Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A prof has resigned from Bethel College

Categories
Human evolution
News
Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At the Daily Beast, Karl Giberson tells us,

In a story becoming all too familiar, another pro-evolution faculty member has been forced to leave his evangelical institution. Jim Stump, longtime professor of philosophy, productive scholar, and popular, award-winning teacher at Bethel College in Indiana, resigned his position in June because of pressures put on the college by its sponsoring denomination, the Missionary Church.

The issue, once again, was evolution. Most members of the Missionary Church reject Darwin’s theory of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Book of Genesis. But many faculty members at Bethel College accept evolution and consider it part of their “teaching ministry” to help their students do the same, within the context of their faith. Such divergences exist in most evangelical denominations that sponsor liberal arts colleges but as long as faculty members are clearly evangelical in their faith the tensions are often manageable and an uneasy peace can be maintained.

First, it would help if Christians for Darwin groups were completely discredited, as they deserve to be, in these times of ferment around Darwinism.

Predictably, we are told,

Deborah Haarsma, the president of BioLogos, describes the organization she leads as “disheartened” by developments that put Stump “in the painful situation of having to choose between the scholarship to which he feels called and the academic community to which he has belonged for decades.” More.

Yes, this is all painful. But it raises a couple of questions: First, didn’t the guy notice after all these years how his denomination felt about these matters? Stump should be free to follow whatever scholarship he feels called to. But it doesn’t follow he can teach at an institution explicitly committed to a different vision.

What if I, a Catholic, were teaching at a Jehovah’s Witness institution, and promoting the views of the Catholic Church instead of those of the JWs? What should I reasonably expect to happen?

That is just the market functioning the way it is supposed to.

The many ID theorists driven out of institutions are actually in a quite different position from Stump: Their institutions accept the tax or donation dollar claiming that they do not support metaphysical naturalism in principle. But then it turns out they do, when anyone challenges them on an evidence or probability basis!

(At some Christian schools, you can holler all you want for Jesus, as long as it doesn’t make any sense.)

They just don’t want that to be generally known. Bethel was laudably clear as to what the institution exists to affirm.

If Stump is as good a prof as—so one gathers—he is, there should be no shortage of institutions happy to grab him.

See also: Theologian Peter Enns talks about why BioLogos did not renew his contract

and

Bill Dembski on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab – the one a Baylor dean tried to shut down (See Holler for Jesus as long as it makes no sense.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
mike1962
Even if you decide to generally trust some organization to do the interpreting for you, you still have made a decision for yourself where to lay your trust based on some criteria that you yourself have assessed and decided upon, thus demonstrating that you are the ultimate authority for yourself…
When it comes to where to place trust, yes, we decide. But that's a lot different than deciding that I, myself, am the highest possible authority in arriving at the correct interpretation. The reason I would place my trust in myself for interpretation would be because I believe myself to be the highest possible authority in interpreting the Bible. It's like a disciple of Jesus saying that the disciple has the greatest possible authority in interpreting the Bible because the disciple freely decided to follow Jesus. But that's not how it worked. The disciples were taught by Jesus because they believed him to have the authority to teach the correct interpretations. They didn't follow their own interpretations. Very often, Jesus taught them things they didn't want to hear - if they used their own interpretation they would have been wrong. The fact that the disciple decided to follow Jesus doesn't say anything about the authority of the individual to interpret the Bible correctly.Silver Asiatic
July 28, 2015
July
07
Jul
28
28
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic to Mapou: This would tell me that you believe yourself to be the highest possible authority in determining what is correct in the Bible. Right?
He is for himself. As you are for yourself. If you have a choice, there can be no other way. Even if you decide to generally trust some organization to do the interpreting for you, you still have made a decision for yourself where to lay your trust based on some criteria that you yourself have assessed and decided upon, thus demonstrating that you are the ultimate authority for yourself... Unless, perhaps, you are a little child who is coerced by his parents, or a robot with no free will in the matter.mike1962
July 28, 2015
July
07
Jul
28
28
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Mapou @ 45
The most infuriating thing I see with organized Christian religions is that they see themselves as essential cogs in the mechanism of salvation. This is so presumptuous and evil, I want to puke when I think about it.
This doesn't follow. They're merely interpreting things differently than you do and given the idea that anybody can interpret the Bible any way they want, there's nothing to puke about. If you could show, somehow, that your interpretation is correct, that would be different. But as it stands, you have your own opinion and they have theirs. The only way to know if they're wrong is to have the authority, from God, to know and teach the correct interpretation.
I refuse to allow anybody to preach to me or to interpret anything for me. I’ll take my chances with my own interpretation, thank you.
This would tell me that you believe yourself to be the highest possible authority in determining what is correct in the Bible. Right?Silver Asiatic
July 28, 2015
July
07
Jul
28
28
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
I remember the boast of evolutionists 'fearlessly following the evidence where ever it leads' Well that turned out to be wrong and the ID movement exposed how unwilling they are to concede the most reasonable of points. So given that the best evidence (the fossils themselves) say the fossil record is younger than we have been told should we not move from gradualism to catastrophism? Personally I do not believe a single word NASA has to say about anything, they are a discredited source who has been proven to lie. In a court of law that would make all their testimony worthless. Lets throw the whole lot out and start again. Does anyone actually believe the footage of Saturn is anything other than a computer generated image?DillyGill
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Mapou, Good news for you! Salvation is initiated by whether you're *willing* to allow the Holy Spirit into your life. And that's not half as weird as quantum mechanics! - If you are willing, God will meet you more than half way. - If you aren't willing, God will allow you to freely choose otherwise. As a Christian, I sometimes have the honor of introducing someone to what God has provided for us all, but I'm not at all necessary or worthy (I'm a sinner just like you). Many people, especially those in countries hostile to Christianity meet Jesus in a dream or vision. I know this through the reports of people who I know personally and trust implicitly! But once again, you're free to scoff or rationalize if you will, or to believe if you will. Remember that even electrons sometimes take a quantum leap! ;-) -QQuerius
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Querius:
The Bible is not intended to be a scientific text
I strongly disagree with this often repeated belief. First, the Bible is many books in one. Some of the individual books in the Bible are also compilations of even smaller books. Each were written for different purposes by different authors. Second, I have a hypothesis (which will soon be put to the test) that some of the purely metaphorical books in the Bible are strictly scientific in nature. When properly decoded, they will reveal revolutionary scientific knowledge that will radically transform the world in ways that are hard to predict.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @41, Everybody must work out their own salvation, IMO. You can't make it into the kingdom unless Yahweh calls you. And if he does call you, you will be given what you need and your faith will be tested accordingly. That is all. The most infuriating thing I see with organized Christian religions is that they see themselves as essential cogs in the mechanism of salvation. This is so presumptuous and evil, I want to puke when I think about it. I refuse to allow anybody to preach to me or to interpret anything for me. I'll take my chances with my own interpretation, thank you.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
reverendpsy:
Personal gain? LOL you obviously have no idea what most church pastors get paid.
All the more reason to want a bigger flock or, at least, keep the one you have from dwindling?
And after reading some of your posts concerning your personal beliefs. Well: your pretty way out there as well buddy..you seem to have mormonism scientology and christianity all wrapped into one…
You have no idea how far out. I prefer the path less traveled. But that's just me.
But live and let live..
Absolutely.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Hmmm. I wonder when modern scientists and the rest of our culture will abandon the completely disproved, ridiculous notions of "sunrise" and "sunset." And I wonder when cosmologists will abandon the obviously false idea in Genesis that light could be present before the sun, moon, and stars. The Bible is not intended to be a scientific text---it's poetic in some places, historical in others, and instructive in yet others. Any cosmological references references are definitely experiential, thus geocentric. If you assume that God does not exist, the Bible can easily be rationalized; if you assume that God does exist, likewise one can see how God communicates with ordinary people, not burdening them with the often-overlooked fact that the sun doesn't actually orbit the earth but rather orbits their common center of mass. :o -QQuerius
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Mapou>Sometimes I suspect that the so-called YEC Christians who post here on UD are faking it, either for personal gain (they are some church pastor or other) or as atheist sock puppets. You people are too weird and brain-dead to be taken seriously. Personal gain? LOL you obviously have no idea what most church pastors get paid. And after reading some of your posts concerning your personal beliefs. Well: your pretty way out there as well buddy..you seem to have mormonism scientology and christianity all wrapped into one... But live and let live..reverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Dr JDD That was a good explanation, but as I suggested to Mapou, it's also good to question your assumptions.
1) To claim to be “Christian” you must have some authority for your knowledge and beliefs or it is just whimsical making up as you go along and what benefit is that to anyone?
When the general rule is that each person interprets for himself, then the final authority is with the individual. I guess they would say that the benefit of that is for the individual alone, and for anybody else who agrees with them. Because aside from that, there is no other authority (in that view of it). YECs say one thing. Mapou says something radically different. And you could say something different also. All claim to be Christian. None has authority over the other.
To claim to worship the God of the Bible (Elohim) must constrain yourself to that God – who states that we must worship in Spirit and in TRUTH. Where is truth from? Thy Word is TRUTH.
Without wanting to sound irreverent, even though what you say seems to make sense, it's really just your interpretation. Perhaps Mapou would say that he doesn't want to take any of that literally. Just insisting that we have to won't work in this case.
The very word “Scriptures” is used by the New Testament writers as being the Word from and of God and absolute truth.
As above, that's your interpretation of the text and many Bible readers would disagree.
If we cannot agree the Bible is the Word of God we have little common ground or basis for discussion of the Christian faith.
As I said elsewhere to KairosFocus on another thread, the common ground will will have is that God exists. So, Christianity becomes like a generic theism, with a personal God who may or may not have said and done things we find in the Bible. But God exists and that much is held in common. That's why I think ecumenism, or understanding better the various Christian beliefs and trying to sort them out, is a very important task for all believers.Silver Asiatic
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Sometimes I suspect that the so-called YEC Christians who post here on UD are faking it, either for personal gain (they are some church pastor or other) or as atheist sock puppets. You people are too weird and brain-dead to be taken seriously.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Dr JDD:
Let us further be clear – the idea to make this into a long age only comes from a desire to “align” with current scientific consensus theories or man’s consensus thoughts on the age of the earth. there is nothing in Scripture to imply that (even though a day can refer to an age in Hebrew however never when used in the definitive context of how it is used in Genesis 1). So again, this is an attempt to align with science so the Bible account does not look so whacky.
So the Talmud and ancient Kabbalistic texts are actually modern renderings? Is tat your argument? The Rabbi's 1842 discourse wasn't really from 1842? What about Peter saying a day is like a thousand years? Was that a recent change to conform with something?Virgil Cain
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Dr JDD 37 The only reason why Christians abandoned the idea of an unmoving Earth was new data from science. We say it was a bad, erroneous interpretation, and I agree, BUT ... the fact remains that factual information from the book of nature was needed to correct our understanding of the book of scripture. The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, bara, can mean period of sunlight, 24 hours, or possibly a long but undetermined time. Just like the English word day, such as the "day of the dinosaurs." There's a big difference between a literal interpretation, meaning one that takes into account the context, style, purpose, audience, etc, and a literalistic interpretation, which does not. While I totally agree with you that Christians should consider the scriptures canonical, that is different than saying one particular interpretation has that status when there are other plausible meanings. I'm done on the subject... :)anthropic
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Let us be clear about some things. 1) To claim to be "Christian" you must have some authority for your knowledge and beliefs or it is just whimsical making up as you go along and what benefit is that to anyone? 2) To claim to worship the God of the Bible (Elohim) must constrain yourself to that God - who states that we must worship in Spirit and in TRUTH. Where is truth from? Thy Word is TRUTH. 3) The Bible claims to be the Words of God. All Scripture is God-breathed. The very word "Scriptures" is used by the New Testament writers as being the Word from and of God and absolute truth. Now we do not have original manuscripts but we have such a vast array of ancient texts that we can be confident we have a very very close version of the original in our hands today. So to reject what Scripture claims about itself pulls away the foundations of all the Christian faith is built upon. Where we disagree is due to interpretation. If we cannot agree the Bible is the Word of God we have little common ground or basis for discussion of the Christian faith. 4) The real heart of the matter will always be who Jesus was and what He did and said. The Jews believe the Torah is Scripture revealed from God. Many believe(d) that the world was created in a literal 6-day creation period. Does that save them? No. The demons have a better theology and understanding of things divine including creation than any human alive but it helps them not one iota. However Jesus claimed to be God. Before Abraham was, I AM: this was His claim of many times. He backed this up with miraculous CREATIVE works. He said, even if you do not believe Him and who He claims to be, at least believe the works that He did and know who sent HIm. No wonder the Pharisee Nicademous said to Him that they know He was from God for noone can do the things He did if not from God. So then ask yourself the question - what was Jesus' view of the Old Testament? If He really was who He claimed to be, what did He believe? He believe in a flood that only saved 8 people, He believed in a literal Adam, He believed that from the beginning there were male and female He believed the Law and the Prophets were God's Word and He was to fufil it all, to every single "jot and tittle". Moreover, He even believed that the very tense of a verb mattered when it came to the Scriptures and used this to disprove the Saducees false belief system in no resurrection (as they only accepted the 5 books of the Torah and claimed there was nothing in those books about the resurrection). 5) Genesis 1 demonstrates a truth seen in Jesus Himself, in fact not many Gods but One God existing in a Trinity that surpasses human understanding. That is why it says "Let us create...." Look at Jesus' prayer!? He claimed to be God yet prayed to the Father and asked for the Holy Spirit to be sent. The 3 persons of the Trinity. Yet as Israel was commanded to bind to their foreheads, write it on their hearts, the Shema - Hear oh Israel the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE. You will never ever get your human mind around the Trinity concept but it is a Biblical reality. If we could understand every doctrine fully we would be as God Himself. By the way, the Bible teaches even in glorification and in eternity it seems there will still be things hidden from us and what we will not know. Finally, 6) and most pertinent here: this must be clear, the doctrine of a literal interpretation of a day being a 24-hour solar day does not come solely from Genesis but also the idea that it is NOT a literal day most definitely does not come from Genesis either. Proper hermeneutics requires the simple explanation and the plain reading of Scripture. The day is defined for us as a literal 24-hour day. Now people cannot get their heads around this but again, to have evening and morning all you need is light and a rotating earth. We see that Earth was there in a form before the first Creation day and then the very first thing that was created was light. It just was not yet attached to a solar body yet. Now all we know of light is attachment to solar bodies but that does not mean it could not have been created to exist apart from - and that is what is claimed here. Light was the very first thing in the order of creation and evening and morning was a Jewish expression and order for defining a day. There is no subtlties here. Let us further be clear - the idea to make this into a long age only comes from a desire to "align" with current scientific consensus theories or man's consensus thoughts on the age of the earth. there is nothing in Scripture to imply that (even though a day can refer to an age in Hebrew however never when used in the definitive context of how it is used in Genesis 1). So again, this is an attempt to align with science so the Bible account does not look so whacky. Yet the point of Creation is it was one massive miracle. Again, I ask you, what do you say of Jesus who claimed to be God? He came down, it is written that He: - Healed people blind from birth - gave them complete sight - Healed people deaf from birth - Made lame walk - Destroyed illness - Raised people from the dead - one such resurrection He performed was after a man had been dead in a tomb for 4 days and stank of decomposition. - Performed other ex nihlo creative miracles such as turning water to wine, taking 5 loaves and 2 fishes and feeding 20,000+ people with just those with suprlus left over. Now all of those things are instantaneous creative miracles. How can you give someone a new pair of eyes who has never seen? How can you make bread and fish out of nothing? What is the scientific explanation for it? WHat if you took some of that bread and analysed it? You would probably find all of the components of bread, nothing different, nothing to lead you to the conclusion it came from a creative miracle. The same if you analysed Lazarus after he was raised from the dead. So are all of those things not real? Are they allegory? If Jesus limited to a man could speak and instantaneously some creative miracle occurs, why is it that He could not also do that in an instant? For indeed, In the begginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD WAS GOD. All things were made by Him and through Him and for Him. But further, let us again be very clear, Genesis is not the only reason to believe a literal 6-day creation period. Fine, I'll accept that is non-literal. But you still have to accept a literal Adam, a literal flood, and most importantly - that death came into this world as a result of the Fall, man's sin. ONE man sinned and so all are in Adam. The analogy of what Christ is to Adam falls over if you take the theistic evolution route. Death is a pre-requisite for evolution. No, this and many many other Scriptures require that we take a literal approach to Genesis if we say that we hold to the Bible as from God and His Word. If you don't fine - then I have no debate with you. But if you claim to be a Christian, and accept the Bible but start to reject the bits you do not like which have clear teaching behind them, you are into a bit of trouble. Finally, the reference to the Earth not being "moved" is a complete misunderstanding of "literal" intepretation and is a poor attempt quite frankly to illustrate a point. The point is a literal reading is the plain reading that the context, type and style of writing and language demands. For one, in my Bible it poses the alternative translation to "moved" as also "shaken". Secondly, this is always in poetic Psalms where it is obvious that things are being portrayed in imagery and the text is clearly not claiming to be a historical narrative. Thirdly, have you not read Psalm 21:7? "For the king trusts in the LORD, and through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved." Does a king who trusts in God not ever move? Of course not. The point is the Psalmist is using poetic language to convey that the Earth is in the hands of God, in His control and will not go off of its course or be "shaken" (as another translation of that word) from what God has set it in. It most definitely does not refer to a literal "the earth does not move at all". That is not even in the same league as the context of Genesis 1 and any good student of hermeneutics can see that. Back to Job 38-40. Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth.Dr JDD
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Mapou: The Kabbalists wrote that the earth has been repeatedly destroyed and restored- 4 times, this being the fourth epoch (pages 100-101 “the Evolution Revolution”)- reference to a Rabbi Lifshitz discourse of 1842. I have believed a form of this for years. The much maligned and ridiculed gap or ruin restoration theory. I believe it answers far more questions than it creates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism Many prominent theologians held this belief " Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dallas Theological Seminary, William Culbertson, past president of Moody Bible Institute, Frank F. Gaebelien, Harry A. Ironside, Herbert Lockyer, Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Lehman Strauss, Donald Gray Barnhouse, Martin Anstey, Alfred Edersheim, H. Browne, G. V. Garland, N. Snaith, T. Jollie Smith, A. I. McCaul, and R. Jameison John Phillips, Jeff Adams, and Dr. Alan Rossreverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Virgil:
The Kabbalists wrote that the earth has been repeatedly destroyed and restored- 4 times, this being the fourth epoch (pages 100-101 “the Evolution Revolution”)- reference to a Rabbi Lifshitz discourse of 1842.
This seems to agree with the mass extinctions seen in the fossil and geological records. My hypothesis is that the designers went through successive waves of terraforming. It's also possible that they were experimenting (i.e., collecting scientific data) with different lifeforms/ecosystems and finally settled on this one. Who knows? They may destroy this one too in the far distant future. Passing time is probably not a big concern if you have nothing but time on your hands.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
DonaldM, Thank you for providing the additional details.rhampton7
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Virgil @31, You may have a point. But I tend think that everything is interpreted even if it's assumed to be literal. There is always an assumption.Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
I have been following the debates on this site for quite awhile; I figure this would be a great place for someone who actually has some proof of macroevolution to make their views know. But I haven’t seen anyone do that yet: And yet people continue to believe Darwin with great faith just like a religion. And yet others who choose to believe that God created the world in six 24 hour days are mocked. Are not both views based on belief?reverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
What is a "literal interpretation"? It seems that either something is literal or it is interpreted.Virgil Cain
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
When it comes to the old testament, Hebrew Bible scholars are worth listening to. In"the Evolution Revolution", Dr Lee Spetner (who posts here sometimes) goes over this very topic. From the Talmud and ancient Kabbalistic texts we get the part about no Sun. The Kabbalists wrote that the earth has been repeatedly destroyed and restored- 4 times, this being the fourth epoch (pages 100-101 "the Evolution Revolution")- reference to a Rabbi Lifshitz discourse of 1842.Virgil Cain
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Mapou
What bothers me about YECs is how selective they are in their literal interpretations.
It’s good to be aware of your own assumptions, since you are selective in your literal interpretations.
Of course, I'm selective. I'm not the one who claims that Genesis is 100% historical and must be interpreted literally. I am not the one who claims that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. I worship God, not the Bible. The Bible is a great book for research but it is certainly not infallible. Anybody who claims that the Bible is flawless is an idolater, IMO. He or she is worshipping a book and makes a mockery of Yahweh Elohim. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. But also "search and you shall find".Mapou
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
As it happens, I am quite close to the situation involving Dr. Stump and Bethel College, as my wife is on faculty there, both my daughters graduated from there, and I am friends with Jim Stump, among other faculty there. With that said, I want to comment on and clarify a point raised in the op:
First, didn’t the guy notice after all these years how his denomination felt about these matters? Stump should be free to follow whatever scholarship he feels called to. But it doesn’t follow he can teach at an institution explicitly committed to a different vision.
When Jim Stump was offered the opportunity to be a fellow with BioLogos, he accepted with the full blessing of Bethel College. He was half time with each organization, Biologos having essentially bought out 1/2 of his BC contract, which is often how these Fellow things work. What actually happened was that a couple of BC Board of Trustee members began having concerns about the question of origins, the special creation of an actual Adam and Eve, and all that. All of this arose AFTER Jim had received approval from the BC administration to accept the Fellow position with BioLogos. As BC President Greg Chenoweth's letter indicates, there was indeed much discussion and debate within the faculty regarding all these matters. So, contrary to what it says in the OP, Jim was not in violation of any policies at BC; in fact, he had their approval to accept the Fellow position at BioLogos. Academically, BC has always given their faculty a lot academic freedom, while affirming orthodox Christian faith and teaching. Even the newly adopted statement makes quite clear that a wide range of views can still be taught and discussed in classes at BC. What the new policy does do, however, is ask that no faculty participate in an organization in a way that requires them to advocate for a position on origins that is at variance with the official Missionary Church position. Unfortunately, that policy put Jim Stump in the position of having to make a choice, as BioLogos quite clearly does advocate for a position at odds with the MC one. Stump decided to opt for BioLogos over BC. That was entirely HIS choice. Had he opted to remain at BC, that would have been fine, too. Given all that has happened here, I felt it necessary to clarify that Jim was not in any way in violation of any BC policies or doctrinal teaching. And, in the interests of full disclosure, I will add that, while I personally do NOT advocate for the BioLogos position...indeed, I am quite critical of it, and I fully subscribe to ID as the best alternative to Darwinian evolution, as anyone who has read my posts here can attest...I did want to make sure the facts were presented fairly and accurately regarding my friend, Jim Stump.DonaldM
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Not to worry, rev. I misinterpret stuff all the time! But, as you say, that's the point. Here we are writing back and forth almost instantly, sharing a common language and probably a common culture, and yet we STILL manage to misinterpret each other! How much harder it is to look at stuff written by different authors in different, ancient languages at various times thousands of years ago and figure out what is going on...anthropic
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Ok sorry.. I misinterpreted what your were actually trying to say. But I guess thats the whole point.reverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
rev 23 "Unfortunately the examples and verses given are poor ones for what your trying to prove. we used to sing a chorus called I shall not be moved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kujL_wV2c8 does that mean we never move? or does a tree planted by the water never blow in the wind or get uprooted? figures of speech are used throughout the good book.. As a matter of fact you could take the very same verses to mean, who placed the world in motion and ordit and keeps it from moving off course." ------------------------------------------------------ Hey, rev. Recall that I was NOT trying to prove that the Bible teaches the Earth does not move physically. What I was illustrating were the verses that were INTERPRETED to mean exactly that for many centuries. I agree that they are a figure of speech, like trees clapping their hands and rocks shouting. But that does not change the fact that the old erroneous interpretation was corrected by scientific advances, a process Debian seems to deny is valid.anthropic
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
VC@22 There wasn’t a Sun so how could there be an evening and a morning? It is evident that there was a a time order before this- the one we live in. This is interesting. Are you referring to evening and morning as ages of creation? Morning= the begining of a new creative act and evening the end? And although the sun was created later that should not negate evening and morning, Light was the first creative act and God himself is light. 1 John 1:5>This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. Revelation 21:23 ?And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. Figures of speech? Maybereverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Anthropic 16> Chapter and verse: Psalm 104:5 “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Now you have a choice, Debian. You can say that these scriptures have changed in the last few centuries — except they haven’t — or you can say that science has shown that the old interpretation was incorrect — or you can claim that despite all the evidence, the Earth does not move. Or, finally, you can say those scriptures were interpreted correctly but were erroneous. Unfortunately the examples and verses given are poor ones for what your trying to prove. we used to sing a chorus called I shall not be moved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kujL_wV2c8 does that mean we never move? or does a tree planted by the water never blow in the wind or get uprooted? figures of speech are used throughout the good book.. As a matter of fact you could take the very same verses to mean, who placed the world in motion and ordit and keeps it from moving off course.reverendspy
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
DebianFanatic:
Yet the text repeatedly says that each day consisted of an evening and a morning.
There wasn't a Sun so how could there be an evening and a morning? It is evident that there was a a time order before this- the one we live in.Virgil Cain
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply