RSS

10 Theological Questions No YECer Can Answer–The Response

02 Jul

Here are the responses to my answers by God of Evolution, with my answer to his remarks underneath each one.  Deep down I knew I was wasting my time, which is one reason why I decided to place my work here. The owner of God of Evolution website is an alternative believer and he reacts as I have described over the past few posts. Anyways here goes:

Hey, thanks for all the work and time you obviously put into this, but yeah, most of your answers aren’t valid. I’ll explain.

First, he is not the authority on when an answer is valid or not.  Second, unless God bestows upon me omniscience, which I do no deserve, these will be the best answers he will get.

1. “I do not know” is not a real answer. This is a glaring weakness in the young-earth, hyper-literalist interpretation of this passage, and simply saying, “I don’t know, but I’m sure God had a reason” does not make it go away.

I am sorry but ‘I don’t know’ is a valid and real answer especially when one does not know. God does not tell us why he put the tree of life, and for that matter the tree of knowledge, in the garden of Eden. Who said anything about making it go away? I answered the question with everything I knew and God did not import to me any special information to appease someone who is not going to accept the answers anyways.

2. Yo u don’t really address the question. I understand that animals are different from human (although the idea that animals aren’t morally culpable but are punished anyway only makes the YEC theology more repugnant), but that doesn’t address the fundamental incosistency of what scripture teaches: sin brings death, those who die in sin are saved by Christ. If animals are among those whose deaths were brought about by sin, then, accoridng to scripture, they should be among those who are saved by Christ. You simply dodged the question.

I didn’t dodge the question, I gave the correct answer to the query.  Animals and plants are corrupted by human sin and are tainted BUT the issue here is we should not worry about the animals and plants because we need to worry about our own salvation first. 2 Peter says

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; (1:10)

God will look after the animals and plants we need to make sure we do not let evil distract us by useless and pointless issues like this question. We focus on our lives and not let such worthless topics ruin our faith or keep us from salvation. I need to ask what scriptures is that author referring to?  I do not see anywhere in scripture where Jesus came to save the animals

3. OK, that’s a great sentiment, but again, doesn’t even come remotely close to addressing my question or my supporting arguments.

Have you noticed a common theme yet? i gave a very direct answer to the question and his response is still the same– you didn’t address the question. I did because Christians are not given a free pass on the restrictions God has placed upon humans and the only way for Christians to be with God at this time is by dying.

Our corrupted human bodies cannot enter God’s presence.

4. Doesn’t address the question. It’s not just a question of why Adam picked the name he did, but why he would choose a name derived from the Hebrew word for life, immediately after she had supposedly just brought about a curse that poisoned the entire universe with death.

Why would that author assume that Adam picked a Hebrew word for ‘life’ when Hebrew came after the flood?  Unless Adam and the pre-flood world spoke Hebrew, it would merely be a coincidence or just stating a fact–Eve was the mother of all living humans.  The timing means nothing and her actions do not take away who she was to become.  BUT it wasn’t her actions that tainted the universe, it was Adam’s. So the author of those questions is confused.

5. Some nice extrabiblical conjecture here, but your opinion of what God “probably did” outside of what is discussed in the text, is not a strong enough hook to hang any kind of theological hat on. The fact is, God said the punishment for disobedience was death, and Adam clearly understood what he was talking about.

We have two possible explanations. Mine, that he knew what God was talking about because he was living in the same universe we are, one in which death exists, and yours, that he was living in a universe in which death was a completely foreign concept, but he still knew what it was because he was born with special knowledge that no other person since him has ever been born with, or maybe God explained it but the author of Genesis didn’t see fit to include it (because the Bible obviously was not that concerned about preserving God’s words).

Occam’s razor and simple logic would say my explanation is far more likely.

Again we are faced with the unimportant minutia that the unbelieving and alternative worlds like to drag up and hold over people’s heads. There is no way any human can actually answer that original question because NO ONE KNOWS how they knew and we can only speculate. Notice that author uses the words ‘born with’.  Adam was not born, he was specially created and given reproductive abilities, along with Eve so that the human race can come into existence.

Alternative believers and unbelievers seem to have trouble with this concept of designed to function in a certain way and this special creative work which does things differently than how things are made to operate.  Also, if you look at the last line in the 2nd paragraph you will see an accusation based totally upon lack of understanding.

Why would God have Moses include details that are not pertinent to his purpose?  if God included every little detail in the Bible that alternative believers and unbelievers want, the Bible would be so thick no one would be able to lift it, let alone want to buy or read it. The Bible does not have to include every word God speaks to be seen as containing the words of God. Nor does it have to contain every word God speaks to be legitimate and literal. That accusation is just another excuse by those who do not believe to avoid the truth.

Occam’s razor doesn’t apply nor is it authoritative nor comes close to finding the truth. Rather it leads people away from the truth and you see that author’s arrogance in suggesting only his theory would be the simplest and closer to being correct. The simple is NOT always the correct answer.

{Then for those who do not know what Occam’s razor is, here is a definition: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor }

Since death did not enter the world until Adam sinned, God either taught them what death was or he gave both Adam and Eve knowledge of basically everything, after all they were going to be parents and would need knowledge to pass down to their children.

6. Apparently we don’t have a disagreement on this point. You should know, however, that most of your fellow YECs strongly believe this warning was about physical death, and this was the point that physical death entered the universe for all living things.

I was always taught it was a spiritual death.  Many YEC people may adopt a different idea because they do not want o be seen as agreeing with unbelievers ort alternative believers which is a mistake for even the unchurched world can have some truth and know it. By agreeing with the statement it was a spiritual death, I am not agreeing with or siding with the unbeliever or alternative believer, I am agreeing that the answer ‘spiritual death’ is the true answer.

7. I think you misunderstand the thrust of my argument here, but I must respond to your assertion that Genesis is literal because “God does not lie.” Jesus told many stories, called parables, which were not meant to be taken literally. Does that mean every one of his stories were lies? Psalms and Proverbs and Job and all the books of the proph ets are packed with metaphors that are not meant to be taken literally. Does that mean all of these books are full of lies? Because if so, I think we just lost half the Bible.

I believe Genesis is the infallible, inspired, completely true word of God. I just don’t believe the creation accounts were meant to be read literally.

Notice how everything is MY fault and that the author of those questions is not in error at any point in time? I did not misunderstand anything. We take the event literally because  1. God cannot lie; 2. there is no indication anywhere that Genesis 1-10 is not literal history and 3. we believe God over man.  As for the parables, the Gospels usually tell us when Jesus spoke a parable and no such information was written by Moses saying Genesis 1-10 was a parable or a metaphor.

Just because Jesus used parables or David and Solomon used metaphors does not mean Moses did in Genesis or any other book he wrote for God. That is like saying that because there are liars who write blogs I am a liar also. The logic doesn’t hold up.

Look at his last sentence. he wants his cake and eat it too.  He says ‘Genesis is inspired, infallible and completely true yet creation is not inspired, infallible, or true.’ He contradicts himself trying to make that point.  His point of view raises a lot of problems I cannot go into here but I have addressed such thinking in other posts. That author doesn’t see the ramifications because he doesn’t want to.

8. Doesn’t address the question or the arguments presented. You simply assert that the contradictions don’t exist. Only, they do exist, and you can’t make them go away by pretending they aren’t there.

I didn’t assert, I told the truth. There are no contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. Again, I am tired of being told I didn’t do something when I did.The insulting nature of the alternative believer and the ignorance of them as they think they are not the ones who are blind and deceived.

9. Doesn’t address the arguments presented. I understand the counter-argument that incest was made wrong later. I specifically respond to it in my original post, and I explain why it doesn’t fit scripture or the character of God. By the same token, Cain’s slaying of his brother also predated God’s explicit prohibition of murder on Mount Sinai, but that was obviously wrong.

Sexual harrassement laws are a poor analogy. God is not a human government; he is a timeless, spiritual being, who does not change and is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I didn’t address Cain and Abel because they were not in the question.  It is very limited thinking to assume that God did not give Adam and Eve his rules. When we look at two key passages in different chapters in Genesis we see that he must have or the people mentioned could not be described in the manner that they were. Here are the key passages:

26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call [s]upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 4)

24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (Gen. 5)

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen. 6)

These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, [g]blameless in his [h]time; Noah walked with God. (Gen. 6)

We know God gave instructions to Adam and Eve when he said

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Again, just because God didn’t do or record what he did the way the alternative believer or unbeliever wants doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. The sexual harassment laws are not a poor analogy, they were the right one for the point being made. Again, we can only appeal to Isaiah 55: 8-9 as an answer. Why God made a change we do not know and we can only speculate but the change does not alter who God is.

10. This is hilarious, because John 5 is actually one of the times where Jesus explicitly rejected a literal and long-understood component of the creation accounts. The whole passage is about the Sabbath, which the Pharisees understood to be a literal day of rest, because God literally rested. But what does Jesus say? “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working” (verse 17). Which angered the Pharisees so much that they endeavored all the more to try and kill him for his blasphemy (verse 18).

So did Jesus not believe Moses because he rejected the literal interpretation? Of course n ot. Like I already said above, believing something is true is not the same as interpreting it literally. I believe Moses, just as Jesus modeled. But I do not take it all literally (nor do you, for that matter), and the passage you present in no way implies that I should.

John 5 does no such thing but leave it to those who do not understand God’s word to say something different. That author would have to put the specific verses where his claim is supported as the verses he gave do not say what he thinks they say. The rest of his words are just in error and he should refrain from speaking for me.

As you can see, the alternative believer doe snot think they are under the influence of evil nor think that they are the ones deceived. They always blame those who believe God as being the ones in error when we are not. They refuse to be open-minded or acknowledge that they are the ones in error, it is always the other guy who is at fault.

Since I answered his questions I expect him to update his article and change the wording to “they have been answered but I do not accept the answers given.” Not knowing what the YEC people he references actually have said, it is hard to address their ‘answers’. We are only given his version of their words. Rest assured people, the answers I gave have God’s backing and the unbeliever and alternative believer have no authority to say they are not valid.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on 10 Theological Questions No YECer Can Answer–The Response

Posted by on July 2, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, creation, faith, leadership, science, theology

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: