'General and Special Revelation do not contradict, but...'

I am in a debate with someone, call them Tuff. Tuff, on the one hand, says,

(A) 'General and Special revelation do not, and cannot, contradict one another; And if ever they seem to, that is only because we are misinterpreting one or both of them.'

and, on the other hand, say,

(B) 'Genesis 1 teaches that God created the luminaries only after He created the Earth and its system of flora.'

I pointed out to Tuff that I do not think that (A) and (B) can both be true. Tuff denied this by saying,

(C) 'how does General Revelation tell us that God created the sun before plants? Answer: It doesn't. By looking at the creation (i.e. General Revelation) today, there is no way to tell which came first. Making a statement about the past (e.g. this preceded that...) is a statement about history, not science. Science includes observing the world around us as it is today. The origins debate is much more about history than science. '

help!! What gives here? Isn't Genesis 1 an instance of Special Revelation?! Tuff seems to be saying, 'Well, yes it is, but it is exactly the type of Special Revelation that does not and cannot be subject to (A), because of (C).

Can anyone help me understand what in the world Tuff is thinking that allows Tuff to exempt Genesis 1 from (A) while maintaining (B)?

Jay Ross said:

No.

Is this an exchange worth continuing as it seems that "Tuff's" mind is already made up and he believes that he has the revelation to justify his reasoning.

Withdrawing is not admitting defeat, but rather a means of retaining your time to actually focus on God and His word instead.

Click to expand...

In this case, (1) Tuff has a large international following, (2) Tuff has allowed my initial question and statement to reach that following, but (3) Tuff has not allowed my rebuttal to reach them. As a consequence, the full statement by Tuff that I represented here by way of (C) is made to look like the 'Last word' on the matter. In other words, Tuff is unwilling to allow a fair hearing of both its side and my side. Tuff, in fact, has done this nearly every time I have tried to make my case about something that Tuff teaches to that following with which I disagree.

All I am aiming for in this thread is to actually identify, in the first place, for my own mind, what it is that Tuff is thinking that allows Tuff to seem to say, '(0) Genesis 1 is Special Revelation, but it is exactly the type of Special Revelation that does not and cannot be subject to (A), because of (C).' Tuff has shut me down and will not respond to my attempts to continue the debate, so I am left seeking interaction on the issue with outside parties.

Jay Ross said:

Without a link to the forum where "Tuff" is commenting, it is very hard for me, and I think anyone else on this forum, to make any comments.

If you would like to send me a PM with the link then I will have a look, but my response may still simply be, to withdraw.

These types of people are so well skilled in shutting others down that continuing a debate with them is pointless as one can never win, and they tend to make you look like the problem, when the opposite is true.

Shalom

Click to expand...

I don't know how to PM here. I see nothing that would indicated a PM feature here.

I assumed I could give you the actual source. But when I went just now to the place where the debate was conducted, I found (C) missing from the record. It was there for days, and now seems absent. I suspect that Tuff, in presumably reading my rebuttal, saw (C) as an error and deleted it. If that is why (C) seems missing from the record, that is not enough, for it allows those of their following who have never seen (C) there keep a 'shiny good' impression of Tuff, when, in fact, Tuff may seem to them to be in deep error on something if they saw (C) there.

Whoah! Now I went again there, and now find no record of any part of the debate!

Aah, it's there. I just had a video issue. How do I PM you?