>>I would like to get a Hebrew expert's opinion on this. NIV says
>
>> We can continue to interpret the Bible in a fashion
>>that makes it observationally false, or we can try to find a new
>> interp. that does not force the believer to deny what he can see with
>his eyes.
>
>Glenn,
>
Paul Durham wrote:
>This discussion started out with a proposal to discuss Christ and
>Creation. Instead, it immediately degenerated into a traditionall TE vs
>Creationist debate with absolutely no reference to Christ as Creator.
>
>Please accept what I am saying in the appropriate light. (Really, I am
>typing in a kind way!) :-)
>
I will, but you started the rabbit trail with the following statement:
>I wanted to keep the "Christ and Creation"
>idea on track and respond to your side
>argument (rabbit trail :-)) in a separate
>post. You may have to take issue with the
>whole of scripture and not with me. I
>argue nothing in this regard and choose to
>let scripture speak for and interpret
>itself rather than harmonize it with man's
>reason.
This is the "rabbit trail", not "Christ as Creator." Please don't
chastise me for following what you said when you started this thread.
>I really want to end an ad-infinitum off topic string. I concede that
>our mutual posts have led nowhere and may in fact go on forever.
>
>May I suggest several things to work on WRT your model that would
>contribute more to understanding than to winning the (so far) unwinnable
>argument of TE vs. creation.
>
>1. Take time to research scripture more thoroughly. You get an "A" for
>your zeal in defending your position. But IMHO your scriptural research
>is wanting.
>You make broad brushed claims that the Bible teaches evolution but when
>the onion is peeled back, you have trouble defending your model against
>conflicting scripture. I think that it is an inherent TE liability.
>
>Your reliance on the NIV, which language you defend vociferously and
>upon which much of your argument depends, only because it is
>conveniently on your compouter, turns it into a crutch. I, for one,
>would rather avoid spending my precious time confirming whether the
>translation you use has some degree of accuracy.
>
Where did I defend the language vociferously? I never made even one
defence of the NIV. I said that the NIV differed and wished to have a
second opinion. That is hardly a defence. That is a question and an
enquiry. Please document this or retract it!
I specifically switched to the KJ version, so your statement that I am
depending upon NIV is erroneous. KJ says many of the same things. I
asked for a Hebrew opinion on a given verse because I wanted to know more.
You made the assertion:
>>Then you have just asserted that the
>proper interpretation of verse 20 KJV,
>is that God commanded the waters to
>bring forth winged fowl? Do you also now
>contend that water created birds?
I cited the NIV. But lets look at The New American,
>"Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and
>let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
This does not say that the waters brought forth birds.
The Revised Standard:
>And God said, "let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and
>let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
This says that the waters bring forth creatures but the birds are in a
separate phrase. So water did not bring forth birds here either.
I see little difference between what these versions say and what the NIV
says:
>Genesis 1:20 (NIV) And God said, "Let the water teem with living
>creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the
Can I not depend upon these other translations when they say the same
thing as the NIV? Or are all translations wrong? What is the proper
translation of Genesis 1:20 according to you?
>May I suggest something?
>
>I personally use several study tools:
>- an interlinear Bible
>- a good exhaustive concordance (Strong's)
>- a Hebrew-Chaldean and Greek Dictionary
>- several translations (I like the Bronx Bible best :-))
>
>Consider purchasing some of these. Most are available as software
>or CD-Rom .
I own several and do use them. I have The Bible Library on CD. I have
Parsons NIV. I have Word Publ. bible on disk. But in none of them do
they say that I must accept the concept that animals reproduce after their
kind. That statement is not in the Scripture at all.
>You may want to spend some time in the Book and rethink or rework your
>interpretation of Genesis 1.
>
I have spent 25 years trying to figure out how science can fit with
Genesis. What you are offering can not account for what I can see with my
eyes. You are offering a view which if true, means I must choose between
what I know about the world and the Bible. Both can not be true. But if
experiential data is flawed, then there is a major problem. I know what
the Bible says via experiential data.
>2. You have developed a circular argument regarding your method of
>interpreting scripture. First, you say that the Bible teaches evolution.
>Then you say that the evidence, properly interpreted, supports evolution.
That is not circular, that is consistancy. I used to believe that the
Bible did not teach evolution. But I looked at the evidence and painfully
had to agree that evolution was true. I then looked harder at what the
Bible said. It wasn't until that second look that I saw what I had missed
before. Do you never see new things in Scripture?
>Then,that that evidence should be used to re-interpret the bible. This
>reasoning is a tautology and provides no self-correction for error.
Part of the self correction is the observational data. Two contradictory
ideas can not both be true at the same time.
Do you believe in Copernican astronomy? The ancient Christians original
understanding of the Scripture was that the earth was the center of the
solar system. They used the science of their day to interpret the Bible.
Today most Christians have departed from that understanding. If we must
believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the solar
system, then most people would then conclude that the Bible is erroneous.
They would be correct. Should the modern Christians not have changed?
>Any argument needs an independent external control. In the TE vs.
>creation debate, it is scripture. We cannot use the force of reason to
>reinterpret God's word. Since all scripture is inspired (theo-pneustas),
>then it is the absolute reference for all we think, say, or do.
>
So you said last night that animals were only able to reproduce after
their kind. I gave you several examples where this is not true. Do you
think there are no beefaloes? (cross between cow and buffalo). I agree
that Scripture is absolute, but what I don't agree with is that your
interpretation of scripture is absolute. You are confusing the two. Your
interp. would say that beefaloes should not exist, but they do.
I am curious about your lack of response to the existence of polyploids,
and crosses like the beefalo. You said animals and plants could only
reproduce after their kind but you fail to even be curious or attempt to
dispute the obvious fact that animals and plants do not reproduce after
their kind. Is their existence an illusion of this corrupt world?
>As for physical evidence, we live in an accursed, corrupted world. The
>evidence must speak to that corruption. Since evidence is in fact not
>holy,it cannot be the arbiter of scripture. Scripture must only answer to
>itself,or to God.
>
If the evidence we derive from the physical world is not to be trusted,
then you should not trust what you read on the pages of your Bible. That
is also data from the physical world. Everything you know about God you
acquired via your eyes or ears. Corrupt and accursed means of acquiring
information, I might add.
>3. Your tag-line editorials castigating all of the Christians who can't
>see your point contributes nothing to understanding. I think that many of
>us want to truly understand your model, but if we cannot even get past
>your translation and interpretation of scripture there will remain a
>vast chasm between us.
>
look, I used to be a YEC. I was one of those Christians I castigate. I was
a Christian apologist and have seen my arguments used by other Christians.
I was the one who generated the argument about the age of the universe
based upon lunar craters. You can see it in Ackerman's book, It's a Young
World After All, Baker, 1986, p. 49. That argument is spurious, I
started it and now no one will listen to me when I say it is wrong. They
tell me that I have been brainwashed by evolutionist or, they tell me
that I am biased against God's Word. I will put out my bibliography at
the end of this. You can judge for yourself how active I was. I was very
wrong in my former advocacy of the YEC position. I will most certainly
answer to God for that, but like a watchman on the wall, if I don't speak,
it will be bad for me! You can have a a literal Biblical account and
modern science. They are not incompatible.
>But, since it is your model the burden lies upon you to re-work the
>weaker areas. I hope that you do do that and post your revisions for
>later discussion on this reflector. I recomend some additional thought in
>the scriptural end of things. If not, the non-believers on the list will
>just have a good laugh reading all of our arguing.
>
They are already laughing at the Christian interpretation of things. Go
look at Talk.Origins on usenet! I am guilty of many things but not
causing laughter among the non christians. I posted my views on Talk
Origins and did not get one single criticism and yet I was arguing for a
literal Bible! I bet you could not post your views there with the same
result.
What I get the feeling of is that you want me to revise this back to
believing that animals reproduce after their kind. They don't and you
haven't yet dealt with the Beefalo. How about this?
"Interspecific hybridization among the higher plants and animals can
spawn variation that transcends that of either parent species. Some
species seem to make a habit of hybridizing with others. From
morphological evidence, Harlan and de Wet concluded that the grass
Bothriochloa intermedia has incorporated genes from B. ischaemum in
Pakistan, from Dichanthium annulatum in Pakistan and India, from
Capillipedium parviflorum in norther Australia, and from B. insculpta in
East Africa." Douglass Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology p. 258
These are crosses of different genera. Deal with this. How does this fit
your biblical interpretation?
Still your friend,
glenn
Publications
Books
McDowell, Josh, Stewart, Don, (1981). Reasons Skeptics Should Consider
Christianity. Here's Life Publishers. San Bernadino Ca. Ghost wrote the
Evolution section. (See page after Contents)
Morton, G. R., (1986). The Geology of the Flood. DMD Publishers. Dallas,
Texas
Articles
Morton, G. R. (1979). Can the Canopy Hold Water? Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 16:164-169.
Morton, G. R. (1980). The Warm Earth Fallacy. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 17:40-41.
Morton, G. R. (1980). Objections to an Ice Canopy. Creation Research
Society Quarterly. 17:138.
Morton, G. R. (1980). Prolegamena to the Study of the Sediments. Creation
Research Society Quarterly. 17:162-167.
Morton, G. R. (1981). Reply to Dillow Creation Research Society Quarterly.
17:229-230.
Morton, G. R. (1981). Creationism and Continental Drift, Creation Research
Society Quarterly. 18:42-45.
Morton, G. R. (1982). Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age. Creation
Research Society Quarterly. 18:227-232.
Morton, G. R. (1982). Reply to Fox Creation Research Society Quarterly.
18:131.
Morton, G. R. (1982). Comments on the Waters Above. Creation Research
Society Quarterly. 19:78-80.
Morton, G. R. (1982). Fossil Succession. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 19:103-111.
Morton, G. R. (1983). The Flood on an Expanding Earth. Creation Research
Society Quarterly. 19:219-224.
Morton, G. R. (1983). Reply to Mehlert. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 20:52-53.
Morton, G. R. (1983). Reply to Woodmorappe. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 20:56-59.
Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
Comments on the Velocity of Light. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
20:63-65.
Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S. and Mandock, R. E., (1984). The Age of Lunar
Craters. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 20:105-108.
Morton, G. R. (1984). The Age of Oil and Gas. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 20:229-230.
Morton, G. R. (1984). Horses in the Permian. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 20:235-236.
Morton, G. R. (1984). The Carbon Problem. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 20:212-219.
Morton, G. R. (1984). Global, Continental, and Regional Sedimentation
Systems and Their Implications Creation Research Society Quarterly.
21:23-33.
Morton, G. R. (1985). Reply to Eberly. Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 21:206.
Morton, G. R., (1986). Geologic Challenges to a Young Earth. Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Creationism. Vol. II. Creation
Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, Pa. p. 137-143.
Morton, G. R., (1987). Mountain Synthesis on an Expanding Earth. Creation
Research Society Quarterly. 24:53-61.
Morton, G. R., (1988). Book Review of Russell Bixler's Earth, Fire and
Sea, Creation Research Society Quarterly. 24:199-200.
Morton, G. R., (1990). Minisymposium on Variable Constants: Changing
Constants and the Cosmos.Creation Research Society Quarterly. 27:60-67
Morton, G. R., (1990). Discussion. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism. Vol. II. Creation Science Fellowship.
Pittsburgh, Pa. p. 368.
Morton, Glenn, (1992). The Mathematics of Scientific Reality, Reason for
the Hope Seminar, CLEATS. Garland, Texas. p. 61-74.