upon the old earth overwhelming majority is not particularly effective. There is far more diversity of world views present which refutes your assertion.
That is why I asked you earlier to provide one instance of any scientist who on the basis of evidence alone has drawn a conclusion of the earth being 10,000 years old or less. I would venture again to say that you cannot do it. The only "scientists" claiming this are those who attach themselves to the YEC perspective first based upon their acceptance of YEC hermeneutics and then they basically accept a contrarianistic attitude and attempt to obfuscate the evidence. There's precious little else they can do. They cannot work with the evidence itself to bring about any broad agreement with their presuppositions. That in a nutshell is why you see so little peer-reviewed material. It simply can't pass the test within the scientific community.
I admire your tenacity. You're better than most that I've seen in this regard in terms of your willingness to stay with a thread and work it through, but in the end, all I'm observing is a continual return to your assertion that there's some philosophical need dictating the conclusions of an old earth.
What's the common thread among all the groups mentioned above in this regard? By your claim, there is no objectivity, ever. The lengths I see you going to in this manner borders on the absurd.
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
